 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:45 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
 |
|
This was a good way to hurt yourself, and your friends, and to impose stress loads in places that were never designed for same.
This was ignoring every bit of advice from every expert on this list that took the time to answer.
This was not making lemonade. This was careless and reckless.
Good Day.
Mark Bitterlich
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tigeryak18t
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 233
Location: PARIS FRANCE
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:08 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
|
|
This judgment is a little rude MarkWhen we find a problem we try to solve it the best as we can. It happens that we make small or big mistakes but it is rude to say "careless and reckless"
Anyway nobody was hurt apparently thanks god and in the future I'm sure Bruno will read more patiently and carrefully the good (or less good!!!) advices of the list.
Thanks to all for your patient help care and support to us ignorant little pilots.
Didier
2017-08-23 20:44 GMT+02:00 Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>:
[quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>
This was a good way to hurt yourself, and your friends, and to impose stress loads in places that were never designed for same.
This was ignoring every bit of advice from every expert on this list that took the time to answer.
This was not making lemonade. This was careless and reckless.
Good Day.
Mark Bitterlich
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
_________________
Didier Tiger YAK18T
Member of Commemorative Air Force
French Wing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:19 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
|
|
Ok Didier..... since you brought it up.....
Let me be perfectly clear. Aircraft Maintenance has been my profession for over 40 years. How many others reading this email can say that? So let me be specific and hopefully educational. And saying this, I expect negative feedback by the usual folks who demand political correctness at every step.
This gentleman was correctly advised by a number of experts to use proper equipment, namely proper aircraft jacks, in order to cycle the landing gear. In fact one person actually begged him to do that, because he was worried the gent might try to make up some method using whatever he had at hand, without any experience and/or prior knowledge. All good advice. This gent then ignored that advice.
1. The engine mount is not designed or stressed to be used as a lifting point for raising the aircraft. However, it was used for that function in this lift. Just because something does not snap and break when you put stress on it, does not mean it has not been damaged. So now there is the possibility of unknown damage to a critical piece of hardware. Not LIKELY, but entirely possible.
2. The aircraft was lifted using the actual structure of the building as a method to support the weight. There were no load tests or engineering reviews done on the structural condition of the hangar roof, as was pointed out by someone else on this list. The hangar roof is not something that is designed to be load bearing even if made from steel. What kind of prior load tests were done using this method? Any?
3. Straps and come-a-longs were used to attach to non-specified and non-tested lift points. Once again to get the aircraft off the ground.
4. Once off the ground, people climbed on the aircraft, and actuated the landing gear. Had anything failed at this point, there is a strong chance people would have been hurt.
The fact is that in aircraft maintenance, the end never justifies the means. This gent got away with this ad-hoc method once. I am glad he did. I do not wish loss or injury to anyone and I am sure no one else does either.
But ask yourself this question: If any official of any aviation agency from any country in the world saw this being done, what would they have called it and what would they have done about it? In the United States, the aircraft owner is actually ultimately accountable for work being performed on his aircraft. Yes, there are many "but if's" to this statement, but ultimately it can come down to that. Had anything failed in this effort, had anyone gotten hurt, what would the judgement have been by the FAA?
Were the manufacture's procedures followed when performing this work?
NO.
Was proper equipment being used that had been properly load tested as called for in the procedures?
NO.
Did the owner use a totally unauthorized procedure which put the aircraft, himself and those around him at risk?
YES.,
All of this adds up to, and meets the definition of being "careless and reckless". What makes it worse is that this gentleman asked about doing it first to everyone on this list, was strongly advised not to, and then did it anyway. After doing it, he seemed to feel pretty good about it, taking pictures and advising others how to go about doing it. Going further still, one reader actually classified his actions in a congratulatory sense, which of course encourages others to ignore every bit of regulatory process and do whatever they feel is necessary to get the results they are looking for as well. That kind of attitude is DANGEROUS.
At the end of the day, this gent has YET to follow the exact troubleshooting steps recommended by the foremost expert on this system found on this list-server. Which means this aircraft is going to have to go back up into the air again, and unless someone speaks up and says DO NOT DO THIS! I did. In no uncertain terms. My conscience is clear.
Over the years I have spent helping others on the Yak List, I have learned to recognize those that only use advice to get what they want, and ignore every caution offered in the process. Thus I am now much more cautious giving it these days as it comes with a sense of responsibility.
So Didier, my choice of words might be considered "rude" by some I fully admit. But they are 100% accurate.
Mark
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Looigi
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 81
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:57 am Post subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
|
|
I have been trying very hard to stay out of this debate, but I can't let the "Nobody died so it was ok" suggestion go without comment. Mark is 100% correct with his comments.
Like Mark, I have been fixing airplanes for a long time now, mostly in the military and airline worlds. Like Mark I am of the opinion that this is a very good demonstration of how not to jack an aeroplane.
The "Battle conditions, the enemy is coming" attitude is fine, when they actually are. In this case, they weren't, and the risks taken here far outweigh the cost of a few bottles of beer it would have probably taken to borrow a set of suitable jacks.
I am about to make a set of jacks for my own Yak-52, and I am guessing that a set of four jacks will cost me less than $500 NZ and a day with the welder.
Bruno, give me a few weeks to clear some other jobs out of my life and I will post some pictures of them and a drawing..... Go and get some made. Please.
Chris
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j.mevis(at)computer.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:07 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
|
|
Didier, I concur with this point of view of Mark.
I was horrified when I saw the pictures with the Nanchang hanging at the
wooden roof of a hangar.
A friend of mine is a military constructions engineer.
I showed him the pictures. He was amazed too (understatement).
Anyway, I hope that your friend will get the problem solved and I wish him
many safe flights.
BR,
Jan
On 24/08/2017, 19:18, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD"
<owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> wrote:
[quote]
<mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Ok Didier..... since you brought it up.....
Let me be perfectly clear. Aircraft Maintenance has been my profession
for over 40 years. How many others reading this email can say that?
So let me be specific and hopefully educational. And saying this, I
expect negative feedback by the usual folks who demand political
correctness at every step.
This gentleman was correctly advised by a number of experts to use proper
equipment, namely proper aircraft jacks, in order to cycle the landing
gear. In fact one person actually begged him to do that, because he was
worried the gent might try to make up some method using whatever he had
at hand, without any experience and/or prior knowledge. All good advice.
This gent then ignored that advice.
1. The engine mount is not designed or stressed to be used as a lifting
point for raising the aircraft. However, it was used for that function
in this lift. Just because something does not snap and break when you
put stress on it, does not mean it has not been damaged. So now there is
the possibility of unknown damage to a critical piece of hardware. Not
LIKELY, but entirely possible.
2. The aircraft was lifted using the actual structure of the building as
a method to support the weight. There were no load tests or engineering
reviews done on the structural condition of the hangar roof, as was
pointed out by someone else on this list. The hangar roof is not
something that is designed to be load bearing even if made from steel.
What kind of prior load tests were done using this method? Any?
3. Straps and come-a-longs were used to attach to non-specified and
non-tested lift points. Once again to get the aircraft off the ground.
4. Once off the ground, people climbed on the aircraft, and actuated the
landing gear. Had anything failed at this point, there is a strong
chance people would have been hurt.
The fact is that in aircraft maintenance, the end never justifies the
means. This gent got away with this ad-hoc method once. I am glad he
did. I do not wish loss or injury to anyone and I am sure no one else
does either.
But ask yourself this question: If any official of any aviation agency
from any country in the world saw this being done, what would they have
called it and what would they have done about it? In the United States,
the aircraft owner is actually ultimately accountable for work being
performed on his aircraft. Yes, there are many "but if's" to this
statement, but ultimately it can come down to that. Had anything failed
in this effort, had anyone gotten hurt, what would the judgement have
been by the FAA?
Were the manufacture's procedures followed when performing this work?
NO.
Was proper equipment being used that had been properly load tested as
called for in the procedures?
NO.
Did the owner use a totally unauthorized procedure which put the
aircraft, himself and those around him at risk?
YES.,
All of this adds up to, and meets the definition of being "careless and
reckless". What makes it worse is that this gentleman asked about doing
it first to everyone on this list, was strongly advised not to, and then
did it anyway. After doing it, he seemed to feel pretty good about it,
taking pictures and advising others how to go about doing it. Going
further still, one reader actually classified his actions in a
congratulatory sense, which of course encourages others to ignore every
bit of regulatory process and do whatever they feel is necessary to get
the results they are looking for as well. That kind of attitude is
DANGEROUS.
At the end of the day, this gent has YET to follow the exact
troubleshooting steps recommended by the foremost expert on this system
found on this list-server. Which means this aircraft is going to have to
go back up into the air again, and unless someone speaks up and says DO
NOT DO THIS! I did. In no uncertain terms. My conscience is clear.
Over the years I have spent helping others on the Yak List, I have
learned to recognize those that only use advice to get what they want,
and ignore every caution offered in the process. Thus I am now much more
cautious giving it these days as it comes with a sense of responsibility.
So Didier, my choice of words might be considered "rude" by some I fully
admit. But they are 100% accurate.
Mark
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pa3arw(at)ziggo.nl
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:24 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
|
|
And that's the way it is! I totally agree!
Amen!
Hans Oortman
PH-YAK
Op 24-08-17 19:18, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
<mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> schreef:
[quote]
<mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Ok Didier..... since you brought it up.....
Let me be perfectly clear. Aircraft Maintenance has been my profession for
over 40 years. How many others reading this email can say that? So let me
be specific and hopefully educational. And saying this, I expect negative
feedback by the usual folks who demand political correctness at every step.
This gentleman was correctly advised by a number of experts to use proper
equipment, namely proper aircraft jacks, in order to cycle the landing gear.
In fact one person actually begged him to do that, because he was worried the
gent might try to make up some method using whatever he had at hand, without
any experience and/or prior knowledge. All good advice. This gent then
ignored that advice.
1. The engine mount is not designed or stressed to be used as a lifting point
for raising the aircraft. However, it was used for that function in this
lift. Just because something does not snap and break when you put stress on
it, does not mean it has not been damaged. So now there is the possibility of
unknown damage to a critical piece of hardware. Not LIKELY, but entirely
possible.
2. The aircraft was lifted using the actual structure of the building as a
method to support the weight. There were no load tests or engineering reviews
done on the structural condition of the hangar roof, as was pointed out by
someone else on this list. The hangar roof is not something that is designed
to be load bearing even if made from steel. What kind of prior load tests
were done using this method? Any?
3. Straps and come-a-longs were used to attach to non-specified and
non-tested lift points. Once again to get the aircraft off the ground.
4. Once off the ground, people climbed on the aircraft, and actuated the
landing gear. Had anything failed at this point, there is a strong chance
people would have been hurt.
The fact is that in aircraft maintenance, the end never justifies the means.
This gent got away with this ad-hoc method once. I am glad he did. I do not
wish loss or injury to anyone and I am sure no one else does either.
But ask yourself this question: If any official of any aviation agency from
any country in the world saw this being done, what would they have called it
and what would they have done about it? In the United States, the aircraft
owner is actually ultimately accountable for work being performed on his
aircraft. Yes, there are many "but if's" to this statement, but ultimately it
can come down to that. Had anything failed in this effort, had anyone gotten
hurt, what would the judgement have been by the FAA?
Were the manufacture's procedures followed when performing this work?
NO.
Was proper equipment being used that had been properly load tested as called
for in the procedures?
NO.
Did the owner use a totally unauthorized procedure which put the aircraft,
himself and those around him at risk?
YES.,
All of this adds up to, and meets the definition of being "careless and
reckless". What makes it worse is that this gentleman asked about doing it
first to everyone on this list, was strongly advised not to, and then did it
anyway. After doing it, he seemed to feel pretty good about it, taking
pictures and advising others how to go about doing it. Going further still,
one reader actually classified his actions in a congratulatory sense, which of
course encourages others to ignore every bit of regulatory process and do
whatever they feel is necessary to get the results they are looking for as
well. That kind of attitude is DANGEROUS.
At the end of the day, this gent has YET to follow the exact troubleshooting
steps recommended by the foremost expert on this system found on this
list-server. Which means this aircraft is going to have to go back up into
the air again, and unless someone speaks up and says DO NOT DO THIS! I did.
In no uncertain terms. My conscience is clear.
Over the years I have spent helping others on the Yak List, I have learned to
recognize those that only use advice to get what they want, and ignore every
caution offered in the process. Thus I am now much more cautious giving it
these days as it comes with a sense of responsibility.
So Didier, my choice of words might be considered "rude" by some I fully
admit. But they are 100% accurate.
Mark
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dabear
Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 92
Location: Warrenton, VA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:23 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Re: gear retraction problem |
|
|
Once again Mark brings reason, experience, knowledge to the discussion.
They were lucky the airplane didn't come down on someone or that the
whole hangar didn't come down on them.
On 8/24/2017 1:18 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD wrote:
[quote]
Ok Didier..... since you brought it up.....
Let me be perfectly clear. Aircraft Maintenance has been my profession for over 40 years. How many others reading this email can say that? So let me be specific and hopefully educational. And saying this, I expect negative feedback by the usual folks who demand political correctness at every step.
This gentleman was correctly advised by a number of experts to use proper equipment, namely proper aircraft jacks, in order to cycle the landing gear. In fact one person actually begged him to do that, because he was worried the gent might try to make up some method using whatever he had at hand, without any experience and/or prior knowledge. All good advice. This gent then ignored that advice.
1. The engine mount is not designed or stressed to be used as a lifting point for raising the aircraft. However, it was used for that function in this lift. Just because something does not snap and break when you put stress on it, does not mean it has not been damaged. So now there is the possibility of unknown damage to a critical piece of hardware. Not LIKELY, but entirely possible.
2. The aircraft was lifted using the actual structure of the building as a method to support the weight. There were no load tests or engineering reviews done on the structural condition of the hangar roof, as was pointed out by someone else on this list. The hangar roof is not something that is designed to be load bearing even if made from steel. What kind of prior load tests were done using this method? Any?
3. Straps and come-a-longs were used to attach to non-specified and non-tested lift points. Once again to get the aircraft off the ground.
4. Once off the ground, people climbed on the aircraft, and actuated the landing gear. Had anything failed at this point, there is a strong chance people would have been hurt.
The fact is that in aircraft maintenance, the end never justifies the means. This gent got away with this ad-hoc method once. I am glad he did. I do not wish loss or injury to anyone and I am sure no one else does either.
But ask yourself this question: If any official of any aviation agency from any country in the world saw this being done, what would they have called it and what would they have done about it? In the United States, the aircraft owner is actually ultimately accountable for work being performed on his aircraft. Yes, there are many "but if's" to this statement, but ultimately it can come down to that. Had anything failed in this effort, had anyone gotten hurt, what would the judgement have been by the FAA?
Were the manufacture's procedures followed when performing this work?
NO.
Was proper equipment being used that had been properly load tested as called for in the procedures?
NO.
Did the owner use a totally unauthorized procedure which put the aircraft, himself and those around him at risk?
YES.,
All of this adds up to, and meets the definition of being "careless and reckless". What makes it worse is that this gentleman asked about doing it first to everyone on this list, was strongly advised not to, and then did it anyway. After doing it, he seemed to feel pretty good about it, taking pictures and advising others how to go about doing it. Going further still, one reader actually classified his actions in a congratulatory sense, which of course encourages others to ignore every bit of regulatory process and do whatever they feel is necessary to get the results they are looking for as well. That kind of attitude is DANGEROUS.
At the end of the day, this gent has YET to follow the exact troubleshooting steps recommended by the foremost expert on this system found on this list-server. Which means this aircraft is going to have to go back up into the air again, and unless someone speaks up and says DO NOT DO THIS! I did. In no uncertain terms. My conscience is clear.
Over the years I have spent helping others on the Yak List, I have learned to recognize those that only use advice to get what they want, and ignore every caution offered in the process. Thus I am now much more cautious giving it these days as it comes with a sense of responsibility.
So Didier, my choice of words might be considered "rude" by some I fully admit. But they are 100% accurate.
Mark
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
