I passed my ppl flight test a couple of days ago So I'm planning for some longer trips (staying overnight) but the local flight school is pretty pricy and requires 5hrs per day minimum. I found some ads on kijiji offering block time and have the following questions:
-How to determine if those planes are well maintained and safe to fly? Obviously they all have the documents required by tc, but what else should I look for, maybe check if it's flown frequently recently? I heard some horror stories about it and don't want to practice forced approaches for real..
-Do I need any extra insurance coverages, where can I find one and how much does it cost (I have <50 hrs)?
Please pm me if you are interested in having some trips together and split the costs (I'm located in southern Ontario)
The paperwork doesn't mean anything. I have seen FTU aircraft with perfect paperwork that were not airworthy and private planes with bad paperwork that were totally safe.
Don't take my word, ask Colonel Sanders and he can give you a speech on this...
Anyway, I will let the more experienced ones answer this question, but just remember, the paperwork doesn't mean anything....
Im hesitant to answer because its very difficult visually to know but there are definite signs of problems or lack of care and many signs that dont matter. Just off the top of my head a few things you can observe without any disassembly. Obviously not exhaustive.
- paint is not important usually.
- any obvious rust on steel parts is not good, cables hinges etc.
- lots of oil on belly, very oily engine compartment is sign of lack of care.
- very black oil, as opposed to clean or tan is bad sign.
- cracked hoses in engine compartment is bad.
- lots of water or crud in a fuel sample is not good.
- mouse crap, birds nests are bad signs.
- lack of regular use is a bad sign.
- missing screws are sign of lack of care.
- bald tires and worn brakes and disks are lack of care.
- dripping brake fluid is not good.
- sagging nose wheel not good.
- radios and avionics working is good sign.
- neat instrument panel is good sign.
- dangling wires behind instruments is bad sign.
- neat new looking wires and bundles behind instruments is good.
- controls free and no excessive slop is good.
- flaps work smoothly is good, grinding noises is bad.
- all the lights working, shows care.
- pitot heat works.
- does it start easily or hard to start with weak bad battery?
- seat belts work or are they all worn.
- seats move smoothly.
- doors and windows close properly.
- interior plastic and seat material not too important.
cgzro wrote:
- radios and avionics working is good sign.
Etc.
A lot (most?) of VFR private planes have dead ADFs/VORs, as they cost a lot to repair/replace and aren't terribly useful these days. As long as you have a working radio (and transponder, if flying in transponder airspace), that's all you need.
CGZRO's list is a great start. Use it with the walk around checklist and look for yourself. Have the owner take you for a half hour - does it run nicely, and feel comfortable and confident? Is the owner downplaying any suspected defects?
Read the maintenance entries in the logs for the past few years. Same maintainer each year? Five to ten "work" items each year, varying a bit? - Good. No/few entries, or the same items over and over is bad.
Keep your first few flights close to home, until you build confidence....
Even if the owner is willing to take you flying in it (or even if he does take you up in it), don't take that as a guarantee that the airplane is safe.
It's going to be very hard for you as a new pilot to be confident on this no matter what anyone ends up telling you, and you're going to be left with deciding "do I put money on this or not". Planes need to fly more, and so do us pilots, so it would be great if there were more owners out there offering deals like this. I'm not an owner, but all of my best flying has been done outside of the flight school environment.
In addition to the tips people have already pointed out, something practical to consider is what amount of risk will your intended flights tolerate with a particular aircraft? ie. your threshold for knowing the owner and maintenance history/standards should be higher for a plane you are going to immediately take into IMC, fly at night, fly over water, large cities, mountains, ie. places with less options. There are a lot of adequate aircraft out there in the private fleet that are likely "good enough" but you have to make that call on a case by case basis.
Whatever you decide, perhaps consider limiting your flights for a while to those with good options until you get a better feel for the aircraft and the owner, and not plan any flights really far away until there's some history behind you. Even if it's not a safety issue, landing someone else's disabled plane 800nm away from home, on a weekend, at an abandoned strip somewhere with no AME's is going to be a lot of grief for you and the owner.
As with everything in aviation as it pertains to risk, this is something you have to decide for yourself, and should not rely on random internet people's opinions.
Couple of other points that may be useful .
Is it hangared.. usually a good sign.
If its outside how is the tie down area ? is grass mowed, is plane on flag stones or direct on grass/mud, are ropes in good confition, are controls locked ?
Attention to those details probably carries over to good maintenance too.
Another big thing is stuff that isn't necessarily airworthiness, but can lead to distractions that cause pilot error, the number one cause of accidents.
Things like:
Glass that is milky, scratched, or crazed.
Seats and seat belts that are uncomfortable (cracked vinyl, broken springs) or difficult to adjust or secure.
Windows or doors that leak.
PTTs, yoke mounts, and other cockpit paraphernalia that you can get tangled in or jam the controls.
Loose and unsecured items.
Carpet or scuff plates that aren't secure.
Radios that are scratchy, intermittent, or make a ton of noise.
Heat and ventilation controls that don't work... preventing you from clearing fogged windows, getting fresh air to clear your nausea, or turning the plane into a furnace when it is over 30C outside.
It's also a good time to review the why for all of the things we do by rote in our training aircraft walk arounds and run ups... even though these planes rarely have time to develop problems.
Tire pressures should be measured and adjusted. An aircraft tire with 10 psi looks an awful lot like one with 25 psi.
Look into the engine compartment, flap and aileron wells, gear wells, and tail cone as applicable for bird's nests and tumbleweeds.
Make sure that is fuel you strained out... I've watched somebody pull out a whole strainer full of water... look for a line or bubbles that weren't there... and toss it. It should go without saying that straining fuel when it is well below freezing is pretty much useless... though if you can't get anything out of the strainer, that is probably the reason why.
Check every orifice on the aircraft to make sure it is clear... not just pitot and static ports, but also fuel vents, vented caps, stall warning, and air vents too (including the tiny avionics cooling ones typically on the front sides of the fuselage), plus the drains like the strainer, battery box vent/drain, engine breather.
Rubber and plastic items are the worst for exposure to the elements. Tires with cracks between the ribs or on the sidewall should be replaced, plastic fairings that are brittle should be replaced, take a close look at the alternator belt to ensure it is still tight and not cracked or worn.
Unless the battery has been regularly disconnected from the aircraft and serviced, it will probably be weak from sulfiding of the plates due to discharge, loss of water due to high rates of charge when in use, and corrosion of the battery terminals due to the build up of hydrogen gas when charging.
So, start up the engine. How does it start? How does it idle? How does it accelerate when you go to run up RPM? If it is all smooth, probably nothing to worry about. If it is rough.. pay careful attention to the next parts. Of course, once we have the engine running, we are checking various systems. Oil pressure.... how fast did it come up? How high is it (or low is it at idle)? Vacuum... within normal parameters? Do you hear any whistling signifying a vacuum leak? Does it increase too much with application of the throttle, signifying a broken or clogged relief valve? How do the gyros sound? (Quieter is better). Tachometer... does it oscillate or is it smooth? Does the number match the sound you hear? Electrical system charging.... did the ammeter it spike on startup, signifying a weak battery or other electrical issues? Does it spike briefly and move back to a normal charging setting with the application of a load like flaps or landing lights?
Flight control checks. Everything operate smooth and correct through the entire range? Not just left right up down.... but left right at full down, left right at full up, and everywhere in between. The ailerons should each move up, and down at the same angles and be perfectly neutral with the stick in the middle. Listen for noises, feel for binding, and pay attention to any slop you feel.
Then the run up. Mixture check for function and EGT rise, mags check for even drop with no shuddering, carb heat check for drop and leave it on for a few... if it rises higher than your set RPM, you have icing conditions. All engine instruments operating with the possible exception of oil temp if it is cold... then down to idle to ensure the engine won't conk out at an inopportune moment. The controls should be smooth and not stiff.
Rolling instrument checks, then ready for takeoff. During the takeoff, we are completing our final engine runup and instrument checks. Max static RPM and fuel flow as applicable tells us we are making rated power. Airspeed alive tells us that our airspeed indicator is functioning. Positive rate on our altimeter and VSI tells us our static system and those instruments are functioning properly.
As with any unfamiliar aircraft, don't fly it to its limits until you are familiar with it. Record the actual fuel burns and uploads and keep track of oil consumption so you know it is acceptable. Stay close to the airport until you are confident the plane is running well. Don't take any passengers until you are sure it is safe. After the first flight, make a thorough inspection of the plane for oil leaks, fuel leaks, missing hardware, or any other defects.
All I can add is: there are two entirely
different worlds. The "paper" world, and
the "real" world. They are often alarmingly
decoupled.
This means (esp when you buy an aircraft)
that a "fresh annual" is essentially worthless.
The only use that paper maintenance has,
is that it protects you from Transport when
you are ramped - you can show an annual
inspection signed off in the last year.
But it doesn't mean that the aircraft is "right".
An experienced pilot knows when an aircraft
is "right", and when it isn't.
My advice to you, is to fly an airplane that
has been flying a lot lately. If it hasn't crashed,
well, it will probably keep running.
The scariest airplanes there are:
1) new airplane
2) airplane out of maintenance, esp heavy mtce
3) aircraft that has not flown for a long time
DO NOT tackle any one of the above three. Give
yourself an easy problem to solve, as I learned as
a mathematician, so many decades ago.
This year I flew a v-tailed Bonanza for the first time,
after it had been sitting for 15 years. Scary as hell.
At least as risky as flying surface aerobatics. Perhaps
more so. I told the new owners that we had to worry
about two things, and two things only:
1) fuel going into the engine, and
2) the gear going up and down
Guess what two things we had problems with?
Hint: at the risk of being crapped upon by the
Four Bar Brigade ... there can be many, many
things broken on an airplane, and it will fly just
fine.
However, the critical systems - which you probably
don't even know what they are - must work, or
you will die, or at least end up with an TSB report
about your last flight.
There's an awful lot to aviation. While you may
find this depressing - today's crowd wants instant
gratification - I rather enjoy learning new stuff,
and 40 years into my aviation career, still do
every day.
There is a huge grey area between ugly but OK, and ugly and dangerous. Most of the airplanes available for block time rental sit in this grey area. Deciding how good is "good enough" largely comes down to experience. This experience won't exist at the new PPL level and is also largely absent at the lower time instructor level.
Personally If I were a new pilot planning a relatively large investment in a block rental I would buy hire an AME and have him accompany you for an inspection of the airplane. An experienced AME can give a verbal it is "probably OK" or "don't fly this" airplane after a pretty quick look at the books and the airplane. You should not expect anything written down and there will be no guarantees but you will at least know where you are in the grey area.
Finally paint and interior condition are the least relevant consideration. Lots of recent use and regular maintenance entries is what I would be looking for.
I just finished a PPL as favour for a friend. This fellow had just bought a C 150 from the USA. When it showed up in Canada it was hard over in the ugly and dangerous category. However the owner dug deep and $ 14,000 later all of the important deficiencies were addressed. I took a long hard look at it, talked to the AME that did all the work and satisfied myself that it was a safe airplane and so I went ahead and finished his PPL.
The bottom line was the airplane looked exactly the same when it arrived as a accident looking for a place to happen, as it did when it was all fixed up and ready to fly safely. That is why you need expert advice.
There are a few places on a cessna you can quickly look at, these areas are a good indication of what is going on across the spectrum.
Check the flap hangars. A little bit of radial play is alright and they pretty much all have it, but if the hangars are clunky the plane has probably been mtc. neglected.
check the rudder and elevator for radial play at the hinge points, again, there should be no play radially or axially.
It has been my experience that aircraft with these two obvious areas neglected are hiding many deficiencies under the skins... but by no means are the observations definitive, just indicative.
What timing. I just got this email, which illustrates
how useless paper is, in determining whether or not
an aircraft is safe to fly:
-- cut --
I own a Pitts S2b and sent the prop in for it's five year overhaul and the propshop scrapped it. When they told me why, I thought I was listening to something out of a scary movie. It had been tampered with…….
The hub was stamped with a serial number Hartzell had not yet invented, and the manufacturers serial # stamped on it (there are two numbers on the hub) was from a 3 blade hub used by Mooneys
Blade #2 serial number was removed and replaced with a number from a different Hartzell model which I believe is non feathering incorrect blade retention rings
And just to soften the blow, Blade #1 was legitimate but I should actually scrap that as well because, …. Well you never can tell what history that might have.
When I contacted Aviat they gave me completely different serial numbers which the aircraft left the factory with.
The aircraft is a 1985 model and I've had it a little over eight years now but it had three prior owners before I bought it and all the 8130-3 documents I have on record reflect these forged serial numbers (I do not have all the history… yeah you can tell. convenient). I do however have the full electronic version of FAA registration history.
My question is this: Should this be a fight FAA must have?, and I really feel cheated since now I have to purchase a replacement unit, not to mention how many times I might have cheated death, had it let go mid-air.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
-- cut --
Do keep in mind that when a prop blade departs
in flight, the resulting imbalance tears the entire
engine from the airframe, which begins to tumble.
I now know of four people that have had that
happen to them.
Prop strikes are tricky... Some of the stuff I've seen... anyways the engine can look fine then one day the crank breaks... seems like a suspicious coincidence to me.
A guy at my field had a prop strike going into the strip at his cabin. Had the engine torn down and the shop found dozens of cracks on the crank.... all from a previous incident because they were all old.
Lots of times.... the paper and faith in other people is all we have to go on. I know that even as an AME, there is no way I could ever check everything even with tearing the whole plane apart.
WRT exceeding airframe limits though, a pretty easy way to spot an overstressed aluminum aircraft is to look for stress wrinkles on the tops of the wings.
I took a long hard look at it, talked to the AME that did all the work and satisfied myself that it was a safe airplane and so I went ahead and finished his PPL.
The bottom line was the airplane looked exactly the same when it arrived as a accident looking for a place to happen, as it did when it was all fixed up and ready to fly safely. That is why you need expert advice.
... which is why I wrote/meant ...
If you have any questions about the condition of the aircraft, why not (get) an AME of your own to have a look at it? A pre-rental inspection of sorts.
They are not taught to determine if an aircraft
is safe.
They should be taught how to determine both safe and legal, which oddly enough is the definition of airworthy.
“airworthy”
“airworthy”, in respect of an aeronautical product, means in a fit and safe state for flight and in conformity with its type design; (en état de navigabilité)
(from CARS Part 1, Subpart 1)
I like the following from CARS STD 625.10. Spells things out rather nicely.
625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List
Information Note:
The following provisions, although considered advisory in nature, have been included in the main body of these standards due to their importance. They are not standards.
(i) CAR 605 requires that all equipment listed in the applicable airworthiness standard, and all equipment required for the particular flight or type of operation, must be functioning correctly prior to flight. The requirement for a particular system or component to be operative can be determined by reference to the type certificate data sheet, operating regulations or the applicable equipment list in the aircraft operating manual.
(ii) Although the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command, an error in this determination could result in a contravention under these regulations. It is for this reason that the regulations require that full details of all defects be entered in the journey log. The pilot in command must be fully aware of the condition of the aircraft if he is to make the correct decision regarding the intended flight. The manner in which the pilot makes this decision, however, will vary according to the type of operation of the aircraft. In the following paragraphs, private and commercial aircraft are considered separately.
(iii) Defects (e.g. buckling, cracks, extensive corrosion) of the skin or structure of the aircraft or of the pressure hull of a pressurized aircraft beyond the safe limits established by the manufacturer in his maintenance manual or other approved maintenance instructions will render that aircraft unfit for safe operation.
(iv) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter not operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft not operated pursuant to Part VII, the pilot must review the log prior to flight and decide whether any of the defects recorded affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. Reference may be made to the type certificate data sheet, the aircraft operating manual, or any list provided by the aircraft manufacturer respecting equipment that must be operational for the intended flight. The Minister may also approve a minimum equipment list for use by an owner. Any or all of these may indicate that particular items of equipment are mandatory.
(v) In the case of an aircraft operated pursuant to CAR 604, specific instructions must be provided in the operations manual to facilitate this assessment.
(vi) Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME. This is best done by requesting the AME to inspect the defective system or component to determine its effect upon the aircraft's fitness for flight. By following this procedure and obtaining the AME's signature in the log book in the form of a maintenance release, the pilot will be able to demonstrate, if necessary, that he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft. Inspection of defective systems by an AME, although advisable, is not a legal requirment. As stated earlier, it is the pilot's responsibility to determine whether the aircraft is fit for the intended flight.
(vii) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft operated pursuant to Part VII, it is not always practicable for the pilot to personally undertake all actions required to determine the airworthiness status, because of the high levels of utilization, complexity of the aircraft, and the limited time available for all the various aspects of pre-flight preparation required. A common standard must be applied to all aircraft of a fleet. For these reasons, the flight training unit and the air operator regulations require the establishment of a formal system for the control of defects.
(viii) Such systems provide a greater degree of confidence that the airworthiness effects of defects have been taken into account, and ensure consistency of application of the standards. They also set limits on the periods for which the repair of a defect may be deferred. For aircraft operated in commercial air service, this system is normally based on the use of Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL), thereby providing the pilot with a sound basis on which to make his decision regarding the intended flight.
(ix) The final decision, however, still rests with the pilot. A pilot who accepts an aircraft with defects, the repair of which has been deferred in accordance with an approved system, has a good defence against any possible charge of flying an unairworthy aircraft, whereas a pilot who undertakes a flight with an aircraft that is not in compliance with the approved system to control the deferral of repairs to defects commits an offence.
(x) The complexity of a system used to control the deferral of repairs to defects will vary according to the type of aircraft operated and the size and nature of the operation and may include reference to an approved minimum equipment list and/or configuration deviation list. In all cases the control system must be described in the air operator's maintenance control manual. Once approved, compliance with those procedures is mandatory.
They should be taught how to determine both safe and legal
Pure fantasy. Pilots struggle with determining
legal. The rarely have a clue if it's safe, a far
more complex question. Mechanics even rarely
agree on "safe", despite that being their profession.
In the email above that I posted, a pilot flew
for years with a bogus prop on his Pitts S-2B.
Actually, wouldn't that be the other way around? Paper didn't match the numbers, so that's not kosher, but the airplane apparently flew for 8 years without a blade falling off, so wouldn't that be considered safe operation? One could look at it either way. "Safe" is a relative term, and that's the grey area. That's the part a lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around. I prefer to think of nothing as "safe" but rather some things are more risky than others. I'm not sure what area the prop thing really falls into. Lord knows I've flown a lot of airplanes that appeared safe, some ended up not being that way, some were. Incidentally, the same thing happened to an airplane I knew (and flew) no idea when it recieved a prop for which it had no paperwork for, and come overhaul time they junked it on thet grounds. That said, the thing flew for years without incident, so its really hard to say that it wasn't "safe".
The home built world really magnifies this issue. You find all sorts of what I would consider design flaws, that in the mind of its builder is perfectly "safe". John Denver could tells us about this if he was still around. How long did his plane fly under the previous builder? Hell, even Denver looked at the issue and in his mind considered it "safe". Its too bad we can't talk about it with him.
Heh. The definition of safe as "not crashing
this time" is a bit extreme, perhaps ...
There's a video of Sean Tucker flying acro
with a woman with a metal blade prop.
Crankshaft breaks, prop departs.
Sean says, "I have bad news and good news.
The bad news is that we lost the propeller. The
good news is that you're flying with the best
pilot in the world"
I am not making this up.
Despite the lack of the drag from the constant
speed prop, completely changing the approach
characteristics of the aircraft, Sean compensates
and does a perfect gliding landing to the runway.
Colonel Sanders wrote:Heh. The definition of safe as "not crashing
this time" is a bit extreme, perhaps ...
Well, that wasn't quite what I was getting at, but rather if nothing malfunctioned on an airplane would it be considered "safe" even if all the paper and numbers didn't line up. In most cases you could probably say yes.
Once upon a time TC grounded a bunch of our airplanes when the parts numbers didn't line up for the carpet in them. I'm not sure how many hours the airplanes flew incident free with such an "unsafe" condition, but it was really hard to make the arguement that the airplanes weren't safe IMHO but of course the TC inspector differed of opinion. I would suspect that if you went through the current fleet of commercially and privately owned Cessnas out there you could ground a substantial number. I digress. Either way the inspector had a more vivid imagination than I did about potential horror stories of people burning alive in these deathtraps since there was now no way of knowing how fire resistant the carpeting was. Grossly unsafe. In spite of the fact that such things had already weathered at least hundreds, if not thousands of hours incident free. No carpetocausts.
Now with that said, I've also had where all the papers were good, numbers lined up and stuff just plain broke down. Been some oddball ones too. Like the ball joint that split on the steering rod. Little ball split right in half. Made a SDR to Cessna, they said that's only happened twice before in all the time those have been used. Freak metalurgical defect of the casting process. Perfectly good airplane pieces just didn't live up to expectations. Like that case of defective tire tubes we got.
That's all just to muddy the perceptions of what is "safe". At the end of it, there's only one thing that gives you a lesser risk of dying....
Now, was that safe? Maybe. I dunno.
I suspect one would be "safer" with a pilot like Rob Holland in a defective airplane, than a lot of other pilots out there in a perfectly good one. Most crashes after all happen to perfectly serviceable aircraft.
So I'm planning for some longer trips (staying overnight) but the local flight school is pretty pricy and requires 5hrs per day minimum. I found some ads on kijiji offering block time and have the following questions:
later all of the important deficiencies were addressed. I took a long hard look at it, talked to the AME that did all the work and satisfied myself that it was a safe airplane and so I went ahead and finished his PPL.
