Is this a red flag when looking for a flight school?

N918KT said:
So I think the flight school owner is going to take care of this problem although this problem is a recurring problem.
Click to expand...

I bet if he starts charging whoever keeps slamming the door with the latch engaged for the actual cost of the repairs, the problem will slow significantly. That's usually how the local clubs handle recurring stupidity.
 
This doesn't help the OP but I feel a need to give props to Lanier Flight Center at KGVL. I'm in the SP program there in a Skycatcher and the plane looks brand new as do all of their planes. They have a great maintenance program. I complained once that the passenger door squeaked when opened and it was fixed (lubed) quickly. Someone noted that the oil was slightly over the 5 qt mark and maintenance was out making sure there was not an issue. My CFI has lots of good things to say about their maintenance program. I guess I just got lucky!
 
If a non pilot came and looked at the C152 in our club they probably would be worried about jumping in and going for a cruise. The aesthetics that make the interior/exterior visually appealing are not taken care of. Yet the mechanical maintenance is religious and no expense is spared in that category. It is one of the best mechanically maintained planes on the ramp and I never hesitate to jump in it after a successful preflight.

It does help that it is a non-profit flight club and we all have transparent access to the records. I might be hesitant too if it was a profit seeking flight school plane.
 
N918KT said:
The flight school is taking the LSA to Lancaster, PA this week to do some routine maintenance and he will try to have this problem addressed and taken care of while there.

So I think the flight school owner is going to take care of this problem although this problem is a recurring problem.
Click to expand...

OK now, just don't be the next pilot to screw up that door! :D
 
Common broken parts by trainer model with causes:
  • Cessna 172 loose panel trim. Caused by people using it as a hand-hold as they adjust their seat position.
  • Cessna 150 broken door hold-open latches. Caused by people banging the door into the latch during egress.
  • Cessna 152 broken cabin-side door-closing handles. Caused by a bad design.
  • Piper PA28 damaged annunciator panels. Caused by people pressing on the lights, not realizing that this action only works in airliner annunciator panels.
  • Grumman AA5 bent aileron trim tabs. Caused by people thinking they are aeronautical engineers when they are not.
Every model has its problems. Some are worse than others.
 
It bugs me when a defect remains outstanding for some time, especially exit handle C172 related ones. What bugs me more is an operator's lame attitude towards getting non-essential / low priority defects fixed. Strobe out, or beacon bulb or annuniciator panel bulb or seat sliding mechanism etc. These things all add up and whilst not everything is going to be perfect and we're trained to deal with u/s items, this has to be by exception as opposed to the norm.
 
N918KT said:
1. Pipistrel Alpha Trainer. High-wing SLSA.
Click to expand...
Geezus, what a toy! Looks like the kind of marginal airplane Euros have to fly because their general aviation sucks. Forget about renting one once certificated, rarer than hen's teeth.

Train in a real airplane, LSA is now marginalized by MedicaLite anyway.
 
Doug F said:
This doesn't help the OP but I feel a need to give props to Lanier Flight Center at KGVL. I'm in the SP program there in a Skycatcher and the plane looks brand new as do all of their planes. They have a great maintenance program.
Click to expand...

I trained there, in 70252, as well. Feel free to hit me up with any questions. I logged over 500 hours in that airplane.
 
paflyer said:
Train in a real airplane, LSA is now marginalized by MedicaLite anyway.
Click to expand...

1) There's nothing unreal about Light Sports. They take roughly the same skillset to fly well and safely. In some cases more.

2) I agree the use cases for choosing Light Sport have been decreased by BasicMed. For me, the biggest plus of Light Sport was the ease of converting to Experimental, allowing me to do my own maintenance and ability to make modifications, and - with a 16-hour course - perform my own Annual Condition Inspections.

3) For Light Sport owners holding private and above, BasicMed lifted a lot of - in my opinion - silly restrictions, making Light Sport planes more capable, not less.
 
What drives me nuts is there is an 80s 172 at one of the places I rent at with the rotating beacon bulb missing. The plane is in otherwise decent shape and has been through multiple 100 hours since the time I've been there, and yet they still haven't replaced it. It can't be a hard fix, but since it's not required equipment, they aren't paying for it. Drives me crazy.
 
FastEddieB said:
For me, the biggest plus of Light Sport was the ease of converting to Experimental.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you do that? How about converting back to certified for resale?
 
paflyer said:
Really? How do you do that? How about converting back to certified for resale?
Click to expand...

Find a DAR to handle the paperwork.

One such:

http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/

He did mine and a friend's. Highly recommended!

Converting back is theoretically possible, but impossible for all practical purposes. Not necessary anyway - there are some buyers out there for whom Experimental status is a plus.
 
Honestly if your not training in a Cirrus don't waste your time. Pipers and Cessnas are junky!


(Just kidding)
 
Skid said:
What drives me nuts is there is an 80s 172 at one of the places I rent at with the rotating beacon bulb missing. The plane is in otherwise decent shape and has been through multiple 100 hours since the time I've been there, and yet they still haven't replaced it. It can't be a hard fix, but since it's not required equipment, they aren't paying for it. Drives me crazy.
Click to expand...

Not required equipment? Where did you get that? Look at 91.209.

It has been inop and gone through multiple inspections? Even if it was eligible under 91.213(d) (which I do not believe it is) it requires correction at the next required inspection per 91.405(c)

You might remind them of the requirement to follow the regs.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Not required equipment? Where did you get that? Look at 91.209.

It has been inop and gone through multiple inspections? Even if it was eligible under 91.213(d) (which I do not believe it is) it requires correction at the next required inspection per 91.405(c)

You might remind them of the requirement to follow the regs.
Click to expand...

It's legit if the aircraft is equipped with strobes. If there is more than one anticollision lighting system, 91.209 only requires one to be lit. Same deal with 91.205 (as long as it's red or white, but I don't think I've ever seen airplane strobes that aren't white).

It IS, however, required to be disabled and placarded to be legal.
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
Not required equipment? Where did you get that? Look at 91.209.

It has been inop and gone through multiple inspections? Even if it was eligible under 91.213(d) (which I do not believe it is) it requires correction at the next required inspection per 91.405(c)

You might remind them of the requirement to follow the regs.
Click to expand...

I still struggle with really understanding the flow of minimum equipment, but I'll take a stab at it and see if I'm understanding it correctly.

To the point of 91.209, the plane doesn't fly at night regularly so that shouldn't be a problem (at least I wouldn't for this reason).

Going through 91.213(d) I pulled up the Type Data Certification Sheet and it if I'm reading it right it says for equipment: "The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations (see Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircraft for certification". Which would lead me to 91.205(b) (TOMATO FLAMES) which says the beacon is only required if certified after 1996. So that seems ok.

However just pulling up a random POH I found online to look at its own equipment list it says:

Flashing Beacon - 33-04-S
Anticollision Strobe Light - 33-05-R

This is where it gets gray for me as I'm not sure which of the above the beacon falls under and if the "S", being standard equipment means its required or not.

However this is the first time I've ever read 91.405 (thanks for pointing that out) and I'm with you there, that they really should be replacing it as it goes for its annual and 100 hours.

(Sorry for hijacking)
 
Skid said:
I still struggle with really understanding the flow of minimum equipment, but I'll take a stab at it and see if I'm understanding it correctly.

To the point of 91.209, the plane doesn't fly at night regularly so that shouldn't be a problem (at least I wouldn't for this reason).

Going through 91.213(d) I pulled up the Type Data Certification Sheet and it if I'm reading it right it says for equipment: "The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations (see Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircraft for certification". Which would lead me to 91.205(b) (TOMATO FLAMES) which says the beacon is only required if certified after 1996. So that seems ok.

However just pulling up a random POH I found online to look at its own equipment list it says:

Flashing Beacon - 33-04-S
Anticollision Strobe Light - 33-05-R

This is where it gets gray for me as I'm not sure which of the above the beacon falls under and if the "S", being standard equipment means its required or not.

However this is the first time I've ever read 91.405 (thanks for pointing that out) and I'm with you there, that they really should be replacing it as it goes for its annual and 100 hours.

(Sorry for hijacking)
Click to expand...


You can also read the Chief Counsel's Murphy decision for further clarification.
 
Skid said:
I still struggle with really understanding the flow of minimum equipment, but I'll take a stab at it and see if I'm understanding it correctly.

To the point of 91.209, the plane doesn't fly at night regularly so that shouldn't be a problem (at least I wouldn't for this reason).

Going through 91.213(d) I pulled up the Type Data Certification Sheet and it if I'm reading it right it says for equipment: "The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations (see Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircraft for certification". Which would lead me to 91.205(b) (TOMATO FLAMES) which says the beacon is only required if certified after 1996. So that seems ok.

However just pulling up a random POH I found online to look at its own equipment list it says:

Flashing Beacon - 33-04-S
Anticollision Strobe Light - 33-05-R

This is where it gets gray for me as I'm not sure which of the above the beacon falls under and if the "S", being standard equipment means its required or not.

However this is the first time I've ever read 91.405 (thanks for pointing that out) and I'm with you there, that they really should be replacing it as it goes for its annual and 100 hours.

(Sorry for hijacking)
Click to expand...
Later model Cessna singles are like this. Strobes are required by the "Kinds of Operation Equipment List" but the beacon is not.

Even more curiously, in the 70s and 80s, both were considered "additional" per the equipment list.
 
I'm OK if small items slide until the next 100 hr. or annual and even a little past if parts are on order. Multiple inspections, no. I'm more impressed with good maintainence rather than good paint and interiors. I'd love to have both, but few are willing to pay for both.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's legit if the aircraft is equipped with strobes. If there is more than one anticollision lighting system, 91.209 only requires one to be lit. Same deal with 91.205 (as long as it's red or white, but I don't think I've ever seen airplane strobes that aren't white).

It IS, however, required to be disabled and placarded to be legal.
Click to expand...
Strobes come in white, red, or red/white
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/el/positionlights/70509.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top