Training aircraft condition

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was recently asked by a new PPL about what constituted unacceptable when it came to the general condition of a aircraft used for training. He said that the aircraft which he had been training in was pretty ugly and in retrospect he was wondering if I thought it was in fact in such bad shape it should not have been used.

I thought this subject might be of interest to others so I will give you my take on what an training aircraft must have.

1) All flight instruments, engine instruments and fuel guages have to work

2) All flight control knobs, buttons, switches work normally and are not broken

3) It must have at least one reliable Comm radio

4) It must have a working intercom with sufficent clarity of voice that the radio and the instructor can be clearly heard at full power

5) It must have a full set of non frayed seat belts including a shoulder belt that securely fastens to the lap belt and never giggles loose during a flight

6) It must have a secure working seat adjustments and the seat must firmly fixed itself in place when adjusted to a new position. In the case of Cessna 4 seaters, it must have a secondary seat stop and preferably the Cessna seat SB (the anchor and fabric strap with reel under the seat). Since the kit is free from Cessna there is no excuse not to have it fitted.

7) It must have a windscreen with no cracks, hazing, yellowing, or deep scratches

8 ) There must be no "special" operating procedures like 2 I have heard such as " give it a bit of throttle at the end of the landing roll as sometimes the engine quits" or "prime the snot out of the engine otherwise it won't start"

9) There should be no significant oil leaks. A few drops or a thin line of oil residue is OK but any puddles under the aircraft or big smears of oil on the belly are not.

10) The nose wheel should not shimmy during normal taxi/ takeoff/landing operations.

Finally there should be a clear and unambiguous written defect reporting and rectification procedure.

Training aircraft live hard lives so faded paint and ripped seat fabric, while unsightly, are not necessarily any indication of the general aircraft condition. Similarly the tyres on training aircraft are terribly abused by students so flat spots are not uncommon. As long as no chord is showing the tyre should still be serviceable.

[mike53]

To me it doesn't matter how ratty an airplane looks as long as I'm not charged a premium hourly rate.I have flown a pristine looking 150 for $117/hr and not so pretty one for $100/hr. They both were mechanically sound but I rent the not so pretty one all the time now(different FBO).At the end of my flight the last thing I think about is the look of the plane.I get the same grin for $17 less and when I reflect on that I grin a little longer.Fly 25 hrs per year and its like getting 4 hours for free.

[Shiny Side Up]

1) All flight instruments, engine instruments and fuel guages have to work

Not necessarily. See 425.23 and the associated subpart 605

Only the flight instruments required for the type of training to be conducted are required to be functional. That is to say you can get away with having a non-functioning DG for Day VFR and a few other instances. As for engine instruments, some (which are optional equipment anyways) like an EGT may also be u/s. In both cases there is provision of course for the appropriate placards to be in place for continued operations and fun with the defect reporting procedures.

3) It must have at least one reliable Comm radio

Again technically not entirely correct as one may conduct flight training without one under very limited circumstances. Never wise to do so, but not necessarily illegal. It would be unbelievably rare to find any flight training unit that would operate under such a circumstance.

5) It must have a full set of non frayed seat belts including a shoulder belt that securely fastens to the lap belt and never giggles loose during a flight

If I remember rightly, aircraft made prior to 1965(?) are still acceptable to only have the lap belt, though if I remember FTUs are required to have shoulder harnesses in their aircraft, I'll have to search for that reference.

It would be probably pretty astounding to find one that giggled loose, but if you found one that jiggled loose, it would be unacceptable.

8 ) There must be no "special" operating procedures like 2 I have heard such as " give it a bit of throttle at the end of the landing roll as sometimes the engine quits" or "prime the snot out of the engine otherwise it won't start"

Ambiguous here though generally correct. The first example is a definite no-no, though the second one, may only be embellishment on the part of the pilot. Pipers for instance usually need the "snot primed out of them" only because compared to the Cessnas they have that damnable short stroke primer.

10) The nose wheel should not shimmy during normal taxi/ takeoff/landing operations.

This one I frequently find gets reported, though when I fly the airplane the problem usually doesn't manifest itself. Usually the cause of a shimmy was a) Taxiing way too fast or b) wheelbarrowing or c) a flat fast landing.

[shitdisturber]

There'd better not be any giggling harnesses; when I'm flying I expect my harnesses to be serious!

[burhead1]

LOL, The place i learned at you were lucky to get a good one the first time around. I remember one day going through three c172's
first had no left brake, second had no radio, third did not crank (dead battery) I thought some one was trying to tell me something.

The planes were in very poor condition, seems like everything you listed was wrong with them

Then i got spoiled with C-FNET. Lots more a hr but it was worth it.








Edited: for spelding again

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re my point 5. Most Cessna's have the shoulder belt clip into a slot on the male end of the lap belt. There is a plastic keeper in the slot which will eventually wear out/break. When this happens the shoulder belt is not held securely in the slot and will "jiggle" loose in flight.

As for a working radio, I have seen lots of training aircraft with radio's that "sort of work" or work "good enough" which means you can understand every third transmission

As for the rest.... well airworthiness is ultimately up to the pilot in command. You are of course correct you could choose to do training in an aircraft with both gyro's toppled, no comm radio, a shoulder belt that won't stay connected, a nose wheel shimmy and "special" procedures required, but personally I do think one should demand more of an aircraft used for training.

[Shiny Side Up]

The point I was more trying to make is that an aircraft can be acceptable for training without all the bells and whistles. After all, one can use one that isn't equipped with the bells and whistles in the first place. I would hate for too many people to get to be of the opinion that such aircraft can't be used for training - too many people are of he opinion already that anything without a glass panel and two 430s isn't suitable.

I would never advise anyone to do any training without a comm radio, but I sort of long to have a bare bones aircraft for the purpose. It would be nice even to have designated areas of NORDO airspace specifically that everyone must start learning to fly in on such airplanes.

This is where I'm on the bit about "special procedures" as well. What constitutes as "special" realy depends on what you're used to. For example, hand propping a 172 might seem like a special procedure to get it going to go training, OTOH hand propping a Champ might just be a matter of course. It might seem special to some, but that doesn't necessarily mean its wrong. Its also one of those matters of opinion, if you don't like the idea of flying an airplane with a certain condition to it, then by all means don't. Hell, I know someone who can't get his brain around not having a parachute or a BRS available.

[Hedley]

It's not an airworthiness issue, but IMHO just like flight schools
put away $12/hr for engine overhaul, they need to be doing the
same thing for paint, interior and radios, which don't last forever
and need to be replaced periodically.

At our FTU, we have budgeted $12,000 this year for a paint job
for one of our 172's (not sure it's enough, but it's a start). It
still has it's original paint job from 1975, and it's looking scruffy,
and it's not going to make a good first impression on students.

I am sure plenty of flight schools will say that they don't have
$12,000 to spend on paint, but for god's sake, the paint job is
36 years old now. That's one third of the history of powered
human flight. I think it's paid for itself. $333 per year for
paint is another way to look at it, and IMHO that's a heluva
good deal.

Similarly, you need to keep replacing carpets, panels, and
recovering seats over time. They don't last forever, and again
duct tape does not make a good first impression.

Also, avionics need to be completely replaced periodically. How
often depends upon usage, but certainly every ten years all the
avionics need to be removed and replaced. This includes all
wiring right back to the headset and mike jacks, and all wiring
and circuit breakers right back to the power bus, and all coax
wiring and antennas.

What make a training fleet scruffy, in addition to poor paint
and interior, is inconsistent avionics across the fleet. All aircraft
in the fleet should have the same intercom, audio panel, jack
location, comm and vor/gps/adf radios, in the same locations.
Avionics is HUGE for new pilots. Ask any Cirrus or Columbia or
Mooney or Bonanza owner - I'll bet he has more money in his
IFR avionics stack & autopilot than he does in his engine and prop.

[slam525i]

What's this secondary seat-stop in Cessnas? What does it look like and what does it do?

[iflyforpie]

It is a seat-belt type device that hooks to the floor and the bottom of the seat. It is so that if the primary seat locks fail (which they shouldn't if you are doing CF87-15R2 every 100 hours like you are supposed to--there are dimensional checks in there for all AMEs listening) there is something else to hold the seat in place.

In my 206, I've got the V-brace to grab on. Most other aircraft, the pilot will hold on to the yoke and stall, spin, die. This is why these are important.

[slam525i]

I just googled it; I didn't know such things existed!

I always double/triple/quadruple check the seat is secured, having had a bad experience a long time ago. (Didn't get airborne, thank God.) Thanks for telling me about this secondary seat stop. I'm gonna look for it next time I'm in a rental spam can.

[iflyforpie]

WRT paint, the newer and professional paint processes also last a lot longer on aircraft. The Imron paint on our 206 is 20 years old and because it is always hangared, washed, and waxed it still shows well. The no-name paint on our 172 is only ten years old and already oxidized (though it spent a few years outside before we bought it).

IIRC from when I worked in a paint shop, $12,000 should be enough to do a proper disassemble, strip, and paint of a 172. Exterior plastics should be repaired or replaced at this time as well (go for fibreglass, much nicer).



There is little excuse for a crappy windshield in a Cessna. If your mechanic starts getting out the drill and rivet gun to replace the windshield, go somewhere else. I can replace one with nothing but a bunch of putty knives and a little loving and shoving in an afternoon. So around a G parts and labour for a piece of the aircraft that is probably the most important feature for safe VFR flying...

[ogc]

I loved the ugly planes, no one ever wanted to use them so they were always available.

Everything always worked, they were very well maintained just not cosmetically. That was reserved for the fancy new 172's

[Shiny Side Up]

I loved the ugly planes, no one ever wanted to use them so they were always available.

I used to do this all the time too, the plane I flew the most when I got my license had a beautiful green finish and interior. It was always available. There was nothing wrong with it if you could get past a color scheme that came from the seventies. Mind you it always seemed that people got their fill of color during the seventies since brown was the color scheme of the eighties.

One of the worst ideas Cessna had is what I think makes their airplanes look the rattiest, that lovely Royalite plastic crap they finished everything with inside, that was always all cracked to hell.

[iflyforpie]

You can't really blame Cessna. After all, they wanted something light and cheap to put in their interiors and we were supposed to have nuclear powered helicopters in our garages by now.

For replacement interior bits, I highly recommend Selkirk Aviation fibreglass parts. A bit of a biotch to fit and install, but 100 times better than the Cessna junk.

http://www.selkirk-aviation.com/


Oh, and I totally agree with the 'ugly airplane' thing. But shiny aircraft do have a powerful psychological effect.

I remember working at KFC with a Convair in the hangar that they'd just brought back from 20 years in the desert. Faded mismatched paint mixed with spray bomb over the former logos, corrosion, and dirt. They'd bring a tour through and they would be 'OOOooOOOOOOooohh!!! That plane isn't going to fly again, is it? It's just for scrap, right?' A few months and many gallons of stripper, cleaner, primer and paint later, but hardly anything else, they'd bring another tour through... 'WOW!!! Is that a NEW plane?'

[fish4life]

WRT paint, the newer and professional paint processes also last a lot longer on aircraft. The Imron paint on our 206 is 20 years old and because it is always hangared, washed, and waxed it still shows well. The no-name paint on our 172 is only ten years old and already oxidized (though it spent a few years outside before we bought it).

IIRC from when I worked in a paint shop, $12,000 should be enough to do a proper disassemble, strip, and paint of a 172. Exterior plastics should be repaired or replaced at this time as well (go for fibreglass, much nicer).



There is little excuse for a crappy windshield in a Cessna. If your mechanic starts getting out the drill and rivet gun to replace the windshield, go somewhere else. I can replace one with nothing but a bunch of putty knives and a little loving and shoving in an afternoon. So around a G parts and labour for a piece of the aircraft that is probably the most important feature for safe VFR flying...

I'll have to find out what type of paint is on a 185 I know of but its over 25 years old and still looks like it's in pretty good shape and this plane has never been hangared except for annuals.

[Beefitarian]

1) All flight instruments, engine instruments and fuel guages have to work

Why would you need working fuel guages? I didn't know there were fuel guages that work. I thought they were just there for ballast.

I heard about someone that was using the fuel guage on a rental plane, the guages said full, then they ran out of fuel and had to pull over at a bad spot.

I've never used airplane fuel guages. I used to take a stick and dip it in the tanks to find out what's actually in there then calculate the time it represents. Then if I've been flying too long but I'm not almost home I know I need to stop at a gas station, like one for airplanes that has a place to land.

[iflyforpie]

1) All flight instruments, engine instruments and fuel guages have to work

Why would you need working fuel guages? I didn't know there were fuel guages that work. I thought they were just there for ballast.

Actually I've seen several fuel 'gauges' that work quite well. The fuel sight glasses on a Harvard. The fuel sight tubes on a Grumman Goose. The coat hangar and float on any Cub/Champ/Taylorcraft (provided the float hasn't lost its buoyancy, but a quick push down after filling quickly and easily determines that). And the translucent fuel tanks on a Chinook AULA.


But fuel gauges are required as per CAR 605.14 (j)(i) (or specifically, a method to determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from the pilot's seat), and fuel gauge accuracy tests are typically required every 12 months (depending on operator's MCM). Most AMEs (including myself) won't beat a dead horse. I've seen thousands of dollars spent on new gauges and senders that are every bit as inaccurate as the old ones.

[200hr Wonder]

But fuel gauges are required as per CAR 605.14 (j)(i) (or specifically, a method to determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from the pilot's seat), and fuel gauge accuracy tests are typically required every 12 months (depending on operator's MCM). Most AMEs (including myself) won't beat a dead horse. I've seen thousands of dollars spent on new gauges and senders that are every bit as inaccurate as the old ones.

Hey Pie, the problem I keep seeing with things like a 172 is that as soon as you spin the suckers the gauges are well inaccurate so as a rule NEVER trust them.

Now riddle me this, CAR 605.14 (j)(i) (or specifically, a method to determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from the pilot's seat) seems clear, however, tell me this: Prior to flight I checked my tanks via a dip which unless you spring a leak is pretty darn accurate. I took off noted my time off and am wearing a watch. With the two peaces of information above and the current time I can determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from my pilot's seat can I not? Does this satisfy transport? Honestly I am not sure, but lets just say I flew a 172 with out functioning fuel gauges hypothetically of course would I be in violation of taking an un-airworthy aircraft into the air? I could see it being a little more of an issue with something like a Warrior with less than full tanks as there is no way to dip them accurately due to the dihedral of the wing and the position of the filler.

[Shiny Side Up]

I'll have to find out what type of paint is on a 185 I know of but its over 25 years old and still looks like it's in pretty good shape and this plane has never been hangared except for annuals.

Even if an airplane isn't hangared it doesn't really take much care to keep an airplane up to a 8/10 paintjob for a lot of years, just a little bit of elbow grease at regular intervals. Its also pretty cheap to bring one that's been neglected up to that as well.

As per fuel guages, why more high wing airplanes didn't just stick with sightglass style guages I don't know, seems pretty bulletproof to me. Maybe people were smashing their heads into them on a regular basis?

[Beefitarian]

I could see it being a little more of an issue with something like a Warrior with less than full tanks as there is no way to dip them accurately due to the dihedral of the wing and the position of the filler.

This makes sense, I've never read or heard that though. I used the stick and calculation method on a trip from YBW to Washington National and back in a Warrior II.

Wouldn't the conditions you mention prevent you from filling the tank leaving a triangle air pocket in each unless you tilt the plane? The tanks must be larger than they need to be if that's the case. AME guys?

[5x5]

Prior to flight I checked my tanks via a dip which unless you spring a leak is pretty darn accurate. I took off noted my time off and am wearing a watch. With the two peaces of information above and the current time I can determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from my pilot's seat can I not? Does this satisfy transport?

That is the correct way to manage fuel in flight and is more accurate than most gauges you will find. However, it will not identify an unexpected fuel drain (loose or missing gas cap, fuel line leak, improper mixture control, etc). The gauges, while not accurate for precise fuel usage monitoring, are very good trend indicators and will identify higher than expected rates of fuel leaving the tanks.

The two (gauges and calculations) work hand-in-hand.

[200hr Wonder]

5x5 not arguing what is a safe and better way of doing things, don't get me wrong but I was however wondering if Transport would be happy in the above scenario.

[iflyforpie]

Hey Pie, the problem I keep seeing with things like a 172 is that as soon as you spin the suckers the gauges are well inaccurate so as a rule NEVER trust them.

Now riddle me this, CAR 605.14 (j)(i) (or specifically, a method to determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from the pilot's seat) seems clear, however, tell me this: Prior to flight I checked my tanks via a dip which unless you spring a leak is pretty darn accurate. I took off noted my time off and am wearing a watch. With the two peaces of information above and the current time I can determine the quantity of fuel in each tank from my pilot's seat can I not? Does this satisfy transport? Honestly I am not sure, but lets just say I flew a 172 with out functioning fuel gauges hypothetically of course would I be in violation of taking an un-airworthy aircraft into the air? I could see it being a little more of an issue with something like a Warrior with less than full tanks as there is no way to dip them accurately due to the dihedral of the wing and the position of the filler.

As other's have said, dipping the tank and then springing a leak or having a bad carb or injector can really change your rate of fuel consumption. TC means that no matter what the conditions or calculations say, that you must be able to determine the fuel quantity.

Not only for detecting leaks or high fuel consumption, but also so you have an idea of what is remaining in each tank if you are dealing with tons of fuel tanks like on a Cherokee SIX or Twin Commanche.


Now, everybody bends the rules when certifying and using fuel gauges, otherwise every small Cessna would be grounded. I do use the fuel gauges though so I have an idea of what I have in conjunction with my time and anticipated fuel burn. Like anything mechanical that is out of calibration, once you are used to it you can compensate for errors. I used to have a .22 that I would aim below and slightly to the right of my target to hit it.

No rental or training pilot should be doing any kind of endurance flights with less than full tanks to start. Even though I know my aircraft very well, I do all of my long-endurance patrols with full tanks to start and leave a 1 hour reserve. And any time any fuel metering component is changed, the aircraft needs to prove satisfactory fuel consumption before doing endurance missions. I've gotten brand new carbs for O-320s that chugged nearly 11 GPH with no perceptible performance degradation.


Some tricks you as pilots can do to get the most out of your fuel gauges. Make sure the gauge needles are below the E before turning the master on; this is to make sure they aren't stuck. Check your fuel quantity readings against the dip (should be done anyways) so you can apply a mental correction if needed. If the gauge reads empty early in the flight, crab the aircraft and look for how quickly the needle moves to full on the appropriate tank (dead foot = dead tank).

And yes, there are some aircraft that dipping doesn't work to good. I never had too much of a problem with the Warrior or any other spam can Pipers because typically full was 25 gal and the tab is 17 and I usually made sure it was at least at the tab. You can get dipsticks that are accurate to below what you should take off with, since the tanks aren't all that long.

The absolute worst are the Barons (well, probably worse are the DHC products with the belly tanks). The tank is long dry at the filler cap when you still have tons of fuel. The only way is to fill it up to the top and use a totallizer if your gauges are not accurate. I did get my dirty hands on a brand-new G58 Baron a while back and it has neat mechanical fuel gauges--on the outside of the plane by the nacelle. At least you can have an idea doing your walkaround.

[Beefitarian]

Lots of good info here. On my epic trip I had to use partial tanks on the way there because I had my oversized father and brother along. I made the first leg short so I could dip and get a good idea of what the Warrior II was using the way I had it leaned out. I don't remember the exact amounts but know I was having one tank filled to the tab. The other might have been full. I think I was getting used to the fuel level guages on that plane but never trusted them. I always used the dip method thinking I was doing accurate wieght and balance calculations.

The fun part of the pipers was doing side specific fuel management and trying to keep them even. Sure enough I ran one side much lower on one leg of the trip for that, "hard rudder now!" yaw swing on touch down.

I can remember getting in a C-172 once for some dual and saying, "Hey, the fuel gauges work!! That's wierd." I might have joked about writing up a snag but can't remember that part for sure.