All
← Back to Squawk list
NTSB report shows pilot and passenger were in plane “not to be flown”
A preliminary report released this week by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) shows a pilot and passenger were riding in a plane that was “not to be flown." (dcnewsroom.blogspot.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Didn't read carefully enough on my first pass. So the owner/pilot obviously knew that the problem had not been fixed and took the airplane anyway...
Not that this matters and it's not meant as a critique but more of a curiousity. As a long-time car guy whose built his own engines and done his own maintenance since age 12, if I find 1 bad spark plug I replace all of them. Every time. Is it accepted practice to only change a bad spark plug in aviation mechanics? I can't imagine changing all of them being overly expensive. I'd appreciate a licensed AP mechanic responding as I am really curious.
Aviation spark plugs are $50 bucks EACH!
Not a mechanic, an ATP but I own a Cessna Cardinal. I believe mechanics generally will replace on condition. Don’t know what you consider expensive but aviation plugs start at about $45 each. There are two in each cylinder of a Cherokee (4 cylinder air cooled motor) so $360 plus mechanic’s time to replace them all. Seems like the issue was pretty clearly PIC poor decision making.
“Not to be flown” says the mechanic whose witnesses are no longer here? Wonder how that was validated and what is in the logs.
Reads that the plane wasn’t released but also reads that mechanic agreed to release it for the ground test?
If the new plugs didn’t work and the engine was “clearly skipping” then why didn’t this show up on the run up, as it did to get the plane in maintenance in the first place! I guess there was no run up, with a passenger, on a plane that wasn’t released?
Just sounds too crazy to be true but that’s how most accident briefs read…. Not the regs or training that is the issue, it’s the people. Maybe ground school and A&P should include a personality test….
Reads that the plane wasn’t released but also reads that mechanic agreed to release it for the ground test?
If the new plugs didn’t work and the engine was “clearly skipping” then why didn’t this show up on the run up, as it did to get the plane in maintenance in the first place! I guess there was no run up, with a passenger, on a plane that wasn’t released?
Just sounds too crazy to be true but that’s how most accident briefs read…. Not the regs or training that is the issue, it’s the people. Maybe ground school and A&P should include a personality test….
Lockout would not have stopped the irresponsible behaviour by the pilot.
The pilot had requested "ground run" permission from the mechanic. This, and only this was approved.
Lockouts, had they been present, would have been removed for the purposes of the ground run.
I have had mechanics tape a sign on the control yoke, indicating that work was in progress.
But, usually, this was because an unfinished job was back in its hanger, waiting on parts.
I do hope the mechanic has a witness to the conversation, or an unfinished work order.
It is sad that two families lost loved ones over the poor judgement of the pilot.
Aviation is extremely unforgiving of poor judgement.
The pilot had requested "ground run" permission from the mechanic. This, and only this was approved.
Lockouts, had they been present, would have been removed for the purposes of the ground run.
I have had mechanics tape a sign on the control yoke, indicating that work was in progress.
But, usually, this was because an unfinished job was back in its hanger, waiting on parts.
I do hope the mechanic has a witness to the conversation, or an unfinished work order.
It is sad that two families lost loved ones over the poor judgement of the pilot.
Aviation is extremely unforgiving of poor judgement.