Beechcraft down in OH

Long thread on Beechtalk. Flying on a ferry permit after a prop-strike. FAA forced a teardown for the strike and engine seems to have failed. Ferry permit did not allow for a check flight to ensure rebuild was sound. Path of flight was over area with limited landing options. Really sad situation.
 
This is why a number of FSDOs are pretty skeptical these days about ferry permits. Knew of a situation where even the mechanic wanted to ferry a plane after a propstrike that didn't even leave visible scratches on the prop and the FAA flat out wouldn't allow it, but after the teardown was done it proved the right decision.
 
Another data point that points to these things being uneconomical to repair. I figure the requirement for an off-station teardown and shipment/reinstallation back and forth could be a totaling event for these low hull insured value samples. An in situ reskinning and replacing of a couple wing pieces and aileron ran up over 12 AMUs to the insurance on my incident with the FBO chuckleheads years ago. Pulling that wing and sending it out would have doubled that on the shipping and R/R that would have added.

All that said, no excuse to risk life and limb to save on labor. If it can't be flown safely, eff it. If the insurance totals it, then oh well.
 
RyanShort1 said:
This is why a number of FSDOs are pretty skeptical these days about ferry permits. Knew of a situation where even the mechanic wanted to ferry a plane after a propstrike that didn't even leave visible scratches on the prop and the FAA flat out wouldn't allow it, but after the teardown was done it proved the right decision.
Click to expand...

1. This crash was apparently the exact opposite of your scenario. The feds wouldn't sign a ferry permit after the prop strike, they made the dude do the teardown where it bellied in. He did it with continental, hung the motor, then because he's such a rule-follower, he honored the ferry permit that refused him test flight permission and tried to scoot to the place to complete the sheet metal repairs. The guy apparently even verified with the FSDO that if there was no gear-up belly damage that NO teardown would be required for airworthiness, but they insisted he perform this for the purpose of the flight permit.

2. If the feds are so skittish about ferry permits, maybe they should lean on the mechanics who approve them wrongly, rather than denying them and being a freaking obstacle and second-guessing the people they oversee/certify.

3. From the grand comfort of my armchair, that inspector should be hanged, or at least sued out of existence. Because feds, though, neither are remotely likely and this sort of interference will continue. He will enjoy his pensioned largesse eventually and likely continue obstructing sensible processes "because reasons"

Facepalm emoji on this whole thing. IMO.
 
schmookeeg said:
1. This crash was apparently the exact opposite of your scenario. The feds wouldn't sign a ferry permit after the prop strike, they made the dude do the teardown where it bellied in. He did it with continental, hung the motor, then because he's such a rule-follower, he honored the ferry permit that refused him test flight permission and tried to scoot to the place to complete the sheet metal repairs. The guy apparently even verified with the FSDO that if there was no gear-up belly damage that NO teardown would be required for airworthiness, but they insisted he perform this for the purpose of the flight permit.

2. If the feds are so skittish about ferry permits, maybe they should lean on the mechanics who approve them wrongly, rather than denying them and being a freaking obstacle and second-guessing the people they oversee/certify.

3. From the grand comfort of my armchair, that inspector should be hanged, or at least sued out of existence. Because feds, though, neither are remotely likely and this sort of interference will continue. He will enjoy his pensioned largesse eventually and likely continue obstructing sensible processes "because reasons"

Facepalm emoji on this whole thing. IMO.
Click to expand...

Yikes. If any of the backstory scenario you imply in your point #1 is true, holy s--t that agency has absolutely jumped the shark.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top