I have one more photo of the damage and thought all you amateur investigators might like to see it... shows more of the forward edge of the area in question.



I see here that not only was the piece not lapped over the leading edge all the way to the bottom, it  was laid on top of the piece covering the cap in such a way that the airflow could easily "pick" at it if the tape or glue started to let go! This can't be right, although I guess if one redid the cap section so that it came back over the top and overlapped the big panel, that would be better.

I think at the moment that the bottom line here is that the gluing was just not done correctly for cold-weather ops. This plane lives in an unheated hangar, BTW.

a1 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 1:00am:


No, but we strongly suspect this little guy:





Quote:

It better not; I haven't thought of that yet, but it shouldn't. I have a non-owner's policy which covers me for damage to anything except the plane (including people), and I signed on liability for damage to the plane due to any error of mine.
So in effect, the airplane is not insured itself, much like any basic auto policy that protects other people and property, but not the vehicle itself.
It's done this way because it's just so expensive to insure an old kite like this to cover repairs or replacement - many owners  don't bother with hull insurance, and schools have the right to drop that in the renter's lap; I find that reasonable.

I did not discuss this with the owners after this (not yet); I doubt they will come after me to pay for the plane because I was not at the controls when the damage apparently occurred... their instructor was.

Also, it looks like it was a faulty repair, so if they come after either of us they are in for a fight. 

I've had little things happen with rentals that were my fault, and there was never any beef with the owners, so I'm not too worried about something that definitely was NOT my fault.

I'll chime in on the insurance stuff. I've researched this stuff to a silly degree (and made a valuable friend/ally in th form of a renowned, aviation attorney).

Hull insurance on older planes is tricky, and prohibitively expensive. Since most hull coverage for "newer" planes in rental service have deductibles in the $2500 - $5000 range; doubling that in aircraft-damage coverage, is a good idea for a non-owner. $10,000 worth of aircraft damage insurance is less than $200/year (cheap peace of mind). I put a 172 wingtip into a hangar (pretty minor damage) and the repair was almost $2500 !  Heaven forbid you ever damage a plane and it's down for repairs, 'cause the owner most likely will sue you for lost revenue, too.. while it's being repaired.

A recent scenario:  2001 C172 bounce on landing, prop-strike, gear, empennage and control surface damage. Repair bill = $30,000+

The owner had a $5,000 deductible hull policy. The renter's first $5,000 was eaten up there. Recovery/storage/runway expenses ate up the other $5,000.. and the renter had to pay $5,000 out of pocket for lost revenue  

Food for thought  

Any idea in what manner it came off? Did it peel backwards or did it effectively lift straight up?

Re: Hagar's last post here...

I've sent the school an email assuring them I have no intention of going after them, following my gut feeling and what I've heard about them.
But I did ask for a copy of the rental agreement, just in case.
Their response will tell the tale, I guess.
If they wanted to be total pricks, they might argue that regardless of who did what, I signed that waiver, so I'm "it".

I hope we all stay friends- I've found that although there are plenty of scumbags in the flying business, most people in the business will do the right thing, even when great sums of money are concerned.
And a friend in that world, someone who knows you trust and respect them, is so valuable I can't even begin to explain it to a non-pilot.

I've also noticed that airport-bum scuttlebutt is usually accurate, and these folks have a good reputation there and are highly respected from what I've heard so far.

The shop that did this work, however, owes me an apology, along with everyone else who's climbed into the plane since they last worked on it.
I'm not a vindictive guy, but as you say, action must be taken to prevent it from happening again- the next pilots and/or  pax may not be so lucky.
I'm starting to worry about other planes that have come out of that shop... not a pleasant thought.   

One more thing:
I'm not put off ragwings at all by this, and it's not just because I'm basically a flying fool.

Improper maintenance is improper maintenance- an airliner or combat-hardened aircraft can be brought down by a component you can hold in your hand if it was the wrong part or installed wrong.

Fate is the hunter, and all that.

Not leery of flying in general, either... although I was a little spooked getting aboard an A320 the next day... man, those flaps wiggle like crazy when they're deployed!!

The second leg was in a good ol' tanklike DC-9... helped ease me out of my discomfort.

But I must get back in the saddle ASAP- Bob has invited me to fly in his 120 if I get out there next month, and either way I'm planning to get back up in that J3 at Andover very soon.

You could always get a AFF license and always keep one of those pilot shutes with you when flying

Here is the link to the NTSB report on your incident rotty.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080310X00291&key=1

beaky wrote on Mar 11^th, 2008 at 11:22am:


Farmer's quote: " It was Aliens!!!  I shot at them and part of their flying saucer came off.  I was abducted fours years ago and I ain't let'em get me this time!! "