A little slideshow for your viewing pleasure. These are pics taken of some of the patches found on CGAQW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljfPoxHrkI
If you are a pilot, would you fly an aircraft patched this way?
If you are a mechanic, would you allow an aircraft to fly patched this way?
Questions? Comments?
Patchwork Beaver
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
LostinRotation
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location: Cloud #8
Widow:
This post reminds of media sensationalism. You show some pictures and then ask some questions with the implication that the plane was flown in this condition. So let me ask you....was it? If it was then state it as so.
If not, then this is unfair sensationalism.
Please, clarify
This post reminds of media sensationalism. You show some pictures and then ask some questions with the implication that the plane was flown in this condition. So let me ask you....was it? If it was then state it as so.
If not, then this is unfair sensationalism.
Please, clarify
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Please refer to AC 43-13, which is available online at:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument
As any mechanical technician or graduate engineer can tell you, a "patch" which may not be aesthetically pleasing, does not make an aircraft less mechanically solid - in fact the exact opposite is true, if performed IAW AC 43-13.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument
As any mechanical technician or graduate engineer can tell you, a "patch" which may not be aesthetically pleasing, does not make an aircraft less mechanically solid - in fact the exact opposite is true, if performed IAW AC 43-13.
-
Clearwater
- Rank 3
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:57 am
.
Last edited by Clearwater on Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Apparently these patches are supposed to cause us all to recoil in terror and disbelief. It begs the question, if these patches indicated such obvious poor repairs, why didn't the pilot identify them on the pre-flight inspection and refuse to fly?
widow, next time you fly commercially on a large jet, please don't look around any of the cargo doors.
widow, next time you fly commercially on a large jet, please don't look around any of the cargo doors.
The patches are hardly of significance compared to the corrosion that is evident. Surprising that there was any real metal for the patch rivets to contact. Yes many floats have repairs that may not look the best but will in all probability meet the standard, except that many of them I am sure, do not have this level of corrosion.
Regards
carholme
Regards
carholme
It is easy for non-technicians to be fooled by cosmetic appearances.
You can have a shiny aircraft with a new paint job that looks wonderful to pax and pilots alike, but alas it may suffer badly from cracked and corroded wing spars.
Similarly, you can have an aircraft that looks like a dog's breakfast - the paint job is mostly gone - but (e.g.) if it's spent it's life in the desert, away from the salt and humidity, it may have almost no internal corrosion, and is in fact a far superior aircraft mechanically to the above.
What was that song by the Northern Pikes - "She Ain't Pretty, She Just Looks That Way?"
You can have a shiny aircraft with a new paint job that looks wonderful to pax and pilots alike, but alas it may suffer badly from cracked and corroded wing spars.
Similarly, you can have an aircraft that looks like a dog's breakfast - the paint job is mostly gone - but (e.g.) if it's spent it's life in the desert, away from the salt and humidity, it may have almost no internal corrosion, and is in fact a far superior aircraft mechanically to the above.
What was that song by the Northern Pikes - "She Ain't Pretty, She Just Looks That Way?"
Hedley,
I think what my partner is trying to point out, from the benefit of his highly technical bacground, is the rather alarming level of corrosion evident from the pictures...
Cheers,
Snoopy
I think what my partner is trying to point out, from the benefit of his highly technical bacground, is the rather alarming level of corrosion evident from the pictures...
Cheers,
Snoopy
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Please refer to AC 43-13, which is available online at:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument
As any mechanical technician or graduate engineer can tell you, a "patch" which may not be aesthetically pleasing, does not make an aircraft less mechanically solid - in fact the exact opposite is true, if performed IAW AC 43-13.
_________________
Hedley.
This is a little off topic, but...."please refer to.." "If performed IAW.."
Sounds a lot like an official TC response....please tell us you haven't gone to the dark side.....
You are of course quite right of course. I think the dear widow sometimes works on the shotgun theory and goes over the limits occassionally....but she eventually gets it right.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument
As any mechanical technician or graduate engineer can tell you, a "patch" which may not be aesthetically pleasing, does not make an aircraft less mechanically solid - in fact the exact opposite is true, if performed IAW AC 43-13.
_________________
Hedley.
This is a little off topic, but...."please refer to.." "If performed IAW.."
Sounds a lot like an official TC response....please tell us you haven't gone to the dark side.....
You are of course quite right of course. I think the dear widow sometimes works on the shotgun theory and goes over the limits occassionally....but she eventually gets it right.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
CID, for the pilot to have visually inspected some of those patches he would have needed scuba gear.why didn't the pilot identify them on the pre-flight inspection and refuse to fly?
Commercial aircraft operators in Canada are required to have and depend on either their own or a contract AMO.
It is the responsibility of the regulator who issues these certificates to oversee all operators for compliance to the regulations.....
...nowhere can I find the requirement for a pilot to don scuba gear to confirm that the floats are as signed out in the log book.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
This is from the TCCA M&M Safety Inspector's Report Dec. 2006:
From the AnalysisAircraft Inspection and Technical Review
To record observations, a skin map of both floats was made. These maps are in the form of notated copies of the applicable EDO parts drawing. The repairs to the floats are identified on the skin maps. For each repair there is a representative photograph identified by number.
The data plate attached to the front of the left float identified it as an EDO model 58-4580 serial number 1441. The front of the right float was missing. Type Certificate A22 approves this installation.
The required data for all major repairs to the aircraft must have met the requirements of Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 571.06 which states “the major repair or major modification conforms to the requirements of the relevant technical data
(a) that have been approved or the use of which has been approved within the meaning of the term "approved data" in section 571.06 of the Airworthiness Manual; or
(b) that have been established within the meaning of the term "specified data" in section 571.06 of the Airworthiness Manual.”
The related specified data, as defined in Standard 571 Maintenance Section 571.06, can be found in the deHavilland DHC-2 Beaver Repair Manual PSM 1-2-3 and in the FAA document AC 43.13-1b. Excerpts from both these documents are attached.
Most of the repairs examined conformed to the specifications of one of the above mentioned documents.
Review of the aircraft’s technical record revealed that reference to required data relating to numerous observed repairs was missing.
There were numerous repairs to all the Deck Combings. When new, the combing part is a continuous unit from the back to the front of the float. The manual PSM 1-2-3 shows no repairs to the combing. Standard 571.06(1), regarding use of FAA AC43.13-1A, states “(iii) the data are appropriate to the product being altered, and are directly applicable to the alteration being made;” The AC does not contain data “directly applicable” therefore cannot be used.
The engine firewall between the accessory section and the cylinders contained several repairs and one hole of about one centimeter wide and eight centimeters long. That the aircraft flew with this hole in the firewall is certain however it has not been shown that the hole was present at the last inspection of the area. One of the repairs appears to have used aluminum rivets to fasten a stainless steel patch to the stainless steel firewall.
The aircraft’s technical records referred to some repairs to the floats however did not address all of the repairs on the floats or the firewall that were found.
*sorry, I don't know how I did that ... I edited this instead of the other, anyway, it's back.There were numerous structural patches and evidence of sealant being applied inside the right float however there is no documentation or visual evidence to prove the claim that they were “leakers”.
Inspection of the float access panels indicated that there was no sealant in place on the date and at the time of this inspection.
The required scheduled inspections at the time of the accident are found in the Maintenance Schedule approved on 19 August 2002. That document required the Periodic (100 hour) Inspections as specified in PSM 1.2.2. The Daily and Periodic Inspections in Appendix 2 require that the floats be checker for leaks “by applying a bilge pump to all stand pipes.”
The DHC-2 Beaver Maintenance Manual PSM 1-2-2 does address float leakage. Section 2.34 allows water seepage from one compartment to another of one cup in ten minutes. The Manual does not explain how this measurement is to be done.
PSM 1.2.2 Section 2.35 states that “Water tests should be make after every overhaul as well as for the general detection of leaks.” The Manual specifies a test procedure of filling compartments with water to check for leakage between compartments and to the exterior. It does not specify any period for this test.
The float bottoms had a thin coating of paint over corroded areas. Whether the paint was applied over the observed corrosion or the corrosion occurred after the paint job was not determined.
Last edited by Widow on Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
A little slideshow for your viewing pleasure. These are pics taken of some of the patches found on CGAQW
Perhaps if you had provided the supporting documentation from the start you would have recieved a more positive response. Point out a bush plane to me and tell me it's not patched anywhere, and I'll tell you your not looking that hard.If you are a pilot, would you fly an aircraft patched this way?
If you are a mechanic, would you allow an aircraft to fly patched this way?
My apologies, sometimes I forget that not everyone has read my previous posts providing this information.Meecka wrote: Perhaps if you had provided the supporting documentation from the start you would have recieved a more positive response. Point out a bush plane to me and tell me it's not patched anywhere, and I'll tell you your not looking that hard.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
kingeddie
- Rank 3
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:59 pm
- Location: Rotting at an IA base near you
I agree with the consensus . I flew a bell 204 that had patches in the boom that when viewed from the inside were obviously bullet holes from it's mliitary life , they were not asthetically pleasing but were structurally sound . And I have flown beavers where the only places on the float bottom skins that didn't stress crack were the patches .
The firewall that's being refered to here in this thread is actually an accessory fireshield & not the actual Firewall. The Accessory fireshield is primarily aluminum structure & acts as a heat shield to protect the engine components. They are typically found in rough shape as they tend to be subjected to heat, exhaust & vibration. This accessory fireshield is non-structural.
One of the repairs appears to have used aluminum rivets to fasten a stainless steel patch to the stainless steel firewall.
Are they wrong? I was led to believe this patch was on the actual firewall, although the report does not make that clear.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
It goes to care and quality of maintenance. We didn't identify the firewall patches as problems, TCCA did. We identified the multiple slap-happy float patches and forced TCCA to come and look at them since TSB "don't have the expertise".
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Don't forget this observation:
Patches are a repair.
Corrosion is a serious issue and can very quickly change an airworthy component into an unairworthy component.
The patches are hardly of significance compared to the corrosion that is evident. Surprising that there was any real metal for the patch rivets to contact. Yes many floats have repairs that may not look the best but will in all probability meet the standard, except that many of them I am sure, do not have this level of corrosion.
Patches are a repair.
Corrosion is a serious issue and can very quickly change an airworthy component into an unairworthy component.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
As you stated "some" can't be easily inspected, others can. And you're right. There's no regulatory requirment for pilots to don scuba gear. Just as there's no requirment on this forum to avoid making silly, sensational or alarmist statements....nowhere can I find the requirement for a pilot to don scuba gear to confirm that the floats are as signed out in the log book.
Cheers.
Unapproved repairs which have the potential to make the aircraft structurally unsound (such as repairs to deck coamings) are hardly likely to be documented - as in this case.CID wrote:why didn't the pilot identify them on the pre-flight inspection and refuse to fly?
Without scuba gear, the pilot could not have identified this deficiency.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
