Peter wrote:
The aircraft is a PA28 Arrow
When not flying I`m digging on crash sites of WWII airplanes. On such excavations I have seen a lot plane parts from fighters which were buried since 1944/45 and looked like this. 
Scary…
To be honest, I’m more interested in the engineering business that issued the most recent Certificate of Airworthiness. They are the body that should have stopped this plane from getting into the air again… unless of course this plane has no such certificate and is flying anyway.
Well, Howard, you know how EASA Part M works….. and every predecessor system before that came along. The work done is only as good as the people doing it.
Actually I wonder if the above landing gear condition makes the aircraft legally unairworthy, never mind to the point where the CAA would take action. The CAA does nothing about maintenance companies unless somebody gets killed and sometimes not even then (hard to prove the condition was thus at the time, etc).
I have seen enough on the maintenance front to not need to ask questions like that. I have had avionics work done where controls were cutting into cables, and when I sent a video of it to the company (FAA&EASA 145, etc etc) they couldn’t care less. So, absolutely nothing surprises me. And having written about it and got slammed by maintenance company people for doing so…
However, the thing I was really curious about was the pilot(s) putting up with this. If they didn’t, something would get done about it. All the time they don’t care, the maintenance will be done like this.
LeSving wrote:
I think it’s a UK thing, and I’m not surprised.
Objection, your honour!!
I lived in the UK for a year some time ago and always admired the way that Brits could nurture machinery of all kinds.
Once we stumbled on to a road block but we could not be pleased more to see what came by.
And, to top it off, you never know, but ‘mighty in strength and endurance’ might just also apply to that undercarriage. Well, might..:
That’s some weird looking aircraft.
It’s got tons of corrosion as well. I wouldn’t touch it.
To say that the UK CAA do nothing about aircraft in this state is simply not true, after an aircraft in this sort of state tuned up and I wrote a string of MOR’s they did have the last person to certify the annual in for a " few words of wisdom ".
There is increasing concern within the UK CAA about the state of older aircraft and a recent CAA inspection centred on a 1974 PA28 that was in the hangar for an annual check, it was noted by the inspector that this aircraft was in a lot better condition than most of its age and was subject to regular and appropriate maintenance. It would seem that they are starting to weed out the under maintained old dogs.
That is very good to hear, A&C. I know you have much more experience than I have but IME what I wrote was historically true. It’s about time something was done. This plane must have been in that condition for many years, through many Annuals and signoffs, under Part M. No idea where though.
My Q still stands – how could anybody be flying it? It’s pretty evident on a preflight. Don’t some people do a preflight check?
As to why people fly junk, most of them think if it has been signed off by a licensed engineering it must be safe, there are a few rouges who will sign anything for cash and more than a few owners who will offer money to those who will because it is cheaper than paying for the work to be done.
It is a problem of the maintenance business that you are constantly under cut by those offering maintenance at a price that indicates they can’t be doing the job properly.
