[month-index] [thread-index] [prev] [next] [thread-next]

The tail number of the plane was N9639B (Academy #103), which is interesting
to me since my plane is N9636B. They were probably on the factory floor at
the same time. The two planes even have similar paint jobs and could easily
be mistaken for one another from a distance. N9639B is relatively new to
Sierra Academy; I think theyve only had the plane for about six months or
less (and in case you were looking up these tail numbers, almost none of
Sierras planes are registered to Sierra -- many of them belong to companies
like Christensen Aviation which, if I recall correctly, is based in
someplace like Kansas).

Anyway, employees at KaiserAir who watched the incident said that the shower
of sparks was quite spectacular (it was night). The belly is pretty well
sandpapered, but the nose gear and gear doors are undamaged. There is very
little sheet metal damage; one plate under the cockpit appears to have the
corner bent a little bit. All the antennae and stuff hanging on the belly
were torn off. The exhaust pipe was circumcised. And it appears that the
engine may have to be replaced -- they havent torn it down yet to see the
extent of the damage but it doesnt look good.

Some of you may recall that several months ago a Sierra Cessna 152 ran off
the runway and hit a runway light, folding the nose gear and creating a
152RG. Sierra couldnt get an STC for the mod, however, so the nose gear,
firewall, and engine are all being replaced. The plane is getting a brand
new engine from Lycoming -- it is sitting in a box at Sierras maintenance
hangar now. The firewall is already done, but the nose is still jacked up.

It appears that Academy #5, a Duchess, will fly again. This plane was the
subject of a ramp check in February and the inspector had so many squawks
that he ran out of forms, so he placarded it with a final form saying "List
of additional deficiencies to follow." Most people who looked at the plane
figured it would cost more to fix it than it was worth. The right wing was
wrinkled inboard of the engined nacelle, the left trailing edge was badly
bent right at the "No Step" placard (somebody had stepped), there appeared
to be structural damage to the wing spar, numerous squawks on avionics,
wiring, engines, etc. But Sierra has been working on this plane steadily
since that time. One of the engines was replaced. Fortunately the wrinkled
skin on the right wing was only that -- no internal damage. Right now the
panel is torn out and they are rewiring everything, but that is the last
thing left to be done -- by the time they are finished it will be
practically a brand new airplane.

Sierras maintenance has greatly improved since they hired a new manager. 50
hour inspections are turning around faster, the planes are much cleaner and
squawks are generally repaired within a few hours. If a landing light is
burned out, they arent placarding it "inop" like they used to, they are
replacing the light. The interiors of many of the planes are still pretty
shabby, showing years of hard use and abuse by student pilots. Sierra has
been repainting and redoing some of these and they look fairly nice even if
they are not what you would call show quality. I still have to wonder
whether it would be cheaper just to ditch some of these old clunkers and buy
new planes.

People on these boards keep asking what it costs to operate their own plane.
Sierra Academy has their own maintenance, but the cost of keeping these
planes in reasonable condition has to be enormous. Granted, few people would
treat their own plane as roughly as a bunch of student pilots, but
prospective airplane owners should maybe spend a little time visiting a
place like this, asking questions like "How many times has this plane been
in here in the last year?" and "How many hours of flight time does this
plane get for each hour of maintenance?"


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:1mrM5.384533$i5.6419867@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
| One of Sierra Academys Cessna 172RGs had a gear up landing at Oakland
| International last night. They must have tried everything, but they
couldnt
| get one of the mains to come more than half way down. The guys did a
pretty
| good job landing it nevertheless. Damage appears to be slight, but the
prop
| was dinged so theyll have to inspect the engine. Hardly even any scrapes
on
| the belly. I looked at the plane while it was up on jacks at Sierras
| maintenance hangar. I wouldnt expect the plane to be out of service for
| long.
|
| They still dont know exactly what the problem was, but the landing gear
| pivot assemblies on these planes are the subject of a proposed AD. If that
| is what it is, this would be the second 172RG that Ive seen this year
that
| has had a gear up landing because of a cracked pivot assembly (the first
one
| ground looped, tearing up the wingtip and tail as well as badly damaging
the
| belly and snapping the crankshaft -- it belonged to another flight
school).
| Bill Leahy at Leahy Aviation in Hayward says he has seen others. I had the
| gear inspected on my plane when the annual was done in April. There were
no
| cracks, but it is something to keep an eye on. Although 182RGs are not
| mentioned in the proposed AD, I understand they have the same problem.
|
|

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous Message:: Re: Help locating airline pilot sites, mailing lists?
Next Message:: 14K Gold/Natural Gems Wholesale/liquidation prices from $9.99
Next message in thread:: Re: More on the Gear up landing