Crashes in the News - Thread

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

PiperCruisin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
227
Location
Idaho
Lol if I am qualified to decide if a plane needs maintenance why am I not qualified to do it ?
Safety or barriers to entry or something... my plane was maintained by A&Ps and it's quite irritating how much stuff I have to fix. I've got an A&P/IA that supervises work I do. I put sweat equity and he still gets paid without having to do some of the most irritating work.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
The FAA reg says you are responsible to see that the required maintenance is completed as required. Whether or not you are qualified is another subject all together.
Lol but don’t you think if I’m responsible for inspecting it I should be qualified to tell if it’s good or not ? To be qualified I should be a A&P right ?
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,237
Location
Louisville, KY
Lol if I am qualified to decide if a plane needs maintenance why am I not qualified to do it ?
Because having the competence to notice something like a huge puddle of oil under the plane does not mean you are competent to even diagnose, let alone fix the problem, it just means you have eyes. This is valid for nearly every problem that could be found on a pre-flight inspection. There are some pilots I wouldn't trust to open a pizza box; allowing them to open a tool box to fix a control cable would be disastrous.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,445
Location
Memphis, TN
As an owner, you get to have an opinion on what you want fixed. It’s your airplane. You can tell the A&P don’t do any ADs. Your complete right. It will get notated in the log book that they are not done and other appropriate entries. The A&P is only allowed to maintain the plane how the owner wants. Its in the FARs. Pilot takes off and it’s all in him for flying an illegal plane. Now if the A&P misses something he is not supposed to, whips it, or does it half ass, it’s his fault. Separation of church and state.

GA planes are a tough case because if you asked me to maintain a Cessna 150 just like an airliner in the US, first annual will cost you $30,000 easy. That is why airline A&Ps don’t want to work on small planes unless they love them. You don’t have the money and they are lowering their standards from their day job.

GA A&Ps are overall better A&Ps. They have to be Jacks of all trades. They understand cost, they understand how far to go to get you as much out of your parts, they know it’s only worth so much in the free market of people scraping by to own something that’s really superfluous. These are totally different games.

Just like anything, everyone has different opinions. Constantly take your plane to different A&Ps and they will have to find out what you got. First Annuals with new A&Ps hurt as they will fix their pet peeves. Return and it will be an easier inspection the next one. Take the plane to ten different people and you will have ten different pet peeves lists past the regular airworthiness stuff. An owner should have their own list of stuff wanted taken care of and another of nice if it gets done. Don’t ever let someone just guess. In the blur of all that needs to be done, it might be the thing that is not important to someone else.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Because having the competence to notice something like a huge puddle of oil under the plane does not mean you are competent to even diagnose, let alone fix the problem, it just means you have eyes. This is valid for nearly every problem that could be found on a pre-flight inspection. There are some pilots I wouldn't trust to open a pizza box; allowing them to open a tool box to fix a control cable would be disastrous.
Sure I can see that huge puddle underneath the plane that’s kind of obvious.
But just like an a and P inspects a airplane to see what’s wrong I am essentially expected to do that every time I take a flight.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,237
Location
Louisville, KY
Sure I can see that huge puddle underneath the plane that’s kind of obvious.
But just like an a and P inspects a airplane to see what’s wrong I am essentially expected to do that every time I take a flight.
No, you're not, those two situations are not even close.

You are expected to check the plane for obvious problems, and to have any required scheduled maintenance done. A preflight checklist is laughably small and simple compared to an actual inspection, and can be done by nearly anyone with about 10 minutes of training. At no point are you expected to diagnose problems or do a detailed inspection.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,445
Location
Memphis, TN
The pilots job is to see if it works. If you happen to know how to fix it, nice. Flip the switch, does it work right or not? next. All works, go fly. You are not running around with a torque wrench or a magnifying glass. Is the skin wrinkled and if it is, has it been accounted for and found airworthy from a mechanic? It is very simple. If you have a homebuilt, the responsibilities are the same; one might just be wearing more than one hat. If you are going to be a personal ass to yourself and ignore it or half fix it, it’s on you as both mechanic and pilot for known issues and still flying it.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,475
Location
KTHA
Just because you inspect it and see a problem doesn't mean you're qualified to fix it. If all the oil disappears from my truck I can definitely see there's a problem, but it doesn't mean I can fix it. The government often views things in an overly simplistic manner. This is one of those cases. Plus it's far easier for them to regulate without an endless stream of 'what if's', 'unless..', and 'other than's'. I suspect that's the primary reason.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Just because you inspect it and see a problem doesn't mean you're qualified to fix it. If all the oil disappears from my truck I can definitely see there's a problem, but it doesn't mean I can fix it. The government often views things in an overly simplistic manner. This is one of those cases. Plus it's far easier for them to regulate without an endless stream of 'what if's', 'unless..', and 'other than's'. I suspect that's the primary reason.
Why not ?
Think about it like this in the airplane world a AP is Qualified to fix it. But it takes a higher level a AI to inspect it.
If you were to attempt to fix it and you’re qualified to inspect it you just keep trying to fix it until it is fixed.
An inspector is almost always a higher level then those that do the work.
 

Jerry Lytle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
439
Location
Newport, Oregon
"An inspector is almost always a higher level then those that do the work."

This doesn't apply to most trades. It is more like "Those that can do and those that can't become inspectors."

True Story:
I had an aquaintence, an AP with an IA. When replacing a heel brake cable. He didn't have a swager so he used his vice grips.
I had him do one annual on our 170. When returning to my home airport the flap cable broke.

He finished out his working years as a millright in a potato processing factory
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,475
Location
KTHA
Why not ?
Think about it like this in the airplane world a AP is Qualified to fix it. But it takes a higher level a AI to inspect it.
If you were to attempt to fix it and you’re qualified to inspect it you just keep trying to fix it until it is fixed.
An inspector is almost always a higher level then those that do the work.
Not really. I don't disagree with the theory as you state it, but most inspectors in this world aren't a higher level than the techs who o the work. But in this particular instance, I think they have it right. An amateur builder doing his own condition inspection is very rarely more qualified than an A&P. Certainly there are exceptions, but as a general rule they have it right.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,599
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
An amateur builder doing his own condition inspection is very rarely more qualified than an A&P.
Do you have some data to support that statement?

I know A&Ps that have no idea about inspecting an airplane without a maintenance manual and a list of AD, and I know builders who have no clue.


BJC
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,475
Location
KTHA
I don't mean direct familiarity and experience with the specific aircraft. I mean the general skillset. I've seen some incredibly accomplished builders out there, and some of them are also A&Ps, but there's also a huge number of builders that learned only what they needed to know to build their plane. We may not think of them as a typical builder because we're much more used to hanging out with builders who crave and seek out knowledge whenever they can. It's not unlike some cops getting a jaded view of people in general simply because of who they have to deal with all day, every day. You just don't think about what you don't see, and that can eventually affect your outlook and perceptions. But those novice builders exist in great numbers, even if we don't interact with them much. An A&P is generally going to know more about aircraft, how they work, and how to maintain them than an amateur builder who considers themselves a master diagnostician because they saw a problem during a preflight.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,237
Location
Louisville, KY
But if I don’t diagnose the problem how do I know if I should ground the plane or not and have it repaired?

It seems like every time a plane crash is the first thing somebody says it is the pilot should’ve made sure it was airworthy
Are you being deliberately obtuse? This is ridiculous. If you identified that there is a problem with a checklist item, then the plane is grounded until you get it diagnosed and fixed. If you didn't know that, you are clearly not a pilot. This is first day of flight school stuff.

It is no where close to every time a plane crashes, but the times it is stated the pilot should've made sure it was airworthy, the pilot either didn't do a proper pre-flight or ignored an obvious problem rather than grounding the plane.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Are you being deliberately obtuse? This is ridiculous. If you identified that there is a problem with a checklist item, then the plane is grounded until you get it diagnosed and fixed.
Well I guess I could ask you if you’re being deliberately obtuse? If you’ve identified there is a problem you have diagnosed it correct?

It’s not unusual for mechanics of any particular type of machinery to diagnose them as not working in adequate etc. but not diagnosed the exact problem.
Is it wiring problem or a tiny crack perhaps there’s a vapor lock etc. etc. etc.


Mechanics is seldom an exact silence.

Remember we can diagnose problems as inoperative needing repair or not in operative but needing repair or inoperative not needing repair.
 
Last edited:

D Hillberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,401
Location
very low low low earth orbit
Well I guess I could ask you if you’re being deliberately obtuse? If you’ve identified there is a problem you have diagnosed it correct?

It’s not unusual for mechanics of any particular type of machinery to diagnose them as not working in adequate etc. but not diagnosed the exact problem.
Is it wiring problem or a tiny crack perhaps there’s a vapor lock etc. etc. etc.


Mechanics is seldom an exact silence.

Remember we can diagnose problems as inoperative needing repair or not in operative but needing repair or inoperative not needing repair.
This confirms my prior reply
DON'T FLY TAKE A BUS
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,475
Location
KTHA
Well I guess I could ask you if you’re being deliberately obtuse? If you’ve identified there is a problem you have diagnosed it correct?
No. Identifying that there's a problem isn't a diagnosis. If you tell your doctor your stomach hurts, that's identifying a problem. Him telling you it's stomach cancer is a diagnosis. Obviously airplanes aren't medicine, but the same principle applies. Just being able to identify a problem isn't necessarily a diagnosis. Granted there are times that it's obvious, but in many cases it isn't. That's where a professional steps in and performs the diagnosis. As I said before, there are things we could do ourselves, even maybe as good as an A&P sometimes. But the nearly endless myriad of nuances and varying circumstances would be impossible to track and regulate, so they make it simple by placing blanket restrictions. Not always convenient to be sure, but it's a workable system until they come up with something else.
 
Top