• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

little heavier walled rudder post, maybe along with a little longer hinge??
Don't jump towards requiring alterations or repairs to thousands of rudders when there have been only three failures with undocumented histories in question. This FAA inquiry is a fishing expedition looking for something to do.
 
Maybe, but I bet a lot of guys have wiggled their rudders and looked closely at the top hinges as a result. That's not a bad thing.

I thought it interesting that in the picture two failed to one side and one failed opposite. What factors played into that?

Backcountry used unusual rudder and elevator hinges on my plane. I wasn't a fan but it wasn't worth changing. Maybe it has an advantage with big tailfeathers, a heavy Cub, and lots of horsepower? Can't say. A preflight item, for sure.
 

Attachments

  • BBF64D55-AF88-4FC6-91FE-2CBE3391205A.jpg
    BBF64D55-AF88-4FC6-91FE-2CBE3391205A.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 237
Maybe, but I bet a lot of guys have wiggled their rudders and looked closely at the top hinges as a result. That's not a bad thing.

I thought it interesting that in the picture two failed to one side and one failed opposite. What factors played into that?

Backcountry used unusual rudder and elevator hinges on my plane. I wasn't a fan but it wasn't worth changing. Maybe it has an advantage with big tailfeathers, a heavy Cub, and lots of horsepower? Can't say. A preflight item, for sure.
That style hinge was common back in the 1920s and 30s. Useful for minimizing the gap.
 
Strap hinges are very good, especially when lined with a low friction material, which few Have. Yours are drilled for lubrication which is also lacking on many planes.
 
To answer post 1892, Piper seems interested in putting the hinge next to the wires, Backcountry, not so much. So the concern is not for the tail post but the possible binding of the longer Piper hinges .
 
In my backyard, and yes it does get crossed up there fairly regularly, though the strip is quite wide. Wide enough so the last time I landed there with a good x wind, I weaseled out and easily landed across it, straight onto the wind. What got me about this picture was the normal looking airplane, not downside up or on fire, and no injuries. Hardly seems worth the time of the local LEO to even be there, unless they were just gawking, that would be understandable. https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/09/landing-airplane-blown-into-fence-in-island-park/
 
Its probably not a large contributing factor, but how could the 185 be operating under FAR 43 Part 135 with no transponder? See regs 135.143 (c). Not only is it required to be installed, its required to be in currency and operating.

Voice transcripts sounds very unconcerned, "ya I'm right over him", when given the Cub traffic taking off. Just a bad deal, sounds avoidable if he had the traffic in sight. Condolences for those perished and hurt.
 
See Note 1: Link Aircraft was in Class D airspace.

Gary

Thanks Gary but that guidance is 9 years old, and if I read it right it is basically guidance about older equipment (non Mode S) transponders that was installed prior to the reg change. Mode C transponders were required prior to the new reg and would be allowed to continue to operate. Any new installation of transponder after 1992 was required to be compliant with Mode-S.

My point is at least a Mode-C transponder was required to be installed and operating if Part 135, even if the aircraft had grandfather waiver explained in the 1991 guidance. It’s just a good idea anyway in the FAI TRSA. I flew out of Chena Marina for a summer season, I know how busy it gets getting in and out of there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Is a transponder required for Part 135 while in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215?

Gary

If operating under a Part 135 revenue flight, that the NTSB report said was the case, the equipment requirements of Part 135 and in the operators Part 135 Ops-Specs would apply.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Was that a yes, no, or maybe?

Gary

Needs a transponder.

§135.143***General requirements.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft under this part unless that aircraft and its equipment meet
the applicable regulations of this chapter.
(b) Except as provided in §135.179, no person may operate an aircraft under this part unless
the required instruments and equipment in it have been approved and are in an operable condi-
tion.
(c) ATC transponder equipment installed within the time periods indicated below must meet the
performance and environmental requirements of the following TSO’s:
(1) Through January 1, 1992: (i) Any class of TSO-C74b or any class of TSO-C74c as appropri-
ate, provided that the equipment was manufactured before January 1, 1990; or
(ii) The appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).
(2) After January 1, 1992: The appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S). For purposes of para-
graph (c)(2) of this section, “installation” does not include—
(i) Temporary installation of TSO-C74b or TSO-C74c substitute equipment, as appropriate, during
maintenance of the permanent equipment;
(ii) Reinstallation of equipment after temporary removal for maintenance; or
(iii) For fleet operations, installation of equipment in a fleet aircraft after removal of the equipment
for maintenance from another aircraft in the same operator’s fleet.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-22, 52 FR 3392, Feb.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Let's make this simple as I'm trying to learn something. I'm still reading Part 135 looking for "shall" and not "if" ref: required installation of a transponder as inferred by 135.143(c). If in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 please point me to it so I can learn and we can move on.

Gary
 
Let's make this simple as I'm trying to learn something. I'm still reading Part 135 looking for "shall" and not "if" ref: required installation of a transponder as inferred by 135.143(c). If in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 please point me to it so I can learn and we can move on.

Gary

No problem, we’re kinda rabbit trailing this thread. Here is the preceding section.

Subpart C—Aircraft and Equipment
§135.141***Applicability.
This subpart prescribes aircraft and equipment requirements for operations under this part. The
requirements of this subpart are in addition to the aircraft and equipment requirements of part 91
of this chapter. However, this part does not require the duplication of any equipment required by
this chapter.
§135.143***General requirements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I'm going to guess for this C-185 Part 135 in the accident that while VFR in the airspace noted a transponder was not required equipment. But if one is installed it has to meet certain specs. Best I can come up with until I talk with a FSDO Inspector that worked this particular 135 ops specs. Just a friendly question that seems confusing to me.

Gary
 
..Voice transcripts sounds very unconcerned, "ya I'm right over him", when given the Cub traffic taking off. Just a bad deal, sounds avoidable if he had the traffic in sight. Condolences for those perished and hurt.
When another pilot says he has you in sight NEVER BELIEVE HIM!
I can relate a very EXTREMELY scary story in which I was told the other pilot had me in sight and was following me. I'll not bore you with the details other than I was shaking for hours afterwards. Let's just say It did not make the evening news in LAX nor nationwide and I am here to tell you.

I can also tell you another story when the tower kept insisting I report the plane in front of me in sight when I could not find him. I had to go around rather than take a visual approach. Good high cloud VFR on a gray day at DFW. That one was not scary, because I refused to say yes when the answer was no.

ps: I still shake when I think back about that incident at LAX. It was about 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Talent and perseverance......wheel plane pilots land long and fast all the time....seaplanes too, apparently.

MTV
I knew the male passenger for many years. They were at my airport almost every weekend with that airplane. The pilot owner is a good guy. The latest news story I read leads one to believe they were on the water after landing. He had activated the remote opener for his hangar. But who knows if that’s reliable info. Long landing? Step taxi gone bad? When our friend recovers I guess we will know.

Rich
 
Back
Top