Shredex 0 #26 March 13, 2013 Lets not bitch and wine about Lodi till you go there for yourself NOW and see how things are operated. And do it with a clear mind. Only then may you speak. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 March 13, 2013 Quote Lets not bitch and wine about Lodi till you go there for yourself NOW and see how things are operated. And do it with a clear mind. Only then may you speak. I may speak just as you may speak: whenever I wish. And I say Dave Lepka made valid points. Yes, I believe in giving one the opportunity for redemption, but Dave's points are valid, too. Yin and yang, baby. Embrace it. Or not. Whatever floats your boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #28 March 13, 2013 QuoteQuote Lets not bitch and wine about Lodi till you go there for yourself NOW and see how things are operated. And do it with a clear mind. Only then may you speak. I may speak just as you may speak: whenever I wish. And I say Dave Lepka made valid points. Yes, I believe in giving one the opportunity for redemption, but Dave's points are valid, too. Yin and yang, baby. Embrace it. Or not. Whatever floats your boat. I don't really have a dog in this fight but.... with jump prices so low, would it be presumptuous to try to make a parallel between that and the lack of proper maintenance? That stuff costs money."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #29 March 13, 2013 QuoteLets not bitch and wine about Lodi till you go there for yourself NOW and see how things are operated I wonder what part of the MX and log books are more outwardly visible than they were in the past? What is it that you can see that is different than it was before? Let's remember, that the nature of the problem was such that nobody but the MX staff and management was aware of the shortfalls, as those areas, as I mentioned above, are generally on a 'trust the DZO' basis, and not something the casual observer could tell one way or the other. If an aircraft is in such poor repair that it's obvious to the outside observer, that's a real problem. However, let's say a high pressure fuel pump has rust in the drive gears, is that going to be obvious to anyone but the A&P who inspects the pump? Nobody could tell there was a problem until the drive gears let go, and the engine quit. Ditto the wing attachment points on an Otter. They are covered with a fairing, and their condition is only known to those who remove the fairing and inspect those points. To you and I, they are hidden from view. I'm not claiming to have knowledge of the current state of affairs in the Lodi MX department. I'm citing the past performance, and calling it cause for concern. You, on the other hand, are claiming to knowledge of the situation, and I am suggesting that you might not know as much as you think. Maybe it's all good, maybe it's not. We're still left to trust the DZO, and he does have a 'marked' track record in that area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Morg 0 #30 March 13, 2013 QuoteNobody's listening to you, Dave. Look at these geniuses, even immediately after your post: "You can't beat these prices!!" - all they want is cheap jumps, instant gratification and no thought process. And, since it's virtually guaranteed that they're still young enough to be bullet-proof, they don't have to worry about what happens at 600 feet on the way up. Hey, they're wearing parachutes, right? Thanks for your patronising comments. Would I be smarter by default if i was old, cynical, and cared what people said on the internet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #31 March 13, 2013 QuoteQuoteNobody's listening to you, Dave. Look at these geniuses, even immediately after your post: "You can't beat these prices!!" - all they want is cheap jumps, instant gratification and no thought process. And, since it's virtually guaranteed that they're still young enough to be bullet-proof, they don't have to worry about what happens at 600 feet on the way up. Hey, they're wearing parachutes, right? Thanks for your patronising comments. Would I be smarter by default if i was old, cynical, and cared what people said on the internet? I don't know. In my life experience I've found that those who are smarter by default are generally those who think, act and speak like it - which is to say, those who don't have their heads up their asses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Morg 0 #32 March 13, 2013 Awe shit it happened. Gives honest response based on personal experiences to someone asking a question. Ends up in a passive aggressive online argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 March 13, 2013 Yeah, well, your screen name rhymes with Borg. http://www.bigdamngeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/borg.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #34 March 13, 2013 Quote- YES, they did have some serious A/C issues in the past, but they've since rectified the situation. please look at the FAA reports your self. Do you have a link with the most up to date information or FAA report on that? Last I heard the situation was not rectified at all, and instead the charges still stand and are now past the local courts and hung up in national or federal courts or something.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 March 14, 2013 600K+ in fines is not "in line with the FAA""No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #36 March 14, 2013 Quote Lets not bitch and wine about Lodi till you go there for yourself NOW and see how things are operated. And do it with a clear mind. Only then may you speak. Do they wear seatbelts now?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jf951 1 #37 March 14, 2013 Quote Quote YES, they did have some serious A/C issues in the past, but they've since rectified the situation That may be true, but part of the problem is that aircraft MX is one of the areas where you place a ton of faith in the DZO that they are doing the right thing. As discussed ad-nauseam with regards to this issue, it's impractical or almost impossible for the average jumper to actually check the logs and confirm that they are complete, legit, and up to date. Based on this, it becomes an issue of trust. One of my problems with the situation was the nature of the shortfalls. Failure to inspect the wing attachment pioints sounds like one of the dumbest things ever. It's more-or-less a 'free' inspection, in that the only cost is labor, and as I understand it, Bill has A&Ps on the payroll anyway. I get why someone doesn't do a six-figure hot section on an engine, but a simple inspection on a critical structural part is hard to understand why it was skipped. (Along those same lines, skipping a simple inspection of a fuel pump is what lead to the crash of one of Bill's King Airs up in Cananda, you think he might have learned) The timed-out contol cables is another sticking point for me, based mostly on the duration of the 'over time'. When the FAA busted him, it been over a year that he was flying on timed out cables, and I just don't see how you can excuse that. A week, two weeks, a month, maybe. Who knows, maybe there was a boogie, or the cables were on back-order, but to let that situation stand for over a year is hard to understand. So coming full circle, to the idea that aircraft MX becomes an issue ot trust in the DZO, you can see why some people might find it hard to place that trust in a guy who acted in the manner described above. ah, dave, just in time. I'm glad to see your Lodi radar is still working. as promised! Watch your thread, there it goes! ...up in flames. [inline h-bomb.jpg]Jump more, Bitch less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #38 March 14, 2013 QuoteWatch your thread, there it goes! ...up in flames Below is a quote from the OP, what I said was on-topic, and relevant. QuoteHave their aircraft maintenance issues been addressed? Tell me that aircraft MX is not largely an issue of simply trusting the DZO that it is done properly. Tell me that Lodi did not have some egregious MX issues that spanned a significant time period and number of loads flown. As fas as I know, Bill is still running his own MX shop, so you have all the same people doing the same job as before. Do you really think it's a stretch be be, let say, skeptikal, when it comes to the current state of affairs. Note that I don't come right out and say that things are 'A-OK' nor 'sup-par', as I don't know one way or the other. I just lay out the facts from not too long ago, and the fact that there is a degree of trust involved in the area of aircraft MX in this industry. If you break that trust, there is a price to pay, and part of that is going to be some lingering skeptisism. Maybe you can help me, what does corrosion on an Otter wing attachment point look like? How about with the fairing installed on the plane, what does it look like then? How about worn control cables? What do they look like with all the inspection plates in place? It's something to think about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #39 March 14, 2013 QuoteQuoteWatch your thread, there it goes! ...up in flames Below is a quote from the OP, what I said was on-topic, and relevant. QuoteHave their aircraft maintenance issues been addressed? Tell me that aircraft MX is not largely an issue of simply trusting the DZO that it is done properly. Tell me that Lodi did not have some egregious MX issues that spanned a significant time period and number of loads flown. As fas as I know, Bill is still running his own MX shop, so you have all the same people doing the same job as before. Do you really think it's a stretch be be, let say, skeptikal, when it comes to the current state of affairs. Note that I don't come right out and say that things are 'A-OK' nor 'sup-par', as I don't know one way or the other. I just lay out the facts from not too long ago, and the fact that there is a degree of trust involved in the area of aircraft MX in this industry. If you break that trust, there is a price to pay, and part of that is going to be some lingering skeptisism. Maybe you can help me, what does corrosion on an Otter wing attachment point look like? How about with the fairing installed on the plane, what does it look like then? How about worn control cables? What do they look like with all the inspection plates in place? It's something to think about. Relax Dave! The FAA has handled it. They have been out there so many times we know what they eat for lunch. Amazingly after months of follow up investigation, meetings with attorneys and more paperwork, the FAA has sought a settlement for much less than the proposed amounts, because many parts of their case have fallen apart. That doesn't get a big press-release because it makes the FAA look bad. But Bill is still fighting and is probably spending more on his attorney than the latest settlement proposal. It's not about the money, its about being right. If you don't trust Bill, that's fine, don't jump there. But if you don't know anything but what the FAA is spouting, then you don't know anything. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #40 March 15, 2013 That would be a foolish choice, but knock yourself out... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #41 March 15, 2013 QuoteBill is ... probably spending more on his attorney Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #42 March 18, 2013 QuoteWhich raises a question to me (as it did when all this started) was it no MX being performed, or MX being performed with extremely sloppy paperwork? There have been cases where private pilots flying their own airplanes had insurance refuse to pay out because they did 'owner maintenance' (i.e. oil changes and plugs) but didn't record them properly in the logbook. Therefore the plane was not airworthy. Well, they had a crash at Pitt Meadows where it appears the maintenance work was not done and that contributed heavily to the crash: The two engines in the aircraft were PWC gas turbo-prop model PT6A-20, serial numbers 21606 (left engine) and 20205 (right engine). Because of their impact damage, the engines could not be run in a test-cell facility. They were shipped to PWC for disassembly, examination, and analysis. The left engine and its components were torn down, inspected, and tested with a TSB investigator present. The only significant anomaly found was that the high-pressure, engine-driven fuel pump drive splines were worn and corroded beyond the point of failure (see Photo 4 and Photo 5). Without fuel being supplied from the high-pressure fuel pump to the fuel control unit, the engine will shut down immediately. Photo 4. Left engine drive splines and coupling Photo 5. Close-up of external spline wear The right engine and its components were disassembled, inspected, and tested. No faults were found that would explain a loss of power in this engine. Aircraft Records and Maintenance A review of the aircraft records indicates that, from 01 April 2006 to 06 March 2008 (approximately 23 months), the aircraft flew 402 hours. PWC Service Bulletin (SB) 1803R2 specifies a maximum time before overhaul (TBO) of 3600 hours. At the time of the occurrence, the left engine had exceeded this TBO; it had accumulated 4435 hours in service since its last overhaul completed in 1999. The right engine had accumulated 2478 hours since its last overhaul. Records also indicate that the manufacturer's Phase 3 and Phase 4 inspections of the airframe and engines were accomplished in Lodi, California, United States, on 06 March 2008 and the aircraft had flown approximately 170 hours since that date. One of the items listed on the maintenance check sheet required inspection of the high-pressure fuel pump of both engines. It indicated the following: "Engine-driven fuel pump coupling shaft – Inspect for fretting and/or corrosion when replacing outlet filter." While the inspection for the right-hand engine was initialled as completed by the Airframe and Power-Plant (A&P) mechanic, the same item for the left engine was marked as not applicable (N/A). The mechanic was not aware of the procedure in the PWC Maintenance Manual, which details how to inspect the splines in situ using a cotton swab."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #43 March 19, 2013 QuoteWhich raises a question to me (as it did when all this started) was it no MX being performed, or MX being performed with extremely sloppy paperwork? And if it was a misunderstanding and it's been taken care of with the FAA, particularly in the case of it being a paperwork issue, then you still can't fault people (like Dave... and anybody else for that matter) for feeling uneasy and being skeptical given: 1.) the history with other aircraft (Pitt Meadows) and 2.) the fact that a final ruling or statement on this case has not been issued and this is only the word of people at Lodi that it was basically a misunderstanding that has been since taken care of. ETA: When I say "you can't fault people," I don't mean you, Iago. You just got hit on the reply button and instead that is a general "nobody can fault anybody else for" kind of 'you.'Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #44 March 19, 2013 QuoteWhich raises a question to me (as it did when all this started) was it no MX being performed, or MX being performed with extremely sloppy paperwork? Or the third option, extremely sloppy detective work on the part of the FAA. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #45 March 19, 2013 QuoteQuoteWhich raises a question to me (as it did when all this started) was it no MX being performed, or MX being performed with extremely sloppy paperwork? Or the third option, extremely sloppy detective work on the part of the FAA. top Which might be true-- and I am just playing devils advocate here, but what I said would still stand at that point. You still can't blame somebody for being skeptical until seeing the final ruling or statement on this case, even if it's to say case dropped for whatever reason, including sloppy FSDO investigation.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #46 March 22, 2013 QuoteThat would be a foolish choice, but knock yourself out... And you have jumped at Lodi exactly how many times? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #47 March 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteThat would be a foolish choice, but knock yourself out... And you have jumped at Lodi exactly how many times? Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Not after what the DZO pulled there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #48 March 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat would be a foolish choice, but knock yourself out... And you have jumped at Lodi exactly how many times? Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Not after what the DZO pulled there. Good Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #49 March 23, 2013 Quote Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Ever jump at Perris?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #50 March 23, 2013 QuoteQuote Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Ever jump at Perris? No. Why? They've got an excellent reputation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
