NavAir Grounded in YYC???

[COCO THE MONKEY]

FWIW...On the mu2's the landing pitch trim setting is the same as for takeoff and for that matter load distribution doesn't matter. The a/c is grossed at 11575 with such a short loading arm. A badly out of pitch trim situation is readily noticed early in the t/o run and can be quickly retrimmed. Trim indicators should be working of course but just about everything else matters more.

[Cat Driver]

So, how did a ramp check escalate into being grounded for an unserviceable trim indicator ?

Cat

[CID]

and if you do take off with either of these machines COMPLETELY out of trim, you're also an idiot, but it's still gonna be manageable

There are many articles and opinions published about the MU-2 and the vast majority of them state that the airplane is quite a challenge to fly.

It has a nasty safety record to back that up. Along with all the criticism are stories of runaway trim that made the airplane uncontrollable. Mainly after the accidental engagement of the autopilot or the disengagement of it after its is at the end of nose up trim in icing.

Haligoner, have you truly experienced flying an MU-2 "completely" out of trim? I seriously doubt you'd have the strength to maintain control.

The standards for such airplanes state something like:

It must be demonstrated that the airplane is safely controllable and that a pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to effect a safe landing following any probable powered trim system runaway that reasonably might be expected in service, allowing for appropriate time delay after pilot recognition of the trim system runaway. The demonstration must be conducted at the critical airplane weights and center of gravity positions.

The guidance material defines a "appropriate delay" as 3 seconds. After that the control forces required can't exceed 75 pounds.

A very popular book by a Cessna designer states that the control forces on the 210 control column with a runaway trim was several hundred pounds.

How would TC find a unserviceable trim indicator on a ramp check?

Excellent question. If it was just broken then TC would have had to try it out to find the problem. And if that was the case, then the pilots didn't snag it or the AMEs ignored or deferred it illegally. If it was deferred and placarded as such, then the maintenance guys screwed up since its not deferrable.

[Cat Driver]

Does TC now get into airplanes on ramp checks?

Cat

[. .]

I for one would sure like to have a working trim indication at night in icing. As the CofG is moving around it sure would be helpful to have a good sense for where it's going and how far it's moved. I guess the average super pilot posting on here wouldn't need something like that. They'd just know.

[altiplano]

-

[wrenchturner]

The only time I've ever heard of TC inspectors actually touching an airplane on a "ramp check" was when they got an anonymous tip from a disgruntled employee. Although I'm not a pilot and don't know the normal procedures, that is my understanding.

[J31]

Does TC now get into airplanes on ramp checks?

Cat

I know Cat I wish it was not true but here it is. The funny thing is I can not find any similar reg in CAR’s702.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#703_21
Admission to Pilot's Compartment
703.21 (1) Where a Department of Transport air carrier inspector presents an official identity card to the pilot-in-command of an aircraft, the pilot-in-command shall give the inspector free and uninterrupted access to the pilot's compartment of the aircraft.

The same in 704.21 and 705.27

I guess they just got in and turned the master on. I bet they checked the 1920’s Massy Fergusson fuel gage to see if there was enough fuel too .
Yes the Navajo trim indicators are notoriously poor gages but they should be in working condition.

[Mitch Cronin]

Part of TC's problem is that they attract the "book-pilots" who think that every aircraft has the same operational requirements. Where the f^5k is the common sense?!

Wow! ...That kind of "common sense" has killed an awful lot of people!

If that post is at all indicative of your general attitude toward aviation, ... I hope you fly alone...

Any rationalization to consider an aircraft airworthy with non-deferrable, no-go snag, no matter what it is, is most certainly not "common sense". If that's "common" where you fly, you're smack dab in the heart of what's known as "the normalization of deviance" and you might want to do some reading... try a Google search on that phrase.

[Cat Driver]

Well its been some time since I checked the aeronautics act, but as I recall it you are only compelled to produce the documents that are required to be carried with you.

As I recall you can refuse access to your aircraft and TC must get a search warrant to enter the aircraft.

So has something changed?

Just quickly scanning that CAR's link I am not sure exactly what they can do...hmmm

So am I to understand that they can now just arbitrarily interfeer in any commercial operations day with ramp checks that gives them the authority to tear the airplane apart?

What next , body cavity searches?

Cat

[golden hawk]

If you need a needle to tell you your plane is trimmed out you've got other problems...

I haven't flown anything over 12.5. But I have flown PA-31's. Discussing large aircraft or even MU2's and C210's is irrelevant since the only planes affected by this mass ramp check were Navajo's.

Since you didn't specify any aircraft in your first post, one could assume you were referring to all aircraft. And a comment like that IS relevant - I hope you never takeoff with one of your trims accidently set to full.

[2low]

nm

[scabber]

I hope that Navair is sent back to the crooked and obviously paid off Pacific region of transport.

Those airplanes are not airworthy, seriously, give your head a shake. Pull the OC, shut them down. There will be another company to do the work, and probably with equipment that isnt illegal and scary.

Check out the boots in the airplanes. not to mention that magical little swtich that changes the way the engine fires... I am sure transport would love to find that one.

[altiplano]

-

[J.P.WISER]

I watched a 310 land gear up on the runway due to a full trim situation!

The pilot believed there was an engine failure causing the yaw not a rudder trimmed fully to one side!! That was the way it was explained to me anyway(second hand but I did watch it slide to a stop) this happend just after takeoff, forgot that the gear went up allready. There was lots of room to have landed safely, if the gear had been down ofcourse!!

[haligoner]

CID,

As someone else pointed out, pretty much everything else matters more than a pitch trim indicator, on an MU2. I would worry far more about a split flap situation, for example. Or a loose fuel cap.

Mitch,

Sorry, but I stand by my common sense. TC DOES seem by and large to be populated by folk with little line-flying experience. My overriding concern on any flight is safety. Tell me...do you think a cheap mechanical trim indicator is a better way for me to know the position of a trim tab than actually visually inspecting the tab? Oh, but what about in flight? There was a comment somewhere about how they'd like to have a working trim indication at night in icing. Great idea if you're on autopilot. Except, those Navair MU2's don't have autopilots. If you'd ever flown an MU2 you'd know that you are CONSTANTLY trimming it...particularly roll trim as fuel transfers. Literally impossible to not notice a runaway trim - and let me tell you, on a Navajo, the first indication of runaway trim ain't gonna be you noticing that 1-inch diameter indicator!

The crucial time for pitch trim to be set correctly is for takeoff, which I believe I mentioned was positively checked on my walkaround - working or not, it seemed like better than trusting the linkage to that indicator - which incidentally, DID work on our Navajos (guess we were "safer")! After that, small adjustments are made to keep it in trim. Unless I'm missing something, in flight trim is set to relieve control pressure - not by a gauge!

Any rationalization to consider an aircraft airworthy with non-deferrable, no-go snag, no matter what it is, is most certainly not "common sense". If that's "common" where you fly, you're smack dab in the heart of what's known as "the normalization of deviance" and you might want to do some reading... try a Google search on that phrase.

Oh get off your high horse. This isn't the space shuttle, and the variance in complexity of systems make such a comparison ludicrous. Believe it or not, an a/c is actually quite airworthy, aeronautically speaking, without a pitch trim indicator. Legally speaking, of course not. But if you absolutely equate legality with safety, perhaps you SHOULD go work for TC, you'd fit right in. If you interpret that to mean I must be an insane crazy cowboy pilot, have at 'er. The irony of myself defending a pragmatic viewpoint amuses me. But having an intimate knowledge of both a/c types, it's a bit much to be hearing how the sky is falling over a HO PITCH INDICATOR!

Oh, and where I fly...we use MEL's, because strangely, most a/c can and do fly safely AND legally with little things broken all the time. The difference between my flying now and bag run planes is about 120 pax. So some common sense is applied.

This forum is more like "the normalization of deviants"!

[Expat]

TC bashing again...
Just think if they were not there...
In many countries there are no reliable inspectors. Those that show up for inspections come with an open hand and leave when there is something in it. Period.
We still have to fly those airplane and rely solely on mechanic ingenuity and pilot skill to stay alive!!!
Leave TC alone. At least they are not after buckshish!
Cheers,

[haligoner]

I hope that Navair is sent back to the crooked and obviously paid off Pacific region of transport.

Those airplanes are not airworthy, seriously, give your head a shake. Pull the OC, shut them down. There will be another company to do the work, and probably with equipment that isnt illegal and scary.

Check out the boots in the airplanes. not to mention that magical little swtich that changes the way the engine fires... I am sure transport would love to find that one.

Let me guess scabber, you're flying your survey 172, looking on with fear and awe and fascinated horror at the mighty HO's, thinking, why, they MUST be unsafe, they don't even have nice paint jobs!! That IS "scary" lol...I have to guess that's it because seriously, you don't have a clue. What, did one of your buddies tell you about the "magical switch that changes the way the engine fires"? Do you even know what that switch does or will you just make a vague comment and run away, afraid that your systems ignorance might get exposed? C'mon man, you seem to feel strongly about it, back up some of the tough comments with some hard facts as to why the "airplanes are not airworthy"!

Their planes ain't beautiful, but again, equating cosmetics with airworthiness only makes you sound like a flying club special....

[2low]

nm

[Mitch Cronin]

Tell me...do you think a cheap mechanical trim indicator is a better way for me to know the position of a trim tab than actually visually inspecting the tab?

No, but that's not the relevant question. The only question that needed to be asked is: Is the pitch trim indication deferrable as per your MEL? If not (and it sure sounds like it isn't) then you're not using the MEL, are you?... unless it suits you? Is that "common sense"?

You don't have to be flying the space shuttle to be unsafe... having evidently decided that "common sense" should prevail over what the books say means that you (or you and your maintenance staff?) are setting your own standards of airworthiness... which means all sorts of other factors, like parts availability, time pressures, need to get the job done pressures, etc, can effect those judgment calls... or "common sense"... which sure as hell ain't safe!

That "if you don't see it, you're an idiot" method leaves no room for the days a man doing his walkaround is distracted somehow just before he looks at the trim tab, does it? ... no room for human error at all... Are you a machine that never makes errors? What about the next guy that will fly that same bird? Even a genious can have moments where he's "an idiot"... do his passengers deserve what they get?

This is no "high horse" I'm on... it's just a certainty that when it comes to the airworthiness of a machine, the standards that apply need to be black and white, not grey and subject to an individuals interpretation... thats how accidents happen.

You never answered the mans question btw... If the stab trim indication is US, is the trim in motion indication going to function? Y'see that's one part of the problem with individuals applying what they feel is "common sense" when they make up their own standards to decide on the airworthiness of their birds.... they don't always consider all the other implications, where that MEL exists, it needs to be adhered to. Do you know what it means if something is NOT mentioned in the MEL? It's surprising how much confusion over that simple question there is sometimes...

When deviance becomes the norm... where are the lines?

New mechanic at Haligoner Air...(N): "Isn't that trim indication a no-go?"
Crusty old mechanic at H air... (C): "C'mon boy, use your common sense! they don't need this thing!"

later.... after there's a mess at the end of the runway, TC is asking mechanic N why he signed out an aircraft that couldn't make take-off EPR while keeping EGT within limits....?
N- "Common sense man, we do it all the time... it's cold up here, it shouldn't have been a problem!"

Standards exist for a damn good reason! It's not up to us to make up our own. That, sir, is true "common sense". ... or it sure as hell is where I work. And you and thousands of others every day ought to be thankful for that!

[2low]

nm

[cyyz]

TC bashing again...
Just think if they were not there...

If they weren't here we wouldn't be having 8 pages debates about PPC's.

[Dust Devil]

Ya gotta feel for the TC inspectors. It's a thankless proffesion. Sure there are bad guys out there, but there are also some good common sence guys out there as well. The Saskatoon office has some awsome guys. I had a suprise inspection yesterday and everything was cool. They gave me some advice on what to watch out for. and that was pretty well it. The saskatoon office has really givin me the feeling of if you have a problem or need anything at all feel free to give us a call and that they are not there to rake you over the coals but just to be sure things are being done safely.

[golden hawk]

» AirDisaster.Com » Accident Database » Accident Synopsis » 09201989

Date of Accident: 20 September 1989
Airline: USAir
Aircraft: Boeing 737-401
Location: Flushing, New York, USA
Registration: N416US
Previous Registrations: ---
Flight Number: 5050
Fatalities: 2:63
MSN: 23884
Line Number: 1643
Engine Manufacturer: CFM International
Engine Model: CFM56-3B2
Year of Delivery: 1988
Accident Description: The aircraft, on a scheduled flight from New York's La Guardia Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, started its takeoff roll at La Guardia runway 31 with a fully deflected rudder (16° left). During the takeoff roll, the aircraft began to drift to the left, and the Captain took control from the First Officer, who was the pilot-flying at the commencement of the takeoff. At 130kts (V1 was 125kts), about half way down the 7000 foot runway, the Captain rejected the takeoff. The aircraft overran the wet runway and dropped onto a wooden approach light pier, which collapsed causing the aircraft to break into three pieces and drop into the 15ft deep East River. The National Transporation Safety Board, in its final report, concluded the probable cause of the accident to be "the Captain's failure to exercise his command authority in a timely manner to reject the takeoff or take sufficient control to continue the takeoff, which was initiated with a mistrimmed rudder. Also causal was the Captain's failure to detect the mistrimmed rudder before the takeoff was attempted."

[KAG]

Dust devil, I couldn't agree more. I've had more positive experiences with TC than negative ones. There are some truely nice (and experienced) inspectors on staff. That being said, there are some a$$holes there too. Just like in any office.

[enter CAT drive anytime now]

Cheers.