Aircraft Painting – What You Should Know

In line with the multitudes of environmental concerns, Desothane HS has been approved by the PPG Aerospace as the best coating Airbus and Boeing. This is due to the fact that kind of topcoat has low VOC (volatile organic compounds) content. VOC is commonly found in paints and it is simply classified as a harmful chemical substance because of its unstable property and carbon content that usually vaporize in the air. When combined with other elements, they would certainly create ozone which usually causes pollution and a plethora of health issues such as headaches, breathing problems, nausea, watery eyes, burning, etc. VOC is also known as something that triggers cancer, liver damage and kidney problems.

The Manufacture of Aircraft Paints and Topcoats

Prior to the different concerns mentioned above, manufacturers have made it possible to produce paints and topcoats with less or low volatile organic compound content. And with the introduction of these coatings, aircraft manufacturers and airline maintenance operations rely on these products through the years. Generally, these coatings come in a variety of choices from primers meant for composite, standard topcoats and paints in mica and metallic colors. Innovative and selective strippable paints and coatings are combined with a long lasting performance that also comes with efficient paint or topcoat removal to make a repaint process easier.

aircraft paiting

Aircraft Paints: General & Commercial

If you are going to explore the world of paints and topcoats, you will discover that the choices of these products can be very overwhelming. However, when it comes to aircraft paints and topcoats, there are only few kinds that are acceptable to the aviation maintenance group, management and administration. For one, the Akzo Nobel Aerospace Coatings is a name of a manufacturing company which produces high performance topcoats. ANAC is approved by many as an excellent choice for painting aircrafts simply because of its low VOC and high polyurethane solid contents. When this paint is applied on the aircraft, this results into a high grade gloss just like no other. And the aircraft also gets the benefit of high level of flexibility and resistant to stain.

Polyester Urethane Topcoats/Paints for Aircraft

A topcoat or paint used for aircrafts is a two-component acrylic urethane or polyurethane finish that offers a rich and extra high gloss finish. This product has been developed and produced in order to meet the high market demands particularly in the field of aerospace and aviation. When this is applied with the use of a paint sprayer, it will give results that entail excellence. This is truly an effective type of aircraft paint or topcoat which gives out superior color, gloss retention, superb resistance against abrasions and chemicals. Prior to this, polyurethane has truly become the top choice in the market when it comes to aircraft painting which embodies superiority and excellence. The web bestpaintingtool.com is one of the best resources to find out more about paint sprayer.

It is expected that in the near future, the high performance of urethane paints and coatings along with the Graco sprayer will allow users to utilize them in a much broader spectrum or sense of application.

What do airplanes and motorcycles have in common?

Major James Boddy, a pilot instructor who is also a motorcyclist share his thought about common points of flying and motorcycling. The point is that he always get the safety gears and proper training before you turning the key. You should know the basic things if you want to excel at riding.

Flying need more sturdy training and preparations as just one small mistake can cause plane crash and cost many people’s lives. Riding, somehow is similar to flying, obviously may cause less damage when crash, but once one fall down the road and get injuries, he may be hit by car or other vehicle. Without safety gears such as motorcycle helmet, gloves, jacket, you will be easily get fatal injuries, broken legs or arms. Furthermore, you can get hit by car as some research stated that motorcycle are hard to be seen on the road, especially when riding at high speed. Therefore, you should wear not only a good helmet, but also a high-viz, a.k.a high visibility helmet or jacket, or a helmet that have LED light on the back like the GM54s helmet of GMax brand.

This helmet buying guide from bikergearlab.com will help you find the best motorcycle helmet. We already make a summary of this buying guide, but we highly recommend that you should reading the whole post if you are a pilot love riding motorcycle.

  • First of all, you should get a DOT or a Snell helmet, which are safety standard for helmet, no more no less but a DOT or a Snell approved.
  • Secondly, choosing motorcycle helmet or gloves, jackets, or boots depends on what’s your need and what kind of motorcycle you are riding. If you ride frequently, long distance, on a superbike or a naked bike, you should have everything: a good helmet, a pair of gloves, boots, jacket. If you only ride a scooter, wearing a good helmet is fairly enough.
  • The third thing is a helmet should fit your head properly and do not cause any uncomfort
  • A good helmet also should go with good ventilation system, good visor, good lining pad
  • Finally, don’t buy cheap helmet at less than $70

What’s else?

You also should get a motorcycle insurance to cover medical expense if worst case happen

Another thing Major James Boddy mentioned is get proper motorcycle traning, you can go to Motorcycle Safety Foundation to know more information. You can easily find a riding club or motorcycle training course near your place

Update: Shark helmet brand is selling a pilot helmet – the Shark Raw, which looks really awesome. Here is the detail review of Shark Raw helmet

The risk can be avoided by pilot training

 

crash of a piper

Background

A friend of the pilot assisted him prior to takeoff, and reported the airplane was being flown to a different airport for its annual inspection. The friend did not notice any anomalies with the airplane during the takeoff or the climbout. Video footage showed the airplane climbing out normally prior to the accident.

Subsequently, witnesses heard and saw the airplane flying very low. One witness noticed the right propeller was not turning, while the left engine sounded as if it was running at full power. The airplane pitched up to avoid a power line and rolled to the right, descending below the tree line. A plume of smoke and an explosion followed.

Investigation

The accident site was about two miles west of the departure airport, in a wooded area. The airplane came to rest upright in a flat attitude on a course of about 102 degrees. All major components were accounted for at the accident site.

Due to damage, the pre-impact position of the fuel tank selectors could not be determined. The landing gear selector and flap selector were each in the up position.

The left propeller assembly’s piston/cylinder had separated from the propeller and was missing. The spinner dome was severely damaged due to frontal impact. The blades exhibited multiple bends, rotational scoring, twisting and leading edge damage consistent with rotation under power at the time of impact. An estimate of power output could not be determined. There were no anomalies noted that would preclude normal operation: all damage was consistent with impact damage.

The right propeller assembly revealed evidence of significant frontal impact. Its blades were bent but did not display rotational scoring. One pre-load plate impact mark indicated the blades were at an approximate 23-degree blade angle, consistent with the start lock blade angle position. There were no anomalies noted that would preclude normal operation; all damage was consistent with impact damage.

The right engine was severely damaged, but all of its cylinders were borescoped; the piston heads did not exhibit damage. All of the cylinders remained attached to the crankcase. The top spark plugs exhibited normal operating signatures. No anomalies were noted during examination of the right engine.

The left engine exhibited similar damage, with all of its cylinders remaining attached to the crankcase. Like the right engine, the left one exhibited normal spark plug signatures The top spark plugs were removed, and their electrodes were intact and exhibited normal operating signatures. Borescoping did not reveal damage.

Both engines were, however, beyond their manufacturer’s recommended TBO, at least in years. The left engine was overhauled on November 10, 1998, and its time since major overhaul as of June 18, 2011, was 580.8 hours. The right engine was overhauled on October 28, 1988, and its time since major overhaul as of June 18, 2011, was 1435 hours. Lycoming recommends 1200 hours or 12 years between overhaul.

The aircraft POH’s (revision date December 4. 1981) engine-failure checklists did not have the feathering procedure, nor the one for engine securing. The engine securing (feathering) procedure advises that the propellers must be feathered before they drop below 1000 rpm. The POH’s latest revision (November 1, 2001) contained no mention of the need to feather the propellers above 1000 rpm.

Private Piper PA 31 Navajo

Probable cause

The NTSB determined the probable cause(s) of this accident to include: “The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control following loss of power in the right engine for reasons that could not be determined because of fire and impact damage. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s delayed feathering of the right propeller following the loss of engine power and the lack of specific emergency procedures in the pilot operating handbook indicating the need to feather the propellers before engine rpm falls below 1000 rpm.”

The airplane hadn’t been flown very much recently, and it’s not clear how proficient the pilot was; probably not very. Whatever happened to the right engine–probably a fuel issue–happened quickly enough that the airplane barely made it two miles. A hot day (39 degrees C) and the windmilling propeller combined to pose performance issues the pilot couldn’t handle. At the end, he tried to avoid wires and entered into a classic VMC rollover.

That the engines were beyond recommended TBO is something of a red herring, one the NTSB didn’t even mention in its probable cause finding. It’s not clear what POH the pilot had. If it was the latest one, it’s conceivable he had no published procedure with which to secure the failed engine and feather the prop. Even if he had the procedure in the older POH, it was buried. Something like that should have been on a quick-reference card, anyway.

Most personal airplanes are relatively easy to fly, and Navajos are not known to have handling vices. But it’s common sense that feathering an inoperative engine needs to be done while it’s still turning at a good clip. Ifs likely the correct procedure wasn’t available to the pilot, and that’s a problem.

Know your limitations

There’s a lot of information in the modern AFM/POH, and most of it is well-organized, cross-referenced, folded, spindled. But it’s also a document rarely used in the average cockpit. Instead, checklists condensing down the AFM/POH information into easily performed groups of tasks are the norm. But that doesn’t mean the thick manuals don’t have value.

Rather than use them in anger, they’re for research into how systems work, how they fail, and understanding why things work they way they do. The amplified procedures portion of the modern – AFM/POH contains a wealth of information, and should be studied ir by anyone serious about flying the associated aircraft.

As important as the amplified procedures are the aircraft’s limitations, which can be as simple and common as maneuvering speed, gear and flap operating speeds, and others. Those limitations, however, also can have critical importance when performing everyday, abnormal or emergency tasks.

It’s always a good idea to sit down periodically with the AFM/POH of the aircraft you fly and go through it. You’ll always learn something, and hopefully remember stuff you forgot.

Pilots training session improved with full-flight simulator CAE 7000XR

Real-time data monitoring and analysis will be coming soon to full-flight simulators (FFS), and both the pilots being trained and the simulator operator will feel the benefits. There are such lots of improvements in commercial pilot training programs.

Embedded in the new CAE 7000XR (extreme reality) level D FFS – for which first delivery is scheduled by the third quarter this year – are capabilities for tracking a pilot’s performance during training scenarios, while also tracking the health of the simulator’s components.

CAE 7000XR Series full-flight simulator

The pilot performance monitoring incorporates CAE’s simulator operational quality assurance (SOQA) concept – introduced three years ago as a post-simulator debriefing tool.

However, instead of waiting until the end of a 4h simulator session, instructors will be able to use a tablet or smartphone as a “mobile monitor” to immediately show the crew what they did during a training manoeuvre.

The instructor can use the SOQA tool “a minute or two after something happens with objective data”, says Bruno Cacciola, director of product strategy and marketing for CAE’s civil aviation business.

“This will be more effective than waiting until after the entire lesson, where you’re already one step removed,” he says. “You can discuss it right there and then, and then move on to the next event in the training session.”

Cacciola says the SOQA tool can currently monitor parameters for about 20 pre-programmed training events, including adherence to speed envelopes during different parts of a flight, deployment of flaps and gear at the appropriate times, pitch attitude on take-off, touchdown points and other airline standard operating procedures. The application on the instructor’s tablet can show if an approach is unstable, too fast, too high or exceeding a number of other thresholds.

In an upset prevention and recovery training scenario, the application allows the instructor to monitor how the pilotmanages the upset condition and recovery process, including angle of attack.

To assuage pilots and unions concerned about data from poor training performances being used against them in the future, Cacciola said the SOQA information is “only available for the instructor and crew interaction at the moment. That’s where it ends”.

“Once you leave the simulator, we’re not taking the data with us. It creates a secure environment in which the instructor can discuss things with the crew,” he says.

The SOQA tool is part of CAE’s overhaul of the on board “instructor’s office” – focused on incorporating handheld mobile devices as sort of an instructor’s electronic flightbag. In the future, instructors may be able to develop lesson plans and scenarios offline, then upload them to the simulator.

“We foresee this giving us a platform that we can easily upgrade with more training applications,” notes Cacciola. “A lot of how the instructor will work in the future and the tools we use will gravitate toward mobile devices.”

For the simulator operator, whose primary objectives are maximising uptime and reducing lifecycle costs, CAE’s Sentinel simulator diagnostic monitoring system should provide significant predictive insight. CAE is using a multipurpose interface card (MPIC), similar to those used in smartphones, to self-monitor hundreds of simulator components and functions, such as unstable electrical currents, visual projection system lamp brightness and motion jack friction levels.

Instead of waiting for a part to fail – which can crash an aircrew’s training session and throw numerous schedules out of sync – Sentinel can flag up a possible failure based on the accumulated knowledge of each component type from multiple simulators. Prior to an anticipated failure, proactive maintenance can be scheduled at a time convenient to the operator.

The data from individual simulator MPICs is also available remotely to simulator operators via centralised cloud computing, so a technician does not need to physically check each FFS. Data from customer simulators can also be relayed back to CAE at its Montreal headquarters, where a support team continuously monitors each device’s health and aggregates historical performance trends.

The Sentinel capability can be retrofitted to CAE’s previous-generation 7000 series FFS, and would be “easy to implement”, Cacciola says, on the now out-of-production 5000 series for commercial narrowbody and business aviation simulators. Integration with older simulators may also be possible.

Now pilots can be trained with an evolution full-flight simulator, and the work of simulator operator also will be simpler.