Hangar Rash / Acceptable limits?

K

kevmor99

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
95
Display Name
Display name:
kevmor99
How much "hangar rash" is acceptable, especially on flight control surfaces or trim tabs? Does it mention in the service manual how much can be dinged/bent/twisted/etc? I'm also wondering if it's straightened, but you can still see where it was previously bent (it's not completely flat).

Here's a picture for example in this article: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/24/Training-Tip
 
For me, on my plane, zero.

For your standard issue rental, meh, just use common sense, something like the picture in your link, I wouldn't be too concerned. A good wack to a trim tab or something where you can feel the loss of strength or a major bend, crease, crack or somewhere that causes binding I'd pass. Hard to give a black and white answer, but you should know it when you see it. Expecting rentals/trainers to be 100% straight as an arrow is unrealistic and the little student pilots "oops" that's you'll see is more of a cosmetic issue than a saftey one in most cases.
 
Pretty much agree with James on this one. The things to be aware of is when there is a new dent or ding, look around the area of the damage for things like loose or missing fasteners, busted hinges, loose aileron/elevator balance weights, binding flight controls, and damage to landing gear (tires, struts, brake assemblies, wheel pants that are loose or contact the tire).
 
Damage near or forward of static ports can cause indication error, wing leading edges and flight control surfaces are also damage critical. Don't mess around with flight control damage. The aircraft may seem fine to you but it may not perform as certificated at extreme operating perameters.
 
I think I remember an article about a guy who had a wingtip damaged that only removed some paint. He looked at it, and maybe an A&P on field looked and both agreed it was OK, just cosmetic.
The FAA determined he flew an un-airworthy plane because there could have been other damage or some such and suspended his ticket. My facts may be off but the impression I got was they can pursue action if a plane is damaged on the ground and not returned to service somehow.
 
ChemGuy said:
I think I remember an article about a guy who had a wingtip damaged that only removed some paint. He looked at it, and maybe an A&P on field looked and both agreed it was OK, just cosmetic.
The FAA determined he flew an un-airworthy plane because there could have been other damage or some such and suspended his ticket. My facts may be off but the impression I got was they can pursue action if a plane is damaged on the ground and not returned to service somehow.
Click to expand...

I know in the 121 world those FAA Mtc Insp look for stuff like this. It would po our Mtc Control folks because it would delay a flight of course, and then have to wait for a contract mechanic to show up, sometimes taking an hour or two. As an example, had one comment on a safety wire not completely centered on a wheel nut, bowed out a bit, so pics were taken and emailed to the company, contract maint called out to straighten the wire. It was fine to begin with but no one wanted a violation. CYA is the name of that game! ;)
 
ChemGuy said:
I think I remember an article about a guy who had a wingtip damaged that only removed some paint. He looked at it, and maybe an A&P on field looked and both agreed it was OK, just cosmetic.
The FAA determined he flew an un-airworthy plane because there could have been other damage or some such and suspended his ticket. My facts may be off but the impression I got was they can pursue action if a plane is damaged on the ground and not returned to service somehow.
Click to expand...

Could be the basic facts may be present, but I'll bet there's a whole lot more to the story. Like, FAA guy witnesses aircraft strike, believes (based on professional experience/knowledge) critical structural damage exists. Pilot ignores warning to have aircraft inspected and returned to service.
 
I'd be okay with something like what's in your picture. For example, I purchased my 182 with a similar dent on the rudder on a section made up only of sheet metal (likely caused by someone holding onto that weak section while inspecting the rudder on preflight). In my case, it's neither structural nor a major factor in the operating characteristics of the control surface. But the bottom line is, the pilot in command is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is airworthy before a flight so if I saw other damage show up overnight, I'd play it safe and have an A&P look at it before dismissing it.
 
After notifying the FBO ,would have my mechanic check it over.
 
wilkersk said:
Could be the basic facts may be present, but I'll bet there's a whole lot more to the story. Like, FAA guy witnesses aircraft strike, believes (based on professional experience/knowledge) critical structural damage exists. Pilot ignores warning to have aircraft inspected and returned to service.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Definitely more to the story.
 
ChemGuy said:
I think I remember an article about a guy who had a wingtip damaged that only removed some paint. He looked at it, and maybe an A&P on field looked and both agreed it was OK, just cosmetic.
The FAA determined he flew an un-airworthy plane because there could have been other damage or some such and suspended his ticket. My facts may be off but the impression I got was they can pursue action if a plane is damaged on the ground and not returned to service somehow.
Click to expand...
Every aircraft I've worked on has had a Structural Repair Manual (SRM). In that SRM has been a damage assessment chapter. A hidden damage inspection is always included/required. Structural damage to an aircraft must be addressed and documented.
 
I may be overly concerned, but no way in heck would I fly with your pic until mtc cleared it. I expected something much more minor before I clicked the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top