Its not just applicable to a reality TV model as it also sounds like a number of threads on PoA... "What's the cheapest aircraft I can buy for training?" and so on. As been stated by many, the cheapest thing with an aircraft is the owner.
And "The rubber gasket on the right-wing fuel cap was not installed."
You have no idea how many times a customer has been told "It's not ready yet, give us another day/week/month, please". And I'm not talking a bugsmasher at an annual. I'm talking big aircraft in contracts worth millions (tens+). Some of these have daily penalties worth 100k. You HAVE to be prepared to tell a customer "we're not ready". You never skimp on post-maintenance checks because the customer is there taping their foot. In this case, it was the accident pilot delivering it to the customer, but what if that was the customer himself being told "it's ready, take it" and now you have a dead customer at the end of the runway?
There's foolishly (and dangerously) cheap and then there's people that at least are willing to ask the question and see what can be done to have a more affordable (yet still safe) flying experience. How many of you overhaul your engines after 12 years, when they only have 600 hours on them? For some people, not doing that might seem like a foolish and cheap thing to do. The rest of us, we try to work with A&Ps and learn as much as we can about maintenance "on condition".
I'd think that would've been mentioned in the prelim. Playing back ADS-B data shows enough local traffic (including flight school planes) that is likely to have purchased fuel there, makes me doubt it it was a fuel truck contamination issue.
Not really in my experience. Not following engine overhaul intervals is one thing given the existing data shows limited advantage in complying with it. But to blindly not follow all or most OEM recommendations like 500 hour mag or alternator brush inspections errs more on the cheap side than not. And the existing failure rate data supports that.
Not necessarily. They could have simply quarantined the refueler for future examination after ensuring no other aircraft were affected. Or maybe the NTSB IIC didn’t travel to the scene and wrote his report from the office. Just because its not in the preliminary report doesn’t mean much at this point.
It did not say that a run up was not done.
Maybe. But the detail of the inspection is usually determined by the specificity of the annual inspection guide used, eg. 43 Appx D vs OEM form, and to an extent the mechanic themselves. The more detailed the reference list, the more items get individually checked during an annual. You'll find there is a wide variance in how annuals are complied but still meet the required minimums.
I saw another post that said an FAA person that was part of the investigation stated that the left fuel cap gasket was deteriorated.
That's what happened to me, about 40 years ago. Tanked up my 150 at a nearby airport, sampled the tank, mounted up and started for the ~15 minute trip home. Engine started running rough about 10 minutes out as the water dissolved in the fuel by the tank's pump precipitated out. Engine died, but by then was on high final on a straight-in. Afterwards, I drained about four gallons of water out of my sumps.
Perhaps the annual inspection log entry noted the gas cap gasket was missing and required replacement prior to return to service.
Not necessarily. The wise pilot waits a reasonable amount of time after fueling before sampling his tanks. What is reasonable? Like so many questions, the best answer is.....It Depends.
Agree. But in my experience, most "wise" pilots pre-flight their aircraft in the comfort of their hangar, to include fuel samples, then taxi to the self-serve pump, top off then head to the run-up area and depart. Regardless, the context of my comment was there can be other reasons for fuel system contamination which is why after a departure accident the local fuel systems are usually quarantined to check for such contamination.
Fuel truck came back clean. Which is what most people suspected at the time as well, since all the flight school planes on the field took fuel from the same truck that day.
I see that as well. I try to refuel at the end of the flight, if possible, to allow any water to settle in the tanks. Only time I sumped any water from the tanks is when I was parked outside during a thunderstorm with a fuel cap gasket that was starting to fail.
At that point it shouldn’t matter which one gets pulled. You either abort or fly, and if you fly, you run “the drill” when it’s time to figure out which one.Apparently to many engines scare me, one is scary, two is worse
Actually I would probably like flying multiengine stuff, just never had the money or the need to do so. I seem to have acquired 8000+ hours flying one engine or less.
My friend tells the story of his Multi engine check-ride. The examiner took a clipboard and placed it between the prop and mixture control so my friend could not see the mixture controls. The DPE kept his hand up near the mixtures as if he was going to pull one during the takeoff. He never pulled one, but afterward my friend quizzed him about why he did that if he wasn't going to pull a mixture. The DPE, asked him what were you doing during the take off, for which my friend responded listening and watching the engine gauges to figure out which mixture you were going to pull. The DPE responded, if you do every take off like that you will never have a problem if an engine fails during takeoff.
Brian
for want of a nail...
We just had a thread here on sumping fuel. Yep, most of the time when you check there's no water. I just want to know what the f*k that statement has to do with why someone wouldn't check the fuel every time.
100% "Hurry up" is the magic phrase for me to move into Colombo mode and double check everything, including my willingness to fly with that person.
What do you take "ground run" to mean in this sequence?
Because it was the last exam that the FAA had any control over. Any physician can complete a basic med checklist to whatever standards they deem fit.
A quantity of water that would be enough to make it to the engine would be detectable at the fuel sumps almost immediately after refueling. Now I have already found water droplets in the sump weeks after they were introduced into the system, but those were hardly enough to cause any major issues.
Anyone wanna dump a cup of water in their tank and see how long it takes before they can sump the tank and get all of the water out?
I tend to think this is accurate. A large enough slug is going to find its way to the low point quickly. A few drops, not so much. And if the water is mixed with the fuel (stirred up) it might take a couple of minutes unless the quantity of water is very small.
About 40 years ago, I tanked up my 150 at a local airport. I sampled the fuel...and found it full of tiny bubbles. The bubbles didn't go up, they didn't go down. Showed it to the usual crowd hanging in the office. My CFI said, "Hey, it couldn't be water, it would collect at the bottom and besides, there's a water detector on the pump."
I washed my Cherokee the day before my ppl checking. Found water in the sump 12 hours later.
