Message-ID: <367ECE24.5533@ibm.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:39:32 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: no preflight
References: <367D7684.B40@stephenames.com> <367DDE23.6B3D@ibm.net> <367E4885.4E76@stephenames.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.136.72
X-Trace: 22 Dec 1998 03:46:13 GMT, 32.100.136.72
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 100
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!news.new-york.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.100.136.72
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:42592

St Stephen Ames wrote:
 
> Wow, I am even more disturbed by some of the answers received here...I
> thought a pre-flight was to check for any damage or discrepencies that
> may have happened on your last flight...Everytime I have made a full
> stop landing and got out of my plane(that is the key here) I have 
> given it a complete pre-flight...

So answer this, Saint Stephen: why is this the key?

What is so special about making a full stop landing and getting
out of the plane?  

If you're worried about the effects of landing, they occur every
time the wheels touch the ground.

If you're worried about the effects of flying for some time,
well, does that mean someone flying a 450 nm leg should stop
and preflight every 50 or 100 nm?

Otherwise, what's so special about stopping and getting out?

> If you don't check it then why check it the next time you fly?...
> What could have changed?

If the plane has been sitting there, lots.  A control surface
could have become jammed, water could have gotten into the spinner
or elevator and frozen, a slow leak could be revealed by a puddle
of brake fluid under the wheel pants, the brakes could have rusted
and frozen in place, the tires or struts could need air.  Someone
else could have hit the plane and damaged it, wind damage could
occur, water could get in the fuel tanks.  Maybe I didn't notice
a bare patch on the tire as I was pushing the plane back and tieing
it down in the dark.

In addition, the oil has all drained into the sump, so it's possible
for the oil level to be determined accurately, and if the cowl opens
it's possible to actually examine the hoses and control connections
(not possible when the engine is hot).

>...Again I thought the idea was to check for damage/discrepencies 
> that occurred during the previous flight, it may have looked right 
> when you took off, did you hit something and didn't know it, did this > or that vibrate loose?

Well, first of all, I don't think I'm going to hit something and not
know it.  My experience suggests that even hitting a large bug in
flight is unmistakable, especially at night in IMC ("what the H*#!
was THAT!???").  (We think it was a bug, though it would have been
easier to identify before it wandered in front of our leading edge) 
Likewise, any unusual noise or vibration which occurred during 
flight or on landing is worth thorough checking before further 
flight.  But you know about it.  You've just been there, flying
the plane.

However, many of the things which can occur while the plane sits
for a while or is out of my care (pulley rusting so as to jam
control surface etc) are not going to occur during a brief layover.
Others (such as someone hitting the plane, or something coming loose,
oil or fluid leaks, less fuel than expected) are obvious on a brief
walk-around which includes a look at the control surfaces, tires,
fuel, oil, and bottom of the engine compartment.  Still others
are evident during the taxi and pretakeoff checks.

Other things, such as a detailed check of the engine compartment,
just can't be done while the engine's still hot and it takes a
couple hours to cool down to the point where it can be done.

>...Murphy
> lives!...I think if you don't check it everytime you fly and get a
> chance to check it(i.e. stop for gas, restrooms, etc.) you are
> short-cutting(complacent, cutting corners, whatever you want to call
> it)...

The bottom line here, Saint Stephen, is that every pilot has to
do what they think right.  If you're not comfortable without
doing a complete preflight every time you fly 50 nm and hop out 
to use the restroom, that's what you should do.  If it turns out
it makes you uncomfortable to fly more than 50-100 nm without 
stopping to preflight again, you should do that too.

Just like the people who aren't comfortable taking off without
full fuel, even for a 2 hr trip; I've never been able to see
what the difference is between flying a 3 1/2 hr leg starting
with full fuel, or flying for 1 1/2 hrs starting 20 gallons low,
myself, but they perceive a difference, and if it makes them 
uncomfortable to do otherwise, that's what they should do.

They can even (if it makes them feel better) slam into other pilots
who have a different viewpoint as "short cutting, complacent" etc.

Snowbird

PS I guarantee I do a more thorough preflight than you do.  Not
necessarily your fault, in part has to do with cowl design and
in part experience learning what to look for.  Does that make
you "short cutting and complacent" because you're comfortable flying
after a preflight which would give me the willies?  I don't think
so but by your logic, you might.


