Corn Field or Bean Field

[pelmet]

All other then things equal, I think most of us prefer a bean field for an off airport landing compared to tall corn.

But what if the corn field has been cut? I read this in another forum and found it interesting…..

“ Choosing between beans and corn in the fall is a total no brainer. Beans all the way. The reason is that corn will have been cut a few inches above the soil when harvested, creating millions of little knives that want to slice through your sidewall, pop the tire and increase the likelihood that you flip when you suddenly stop rolling.”

[PilotDAR]

A long time ago, a fellow I knew put his Cherokee 140 into a corn field. Yeah, the leading edges were pretty dented. They were musing the amount of work to rebuild the wings. I suggested that a STOL kit cuff might cover the damage, and it did! It's worthy of note that most low wing Pipers (unlike Cessnas) do not provide a criteria for "negligible damage" so any dents would be considered as requiring repair.

[photofly]

It's worthy of note that most low wing Pipers (unlike Cessnas) do not provide a criteria for "negligible damage" so any dents would be considered as requiring repair.

If there was a minor ding in your Cessna leading edge, and you flew without repairing it, what argument would TC advance if they wanted to pursue an enforcement action against you you for so doing?

[anofly1]

if the corn is off, most of ontario it has 6-8 inch stalks. it is pretty late in the year.
By the time the corn is off most bean fields are planted into winter wheat, it will be 4-6 inches like grass, but the field is likely pretty soft, by the time the corn is off... mid summer head for hay or wheat, or maybe beans but there is a lot less hay around these days... corn will be 5-7 feet high by mid summer. beans will be 1-2 feet.

[boeingboy]

If there was a minor ding in your Cessna leading edge, and you flew without repairing it, what argument would TC advance if they wanted to pursue an enforcement action against you you for so doing?

They couldn't.
The SRM gives guidance for negligible damage. Of course you would need it signed by an AME to make it legal, but that would not be a problem. Cessna is very good with their damage limits.

[photofly]

I'm sorry - I mis-typed. I meant to ask about damage to a Piper, for which there is no guide for negligible damage. I (minorly) ding my Piper wing, and continue flying. What regulation have I breached?

[karmutzen]

Like Admiral Nelson raising the telescope to his blind eye during the Battle of Copenhagen ..." what damage? I never saw any..."

[PilotDAR]

I (minorly) ding my Piper wing, and continue flying. What regulation have I breached?

The airplane does not conform to it's type design, therefore the C of A is not valid. As ridiculous as this seems, it is literal. This came up years ago as a client bought a U.S. PA-28-161 with hail damage. It looked like a golf ball, but he got a real deal. The error was that he had it de registered from the FAA when it arrived in Canada. It could not be imported with any damage, much less what it had. Ultimately he found some unrelated and non applicable Piper data, which I was able to apply in an approval to this airplane. That Piper data still required that he had to replace all flight control skins, which he did, but the wing and fuselage damage was within limits. I still had to do a test flight to satisfy TC, and an approval to give the "condition" approved data for the import. After that, he imported it fine. I suspect it didn't end up being the deal he had hoped for. Were it to have been a Cessna, it would have been no problem. I'm very confident that any reasonable AME would have let the damage pass on an annual inspection, but this was an import. In either case, there was no data to allow the damage.

Thread drifting the topic somewhat, I was assigned to listen and comment DHC/Bombardier presentations for an operator's conference for Twin Otters, back in the '90's. Being Bombardier origin, and primarily Dash 8 and RJ engineering types preparing the presentations, they weren't quite Twin Otter typical (which was why the boss had me sit in!). One presentation on damage tolerance and repair went something like: ".... suppose you have a seventeen thou deep dent near the baggage door....". I interrupted: "on a Twin Otter!?!, Have you looked at a well used Twin Otter fuselage? The boss supported my suggestion that 0.017" skin perfection was a little too much to expect for a Twin Otter. So the presenter begrudgingly changed it to 0.170" deep [requiring repair]. I still shuddered, but that was as far as engineering would give on that... As I sat at the operator's conference, in the crowd (and I can say that at that conference, 80% of the worldwide fleet was represented by a person in the audience), I knew what was coming.... ".... suppose you have a [ three.... two.... one.....] hundred and seventy thou deep dent near the baggage door...." and I listened to a room full of very experienced Twin Otter operators gasp and mutter to each other: "we're supposed to repair those!?!". I'm sure most of them still flying to this day with half inch deep dents near the baggage door, and quite fine at that. Manufacturers do have to try to figure how their aircraft are used and abused - at least Cessna and DHC made an effort!

[TrilliumFlt]

Many outlandings in my sailplane flying days, I'll take a bean field anytime over corn hands down. Cut corn isn't even fun to waalk thru let alone land in.

[pelmet]

It's worthy of note that most low wing Pipers (unlike Cessnas) do not provide a criteria for "negligible damage" so any dents would be considered as requiring repair.

If there was a minor ding in your Cessna leading edge, and you flew without repairing it, what argument would TC advance if they wanted to pursue an enforcement action against you you for so doing?

Having rented Cessna’s from various schools, most have dents in them.

One school had a fleet of S-models which were in nice shape. There was the occasional small bit of damage that had a label beside it with some maintenance info on it.

[photofly]

I (minorly) ding my Piper wing, and continue flying. What regulation have I breached?

The airplane does not conform to it's type design, therefore the C of A is not valid.

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

[2R]

Probably more to do with the Laminar flow design of the Piper wing . It would probably still fly with hail damage . Dimples on a golf ball actually improve the aerodynamic flight of a golf ball . If the dimples were a nice pattern they might be worth keeping .
Some of the factory installed equipment missing , placards and stuff can be expensive on an importation .
Watch one guy fly with two inches of snow and ice on his Piper Cherokee 180 . He was real proud of himself . It did not lose much speed at all he said and he thought it might blow off on take off . It had melted and refrozen a few times so it wasn’t going to just blow off .The problem for him would have been if the snow and ice just blew off one side . The warmer side .

[mmm..bacon]

Y'all are some pretty good amateur farmers!

In an emergency off-strip landing (engine failure?) I'd be happy with a long enough field without obstacles or power lines running through it.
Then, I'd worry about getting my own ass down safely, closely followed by my pax (if any.)
Last thing I'd worry about is the type of salad I might have to survive on while waiting for the rescuers to arrive!

Damage? Isn't that the insurance company's headache?

[photofly]

I (minorly) ding my Piper wing, and continue flying. What regulation have I breached?

The airplane does not conform to it's type design, therefore the C of A is not valid.

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

Here you are:
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 5/index.do

Choice quotes, in no particular order:


"this case does not turn on such a distinction. Rather, it turns on the legal question of whether, under the CARs, damage or any other defect, by itself, is a matter going to “conformity to type design”, “fit and safe state for flight”, or both."

"[42] In the Minister’s view, in the absence of any specific approved maintenance instructions, all in-service defects must be viewed solely through the lens of conformity with the type design. It would follow from this view that, even where the aircraft with such a defect (as here) is in a fit and safe state for flight, the aircraft nonetheless would not conform with its type design, and its flight authority would therefore be invalid."

[49] We are of the view that the Minister’s interpretation conflates the two distinct concepts of “fit and safe state for flight” (CARs paragraph 507.02(c)) and “conformity with … type design” (CARs paragraph 507.02(b)). We are also of the view that to interpret the provision as the Minister proposes is to strain the definitions of “airworthiness” and “type design” in a way that is contrary to the plain meaning of the terms, does not comport with the scheme of the CARs, and is unnecessary to advance the purposes of the CARs. We are further of the view that this interpretation would lead to regulatory and operational uncertainty. We therefore reject the Minister’s interpretation of “in conformity with its type design”.

[50] As already observed, the definition of “type design” begins with the words “type design means”, not “type design includes”. What follows is a highly particularized list. This strongly suggests that this definition is intended to be exhaustive. This must be contrasted with the very broadly-worded alternative heading of airworthiness, namely that the aircraft must be in a “fit and safe state for flight”. It is therefore our view that “conformity to type design”, properly interpreted, is restricted to those items enumerated in the definition of “type design”, leaving all residual issues of airworthiness to be determined instead on the basis of whether the aircraft is in a fit and safe state for flight.

[51] This is directly contrary to the Minister’s view that “type design” is the residuary category for all safety items not explicitly listed in a maintenance manual. In particular, the definition of “type design” does not state, or even imply, that any defect that is not explicitly addressed in a maintenance manual therefore automatically falls within the definition of “type design”. We find that this strongly militates against the Minister’s preferred interpretation of “type design”.


"The type design is the template for the manufacture of new aircraft. So, all new aircraft will be in new condition and will conform, but to assert the converse is to fall into the logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent” In other words, from the Minister’s premise, it does not necessarily follow that an aircraft that is not in factory-fresh condition is therefore not in conformity. We therefore cannot accept the Minister’s chain of logic. It does not displace the standard legal tools of statutory interpretation that we have applied above."

"[66] For all of these reasons, when reading the relevant sections in their grammatical and ordinary sense, in context and in a manner that is harmonious with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament, we are forced to reject an interpretation of the CARs that would deem any aircraft which is not in new condition and not within a tolerance explicitly specified in the instructions for continued maintenance, to be non-conforming. Such an aircraft might well be unfit, or not in a safe state for flight. But to say that it is also non-conforming is to add an additional and unnecessary element to the interpretation of the CARs that is neither found in a plain reading nor supported by the scheme or purpose of the regulations.

[67] Rather, our view is that the occurrence of a defect in an aircraft part does not, in itself, raise a question of its conformity to type design. Rather, it brings into question whether the part is in a fit and safe state for flight."

[JasonE]

Sometimes you don't get a choice. I got lucky and was able to pick a runway.

[Bede]

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

[photofly]

Didn't I post a link to that, a few posts prior?

[Cliff Jumper]

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

[digits_]

I (minorly) ding my Piper wing, and continue flying. What regulation have I breached?

The airplane does not conform to it's type design, therefore the C of A is not valid.

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

I found a link to the case you were talking about:
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

[photofly]

Aha. Thanks.

[cncpc]

The airplane does not conform to it's type design, therefore the C of A is not valid.

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

I found a link to the case you were talking about:
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

That is a very, very, interesting case. I will be making a new thread in General regarding an absurd court finding in Calgary last month in which all of this is in play, and in which the law, in respect of small carrier aircraft leasing, is significantly changed.The decision results in certain potential financial time bombs facing lessees of small 702/703 aircraft with the lease being solely based on the short form "Transport Canada" lease that is submitted to register a leased aircraft to a commercial lessee.

I made my comment in this thread somewhat facetiously. I have a very knowledgeable acquaintance with TC and TSB credentials, and he told me that in theory, an aircraft no longer meets its type design the moment something first adheres to its surface, or chips from it, after it leaves the production line. He acknowledges that the practical meaning is much different, and the focus is on safe to fly, which means all inspections are within time, all time lifed products are within their lives, and any defects logged are either deferred or rectified.

[photofly]

I made my comment in this thread somewhat facetiously. I have a very knowledgeable acquaintance with TC and TSB credentials, and he told me that in theory, an aircraft no longer meets its type design the moment something first adheres to its surface, or chips from it, after it leaves the production line.

You can tell him that the quasi-judicial tribunal charged with interpreting the regulations says he's completely wrong.


The one thing I don't understand about that case is why EVAS pursued it (abeit that I'm very glad they did.) They must have spent ten or twenty times more on legal fees than they saved by having the $5k fine cancelled. Does anyone have a contact there and want to pm me?

[cncpc]

I made my comment in this thread somewhat facetiously. I have a very knowledgeable acquaintance with TC and TSB credentials, and he told me that in theory, an aircraft no longer meets its type design the moment something first adheres to its surface, or chips from it, after it leaves the production line.

You can tell him that the quasi-judicial tribunal charged with interpreting the regulations says he's completely wrong.

The one thing I don't understand about that case is why EVAS pursued it (abeit that I'm very glad they did.) They must have spent ten or twenty times more on legal fees than they saved by having the $5k fine cancelled. Does anyone have a contact there and want to pm me?

His point was that the only meaningful component of the phrase defining airworthiness as "safe for flight and in conformity with the type design" is ..."safe for flight". That is because very few buggers know WTF "in conformity with the type design" means and focusing on that will be like trying to pick up mercury with a fork. My friend's view is exactly that of the quasi-judicial tribunal. I am sure he was referring to the worst type of TC inspector. The example he used was if the paint was scratched while it was parked on the manufacturer's ramp. His point was that it is possible that some dweeb could consider a paint scratch as non conformity. The countervailing wisdom might be expressed as "...there's a difference between scratching your ass and ripping it to shreds". The good TC inspectors, and most of them are, know what is safe and what isn't.

I commend EVAS for standing up to this. Perhaps consider their legal costs as an investment that leads to future profits that come from not having to deal with horseshit like this in the future. The industry should be grateful, because the ruling they obtained benefits the entire industry by making it less susceptible to the Inspector Clouseaus of Transport.

[digits_]

One of the more colorful characters running a 703 op around here claims he always fights whatever finding or or enforcement action TC comes up with, even if they are right. That way "the bastards will think twice before bothering me again".

They didn't shut him down yet.

Maybe EVAS subscribed to the same philosophy? Saving on pilot salaries might give you more budget to spend on the legal department...

[cncpc]

Getting back to the main topic, my answer is "Who cares?". Unless you think your duty is to perfectly preserve the aircraft for immediate resale, instead of to minimize or eliminate harm to your passengers and yourself, don't be trying to stretch a deadstick glide over a corn field to a bean field, or the other way around if you see some merit with the corn stalks.

If you lose power, and it is not possible to find a "regular" landing site, you will survive if you can find a reasonably lengthy (100-200 meters) opening which is flat(ish) and does not have anything that will bring you to a complete stop within a foot or two of your touchdown. In this case, we have arrived at either a corn field or a bean field. If you really think at that point which it is that is important, I take it you're not really aware of what goes on in a crash sequence. It's all about touching down under control at minimum flying speed and it doesn't matter beans whether its corn or not or hay or a big cannabis field, or along the shore of some body of water.

In this case, we have a field. Glide there, and land like you usually do. Buy some new fucking tires if the corn stalks cut them, for Christ's sakes.