Looking for 3rd Opinion (CFI's Please Read)
01-31-2018, 05:29 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by kevbo
You are playing Russian roulette flying in anything that does not have triple redundant everything, and/or an ejection seat! As a former mechanic all I can say is "If you only knew whats out there!" If you are second guessing a "good" outcome then do NOT be a pilot!
Night flight, single engine, just hit a deer, great time to test the plane right?
Sounds to me like Goobscoob understands that planes don't fly on hopes and dreams, but that you're content taking unnecessary risks because 'stuff happens anyway, so why care.'
01-31-2018, 01:02 PM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Stoked27
Goobscoob wasn't second guessing the outcome - they were second guessing the decision making process that potentially stacked the odds against them.... because they DIDN'T have redundant systems.
Night flight, single engine, just hit a deer, great time to test the plane right?
Sounds to me like Goobscoob understands that planes don't fly on hopes and dreams, but that you're content taking unnecessary risks because 'stuff happens anyway, so why care.'
Night flight, single engine, just hit a deer, great time to test the plane right?
Sounds to me like Goobscoob understands that planes don't fly on hopes and dreams, but that you're content taking unnecessary risks because 'stuff happens anyway, so why care.'
02-03-2018, 01:18 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Absolutely not; that's a very dangerous assumption, and no engine manufacturer provides guidance, following a prop strike, which suggests that so long as there's no visible damage on the prop, the matter is concluded. Quite the opposite. Damage may have taken place in multiple locations, many of which cannot be seen externally, and many of which can only be detected through nondestructive testing.
Really no risk of that, but the fact that the damage occurred to a part mechanically attached to the aircraft, following a collision on the runway, indicates a requirement for inspection beyond the surface. Had the airplane been altered in a manner acceptable to the administrator? No. It was unairworthy. With respect to the transponder antenna, several avenues would have been available for remedy, none of which were taken. An external inspection would have been insufficient for any of them.
The transponder wasn't inoperative. The antenna was ripped off. Structural damage occurred. Not the same as inoperative instruments or hardware. While the instructor might have sought a special flight permit, the barrier to obtaining that permit wouldn't have been the transponder, but the prop strike and collision on the runway. As a certificated mechanic, the instructor couldn't reasonably argue he was unaware. That makes his decision all the more egregious.
I would grant a mitigation on the degree of stupidity based on the "likely" effect of the damage. This is ASEL, not a space shuttle.
I rebuild engines (including at one time AC engines). If the prop was not visibility damaged, and didn't come to a complete stop the crank, rods, etc were probably fine. I'd probably be most concerned about bent pushrods, but the engine wouldn't run right (or at all). The prop has a lot of inertia, so the crank/rods/wristpins didn't eat all the force. Understandably the mfg. specifies a tear-down. If the engine was stopped in it's tracks, there's obviously serious potential for damage. If the engine was WOT, obviously serious potential for damage. In this case the engine was at idle, with likely significant windmill force... so the prop might have actually been driving the motor, or close to it.
Again, not advocating what the CFI did.
Last edited by rickair7777; 02-03-2018 at 01:30 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
