Why does the PA-38 Tomahawk have a wing life of 11,000 hours?
Really? When did that happen then and why?
My understanding was that the aircraft wasn't certified to be intentionally spun, but it may be possible that it's the instructor who's not allowed to intentionally spin, or that it's a flying school rule.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They changed it you needed a 4 point harness the standard harness won't cut the mustard on G reg.
Or you have a yellow livered prat of an instructor who is **** scared of being in a tommie and shouldn't be flying one never mind instructing in one.
Or you have a yellow livered prat of an instructor who is **** scared of being in a tommie and shouldn't be flying one never mind instructing in one.
@Silvaire:
It's good to hear so much about canards - I had a bit of a fetish for them as I mentioned earlier - even went as far as buying the CDs of the plans.
What worried me was working through the NTSB reports of LongEZ crashes. As I recall about 1/15 of the LongEZs ever built had been involved in fatal accidents, often killing more than one person. The problem, as far as I could make out, was that the minimum flying speed was so high that forced landings were much more likely to be fatal than for other types. I figured that this may be acceptable in large areas of the states, but that in the British countryside this was simply not something I could live with. I eventually decided that I would only consider one if it became possible to fit a ballistic chute.
It's good to hear so much about canards - I had a bit of a fetish for them as I mentioned earlier - even went as far as buying the CDs of the plans.
What worried me was working through the NTSB reports of LongEZ crashes. As I recall about 1/15 of the LongEZs ever built had been involved in fatal accidents, often killing more than one person. The problem, as far as I could make out, was that the minimum flying speed was so high that forced landings were much more likely to be fatal than for other types. I figured that this may be acceptable in large areas of the states, but that in the British countryside this was simply not something I could live with. I eventually decided that I would only consider one if it became possible to fit a ballistic chute.
Or you have a yellow livered prat of an instructor who is **** scared of being in a tommie and shouldn't be flying one never mind instructing in one.
What you can and can't do with any aircraft is clearly stated in the POH provided by the manufacturer and specific to the serial number of that airframe.
Since UK flying schools have the bizarre habit of hiding the POH in some obscure bookshelf still in its clear plastic wrapper, safe from the possibility of actually providing any useful information to pilots; it may take some convincing to actually look at it but that will definitively answer the question of whether your Tomahawk can be spun.
Now the club may have instituted a policy that the aircraft may not be spun, as they own the aircraft that is their prerogative, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a PA 38 is certified for spins.
Since UK flying schools have the bizarre habit of hiding the POH in some obscure bookshelf still in its clear plastic wrapper, safe from the possibility of actually providing any useful information to pilots; it may take some convincing to actually look at it but that will definitively answer the question of whether your Tomahawk can be spun.
Now the club may have instituted a policy that the aircraft may not be spun, as they own the aircraft that is their prerogative, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a PA 38 is certified for spins.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The caa have put the 4 point harness in the POH due to some fanny ****ting themselves and causing an issue.
If they had just done the normal method of getting the student to sit on there hands for the first one it wouldn't be in the POH.
If they had just done the normal method of getting the student to sit on there hands for the first one it wouldn't be in the POH.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh , here we go again !
Yet more un informed rubbish spouted by flight instructors who should know better.
The truth of the PA38 spinning saga is that the UK CAA mandated that intentional spinning was not permitted unless a four point harness was fitted.
This CAA mandate was as a result on a fatal accident enquiry that had suggested that the crews efforts to recover the aircraft from the spin might have been hampered by them not being fully secure in their seats.
Having done a lot of spinning in the PA38 I would agree with this mandate as spinning in the PA 38 is a lot more ( shall we say) sporty than most other trainers in common use.
The truth of the PA38 spinning saga is that the UK CAA mandated that intentional spinning was not permitted unless a four point harness was fitted.
This CAA mandate was as a result on a fatal accident enquiry that had suggested that the crews efforts to recover the aircraft from the spin might have been hampered by them not being fully secure in their seats.
Having done a lot of spinning in the PA38 I would agree with this mandate as spinning in the PA 38 is a lot more ( shall we say) sporty than most other trainers in common use.
I hit a fence in a Jodel about 15 years ago. I hit one fence post with the engine. The prop tip broke backwards, and fence posts damaged the wing leading edge. After a days work by an engineer, I flew it out with a borrowed prop.
If there had just been fibreglass/wood between me and the post, I would probable been seriously injured at best.
If there had just been fibreglass/wood between me and the post, I would probable been seriously injured at best.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic canard talk:
There's nothing inherent in the canard design that would make it unsuitable for slow flight, but because adding flaps is more complicated on a canard, the manufacturers rarely do it or attempt a solution. It certainly can be done with some clever engineering. But since they often lack that, the approach speeds are much higher.
Also, IF, for any chance, you have managed to get a canard stalled, they're almost impossible to get unstalled. Which makes them a little bit more dangerous in extreme scenarios, perhaps.
There's nothing inherent in the canard design that would make it unsuitable for slow flight, but because adding flaps is more complicated on a canard, the manufacturers rarely do it or attempt a solution. It certainly can be done with some clever engineering. But since they often lack that, the approach speeds are much higher.
Also, IF, for any chance, you have managed to get a canard stalled, they're almost impossible to get unstalled. Which makes them a little bit more dangerous in extreme scenarios, perhaps.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only flew a Tomahawk once, a long time ago at Glasgow, and it seemed to be exactly what one would expect. There was a young lady instructor there who came in as white as a sheet after spinning one with a student in the LFA. She said that absolutely nothing would bring about a recovery until, far too low, she opened the door and held it as wide as she could. That would be the last time, she said!
Yet more un informed rubbish spouted by flight instructors who should know better.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either way, the instructor was correct that the aircraft is no longer certified for intentional spinning, the fact he didn't know it was because of the lack of a 4-point harness isn't too important in the grand scheme of things.
I don't think anyone wants to spin a tommy so badly that they will take the trouble to fit a certified harness. They are hard work at the best of times, now they're 30+ years old, including all the rigging at the back, not sure I would put my life on that. Any repair work or anything over time that could contribute to an imbalance could mean that any spin in a tommy could well be your last.
I don't think anyone wants to spin a tommy so badly that they will take the trouble to fit a certified harness. They are hard work at the best of times, now they're 30+ years old, including all the rigging at the back, not sure I would put my life on that. Any repair work or anything over time that could contribute to an imbalance could mean that any spin in a tommy could well be your last.
I disagree. The instructor mindlessly accepted what somebody had told him without making any effort to find out why. The information is there with a bit of research. It is this attitude that causes so many ridiculous "flightschoolism" to exist.
Moderator
Oh dear....
"Any" repair work will have been done in accordance with approved data, or the airplane is no longer certified. If anything was affected by "balance", it will have been restored to a balanced condition, or the airplane is not longer certified. If the "rigging at the back" is not as per the approved design, the aircraft is no longer certified. "Anything over time" (corrosion?) has affected the airworthiness of the aircraft, it is no longer certified.
My plane is more than 30 years old, is still certified, and I spin it regularly. I'm more than 30 years old, and I spin regularly. Two weeks ago I flew a 67 year old plane, which had not flown in 7 years. (I did make sure I could glide back to the runway for the first bit though).
So presuming the Tomahawk you fly is maintained so as to be airworthy (and you check the airworthiness before you fly it), what's the real problem with Tomahawks?
If I had access to one, I'd spin it tomorrow, I remember them being excellent to spin!
now they're 30+ years old, including all the rigging at the back, not sure I would put my life on that. Any repair work or anything over time that could contribute to an imbalance could mean that any spin in a tommy could well be your last.
My plane is more than 30 years old, is still certified, and I spin it regularly. I'm more than 30 years old, and I spin regularly. Two weeks ago I flew a 67 year old plane, which had not flown in 7 years. (I did make sure I could glide back to the runway for the first bit though).
So presuming the Tomahawk you fly is maintained so as to be airworthy (and you check the airworthiness before you fly it), what's the real problem with Tomahawks?
If I had access to one, I'd spin it tomorrow, I remember them being excellent to spin!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More uninformed rubbish !
I have to agree with DAR their is too much totally uninformed rubbish being talked about aircraft repair and maintenance.
All aircraft repairers or modifications have to be done in accordance with data from a design organization (normaly the manufacturer) and so the repair will not be any less safe than the original design.
We see far too much utter rubbish on these pages about aircraft damage and repair, this is not the motor trade, "cut & shut" is not an option with aircraft, with aircraft all repairs are tightly regulated so aircraft that are beyond technical repair simply will not return to flying.
When the repair is of a composite aircraft the rubbish talked throughout the industry goes up by a factor of ten, this is because there is so little composite repair knowlage within light aviation.
The bottom line is that I am more than happy to spin a thirty year old PA38 provided all the AD,s have been done IAW the maintenance data............come to think of it I have, usually following C of A renewal on an airtest or when instructing.
All aircraft repairers or modifications have to be done in accordance with data from a design organization (normaly the manufacturer) and so the repair will not be any less safe than the original design.
We see far too much utter rubbish on these pages about aircraft damage and repair, this is not the motor trade, "cut & shut" is not an option with aircraft, with aircraft all repairs are tightly regulated so aircraft that are beyond technical repair simply will not return to flying.
When the repair is of a composite aircraft the rubbish talked throughout the industry goes up by a factor of ten, this is because there is so little composite repair knowlage within light aviation.
The bottom line is that I am more than happy to spin a thirty year old PA38 provided all the AD,s have been done IAW the maintenance data............come to think of it I have, usually following C of A renewal on an airtest or when instructing.
Last edited by A and C; 19th Dec 2011 at 06:47.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire1
I think you are being a little hard on the European airworthiness system but this is probably understandable given that on these pages you will find everything from half truth to utter rubbish written.
AC43.13 is considered approved data as long as it says so in the manufactures repair manual and can be used as such. In fact one Europan company has a very small repair manual, apart from a small section on repairs to the spar area and other critical adjoining parts they state that all other areas of dammage can be repaired IAW AC43.13.
I just wish that all manufactures would take such a view.
AC43.13 is considered approved data as long as it says so in the manufactures repair manual and can be used as such. In fact one Europan company has a very small repair manual, apart from a small section on repairs to the spar area and other critical adjoining parts they state that all other areas of dammage can be repaired IAW AC43.13.
I just wish that all manufactures would take such a view.
Moderator
'in accordance with approved data'
The repair might also be accomplished in accordance with the manufacturer's "Acceptable Data", (usually a Structural Repair Manual (SRM)), or Service Bulletin. Though this "acceptable data" might not be literally "approved", it can, when appropriate, be used to support a repair, so the repaired aircraft will still be "approved". There is also "specified data" , of which AC43.13 would be an example. This would be for not major repairs.
Incidentally, my experience with Piper PA-28's has been that "Acceptable Data" is not abundant, for un-expected repairs. This has resulted in my having to develop and approve repairs for seemingly minor (hail, for example) damage. I'm glad I own a Cessna - they are well supported by an SRM. (I can't speak for the Tomahawk - 'never repaired one).
In any case, Pilots can be confident that if an aircraft is repaired by a qualified person, in accordance with the regulatory requirements, the repair will be "acceptable" or "approved". The handling, performance, longevity, or balance! of the aircraft will not be affected. The pilot need not worry, unless the pilot believes that work accomplished on the aircraft was not carried out legally.
Moderator
Eventually that was resolved, and incidentally the fleet wide inspections never unearthed a problem in any other aircraft. The whole thing was an untempered overreaction
anybody involving themselves with any aircraft should take the time to understand what they're buying into
I enjoy flying exotic aircraft when I have the opportunity, I relax in owning a simple Cessna!