How to handle unsafe flight school

B

beaker

Guest
Hey everyone,

Not sure if I’m over exaggerating, but I need advice on how to handle discussing the safety/maintained of an sLSA I have been renting for a few years.

For brevity, I’ll mention some alarming notes:

- I noticed that the aircraft has not been scheduled nor receiving 100 hr inspections. Manager/CFI said it isn’t required since it falls under a special airworthiness category (sLSA).
- When parts break on the plane, a non A&P nor LSRM fabricates their own parts and repairs—as opposed to ordering the oem or FAA certified part.
- Continual power issues with radios and other transponders.
- Issues with PFD airspeed indicator not displaying proper speed.
- Trim tab malfunctions
- plus more.

As an engineer, these things concern my intuition and my gut has told me to stop flying with them. Unfortunately, it is the only LSA for at least 2.5 hours from where I live.

I have really liked renting from this place, and really like the instructors.

With this, how do I respectfully share my concerns for safety, without insulting their business and maintenance practices. I want to hold a solid relationship with these folks, but at the same time don’t feel comfortable flying the bird in its current state.

Remaining anonymous and not revealing location due to respect for the business’s reputation.

Am I over exaggerating? I know trainer planes are known for being s**tboxes, but not sure to what extent. Before moving to where I am now, I flew a very very well maintained plane.

Cheers!
 
Talk to the responsible (culpable) individual. Owner, operator, whomever.

Don’t accuse, simply ask them to address your concerns. They may not know what’s going on, you may decide you DONT wanna continue flying with them. Who knows…
 
Better call Saul!

1706726564566.png
 
dmspilot said:
That is just wrong, a 100-hour inspection is an operating requirement under 91.409, the type of airworthiness certificate has zero to do with it.

It's not required if it's not used for flight instruction, but considering it's a "flight school", it probably is. The alleged explanation is bogus.
Click to expand...
The specific rule for sLSA is: 14 CFR § 91.327
 
@Beaker, PM me.
I can't seem to message you being a "guest"

I had a similar experience with such a rental not long ago. The PFD was dropping out...and without a working PFD in that aircraft there is no magnetic heading indication...and therefore I reckon it's not airworthy for day VFR. Once back on the ground and I did a little looking it seemed to be a long-term problem that wasn't getting fixed. Other issues with it too.... I've been meaning to get back in touch with the school but life keeps getting in the way.

I'd like to ask some questions about your experience and find out what if anything you learn....
 
If you are otherwise satisfied with the operation, have a conversation with them about your concerns. Could be there are real issues. Or, could be there are gaps in your knowledge and understanding of what is safe and allowable, and legitimate explanations for deferred repairs.

For example, I don't know about LSA, but I am legally allowed to fabricate parts for my certificated aircraft, and to install under the supervision of an A&P. Supervision doesn't mean he is standing there watching me. I can talk to him beforehand, do the work, then have him check it out.

Training and rental operations are usually shoestring affairs anyways, due to the economics of it. Can be hard to detect where frugalness starts and unsafe begins. Everyone wants pristine until you see the price tag. Then "good enough" is good enough.
 
Last edited:
Take your concerns to the owner and if your not happy with the response,take your money and business elsewhere.
 
dmspilot said:
That is just wrong, a 100-hour inspection is an operating requirement under 91.409, the type of airworthiness certificate has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...
§ 91.409 (c) (1) specifically says that it doesn't apply to light-sport aircraft.
jbarrass said:
The specific rule for sLSA is: 14 CFR § 91.327
Click to expand...
Which doesn't mention 100 hour inspections at all.
Ed Haywood said:
For example, I don't know about LSA, but I am legally allowed to fabricate parts for my certificated aircraft, and to install under the supervision of an A&P.
Click to expand...
Strangely, SLSA repairs are even more restrictive than standard aircraft; you can't change anything, not even a different radio, without approval from the manufacturer. That would seem to pretty much rule out owner produced parts. It's why many SLSA owners convert them to ELSA, as you can do pretty much anything to an experimental... but then you can't rent it.
 
Dana said:
§ 91.409 (c) (1) specifically says that it doesn't apply to light-sport aircraft.

Which doesn't mention 100 hour inspections at all.
Click to expand...
Deleted my earlier post.

91.327
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has—​
​
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or​
​
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.​
 
I'm the last one to take legal advice from, but what does the bold red mean?

§ 91.409 Inspections.​

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or
(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.
(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to—
(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness certificate;

I see I'm behind the curve again
 
beaker said:
As an engineer, these things concern my intuition and my gut has told me to stop flying with them. Unfortunately, it is the only LSA for at least 2.5 hours from where I live.
Click to expand...
That 2.5-hour drive will look awfully attractive once the engine or something else has busted and you're on your way to the crash site.

It's the same philosophy as the ELT: It seems like an unnecessary expense until you're down in the trees, invisible to the SAR airplanes and out of cell reception, and that unmaintained ELT fails to wake up no matter what you do to it.
 
Everyone has a different appetite when it comes to maintenance of aircraft. These things are old but they are generally well built. Typically the guy or gal in charge is experienced and knows the aircraft and what it needs or performs best with. So it’s difficult for any newbie to come in saying this and that when frankly we don’t know. If you don’t feel comfortable then find a place that better suits you. Some schools might do less and charge less and vice versa. Who is maintaining the aircraft? Have you met the mechanic? There’s too many variables here to jump to any conclusions.
 
dmspilot said:
Deleted my earlier post.

91.327
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has—​
​
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or​
​
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.​
Click to expand...
So it’s not called a 100-hour inspection, but has to be done within the previous 100 hours. What’s it called?
 
I'd think an engineer would steer clear of SLAs in general and gravitate to the tried, true, inefficient, and deeply-regulation-hamstrung C172.

I also think it would be hilarious for a flight school to be training students in all of the regulations that same outfit is flaunting -- and not expect to get called on it. If true, these are deep and irreparable problems over and above a mere chat with management.
 
beaker said:
As an engineer, these things concern my intuition and my gut has told me to stop flying with them. Unfortunately, it is the only LSA for at least 2.5 hours from where I live.
Click to expand...
Wow, it sounds like you are really concerned about the safety of the aircraft. Not concerned enough to inconvenience yourself, but just shy of that maybe.
 
Some LSAs are more rugged than others. Cubs (original or clone) and many other classic designs are LSA and quite rugged. Some others are, yes, a bit less solid. But they're not falling out of the sky all around us.
 
Dana said:
Some LSAs are more rugged than others. Cubs (original or clone) and many other classic designs are LSA and quite rugged. Some others are, yes, a bit less solid. But they're not falling out of the sky all around us.
Click to expand...

No, but the Tecnam LSAs I used for training didn’t hold up very well to the pace of a busy flight school and frequent firm landings.
 
Half Fast said:
No, but the Tecnam LSAs I used for training didn’t hold up very well to the pace of a busy flight school and frequent firm landings.
Click to expand...
I can believe that... what kind of damage were they seeing?
 
Dana said:
I can believe that... what kind of damage were they seeing?
Click to expand...

One had the fuselage damaged at the landing gear attachment from a too-hard landing. Control surface bearings wore quickly, especially the ruddervator. Minor things like engine compartment cabling working loose, tie points breaking, throttle cables not holding adjustment. The indicator potentiometer for the flaps would wear and slip, screwing up the indication in the cockpit. Nose wheel bearings wearing and loosening.

The flight school had a talk with a Tecnam rep, and he was surprised (and a bit concerned) by the utilization rate. Apparently Tecnam designed the planes with an expectation that most planes would be flown recreationally and only see 100-200 flight hours per year. The school was giving them 100 hours about every 4 to 6 weeks and beating the stew out of them.

Several of the planes were leasebacks and I believe the owners were less than pleased at the wear the planes were experiencing.
 
dmspilot said:
Deleted my earlier post.

91.327
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has—​
​
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or​
​
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.​
Click to expand...
Yep. I just searched for "100", which someone else didn't.
 
$500k for a new 172 vs $100k for one of these light sports…

I don’t see the light sport planes lasting 10-15 THOUSAND hours.

I’m seeing significant wear at less than 200 hours on two of them I fly regularly.

I like them, but have reservations with them in HARD training environments.

Very similar to regional jets vs legacy platforms in part 121 service.
 
Two Vashon Rangers. It’s clear the concessions made to keep the aircraft light weight enough for the category.
 
Tools said:
Two Vashon Rangers. It’s clear the concessions made to keep the aircraft light weight enough for the category.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the Vashon folks say the plane is designed for a higher MTOW and they plan to raise it if and when regs allow.
 
Back
Top