What Would You Have Done?

[HerrGruyere]

Hey All,

Just curious about this situation:

I was headed up in the school's 172. I checked the squawk and about a week ago, the plane had lost power in downwind. Obviously, it made it back safely. There was just no engine power until they got it started on the taxiway. The A&P noted what was wrong and fixed it. However, seeing that a plane lost power a week ago was a bit unsettling - particularly since I was going solo in it that day.

I was paranoid and called my instructor. She said it was just fine, and that everything that needed to be repaired (something about servos and the like) was repaired. I took a look at how many flights it had taken since, and the Hobbes sheet was almost full. I felt reassured and my flight went off without a hitch. Plane ran like it normally does.

Was I just being a worry wart and it was okay to fly, or would you have asked for another plane or gone home?

For what it's worth, I've walked through the maintenance hangar and seen the aircraft's logbooks. The place is spotless (in a good way). Lots of nice equipment. The logbooks were packed with proper repairs and maintenance. The plane has always been in great shape aside from always being kinda grimy. The head mechanic's plane is immaculate, and he's restored it himself.

 

[Geico266]

Fly it.

Keep your pattern tighter than usual so if you lose power making the airport is no big deal. :


What was wrong?

 

[HerrGruyere]

Heh I did keep my pattern tight and my speed up just in case.

I'm not sure what exactly was wrong. It had something to do with a sensor/servo of sorts. Perhaps it was a mixture control? When I spoke with the instructor, the phone reception made for a very garbled conversation.

 

[TMetzinger]

If it's a newer 172, and fuel injected, then "servo" probably refers to the fuel delivery mechanism (which is as deep as I go without manuals in front of me).

I like the thought process you used (note the repair, note the many successful flights since, call your CFI). It's always a bit unsettling to use a piece of equipment that's recently failed and been repaired. But the reality is that such things happen regularly.

 

[Captain]

Planes have mechanical issues and mechanics fix those issues. Government certification is required to fix and fly these things as well as an extensive paper trail on everything and everybody.

When I see a write up I read what broke and what they did to fix it and make sure it's documented correctly and makes sense. Obviously if the write up is "ailerons jammed" and the corrective action is "topped off hydraulic system IAW MM" then we have a problem. But that never happens.

Just make sure every write up is signed off and you can basically understand what they did and then watch that system for abnormality. Problem with the engine? You bet I'd do a very thourough runup...as you should do anyway.

 

[Geico266]

Heh I did keep my pattern tight and my speed up just in case.

I'm not sure what exactly was wrong. It had something to do with a sensor/servo of sorts. Perhaps it was a mixture control? When I spoke with the instructor, the phone reception made for a very garbled conversation.

No time like the present to know exactly what happened. Part of your education. Track down the A&P and ask them to show you and explain what happened, until you are confident in knowing the entire fuel system (if that is what broke) so that you can learn about the airplane you are flying. He will be impressed you asked, and you will know about the plane that you put your passengers in. Never be shy to ask about maintenance issues.

 

[saracelica]

I flew 51nm as a student with one bad vacuum pump in a 172. (Yeah they have two but I would've been sunk if the second one went out) The A&P/IA said "It was fine" and my CFI said "That's why there are two"

I probably would've taken it around the pattern once and then made sure not to fly near a forest if I were your situation (so if I had to glide it in I would be in a farm field instead of a forest)

 

[bflynn]

What I would have done is talked with people until I understood what the issue was and why it was now fixed. A cessna is not a complicated airplane, you should be able to learn all the systems in it in a few weeks. As a pilot, that is your responsibility - not to take someone's word that everything is OK, but to know that it is.

 

[HerrGruyere]

My runup was as thorough as could be. I tried my best to hear any abnormal sounds, hesitations, sputters, etc. It flew okay, I was comfortable with the way it ran, I know our maintenance is good, so I went for it.

I'll take a look at the POH when I get home. Maybe I might be able to see what broke in there.

 

[Geico266]

My runup was as thorough as could be. I tried my best to hear any abnormal sounds, hesitations, sputters, etc. It flew okay, I was comfortable with the way it ran, I know our maintenance is good, so I went for it.

I'll take a look at the POH when I get home. Maybe I might be able to see what broke in there.

Pete, take the initiative and go to the source. Go see the A&P and learn the entire fuel system. Knowing it could save your life.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Heh I did keep my pattern tight and my speed up just in case.

I'm not sure what exactly was wrong. It had something to do with a sensor/servo of sorts. Perhaps it was a mixture control? When I spoke with the instructor, the phone reception made for a very garbled conversation.

Well, the fuel servo does control the fuel going into the engine, and the engine doesn't run well without the right amount of fuel. So, it is very likely that the fuel servo was the cause of the engine quitting. And if the problem is fixed...

The first couple flights one would want to exercise caution to make sure that the fuel servo was THE problem and not just A problem. Talking to the mechanic to get a feel for their confidence that they found THE problem might make you feel better (or worse).

It's an engine. Engines break, then they get fixed, and we go on.

 

[HerrGruyere]

It's an engine. Engines break, then they get fixed, and we go on.

Just like my old E30. I gotta remember that planes have parts that break and need repairing just like my cars. I must just place this all in a different category since they are planes and you can't just pull over for a second and call AAA.

 

[comanchepilot]

if you have any questions about maintenance you should ask to see the engine logbook - in this case. When you take an airplane up you are attesting to its airworthiness. So if you have any questions you need to have them answered - the engine log or airframe log should have a notation of what was fixed and that the airplane was ok for RTS. There is nothing wrong or unusual with that.

 

[HerrGruyere]

Our squawk log has a short description of what was repaired. Hence why I knew it was the servo/solenoid of sorts.

Since the A&Ps only work on the weekdays, I'm going to give the logs a good once over the next time I'm up there. Plus, we have numerous 172s to choose from, so I don't mind going to a different plane. The junkiest looking one is actually one of the best ones because nobody ever flies it since it looks so crummy.

 

[FlySince9]

You shouldn't be as nervous about something that was concientiously reported, professionally repaired, and properly logged. What should really crack your nut is thinking about the stuff that might not have been, especially in rentals...

 

[MAKG1]

When I see a write up I read what broke and what they did to fix it and make sure it's documented correctly and makes sense.

There are things that can fall through that.

For instance, someone squawks a soft right brake. The mechanic inspects the cylinder, finds it leaking, and replaces an O-ring. A few days later, the brake fails again. Why? Because the O-ring didn't just die; it was killed. Next repair replaces the cylinder. This time it works.

In another aircraft, some idiot bounces the aircraft seven times and shears off the nosegear strut pin. Pin replaced; next day the nosegear strut is flat. Replace O-rings, same thing. This goes back and forth several times until the whole nosegear strut is eventually replaced, months later.

An injector can fail because it wears out. It can also fail because it gets plugged with crap from the fuel tank (sediment, delamination, whatever). I'd be nervous as well, and would plan flights accordingly.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

There are things that can fall through that.

For instance, someone squawks a soft right brake. The mechanic inspects the cylinder, finds it leaking, and replaces an O-ring. A few days later, the brake fails again. Why? Because the O-ring didn't just die; it was killed. Next repair replaces the cylinder. This time it works.

In another aircraft, some idiot bounces the aircraft seven times and shears off the nosegear strut pin. Pin replaced; next day the nosegear strut is flat. Replace O-rings, same thing. This goes back and forth several times until the whole nosegear strut is eventually replaced, months later.

An injector can fail because it wears out. It can also fail because it gets plugged with crap from the fuel tank (sediment, delamination, whatever). I'd be nervous as well, and would plan flights accordingly.

The difference between fixing A problem and THE problem. Eh?

On the other hand, would you rather fly the airplane that was just fixed, or the one that is about to break?

 

[NineThreeKilo]

I flew 51nm as a student with one bad vacuum pump in a 172. (Yeah they have two but I would've been sunk if the second one went out)

How would you have been sunk? Were you flying in IMC? Many of the aircraft I have flown dont even have a vacuum system.


Also I dont understand the call the CFI thing, unless that CFI has a AP I really wouldnt be too interested in his opinion aside from how he thought it flew. The first I would talk to would be the AP who signed it off.

Also remember just because it's signed off doesnt mean it was fixed.

 

[AdamZ]

How would you have been sunk? Were you flying in IMC? Many of the aircraft I have flown dont even have a vacuum system.


Also I dont understand the call the CFI thing, unless that CFI has a AP I really wouldnt be too interested in his opinion aside from how he thought it flew. The first I would talk to would be the AP who signed it off.

Also remember just because it's signed off doesnt mean it was fixed.

Not sure of the OP's time and experience but CFIs are good sources to bounce things off of and I'd venture to say that a lot of low time pilots turn to their CFI's for advice on a lot of things flying. Heck I've been at it for 9 years and on occasion I'll consult with my CFI or IIs for advice on something. Sure Mx is tha A&Ps thing but at least the CFI can point you in the right direction.

 

[HerrGruyere]

For what it's worth, I have about 33 hours and am gearing up for my XC solos. I usually turn to my CFI for help and advice - particularly what she would and wouldn't do. It helps give perspective to situations like these.

Thanks for the sage advice from many of you!

 

[j1b3h0]

Pete - It's a good thing to be superstitious, err, sceptical of an aircraft's maint history; that kind of concern will keep you alive. Sometimes a short conversation with the A&P can allay concerns...or highten them. If engine(s) don't run right or flippers don't flip right, you got big problems.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

The difference between fixing A problem and THE problem. Eh?

On the other hand, would you rather fly the airplane that was just fixed, or the one that is about to break?

Definitely one that was just fixed. I spent the longest 35 minutes of my life flying over the ocean in a single engine helicopter with a chip detector light staring me in the face.

 

[MAKG1]

On the other hand, would you rather fly the airplane that was just fixed, or the one that is about to break?

False dichotomy. You don't have to do either one of those. The first can often be avoided, and the second one is unknowable.

And, just because it was just fixed doesn't mean it isn't about to break. For certain types of repairs, the most risky time is right after return to service.

 

[Jaybird180]

Also I dont understand the call the CFI thing, unless that CFI has a AP I really wouldnt be too interested in his opinion aside from how he thought it flew. The first I would talk to would be the AP who signed it off.

That's because a STUDENT has a bond of trust with the CFI, who is also legally responsible for the safety of the flight. CFI's aren't omnipresent, so he/she may not have known about the maintenance issue and may interevene on behalf of the student if the CFI has reason to suspect that it wasn't taken care of. Lastly, the CFI is a valuable resource of knowledge and this situation a good opportunity to learn something that will not be found on most syllabi.

 

[denverpilot]

I flew 51nm as a student with one bad vacuum pump in a 172. (Yeah they have two but I would've been sunk if the second one went out) The A&P/IA said "It was fine" and my CFI said "That's why there are two"

I probably would've taken it around the pattern once and then made sure not to fly near a forest if I were your situation (so if I had to glide it in I would be in a farm field instead of a forest)

Very few Skyhawks have two. Just letting you know. Know your specific airplane...

 

[texasag93]

It was fixed and people had flown before you and after your engine failure.

Fly.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

That's because a STUDENT has a bond of trust with the CFI, who is also legally responsible for the safety of the flight. CFI's aren't omnipresent, so he/she may not have known about the maintenance issue and may interevene on behalf of the student if the CFI has reason to suspect that it wasn't taken care of. Lastly, the CFI is a valuable resource of knowledge and this situation a good opportunity to learn something that will not be found on most syllabi.

As a CFI, one of the things I teach my students is to know where to find the answers and the above situation would have been a great excerise in learning log books, some light engine knowledge, talking to A&Ps etc. After that lesson, I would have wanted to hear my student say how they were going to treat this aircraft now, would they fly a x-country with it or just keep it in the pattern

 

[GCA319]

Not sure of the OP's time and experience but CFIs are good sources to bounce things off of and I'd venture to say that a lot of low time pilots turn to their CFI's for advice on a lot of things flying. Heck I've been at it for 9 years and on occasion I'll consult with my CFI or IIs for advice on something. Sure Mx is tha A&Ps thing but at least the CFI can point you in the right direction.

I'm a CFI myself and I still go back to my primary CFI for advice all the time. That being said, I tend to agree that the A & P who fixed it is the better person to consult if at all possible.

 

[wabower]

What part of an injector do you most often find to be worn out?

There are things that can fall through that.

For instance, someone squawks a soft right brake. The mechanic inspects the cylinder, finds it leaking, and replaces an O-ring. A few days later, the brake fails again. Why? Because the O-ring didn't just die; it was killed. Next repair replaces the cylinder. This time it works.

In another aircraft, some idiot bounces the aircraft seven times and shears off the nosegear strut pin. Pin replaced; next day the nosegear strut is flat. Replace O-rings, same thing. This goes back and forth several times until the whole nosegear strut is eventually replaced, months later.

An injector can fail because it wears out. It can also fail because it gets plugged with crap from the fuel tank (sediment, delamination, whatever). I'd be nervous as well, and would plan flights accordingly.

 

[MAKG1]

What part of an injector do you most often find to be worn out?

My experience is with cars, which almost always have electrical injectors (unlike most aircraft). The #1 fault is having them plugged with crap (bad fuel, rusty tank, sometimes just sitting for a really long time). #2 is an open solenoid. Then, the pintle wears, but that takes far longer than most people think. My point was that if someone replaces an injector that isn't behaving properly, the replacement may also misbehave right away because the fault is upstream (contamination).

 

[X3 Skier]

Our club has a "Blue Book' for each plane when you check a plane out and one section is write-ups and fixes. I always read that section intensely.

Very illuminating a while ago. Two write ups for engine stuttering on low power taxi after flight. First was cleared with "Ops Check OK" and the second with "Carburetor replaced, Ops Check OK". Glad I flew it after the second writeup.

If the OP's case, that would have been in the "Blue Book" and since it happened in flight and if I was the first to fly after the fix, I would have had some discussions with the A&P or a handy high time CFI. If there were a few flights after the fix, I would have gone ahead and flown.

Cheers

 

[DavidWhite]

I flew 51nm as a student with one bad vacuum pump in a 172. (Yeah they have two but I would've been sunk if the second one went out) The A&P/IA said "It was fine" and my CFI said "That's why there are two"

I probably would've taken it around the pattern once and then made sure not to fly near a forest if I were your situation (so if I had to glide it in I would be in a farm field instead of a forest)

Why would you have been sunk if the second one failed? Why are you even looking inside the airplane? They teach instrument pilots how to cope with a vacuum failure, they dont teach it to PP students because it doesnt matter.

 

[HerrGruyere]

If the OP's case, that would have been in the "Blue Book" and since it happened in flight and if I was the first to fly after the fix, I would have had some discussions with the A&P or a handy high time CFI. If there were a few flights after the fix, I would have gone ahead and flown.

Yeah, I made the decision to fly since so many others had flown after the fix and nothing else had been reported since then.