Hail damage

[EatSleepFly]

While away from base, your aircraft sits outside during a hailstorm with hail ranging in size from marbles to golf balls. It sustains minor dimples to the aileron and elevator surfaces (say around 1/8" deep give or take a little and approximately the diameters of dimes/nickels/pennies). You almost need to look at different angles to see them, but they're there. The maintenance manual for the aircraft does have guidance for acceptable tolerances for hail damage on control surfaces, but being away from base the manual is not readily available (although there is maintenance on the field). Your partner sends a few cell phone photos to the company Director of Maintenance who somehow determines (from 2000 miles away and looking at grainy pics) that it is only a cosmetic issue. He states that they will go through insurance when you return the next day to have the surfaces fixed. Your partner accepts this and feels that no further action is necessary. Do you agree or disagree, and why? What would you do?

Other details:

-Part 135
-Turbojet aircraft
-Both pilots are captains with experience in type
-The damage is discovered approximately 24 hours before your next sched. departure
-The next leg is a 2000 nm redeye with pax on board

How would this be handled where you work (please specify what type of operation)?

 

[SteveC]

We would have an on-site MX person do the evaluation. 135.

 

[mshunter]

We would have an on-site MX person do the evaluation. 135.

:yeahthat: Tell the DOM you'd "like to have a local guy inspect them because you think (insert bs here about structural integrity)."

 

[Polar742]

We would have an on-site MX person do the evaluation. 135.

Two 121 operations.

Put it in the can. Usually what I'll see is a mx guy come out with a ruler and take pics, or whatever. Sometimes it's sketched out and sent in. Perhaps an Engineering Order from the manufacturer is necessary.

Again, with my lack of desire to lose my job over something stupid, I'd hate to get back and hear a "Oh SHNAP!, they didn't look that bad in the photo.", or worse the repairs take it to a certain dollar amount that they want the insurance involved. As expensive as things tend to be on aeroplanes with turbojets, who knows what, if any, reports they want filed with any gov't agencies. Since you're not in the office to active in the discussion, it's easy to create theories (rightly or wrongly) that pin the pilots (seen this first hand too many times in my short career).

 

[EatSleepFly]

Thanks guys. Your replies are pretty much what I expected and echo my feelings on the issue. Which are:

- I am not a mechanic and therefore I feel that I am unqualified to definitively determine whether it really is a cosmetic issue only.
- I feel that there is a need to document this. If it's truly a cosmetic issue only (which it is), then a local mechanic can sign it off as such and we can be on our merry way. Won't cost much and it's the right thing to do (which seems to be rather unpopular at this place).

Now, in the next week or so, the airplane will be down for awhile while these surfaces are replaced. Via insurance claim, by the way. My concern is what the FAA is going to say when they see (and they will) the jet having multiple control surfaces replaced due to hail damage when there hasn't been hail like that where the jet is based for a loong time. Pretty sure even the FAA can put 2 + 2 together and deduce that the airplane was flown in that condition without a proper writeup and mx inspection.

The twist in the story is this. The other pilot involved is the director of operations. During our discussion of the issue, I stated my thoughts as above. I was basically told everything was fine and legal, and I told him that I strongly disagreed. It became a somewhat heated discussion, and eventually I gave up, which I now regret.

If I could do it again, I would say the airplane doesn't move until maintenance signs it off. Pretty sure it would cost me the job, but it's only a matter of time anyways.

 

[The Gardener]

Thanks guys. Your replies are pretty much what I expected and echo my feelings on the issue. Which are:

- I am not a mechanic and therefore I feel that I am unqualified to definitively determine whether it really is a cosmetic issue only.
- I feel that there is a need to document this. If it's truly a cosmetic issue only (which it is), then a local mechanic can sign it off as such and we can be on our merry way. Won't cost much and it's the right thing to do (which seems to be rather unpopular at this place).

Now, in the next week or so, the airplane will be down for awhile while these surfaces are replaced. Via insurance claim, by the way. My concern is what the FAA is going to say when they see (and they will) the jet having multiple control surfaces replaced due to hail damage when there hasn't been hail like that where the jet is based for a loong time. Pretty sure even the FAA can put 2 + 2 together and deduce that the airplane was flown in that condition without a proper writeup and mx inspection.

The twist in the story is this. The other pilot involved is the director of operations. During our discussion of the issue, I stated my thoughts as above. I was basically told everything was fine and legal, and I told him that I strongly disagreed. It became a somewhat heated discussion, and eventually I gave up, which I now regret.

If I could do it again, I would say the airplane doesn't move until maintenance signs it off. Pretty sure it would cost me the job, but it's only a matter of time anyways.

That or it might be a chance for you to move up a step in the ladder.

I highly doubt the FAA is going to cook you guys for getting something fixed. No harm, no foul, they have better things to do.

 

[EatSleepFly]

That or it might be a chance for you to move up a step in the ladder.

I highly doubt the FAA is going to cook you guys for getting something fixed. No harm, no foul, they have better things to do.

I agree that we probably aren't in any danger, but on the other hand we do work with a notoriously "difficult" FSDO who I'm not convinced does actually have anything better to do.

I guess my main issues are that a.) it was just not handled properly, and b.) my input was completely disregarded, putting me in the awkward position of "just how hard do I push back, especially being the new guy?" (to the company, not to the airplane).

I have worked at two 135 cargo companies and one of the bigger fracs (who I hope brings us back someday) and at any of them (even the cargo companies), this would have been a non-event.

 

[SteveC]

...

I guess my main issues are that a.) it was just not handled properly, and b.) my input was completely disregarded, putting me in the awkward position of "just how hard do I push back, especially being the new guy?" (to the company, not to the airplane).

...

Those are the kind of situations where you just have to pick your battles. In my opinion this was more of a legality issue than a safety of flight issue, and you did what you should have. You made your opinion known and the PIC did what PIC's do; he made a decision. Even in these days of CRM the cockpit is not a democracy and there is one person who has the final say, and that's the guy that signs the paperwork. The SIC has the option to refuse to do a flight, but does not have the right to dictate the decision that the PIC makes. (I'm not implying that YOU thought you had that right, I'm just reiterating that fact as a general note that applies to the situation.) Now, if I were you, I'd file that little escapade away in the back of my mind (and maybe on paper somewhere, just in case) and get serious about finding a new employer.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Thanks for the input, guys.

Turns out my issues were legitimate and this is a battle I should have picked. I heard this afternoon (after we got back from another trip), that our chief inspector says the damage is out of tolerance.

So, not only did we fly it home like that, but we did a whole other trip and they intentionally kept the truth hidden. Needless to say I'm livid.

Yeah, it's a job, but at what cost? I just want to go back to my old frac job.

 

[dingo222]

121 , but I had a fed on board doing a 434 ride a few weeks ago and the subject of the dent log came up. In her opinion, if I called and said I found a dent and they said it was either logged or noted, i was in the clear legally as pic. As for your original question, you did the right thing in my eyes by asking to get it looked at. Mx foks work in a different world, with different limitations and parameters than we may have access to.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Edit: Oops, I just realized that I already posted a followup. Disregard.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Have you SEEN the surface of a golfball???? You gotta look at this as the is glass half full... That's not "hail damage" those are performance enhancing speed dimples! Kick the tires and light the fires...

 

[jeflies]

We had a similar situation recently with our 210's. All of them had noticeable hail damage after a nasty storm. We told MX they needed to have a write up and be cleared before we would fly. This was partly our gut instincts, but mostly the FAA ramp checking the whole place because they knew there would be some un-airworthy planes after the storm.

Luckily all of our planes were within tolerances, the write ups are cleared, and the pilots have nothing to worry about. I couldn't imagine taking off with that kind of "cosmetic" damage without some documentation showing it was legal. Can of worms for sure!

 

[dustoff17]

Thanks for the input, guys.

Turns out my issues were legitimate and this is a battle I should have picked. I heard this afternoon (after we got back from another trip), that our chief inspector says the damage is out of tolerance.

So, not only did we fly it home like that, but we did a whole other trip and they intentionally kept the truth hidden. Needless to say I'm livid.

Yeah, it's a job, but at what cost? I just want to go back to my old frac job.

Just based on what you posted, I would have flown it EMPTY upon release from the DOM (AND after he put it in an email).

After arriving at base, there is no way I would have flown it AGAIN until it was inspected and released!!!

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Depends. Is this the last leg of a trip? Cause if it is, unless an entire wing is missing, we're goin................

 

[Cass]

Have you SEEN the surface of a golfball???? You gotta look at this as the is glass half full... That's not "hail damage" those are performance enhancing speed dimples! Kick the tires and light the fires...

Beat me to it, shucks

 

[AKcharger]

We had a similar situation recently with our 210's. All of them had noticeable hail damage after a nasty storm. We told MX they needed to have a write up and be cleared before we would fly...

I think this is the best answer, write it up, yup even if off-station. If it's good enough to approve over the phone it's good enough to sign-off/waive/defer from HS and fax you back. It's easy to monday morning 1/4 back but write it up and get that monkey off your back!

 

[msmspilot]

According to the mechanics, nothing is ever broken...

 

[N8389P]

I know of a pilot that had a bird strike, he took pictures of the damage and sent them to MX. MX said the plane was good. He flew it home, did the write up when he was done for the day. FAA threw the book at the pilot.

 

[Jimmy_Norton]

What would be easier to defend at a future job interview, how you got fired from a crappy 135 outfit or an FAA action against your certificate? Also, if they do fire you, you could have a pretty stout court case against them for wrongful termination.