Airworthy?

Geico266 said:
Have you ever heard of a plane owner getting two annuals done and not flying the plane at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, there was an Aztec at LGB we annualed twice and the only time on the Hobbs between was my time taxing it from his hangar to our shop and back.
 
Geico266 said:
Have you ever heard of a plane owner getting two annuals done and not flying the plane at all?
Click to expand...

An owner of an Arrow we worked on went six annuals without putting any time on his plane. I thought he was a tad dense, but we took his money anyway. :dunno:
 
Henning said:
Yes, there was an Aztec at LGB we annualed twice and the only time on the Hobbs between was my time taxing it from his hangar to our shop and back.
Click to expand...

Norman said:
An owner of an Arrow we worked on went six annuals without putting any time on his plane. I thought he was a tad dense, but we took his money anyway. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Norman hits the nail on the head! Its pretty stupid.

I'm sure it happens, but my guess about this plane was right. The deceased owner of the Ercoupe flew the plane for 70 hours in the 2 years he owned it. ;)
 
Last edited:
As an Aerospace Engineer with less than 40 years of experience.....Impossible calculation.:goofy:
Henning said:
That wouldn't require anything but an A&P. What requires a DER is to calculate the strength of that creased up skin, and that would be more expensive than replacing the skin.
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
As an Aerospace Engineer with less than 40 years of experience.....Impossible calculation.:goofy:
Click to expand...

Correct, which makes it unairworthy, no DER would sign off on that skin since the strength is impossible to calculate. Just change the sheet metal and have a good airworthy aircraft, it won't cost more than a couple AMUs.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
As an Aerospace Engineer with less than 40 years of experience.....Impossible calculation.:goofy:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I would defer to the fact the plane has flown for at least 70 hours, presumably with no further indications of movement.

I would also contend the damage was caused by a hangar collapse, not stresses from flight. I would replace the skin at the next annual.

JMHO :D
 
Geico266 said:
Just curious Timmy, if this is your conviction why did you waste the widows time even looking at the plane?

Do you realize you have publicly trash this plane and the A&P, IA that did the inspections? He can now sue you for slander? And the widow can sue you for misrepresenting the aircraft as legally "un-airworthy?

How many Ercoupes with a deceased owners are for sale in your area?

By posting this information and allowing rampent unsubstainciated speculation about the Ercoupe's condition and the A&P, IA's "pencil whipping" annuals you have opened yourself up to the possibility of the very litigation you wanted to avoid. ;)

Just saying. :dunno:

Have a nice day! :D
Click to expand...

Just too nice of a guy I guess, Larry. And slow to learn.

But one must wonder:

hF8F6754C


And, BTW, slander is spoken word, libel is written. Both require false statements, however, and I have made none. So, as Henning would say, no worries.
 
Last edited:
DERs don't do that....anyways, they approve data.:D
Henning said:
Correct, which makes it unairworthy, no DER would sign off on that skin since the strength is impossible to calculate. Just change the sheet metal and have a good airworthy aircraft, it won't cost more than a couple AMUs.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
:confused: Pretty sure DERs have the authority to Create data.
Click to expand...
straight from 8110.37D

h. Major Repairs and Major Alterations may need Field Approval.

A field approval is one of the means used by the FAA to approve technical data used to accomplish a major repair or major alteration. It is an FAA approval, by an authorized Aviation Safety Inspector, of technical data and/or installations used to accomplish a major repair or major alteration. We don’t authorize DERs to grant "field approvals", to sign off an FAA Form 337, Major Repair and Alteration; to grant data approval by signing log books, or other like documents. See FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector’s Handbook, for more guidance on field approvals of major repairs and major alterations. A DER supporting a major alteration or major repair by furnishing approved data should indicate whether the data does, or does not, constitute all the data necessary to substantiate compliance of the repair or alteration with all applicable airworthiness regulations. A DER unsure of the extent of his approval authority or authorization to approve all the data required to support a major repair or major alteration should contact his managing ACO. In order to help the installer and FSDO involved, a DER must add the following note to the FAA
Form 8110-3:​

“This approval is for engineering design data only. It indicates the data listed above demonstrates compliance only with the regulations specified by paragraph and subparagraph listed below as “Applicable Requirements.” (Also, indicate if compliance with additional regulations not listed here may be required). This form does (or does not) constitute FAA approval of all the engineering data necessary for substantiation of compliance to necessary requirements for the entire alteration/repair.”​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
One more humorous story regarding this and then I'll leave you all to beat up on each other (and me too) for a few hundred more posts:

I put a call into the A&P Monday morning to find out where the logbooks were and to get info on total airframe and engine times, etc.

He called me back yesterday, late afternoon.

We chatted, he looked up the info that I was needing and then we talked about the damage.

I then told him that I was concerned about the damage I saw, the airworthiness of the airplane and would probably be backing away slowing from it.

He told me that it wasn't a problem and that I wasn't qualified to speculate on the damage. It's just fine.

I agreed with him (about me not being qualified) but told him that I had posed the question to a couple of "friends", including one that's former FAA, and some of them have concerns also.

Apparently mentioning "former FAA" set off tornado sirens, bells and whistles, and caused early onset Alzheimers because all of a sudden he had no idea what damage I was talking about and claimed that the airplane wasn't damaged when the last annual was performed.

So, I'm confident that there is no mention of it in the logbook...at least not now...

All the above is just my opinion of course.
 
timwinters said:
One more humorous story regarding this and then I'll leave you all to beat up on each other (and me too) for a few hundred more posts:

I put a call into the A&P Monday morning to find out where the logbooks were and to get info on total airframe and engine times, etc.

He called me back yesterday, late afternoon.

We chatted, he looked up the info that I was needing and then we talked about the damage.

I then told him that I was concerned about the damage I saw, the airworthiness of the airplane and would probably be backing away slowing from it.

He told me that it wasn't a problem and that I wasn't qualified to speculate on the damage. It's just fine.

I agreed with him (about me not being qualified) but told him that I had posed the question to a couple of "friends", including one that's former FAA, and some of them have concerns also.

Apparently mentioning "former FAA" set off tornado sirens, bells and whistles, and caused early onset Alzheimers because all of a sudden he had no idea what damage I was talking about and claimed that the airplane wasn't damaged when the last annual was performed.

So, I'm confident that there is no mention of it in the logbook...at least not now...

All the above is just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

If the rest of the plane is good, and you don't see any kinks in the stringers in the empennage, the repair will be rather straight forward drilling rivets, copying the skin, and bucking rivets. When I worked for Al Martin, we would have the plane back to you in a week, 2 if you wanted us to paint it. It's not that big of a deal which is why I question why it wasn't fixed correctly.
 
Geico266 said:
Timmy, the question was not weather the A&P looked at the plane, the question was how many hours has the plane flown since the repair. Jay concluded zero hours. ;)
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension skills include ad-lib ad-infinitum. I said no such thing. There was insufficient data provided to know the answer to the question.
 
Henning said:
...I'd be interested in seeing the condition of the stringers.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
And the longerons. ;)
Click to expand...

For cripe sakes people it's an Ercoupe, there are no "stringers" or "longerons" just a couple of bulkheads and two lap joints. I think it's being blown into a way bigger deal than it is but that's just my opinion. :rolleyes:
 
Silvaire said:
For cripe sakes people it's an Ercoupe, there are no "stringers" or "longerons" just a couple of bulkheads and two lap joints. I think it's being blown into a way bigger deal than it is but that's just my opinion. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If there is nothing there but the skin for structural rigidity, it needs a new skin.
 
Henning said:
If there is nothing there but the skin for structural rigidity, it needs a new skin.
Click to expand...

Well that's not the case, there are bulkheads. As for "replacing the skin" - on an Ercoupe I think you're talking about the entire lower half of the empenage. It's basically just a big cone and absent a jig it would be a tough job and given the low value of the aircraft I'm pretty sure that's why you are seeing what you are seeing.

It's a "Mechanics Special" at best but I still say it remains airworthy. Ugly for sure but still flyable.
 
Silvaire said:
Well that's not the case, there are bulkheads. As for "replacing the skin" - on an Ercoupe I think you're talking about the entire lower half of the empenage. It's basically just a big cone and absent a jig it would be a tough job and given the low value of the aircraft I'm pretty sure that's why you are seeing what you are seeing.

It's a "Mechanics Special" at best but I still say it remains airworthy. Ugly for sure but still flyable.
Click to expand...

You can fly it if you want, I wouldn't. I doubt it ever gets sold or flys again.
 
Henning said:
You can fly it if you want, I wouldn't. I doubt it ever gets sold or flys again.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in it or flying it and you may well be right but the Ercoupe is a niche market, maybe this guy would be interested in it.

panacea%20photo-thumb-560x331-153013.jpg


The question was is it airworthy and I said yes, I didn't say it was pretty or desirable.
 
It's not airworthy. It didn't leave the factory with those wrinkles, so in order to maintain airworthiness it must be properly repaired. Since Ercoupe never published a structural repair manual, a mechanic will either rely on AC43-13, or a Designated Engineering Representative of the FAA. In the absence of manufacturer's guidance, the FAA will always rely upon AC43-13. Don't argue whether it is regulatory, the FAA and NTSB use it to hang mechanics every day. Mostly because many manufacturers will refer to it for repairs in lieu of developing their own procedures. There is no guidance on hammering sheet metal back into shape. Sheet metal mechanical strength properties are only applicable to metal without wrinkles, creases, cracks, or corrosion.There are no tables listing strength values of damaged materials, so there is no way to calculate the load-bearing properties of damaged metal. That is why it is always replaced, or reinforced with patches. FAA guidance on damage evaluation calls out "abrupt changes in cross-sectional area" as damage requiring repair. Since the Ercoupe empennage is .025" thick 2024T3 aluminum, a gouge of .003 in the aluminum sheet (more than ten percent), or wrinkles in excess of the thickness of the sheet will render the part unairworthy. (Abrupt change in cross-section). There is plenty of case law on sheet metal damage, such as corrosion left un-repaired at annuals. Corrosion pits more than ten percent of the metal thickness render the part un-airworthy.

This skin must be replaced, or repaired in accordance with AC43-13 Chapter 4, and documented with an FAA 337 Form signed by the mechanic and the IA. It can also be done by reference to a DER developed repair documented by Form 8110-3. The mechanic will perform the repair in accordance with the information on the 8110-3. The main difference is an 8110 is required if AC43-13 has insufficient data for the particular repair. This will add $1500 or so to the costs, for the DER's time.
 
Last edited:
Why would a 337 be required to replace any part with like part?
 
Well,

I've decided that it's not a concern regardless of what all you engineers and airframe experts say. In fact, I went flying in it yesterday and it flew fine! I mean, after all it's
Geico266 said:
just skin
Click to expand...

Cosmetic only IMO.
 
timwinters said:
Well,

I've decided that it's not a concern regardless of what all you engineers and airframe experts say. In fact, I went flying in it yesterday and it flew fine! I mean, after all it's

Cosmetic only IMO.
Click to expand...

Quite the informative post. :D
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Well,

I've decided that it's not a concern regardless of what all you engineers and airframe experts say. In fact, I went flying in it yesterday and it flew fine! I mean, after all it's

Cosmetic only IMO.
Click to expand...

Just my 2 cents. Not an engineer or mechanic. IMO the skin adds strength to the structure. Even in dentistry, there are restorations that in themselves are pretty brittle but become stronger when attached to the structure below it.

I'm not saying it's not airworthy, but I would assume the plane is not as resistant to flex/deflection (whatever the proper term is) than it was prior to the accident.
 
A major repair has a definition. No need to wonder about it. The empennage skin doesn't add strength to the structure, it IS the structure. It is known as a Primary Structural Element. It is the main structure of the tail and carries the tail loads forward to the main spare intersection. The fuselage formers serve to maintain the shape of the empennage, but the skin ALONE carries all the loads. Skin defects on empennages are critical defects and compromise the strength of the airframe.

The skin replacement is major because:

(b) Major repairs—(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.

(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.

(xiii) Fuselage longerons.
(xiv) Members of the side truss, horizontal truss, or bulkheads.

(xxi) Repairs involving the substitution of material.
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.
(xxiii) The repair of portions of skin sheets by making additional seams.
(xxiv) The splicing of skin sheets.

Every time an unairworthy plane is flown, it is a single violation. The risk is a $500 civil penalty for each violation, or 90 day suspension for a private pilot certificate, 180 days for commercial pilots or CFI's, and for the IA involved, a 180 day suspension of his A&P, which invalidates his IA. Posting pictures and admitting to flying an unairworthy plane might raise the violations to careless and reckless, meaning the sanctions could be severe, such as one year suspension, or outright revocation.
 
Last edited:
there is yet another option.....perform a max static load test on the tail.

....and see if it holds.:yikes::hairraise::yikes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top