How much damage history = no buy/fly?

[poadeleted21]

Let me see if I'm getting this straight: The left main gear fell off the airplane on take-off and before he could get around to crash landing he ran out of fuel?

Tell me it ain't so

That site searches "some other" database too, FAA Incident or something like that. Those are two separate incidents.

There was a guy who flew out of my airport who had a jumper shear off the gear on his 182, he was full fuel so circled for a few hours to burn it off, then didn't like his approach and proceeded to initiate a go around, and ran out of fuel. Some days are better than others.....

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090406X12052&key=1

EDIT: Apparently the airport lore doesn't match the NTSB but close enough...

 

[kyleb]

Still lookin'. Complete logs are a must.

Why? A Luscombe is a simple airplane. A good inspection will tell you more (IMO) than the logbooks will. On a 60 year old airplane, particularly an inexpensive airplane, I'd consider the logs to be revisionist history because you pretty much know there was a probably a lengthy period where the airplane's logs were a creative interpretation of the truth.

 

[livitup]

Let me see if I'm getting this straight: The left main gear fell off the airplane on take-off and before he could get around to crash landing he ran out of fuel?

Tell me it ain't so

No, these are all separate incidents.

Once it lost a wheel and quasi-belly landed. (Incident)
Once it ran out of gas, but the pilot was able to dead stick it in (Incident)
Another time, the pilot ran a tank dry with the power at idle, racing the jumpers back to base. When he tried to add power to set up for landing, he realized that the spiny bit wasn't spinning, was too low to do a restart on a full tank, and "landed" on a freeway offramp. (Accident)

The NTSB investigated the last one, but I think it was too long ago for the full report to be digitized.

Go to http://www.faa.gov/foia/ and place a request for the registration number.

Would a FOIA request to the FAA also get me the full NTSB report on the accident, or do I need to send one to NTSB too?

In the end, I might not bother... I think this bird is cursed. On the other hand, its exactly what every prospective buyer wants... The owner hasn't flown it in a LONG time, but he pays a commercial pilot at our field to run it a couple hours a month. So it's not rotting, but it's obviously a cash drain on the owner. I dunno if he lost his medical, or what. He's not actively trying to sell it, but it's already listed at a low-ish price, and I'm sure I could talk him down.

Only drawbacks are a horribly dated panel (it has a 430W, but everything else is 30 years old, including the installed LORAN), and I was hoping for a post-1969 model with the "standard" panel and the quadrant.

 

[Henning]

Just curious as to how much damage (and what kind) is acceptable from a risk standpoint.

Any owners out there flying extensively repaired airplanes?

I used to fly a plane that had been totalled and rebuilt a couple of times, it was fine, it all depends on the quality of the repairs. Most every warbird you see flying has been extensively rebuilt.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Would a FOIA request to the FAA also get me the full NTSB report on the accident, or do I need to send one to NTSB too?

Not sure by what you mean "full NTSB report" or what additional information you are looking for. The FAA FOIA request will get you everything the FAA has on file to said aircraft, including the report the FAA made in relation to the NTSB on the accident/incident.

 

[livitup]

To be honest, I'm not sure what I mean either.

I have found this: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001214X40673&key=1, but it looks nowhere as detailed as most of the NTSB reports I've casually looked at from postings here on POA (usually about recent accidents). The NTSB report online says it landed on a freeway exit ramp and was substantially damaged, and that's it.

I'm assuming that there's more paperwork from the NTSB on the accident somewhere, but it's just not online. I think NTSB has never gone back and digitized all the old reports, and this happened in 1984.

Every other accident report I've read has been dozens of pages, this one is 4 sentences. There has to be more, doesn't there?

 

[RotorAndWing]

To be honest, I'm not sure what I mean either.

I have found this: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001214X40673&key=1, but it looks nowhere as detailed as most of the NTSB reports I've casually looked at from postings here on POA (usually about recent accidents). The NTSB report online says it landed on a freeway exit ramp and was substantially damaged, and that's it.

I'm assuming that there's more paperwork from the NTSB on the accident somewhere, but it's just not online. I think NTSB has never gone back and digitized all the old reports, and this happened in 1984.

Every other accident report I've read has been dozens of pages, this one is 4 sentences. There has to be more, doesn't there?

The FAA does the investigation on behalf of the NTSB in accidents such as this. The local FSDO will designate an IIC (Inspector in Charge) and he will conduct the investigation. His findings are reported on a FAA Form 8020-23 through a system called ATQA (Air Traffic Quality Assurance).

Nine Responsibilities of the FAA. FAA Order 8020.11 lists nine specific responsibilities in all accident investigations conducted by the FAA. The FAA investigations must determine whether or not the following were a factor in the accident:

· The performance of FAA facilities or functions;
· The performance of non-FAA-owned and operated air traffic control (ATC) facilities or Navigational Aids (NAVAID);
· The airworthiness of FAA-certified aircraft;
· The competency of FAA-certified airmen, air agencies, commercial operators, or air carriers;
· The CFRs were adequate;
· The airport certification safety standards or operations were involved;
· The airport security standards or operations were involved;
· The airman medical qualifications were involved; and/or
· There was a violation of the 14 CFRs.


The NTSB takes that report and does a summation of the accident.

Again, I'm kinda lost at what additional information you are looking for?

 

[livitup]

The FAA does the investigation on behalf of the NTSB in accidents such as this.

Aha, I didn't know that. I guess I was looking for the level of detail that comes out in a NTSB factual report, but in cases like this where an idiot bangs things up but nobody dies, I guess there is no such report?

I would love to know exactly what was damaged in this accident, but I guess the government can't tell me that.

 

[yakdriver]

The N3N I fly was a sprayer most of its life. We have all the logs and looking through them I think the only part that has never been replaced is the data plate. It was restored in the mid 90's and looks and flies great.
I have also seen logs that show no damage history but when inspecting the airplane closely there were obvious signs of a gear up. Don

 

[RotorAndWing]

Aha, I didn't know that. I guess I was looking for the level of detail that comes out in a NTSB factual report, but in cases like this where an idiot bangs things up but nobody dies, I guess there is no such report?

For an off airport landing with no fatalities there's not going to be a high in depth factual report made. The Inspector will have his notes to fill out the 8020-23 to submit, and the Inspector will also submit a PTRS report on the accident and findings. More information may be found in the PTRS report.

I would love to know exactly what was damaged in this accident, but I guess the government can't tell me that.

In an incident/accident such as this I can't see a high level detailed report detailing everything damaged.

Do a FOIA request on the registration number and see what comes back.

 

[JHW]

For an off airport landing with no fatalities there's not going to be a high in depth factual report made.

There's probably no paperwork at all for most of them. Of the dozen planes I've helped haul out of cornfields none had any report or notification made of any kind other than to settle up with the landowner.

 

[peppy]

Unless you are purchasing something like a Grumman or Cirrus with life limited spars the total airframe flight hours is worthless information, there's nothing you can do with it.

What is the airframe limitation on a Grumman?

On a Cirrus the airframe lifetime currently stands at 12,000 hours. At 200 hours per year that is 60 years.

 

[rpadula]

The owner hasn't flown it in a LONG time, but he pays a commercial pilot at our field to run it a couple hours a month. So it's not rotting, but it's obviously a cash drain on the owner. I dunno if he lost his medical, or what. He's not actively trying to sell it, but it's already listed at a low-ish price, and I'm sure I could talk him down.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there! Is it being flown a couple hours a month or is he just running it on the ground for a little while? There is a big difference. I'll let others with more experience chime in with the details, but basically running it on the ground doesn't get the oil hot enough to boil off the moisture inside the engine.

http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/t...eservation for Active and Stored Aircraft.pdf

In the end, I might not bother... I think this bird is cursed. On the other hand, its exactly what every prospective buyer wants...

Yeah everybody wants a cheap bargain. Good luck with that.

 

[Silvaire]

What is the airframe limitation on a Grumman?

On a Cirrus the airframe lifetime currently stands at 12,000 hours. At 200 hours per year that is 60 years.

Spar and wing panels and yes, it's 12,500 hours but, in the case of Grummans, some of them are approaching the 40 year mark so although it still may be a ways off I wouldn't completely ignore it.

 

[livitup]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there! Is it being flown a couple hours a month or is he just running it on the ground for a little while? There is a big difference. I'll let others with more experience chime in with the details, but basically running it on the ground doesn't get the oil hot enough to boil off the moisture inside the engine.

Yes, I'm casually aware of the difference. And it's being flown. He'll do an hour in the pattern or a cheeseburger run about every other week. It's a different scenario than you usually hear about in these situations. I'm well aware of the guy who puts his plane on the market to appease the wife, but basically lets it rot in the mean time. This is an odd one where it's very softly being sold (no for sale sign or prop banners, only on one website) and the owner is paying to keep it in at least decent shape (current annual and all) even though he hasn't flown it himself in quite a while (more than a year, apparently).

Yeah everybody wants a cheap bargain. Good luck with that.

But of course... We're pilots, after all!

 

[kyleb]

Spar and wing panels and yes, it's 12,500 hours but, in the case of Grummans, some of them are approaching the 40 year mark so although it still may be a ways off I wouldn't completely ignore it.

Most of the ones advertised are still in the 2,000-4000 hour range after 20-40 years. Sure, you don't want to be the guy who buys the 11,500 hour airplane, but I don't see it as an issue for most of the fleet.

 

[Silvaire]

Kind of makes you wonder how they came up with a number like that. Is there some science behind it?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Kind of makes you wonder how they came up with a number like that. Is there some science behind it?

The same way the engineers come up with fatigue life limits on many components.

 

[slacktide]

Yeah, Us dummies will prefer a plane with no damage history. And we will pay more for a plane with no damage history because we are uneducated.

You may well find and pay for a plane with no damage history. That is not the same thing as a plane with no damage.

 

[peppy]

The same way the engineers come up with fatigue life limits on many components.

In the case of Cirrus it is from testing. I believe the airframe is stressed through cycles for 2X the rated lifetime. Because the airframe didn't fail there is the possibility that further testing will extend airframe lifetime.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I am chasing down a C-182 J that was built in 1966, ran into a ditch in 1967, then suffered a "hard landing" in 1978.

I am hoping the ensuing 35 annuals have properly evaluated the repairs to the firewall.