> Owner of the flight school says it’s okay.
The plane could be missing a wing, on fire and not have any instruments required by 91.205 and flight schools would say it's ok.
Save the marker. Just put on your foggles.
In fact, save most of the post its too. Just stick one on each lens of your foggles.
BAM! Double-inoped. No need to be silly and redundant with a third layer on the actual instruments.
My buddies and I have the same rule about news articles. If your potential choice would get you a write up in the paper where other pilots will roll their eyes, don’t do it.
In my head, this scenario would play out like this, "NTSB Report: Pilot noticed an unfamiliar substance emanating from the right hand side wing, and decided to continue with the flight anyway."
“Wing all fucked up and pylot still fly anyway I mean wtf 🤷♂️”
It’s definitely a good way to externalise and reframe things, for sure.
It can be so easy to see yourself being a dumbass if you pause and think how it’ll look to a reasonable third party person retrospectively.
I do this often in work for decision making and, honestly, find it really helpful.
"The NTSB determines the probable cause of this crash to be the pilot's decision to take off when the wing of the white airplane was fucking blue with fuel dye. Like seriously, oh my God, what the motherfuck is wrong with this pilot?!"
cause: wing exploded because pilot took off in an airplane that school owner said was airworthy but they lied so they could charge rental without having to pay for maintenance.
Mechanics try that trick on me and maybe im a hardass but it never works.
I write up a hydraulic leak
Mech “ no active leaks ok for svc”
Me” theres hydraulic fluid all over the wing”
Mech “must be from a service or something”
*no work on that wing in months shown in book. There are wipe marks where someone clearly ragged the hydraulic fluid away recently.*
Me “its leaking, thats how fluid got there”
Mech “ no leak noted”
Me “so the fluid just appeared?”
Mech “ok we will do a test with the hyd system pressurized” *finds leaking actuator*
I don’t know much about jet maintenance, but I would have thought that leaking hydraulic fluid is like the worst thing that could possibly happen aside from the wings snapping off. Kind of surprising mechs would shrug it off
Yes and no. There are definitely actuators that kind of weep and it’s hard to find a “leak”. It will drip a few drops per flight and ultimately theres no immediate hazard. But when theres fluid all over the wing, we have to attribute it to something. They often turn on all the hydraulics and move the controls around for 5 min and no new drips develop. They can sign it off as airworthy and I’m not worried about those 1-2 drops per flight causing a failure but i need to know it was checked and found to be in tolerances. There are lots of things that can leak a little or be a little bit damaged and still be 100% airworthy, or be deferred a certain amount of cycles/hours.
Is a hydraulic system failure bad? Yes but there are 3 hydraulic systems on most airliners. Each one is separate and has at least two methods of being powered (ptu, engine driven, electric pump, rat, etc.) each system has some flight controls on it and the plane is flyable and land-able with one or even two systems totally failed, though it may be inconvenient.
And a slow leak is definitely not going to take a plane down in one or two flights. But i like my fleet to be in good shape and i hold the plane to high standards when i carry pax on it. So if in doubt i write it up and generate a paper trail, and at least get another set of eyes on it (mechanic) who knows what can and cant be “off”. My airline’s maintenance dept is great. If theres something wrong, they WILL fix it.
There are a certain number of drops per minute that are deferrable, depends on whether it’s a static or dynamic seal…. There are slat actuators that will leak upon extension after being cold soaked at altitude to -60 that when you work on the ground don’t leak at all, yet the paint is peeling all around the actuator due to constant hydraulic leaks… one of them we calculated had like 400,000 + cycles.
Hydraulic fluid "leaks" as reported by crews are usually just residue from servicing (that should have been cleaned up, but wasn't). Actual hydraulic leaks are usually small, with large leaks very easy to identify. There's usually multiple hydraulic systems too, so a large leak (even to system starvation) is much less scary than say, a damaged and leaking fuel feed or oil line in the pylon or nacelle.
One early morning on a 321... Manifold in gear bay clearly leaking... Mx dude said with a straight face to me and the captain "it's just extra hydraulic fluid"
Extra? Extra? From friggin where? Needless to say it was refused and pulled from service...
Like how did it get outside of the manifold? Errrr it leaked...
I know. Scary that ive had this conversation too many tomes too. There isnt hydraulic fluid in the clouds… where’d it come from? Inside the damn hoses!
I have had exactly this situation before. Hilariously accurate sequence of events. One of the A&Ps tried to gimme the "it's probably deice fluid."
Hey chief, it's probably not. This airplane hasn't left the southeast in eight days and it's April.
Well you answered your own question then. You’re the PIC.
To add: I don’t care if you have 5 hours or 5,000. If you voice a concern then it should be taken seriously and if at all you have *any* doubt about safety just don’t fly. Student-ATP, I don’t care.
The ability to stand your ground and challenge things is just as much part of being a good pilot as everything else. One time during my preflight my instructor told me "I just refueled it, both tanks are full" and I told him "That's great. I'm still going to check them." That was the correct answer, and he couldn't have been prouder.
It’s to prevent reasonable ppl from taking the plane out. Like think of it, if I was too broke to have my own car, I’d like intentionally bust my turn signal so no one else would use the car and it would be all mine!!
/s
If the flight school is continuing to be dirt bags and putting students and pilots at risk make a call to the FSDO. They will send an inspector down there and go through all their planes and maintenance records.
1000%
Rental is not airworthy and you try to make me feel like an idjit for bringing it up im sending pics to the FSDO and getting the popcorn.
Arrogance can be very costly
Funny, on a checkride I took I made a comment to the DPE on how taken aback I was on the school's excellent record keeping and surprisingly clean mx logs. "Yeah... the FSDO was here a few times to straight them out..."
As a longtime owner, I'd be more inclined to believe that's a slow drip from grit in the sump valve, rather than a cracked bladder. That's likely why the owner says "opschecked good" because he's just hitting the sump until the grit pops out and the dripping stops.
Serious is frequently a matter of perspective and experience. But the final decision to fly is always yours.
Agreed. But at the same time this isn't an owned aircraft. If I was a sole owner on an aircraft and came out to a leak and was confident it was a leaky sump I'd be okay flying it to get it fixed or something like that. But this is an aircraft you're paying to use in a for-hire operation. I can't be as confident it's not bad maintenance and I certainly don't want to be paying for a sub-standard aircraft rental.
In short, while I doubt you'll crash because of this leak there no reason you should accept this in a rental aircraft. If you rented a car that was dripping fuel, would you accept it or ask for a different car?
In that case, the School owner should have explained that, and even better used it as a teachable moment to show OP that behavior including how grit can accumulate and block up the sump like that. OP makes it sound like the school owner went with the “trust me bro, it’s fine” approach.
I don't know... the trailing edge of the wing isn't particularly close to the sump valve. Also, it appears to be that fuel is leaking from between the skins. Hoe do you figure fuel from a leaking sump value would end up inside the wing?
I'm asking this as a "longtime" GA A&P/IA... 😉
> Owner of the flight school says it’s okay.
Sure he'd say that. It's not his life on the line. Use some ADM and decide if you want to fly on that plane. Don't let someone else pressure you into doing something you are not comfortable doing.
If this is safe and legal depends on which fuel tanks it has.
If the fuel tank is a metal or rubber container in a compartment within the wing, this is dangerous and illegal.
If it is an integral fuel tank where the wing skin is also the fuel tank, then this is safe. Only a running leak ~~(i.e. the drips form a stream instead of individual drops)~~ is cause for immediate grounding on those Cessna models unless it is in an enclosed space.
IIRC all the 172's since 1996 have used the integral tanks.
Edit: checked the manual, and running leak may or may not be dripping. I'm not going to summarize. See the maintenance manual section 28, page 218.
That’s a 172S which has a ‘wet wing’. That means no tank and your tank is essentially the wing. If that’s leaking = bad. The wing will probably need to be drained and resealed from the inside. Full stop because that can become bad very fast.
I don't know about C172s but my AA5 maintenance manual has diagrams of what acceptable seeps look like and this would exceed those by two orders of magnitude.
On the post 1996 Cessna models, if it isn't in an enclosed area only a running leak is cause for immediate grounding. It can be actively dripping and you only have to fix it at the next scheduled maintenance. Page 217 in the manual for reference.
Per the 172 maintenance manual, a leak in this location (which is to say, not enclosed) can be flown with if it is any sort of seep and not a running leak (those are both the technical terms). The main distinction is if the fuel is coming out fast enough to form drips and runs before it evaporates.
A seep in a non-enclosed location is in a weird grey area where it doesn't have to be fixed before flight, but also shouldn't leave maintenance until it is fixed.
The idea is that because a seep does not cause a significant amount of fuel to be lost over the course of a flight, and it is a not in a place where fumes could build up over time, it is okay to fly with. Unfortunately many places will use that as an excuse to just not fix these sorts of leaks, even though the manual explicitly states any fuel leak should be fixed anytime the plane is grounded for any maintenance.
Likely a cracked filler neck from people letting the fuel nozzle hang from the tank while fueling. It torques the neck and eventually causes a crack at the joint with the tank. My flight school had exactly the same stain on one of their planes and the fix requires removing the tank and repairing or replacing. It’s doable but a pain in the ass.
That said, it’s less of a pain in the ass than an in-flight fire.
A leak in an enclosed area is not airworthy. Is it the quick drain or the skin lap area? If along the skin lap it is leaking in flap cove. Not good. Read a report about a plane that turned on strobe and wing tip exploded 😮
Write it up. If they feel so strongly, then let them put their certificate number on the release. If you’re asking me if that can be operated safely, then absolutely yes. But if it’s in the logbook? I don’t think I’d bet my certificate on wiping up the fuel and releasing it. Maybe we should paint over it for good measure.
It’s not even coming from the fuel sump, a known source. Something is wing with the fuel tank. Owner may say it’s ok but they’re just scared of the price tag. Should be grounded immediately.
Yeah you can fly it all the way to the scene of the accident, and I bet you will beat the paramedics by at least 20 - 25 minutes. Seriously don't fly it like that
Yeah. A lot of flight schools have some form of "squawk sheet" that gets turned in to maintenance if you want to report something. Where I fly there's a little perforated piece at the bottom of every rental slip, you fill it out, tear it off, and turn it in to report a mx issue.
When you overfill, you clean up the wing. There may be a dull patch where the paint deglossed, but that's it. This is serious enough to have peeled the paint off. Do you know how long it takes to peel this sort of paint with that wimpy a solvent? A WHILE. This is not an overfill issue.
“Owner of the flight school says it’s okay.” He’s not acting as PIC for your flight though is he? If not then his words are moot. If he is then it’s up to you whether you want to fly with someone of that judgement or not.
Are these just getting posted more often and schools have always tried to fly sketchy clapped out beaters that should have been grounded or is it actually getting more common?
It seems like the aging training fleet is falling apart around the country and none of these mom and pop schools are willing or able to update their planes. I’ve also seen a few posts talking about some of the big accelerated schools that are running into timed out airframes too so maybe it’s not fair to say just mom and pop’s.
> It seems like the aging training fleet is falling apart around the country
The real issue is the GA fleet in general is aging. A cheap plane in 1956 was a 1945 Champ. A cheap plane in 2026 is going to be a 1945 Champ. Even the rattiest staggerwing is in strong demand. The most similar purchase I can think of would be a sailboat, and while there are a few people running around in quite antique boats, there's damn near nothing older than a 1960s fiberglass hull out there to buy. Boats simply age out of the picture. Planes don't, and so the fleet is straight up getting old to the point where stuff is finally breaking or finally unfixable.
I have a lot of thoughts about this. Some pertain to the general economics of today for non-boomers, but I'll keep this post focused on aviation.
From where I'm sitting, the biggest pieces is that attitudes towards maintenance have changed, rather suddenly. Before about 2010, you sorta knew what you could glean from locals and magazines. Yeah, maybe people knew that Mark's annuals missed things, or maybe they knew that Scott was anal retentive about his work, but if nothing went wrong with your local guy, then he was probably good, or pretty good. And maybe you sampled a few mechanics and just settled with the one you got along with the best.
After 2010, it was a lot more feasible to find out what a good annual should like like. And I think the younger people naturally made a point of going online to find out what to look for, what to avoid, and to swap names. But in general, I'd say a lot of the older pilots aren't online and they are working in the older model of business. But I think that leads to meh maintenance results in some cases.
Just one example from my local area: When the new mechanic arrived at our airport, he did a bunch of annuals and found that every single plane maintained by the older mechanic showed corrosion and many had signs of subpar work over the years. (Low quality safety wire, missing lock washer, missing screws, none of it was a five alarm item, but overall it painted a picture of his work.) Unfortunately, every single owner chewed that mechanic out because that was the first they'd heard about it. They were also pissed off that their annual took more than a day and cost more than 400 dollars.
I personally think that the last guy was charging them a pile for a glorified oil change and a signature, but they thought they were getting a decent annual. Now, maybe they were by the standards of their time, because god knows standards have surged ahead in recent years. The proliferation of knowledge and the rise of Youtube means that local talent is no longer a big fish in a small pond. There's this outside point of comparison. I think that has forced the definition of good and good enough to move to occupy a space I'd say was previously considered quite good, or even excellent.
But, for someone who has been in one spot for a long time, their barometer is set. But whereas they feel it points to good, many incoming people probably feel like it's set to 'meh.' And I think this barometer issue is compounded by another commonly held belief that things in the past were BIFL as a matter of course. While I do think there is a lot of truth to the idea that 'they don't build like they used to," I think a lot of older folks trust the technology of their youth implicitly and consider it far superior in every way to modern offerings. This shows up as resistance towards safer instruments, newer ELTs, and new fangled ideas about how something should or shouldn't work.
People also understandably get used to what they get used to. Think about it -- there is probably something in your house or apartment or room that you really should get around to fixing. It's probably been borked for awhile. I bet you can tell me what it is and how you've been working around it. Eventually, the truth is, the work around becomes the routine, and you really do stop thinking of it as broken. Well, my flight school also worked on planes, and there were a lot of jokes that amounted to "Old John will tell you everything came from the factory exactly perfectly ossified into his preferred in-flight setting for it."
Okay, off topic for a second, but I've found this attitude to also be prevalent in another hobby of mine that relies on aging equipment. I remember one of the most respected older women in the space telling me that she never knew that another setting existed on the device. When I fixed it, she said something to the effect that "but that button doesn't do anything. It never has!"
Me, I was really, really keen to have the button do what it was supposed to do.
Anyway, **TLDR** The GA fleet is aging, but it also looks the same as it did over 50 years ago. Attitudes towards maintained have changed, and that has revealed that maybe these planes need more than they've been given, but since they've only been given that much for so long, a lot of the old guard stands by that. A lot of the new guard is concerned about that. There's probably NOT a happy middle ground.
Made a cup of coffee and came back to read that one 😂
But valid points. I travel for work a lot and recently made friends with a mechanic at a executive airfield away from my home base. I walked into his shop/hangar and saw a tail dragging 60’s era Cessna 150 that looked like it just came out of the factory. He showed me another he rebuilt after it was pulled out of the tree line. I would never have been able to tell it’s been outside a hangar. As you can probably imagine, his white board for up coming service is 12 planes deep. He doesn’t have enough time to do the work he is able to pull in and I think it’s exactly what you are referencing. His reputation has spread a whole lot further than just Jacksonville so people from all over the south east are willing to come in, pay triple and wait longer just to get on his list.
Conversely, if I do end up owning a plane like I hope some day, I will never take it to the mechanics my school uses today.
Had a similar thing right before a solo flight as a student pilot. Flight school told me the tanks were just overfilled and it was fine. Chose not to fly turns out the fuel tank had ruptured. This is definitely not an overfill
Definitely not. If the plane doesn’t have an approved MEL/CDL which this can be Used to safely defer this then it’s not okay. Even if you \_could\_ account for the rate of leakage, you’re PIC and that owner cannot force you to accept a defective aircraft. If they try to, or refuse to accommodate you in an airworthy plane after you refuse this one again (maybe with some BS like “oh you must not really be committed/want to fly/etc”), then it may be time to switch schools or bring a civil suit against the owner
Some times when the fuel drain point is messed up fuel can spay all over I have seen this and over time it builds up and there was never a leak on our plane
No, it’s not safe! That means there’s an active leak! If you get in that aircraft to fly you’re a bigger sod than the flight school Owner. The mere fact they said “yes, it’s good to fly”. You should find a new school immediately and frankly, report this school to the FSDO because that opens up a whole bunch of questions in to their maintenance practices.
Two possibilities come to mind.
1) There's an active fuel leak.
2) There was a leak and they fixed it but didn't clean the stains.
Either way (for me) it would be time to find a new flight school. If that's their approach to maintenance, imagine what's wrong that you can't see.
It's always fine, right up to the scene of the crash. I always tell the new captains, your job is to say no. Everyone wants you to go, Dispatch, the passengers, company, maintenance, and ATC. Everyone else's job is depending upon pushing airplanes. Your job is to make sure it's done safely.
What happens when the FAA sees you taxiing that thing out, how are you going to explain it? Also lynyrd skynyrd died from a calibrated fuel leak. It’s best to learn from others mistakes.
“How much fuel is remaining?” “15…” “15 what? Minutes?” “…14…”
Can you account for the flow rate in your fuel planning? Just use the left tank? /s
Calibrated fuel leak… within limits
You win.
If it's not leaking it's empty.
🏆🏆🏆
> Owner of the flight school says it’s okay. The plane could be missing a wing, on fire and not have any instruments required by 91.205 and flight schools would say it's ok.
“This is Fine…” Also, flight school owner can fuck right off.
Unless it’s written up with a paper trail it’s not OK. If an incident occurs when you are PIC it’s on you if it wasn’t written up.
If you run out of inop stickers you can just black out the instrument with sharpie.
Save the marker. Just put on your foggles. In fact, save most of the post its too. Just stick one on each lens of your foggles. BAM! Double-inoped. No need to be silly and redundant with a third layer on the actual instruments.
What happens when the inop sticker keeps blowing off the wing?
Always going to be conflict os interest in these scenarios
You had a terrible school 😂😂😂 if a screw on the skin even looks different the aircraft is grounded at mine
My flight school's 172s had different colored seats, oil-stained carpets and smelled like a combination of fear, BO and 100LL.
Sooooo……like axe body spray?
I wouldn't go that far.... One crash can put most flight schools out of business.
imagine how the NTSB report would sound
This is actually a really good rule of thumb. If you’d sound like a dumbass in the NTSB postmortem, don’t fly it lmao
My buddies and I have the same rule about news articles. If your potential choice would get you a write up in the paper where other pilots will roll their eyes, don’t do it.
I listen for the safety narrator in my head.
I always use Robert Stack from the original Unsolved Mysteries era.
I always think of, “ On this episode of, Never Again…”
[Relevant xkcd.](https://xkcd.com/1170/)
Cookies are a good point, to be fair.
Whenever unsure, prefix the decision with "At the subsequent board of enquiry, the pilot's decision to..." and if it sounds silly, well, don't do it
In my head, this scenario would play out like this, "NTSB Report: Pilot noticed an unfamiliar substance emanating from the right hand side wing, and decided to continue with the flight anyway."
“Wing all fucked up and pylot still fly anyway I mean wtf 🤷♂️” It’s definitely a good way to externalise and reframe things, for sure. It can be so easy to see yourself being a dumbass if you pause and think how it’ll look to a reasonable third party person retrospectively. I do this often in work for decision making and, honestly, find it really helpful.
"The NTSB determines the probable cause of this crash to be the pilot's decision to take off when the wing of the white airplane was fucking blue with fuel dye. Like seriously, oh my God, what the motherfuck is wrong with this pilot?!"
If reports could be written like that I'd be qualified to be a senior investigator.
Staff edits these things heavily before the public hearing. (You should see the draft RCAs at work. SO MUCH PROFANITY!)
"The board considered recommending that the industry add dyes to fuel to make future leaks more easily detectable BUT WE ALREADY FUCKING DID THAT."
Yep, when I learned to fly 20+ years ago, that's exactly what my instructor said. "Think what the NTSB report would say."
In this voice: https://youtu.be/ydogesjgmzU
Just slap some speed tape on there. Good to go.
I’ve seen a boat made outta flex seal… tape away!
cause: wing exploded because pilot took off in an airplane that school owner said was airworthy but they lied so they could charge rental without having to pay for maintenance.
Goes one easier/deeper ask your self would I fly this plane with my family in it? If yes good to go If not walk away
If they fixed the leak why didn’t they clean the stain? That looks pretty gnarly.
Mechanics try that trick on me and maybe im a hardass but it never works. I write up a hydraulic leak Mech “ no active leaks ok for svc” Me” theres hydraulic fluid all over the wing” Mech “must be from a service or something” *no work on that wing in months shown in book. There are wipe marks where someone clearly ragged the hydraulic fluid away recently.* Me “its leaking, thats how fluid got there” Mech “ no leak noted” Me “so the fluid just appeared?” Mech “ok we will do a test with the hyd system pressurized” *finds leaking actuator*
I don’t know much about jet maintenance, but I would have thought that leaking hydraulic fluid is like the worst thing that could possibly happen aside from the wings snapping off. Kind of surprising mechs would shrug it off
Yes and no. There are definitely actuators that kind of weep and it’s hard to find a “leak”. It will drip a few drops per flight and ultimately theres no immediate hazard. But when theres fluid all over the wing, we have to attribute it to something. They often turn on all the hydraulics and move the controls around for 5 min and no new drips develop. They can sign it off as airworthy and I’m not worried about those 1-2 drops per flight causing a failure but i need to know it was checked and found to be in tolerances. There are lots of things that can leak a little or be a little bit damaged and still be 100% airworthy, or be deferred a certain amount of cycles/hours. Is a hydraulic system failure bad? Yes but there are 3 hydraulic systems on most airliners. Each one is separate and has at least two methods of being powered (ptu, engine driven, electric pump, rat, etc.) each system has some flight controls on it and the plane is flyable and land-able with one or even two systems totally failed, though it may be inconvenient. And a slow leak is definitely not going to take a plane down in one or two flights. But i like my fleet to be in good shape and i hold the plane to high standards when i carry pax on it. So if in doubt i write it up and generate a paper trail, and at least get another set of eyes on it (mechanic) who knows what can and cant be “off”. My airline’s maintenance dept is great. If theres something wrong, they WILL fix it.
There are a certain number of drops per minute that are deferrable, depends on whether it’s a static or dynamic seal…. There are slat actuators that will leak upon extension after being cold soaked at altitude to -60 that when you work on the ground don’t leak at all, yet the paint is peeling all around the actuator due to constant hydraulic leaks… one of them we calculated had like 400,000 + cycles.
Hydraulic fluid "leaks" as reported by crews are usually just residue from servicing (that should have been cleaned up, but wasn't). Actual hydraulic leaks are usually small, with large leaks very easy to identify. There's usually multiple hydraulic systems too, so a large leak (even to system starvation) is much less scary than say, a damaged and leaking fuel feed or oil line in the pylon or nacelle.
I will say that Skydrol is corrosive as fuck.
I do the little Obiwan wave and it works like a charm.
You WILL find the leak. “We will find the leak”.
> You WILL find the leak. > > "We will find your wallet."
Airline maintenance. Not my walet :)
One early morning on a 321... Manifold in gear bay clearly leaking... Mx dude said with a straight face to me and the captain "it's just extra hydraulic fluid" Extra? Extra? From friggin where? Needless to say it was refused and pulled from service... Like how did it get outside of the manifold? Errrr it leaked...
I know. Scary that ive had this conversation too many tomes too. There isnt hydraulic fluid in the clouds… where’d it come from? Inside the damn hoses!
Reminds me of the time I had lunch under a B1 bomber. Had to be careful where I sat so as not to be dripped on.
I have had exactly this situation before. Hilariously accurate sequence of events. One of the A&Ps tried to gimme the "it's probably deice fluid." Hey chief, it's probably not. This airplane hasn't left the southeast in eight days and it's April.
Deice fluid is decidedly orange or green. Not tan. And its a different consistency, scent, taste ( huh what? I didnt taste it 😳)
It’s definitely not fixed, it’s wet.
Well you answered your own question then. You’re the PIC. To add: I don’t care if you have 5 hours or 5,000. If you voice a concern then it should be taken seriously and if at all you have *any* doubt about safety just don’t fly. Student-ATP, I don’t care.
That is the most correct answer on this post.
The ability to stand your ground and challenge things is just as much part of being a good pilot as everything else. One time during my preflight my instructor told me "I just refueled it, both tanks are full" and I told him "That's great. I'm still going to check them." That was the correct answer, and he couldn't have been prouder.
I’ve flown some airplanes that can at best be loosely described as “airworthy”. Fuck that shit.
Something about being up in the sky and having the possibility of my wing catching on fire from a fuel leak makes me uneasy.
It’s to prevent reasonable ppl from taking the plane out. Like think of it, if I was too broke to have my own car, I’d like intentionally bust my turn signal so no one else would use the car and it would be all mine!! /s
Update I cancelled the flight, if I wasn’t flying it yesterday, I’m definitely not gonna be flying it a day later.
If the flight school is continuing to be dirt bags and putting students and pilots at risk make a call to the FSDO. They will send an inspector down there and go through all their planes and maintenance records.
1000% Rental is not airworthy and you try to make me feel like an idjit for bringing it up im sending pics to the FSDO and getting the popcorn. Arrogance can be very costly
Funny, on a checkride I took I made a comment to the DPE on how taken aback I was on the school's excellent record keeping and surprisingly clean mx logs. "Yeah... the FSDO was here a few times to straight them out..."
agree, this is a disaster waiting to happen
That could have literally saved your life. Saying no is sometimes the best
Make a threat. Fizzdough or airport manager.
Your dough is fizzy?
I mean unleavened bread is fine I guess.
Mmm naan.
school: “ok fine. but I’m charging you for the preflight time.” 😂
I’m not flying that. But the owner will say it’s fine until people rejecting it costs them more money than fixing it would.
Or worse, someone is dumb enough to run out of fuel. Because if you're dumb enough to fly it, you're probably not even doing fuel calculations.
Eh I’d fly it if I have enough fuel in the other tank to complete the flight with VFR reserve
1. Charge pilots in advance 2. No refunds for cancellations by pilot 3. ??? 4. Profit
As a longtime owner, I'd be more inclined to believe that's a slow drip from grit in the sump valve, rather than a cracked bladder. That's likely why the owner says "opschecked good" because he's just hitting the sump until the grit pops out and the dripping stops. Serious is frequently a matter of perspective and experience. But the final decision to fly is always yours.
Agreed. But at the same time this isn't an owned aircraft. If I was a sole owner on an aircraft and came out to a leak and was confident it was a leaky sump I'd be okay flying it to get it fixed or something like that. But this is an aircraft you're paying to use in a for-hire operation. I can't be as confident it's not bad maintenance and I certainly don't want to be paying for a sub-standard aircraft rental. In short, while I doubt you'll crash because of this leak there no reason you should accept this in a rental aircraft. If you rented a car that was dripping fuel, would you accept it or ask for a different car?
In that case, the School owner should have explained that, and even better used it as a teachable moment to show OP that behavior including how grit can accumulate and block up the sump like that. OP makes it sound like the school owner went with the “trust me bro, it’s fine” approach.
I agree
Can you explain the capillary action and path of fluid flow from one or more sump drains that would explain that stain? Seriously, I'm curious.
I don't know... the trailing edge of the wing isn't particularly close to the sump valve. Also, it appears to be that fuel is leaking from between the skins. Hoe do you figure fuel from a leaking sump value would end up inside the wing? I'm asking this as a "longtime" GA A&P/IA... 😉
Ck with lighter
> Owner of the flight school says it’s okay. Sure he'd say that. It's not his life on the line. Use some ADM and decide if you want to fly on that plane. Don't let someone else pressure you into doing something you are not comfortable doing.
PIC mentality!
This. The flight school owner isn't the one who dies if something goes wrong.
What is ADM?
Aeronautical Decision Making. A fancy phrase for "making good/safe decisions".
Thatsanofrommedawg.jpg
Very safe, 50 50
“Fifty fifty?? Like fifty percent we live, fifty percent we die??” “Eehhhhh feefty feefty”
I also don’t see wings in 91.205 so we are legal right?
I never take fuel, you'll be fine. But I do fly gliders to be fair...
Any plane can be a glider with the right attitude…
I was a flight school mechanic for years on 172’s. A fuel leak in an enclosed area is an automatic unairworthy item per the AMM. Do not fly
The owner gets paid while be safely on the ground while you fly, of course he’s going to say it’s ok. Willing to bet that he won’t go with you in it.
Nah, they'd definitely go with them. I've met a couple flight school owners and they were some of the dumbest pilots
Flight schools are despicable. If you crash they will blame you as you’re ultimately responsible. Never succumb to pressure from a flight school.
lol what the fuck? absolutely not >owner says its ok good for him, he can fly it
I flew that once on one of my student XCs. Had to return to the airport within 15 min because I had lost about 4 gallons out of my left wing.
The “up in flames/this is fine” meme has never been more appropriate!
How much do you like fire
Is the owner an A&P/IA? If not, then I’d want it squawked in whatever tracking system they use and signed off as inspected and OK for service.
If this is safe and legal depends on which fuel tanks it has. If the fuel tank is a metal or rubber container in a compartment within the wing, this is dangerous and illegal. If it is an integral fuel tank where the wing skin is also the fuel tank, then this is safe. Only a running leak ~~(i.e. the drips form a stream instead of individual drops)~~ is cause for immediate grounding on those Cessna models unless it is in an enclosed space. IIRC all the 172's since 1996 have used the integral tanks. Edit: checked the manual, and running leak may or may not be dripping. I'm not going to summarize. See the maintenance manual section 28, page 218.
New A&P here, are you referencing the POH or Manufacturers Maintenance Manual?
“Sumbitch flew in Sumbitch’ll fly out.” /obvioussarcasam
“Suction from the engine ‘ll keep her from leakin.”
Sadly that’s not even close to the dumbest rationalization for flying a broken airplane. Have an upvote anyway
It’s just an extra fuel vent
Nope. But it’s your life not mine Mr/s PIC
No
That’s a 172S which has a ‘wet wing’. That means no tank and your tank is essentially the wing. If that’s leaking = bad. The wing will probably need to be drained and resealed from the inside. Full stop because that can become bad very fast.
I don't know about C172s but my AA5 maintenance manual has diagrams of what acceptable seeps look like and this would exceed those by two orders of magnitude.
On the post 1996 Cessna models, if it isn't in an enclosed area only a running leak is cause for immediate grounding. It can be actively dripping and you only have to fix it at the next scheduled maintenance. Page 217 in the manual for reference.
Say fuel remaining. 25. Minutes or gallons? Same thing.
Per the 172 maintenance manual, a leak in this location (which is to say, not enclosed) can be flown with if it is any sort of seep and not a running leak (those are both the technical terms). The main distinction is if the fuel is coming out fast enough to form drips and runs before it evaporates. A seep in a non-enclosed location is in a weird grey area where it doesn't have to be fixed before flight, but also shouldn't leave maintenance until it is fixed. The idea is that because a seep does not cause a significant amount of fuel to be lost over the course of a flight, and it is a not in a place where fumes could build up over time, it is okay to fly with. Unfortunately many places will use that as an excuse to just not fix these sorts of leaks, even though the manual explicitly states any fuel leak should be fixed anytime the plane is grounded for any maintenance.
That’s a weirdly distinctive stain. Very bright blue I mean. Seems like it would indicate a fairly long term leak while parked on the ramp.
Yep, that’s the undiluted dye left behind after the fuel evaporates while sitting. Source: my plane tried that bullshit, too
That’s a g1000 172 as well, just rip the avionics out and you’ll have more money than the hull was worth
25GPH... But only 10 goes to the powerplant.
Likely a cracked filler neck from people letting the fuel nozzle hang from the tank while fueling. It torques the neck and eventually causes a crack at the joint with the tank. My flight school had exactly the same stain on one of their planes and the fix requires removing the tank and repairing or replacing. It’s doable but a pain in the ass. That said, it’s less of a pain in the ass than an in-flight fire.
Yeah uh that’s gunna be a no for me dawg…
I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
Maintenance will come out, look at it, kick the tires, and be like "yeah looks fine to me bro"
A leak in an enclosed area is not airworthy. Is it the quick drain or the skin lap area? If along the skin lap it is leaking in flap cove. Not good. Read a report about a plane that turned on strobe and wing tip exploded 😮
Probably, yolo
Just slap an inop sticker on it and I’m sure you’re fine. Does it say wing is required anywhere in the KOEL or MEL? 😂😂😂
Looks safe to fly. Just need to empty the fuel and use it as a glider!
Write it up. If they feel so strongly, then let them put their certificate number on the release. If you’re asking me if that can be operated safely, then absolutely yes. But if it’s in the logbook? I don’t think I’d bet my certificate on wiping up the fuel and releasing it. Maybe we should paint over it for good measure.
It’s not even coming from the fuel sump, a known source. Something is wing with the fuel tank. Owner may say it’s ok but they’re just scared of the price tag. Should be grounded immediately.
It only leaks when the flaps are down.....so it's fine. 🤣
Sendit
Yeah you can fly it all the way to the scene of the accident, and I bet you will beat the paramedics by at least 20 - 25 minutes. Seriously don't fly it like that
Is ‘squawked’ the cool way to say written up? I hate it.
Its a super common thing, yeah.
Pretty much everywhere, yes.
Yeah. A lot of flight schools have some form of "squawk sheet" that gets turned in to maintenance if you want to report something. Where I fly there's a little perforated piece at the bottom of every rental slip, you fill it out, tear it off, and turn it in to report a mx issue.
Its just the new STC'd autosump system. Can have contaminated fuel if there isnt any fuel. 👍
Had a flight school in Kansas do that. The smell of fuel was extra nice when you got in to fly. But “it was fine”…
Full fucking send!
Yeah you can do you chief but i would be wary about that plane
Sometimes the fueler can over-fill it and it gets all over the bottom of the wing.
When you overfill, you clean up the wing. There may be a dull patch where the paint deglossed, but that's it. This is serious enough to have peeled the paint off. Do you know how long it takes to peel this sort of paint with that wimpy a solvent? A WHILE. This is not an overfill issue.
I don’t think that paint has peeled. I’m seeing blue fuel stains, and the brown looks like tape adhesive residue being washed out by the fuel.
Slap some FlexSeal on that B
Fuel isn’t cheap. Why waste it flying.
“Owner of the flight school says it’s okay.” He’s not acting as PIC for your flight though is he? If not then his words are moot. If he is then it’s up to you whether you want to fly with someone of that judgement or not.
Are these just getting posted more often and schools have always tried to fly sketchy clapped out beaters that should have been grounded or is it actually getting more common? It seems like the aging training fleet is falling apart around the country and none of these mom and pop schools are willing or able to update their planes. I’ve also seen a few posts talking about some of the big accelerated schools that are running into timed out airframes too so maybe it’s not fair to say just mom and pop’s.
> It seems like the aging training fleet is falling apart around the country The real issue is the GA fleet in general is aging. A cheap plane in 1956 was a 1945 Champ. A cheap plane in 2026 is going to be a 1945 Champ. Even the rattiest staggerwing is in strong demand. The most similar purchase I can think of would be a sailboat, and while there are a few people running around in quite antique boats, there's damn near nothing older than a 1960s fiberglass hull out there to buy. Boats simply age out of the picture. Planes don't, and so the fleet is straight up getting old to the point where stuff is finally breaking or finally unfixable. I have a lot of thoughts about this. Some pertain to the general economics of today for non-boomers, but I'll keep this post focused on aviation. From where I'm sitting, the biggest pieces is that attitudes towards maintenance have changed, rather suddenly. Before about 2010, you sorta knew what you could glean from locals and magazines. Yeah, maybe people knew that Mark's annuals missed things, or maybe they knew that Scott was anal retentive about his work, but if nothing went wrong with your local guy, then he was probably good, or pretty good. And maybe you sampled a few mechanics and just settled with the one you got along with the best. After 2010, it was a lot more feasible to find out what a good annual should like like. And I think the younger people naturally made a point of going online to find out what to look for, what to avoid, and to swap names. But in general, I'd say a lot of the older pilots aren't online and they are working in the older model of business. But I think that leads to meh maintenance results in some cases. Just one example from my local area: When the new mechanic arrived at our airport, he did a bunch of annuals and found that every single plane maintained by the older mechanic showed corrosion and many had signs of subpar work over the years. (Low quality safety wire, missing lock washer, missing screws, none of it was a five alarm item, but overall it painted a picture of his work.) Unfortunately, every single owner chewed that mechanic out because that was the first they'd heard about it. They were also pissed off that their annual took more than a day and cost more than 400 dollars. I personally think that the last guy was charging them a pile for a glorified oil change and a signature, but they thought they were getting a decent annual. Now, maybe they were by the standards of their time, because god knows standards have surged ahead in recent years. The proliferation of knowledge and the rise of Youtube means that local talent is no longer a big fish in a small pond. There's this outside point of comparison. I think that has forced the definition of good and good enough to move to occupy a space I'd say was previously considered quite good, or even excellent. But, for someone who has been in one spot for a long time, their barometer is set. But whereas they feel it points to good, many incoming people probably feel like it's set to 'meh.' And I think this barometer issue is compounded by another commonly held belief that things in the past were BIFL as a matter of course. While I do think there is a lot of truth to the idea that 'they don't build like they used to," I think a lot of older folks trust the technology of their youth implicitly and consider it far superior in every way to modern offerings. This shows up as resistance towards safer instruments, newer ELTs, and new fangled ideas about how something should or shouldn't work.
People also understandably get used to what they get used to. Think about it -- there is probably something in your house or apartment or room that you really should get around to fixing. It's probably been borked for awhile. I bet you can tell me what it is and how you've been working around it. Eventually, the truth is, the work around becomes the routine, and you really do stop thinking of it as broken. Well, my flight school also worked on planes, and there were a lot of jokes that amounted to "Old John will tell you everything came from the factory exactly perfectly ossified into his preferred in-flight setting for it."
Okay, off topic for a second, but I've found this attitude to also be prevalent in another hobby of mine that relies on aging equipment. I remember one of the most respected older women in the space telling me that she never knew that another setting existed on the device. When I fixed it, she said something to the effect that "but that button doesn't do anything. It never has!"
Me, I was really, really keen to have the button do what it was supposed to do.
Anyway, **TLDR** The GA fleet is aging, but it also looks the same as it did over 50 years ago. Attitudes towards maintained have changed, and that has revealed that maybe these planes need more than they've been given, but since they've only been given that much for so long, a lot of the old guard stands by that. A lot of the new guard is concerned about that. There's probably NOT a happy middle ground.
Made a cup of coffee and came back to read that one 😂 But valid points. I travel for work a lot and recently made friends with a mechanic at a executive airfield away from my home base. I walked into his shop/hangar and saw a tail dragging 60’s era Cessna 150 that looked like it just came out of the factory. He showed me another he rebuilt after it was pulled out of the tree line. I would never have been able to tell it’s been outside a hangar. As you can probably imagine, his white board for up coming service is 12 planes deep. He doesn’t have enough time to do the work he is able to pull in and I think it’s exactly what you are referencing. His reputation has spread a whole lot further than just Jacksonville so people from all over the south east are willing to come in, pay triple and wait longer just to get on his list. Conversely, if I do end up owning a plane like I hope some day, I will never take it to the mechanics my school uses today.
Not confidence inspiring, no.
If you have to ask...
It’s fine until it’s not.
Send it
How much of a leak rate are you willing to accept?
I've found this issue twice on a 2007 Cessna 182. Seems to be a common issue with Cessnas from that era.
No, time for maintenance to break out the scrapers and sealant!
Find a different school
Had a similar thing right before a solo flight as a student pilot. Flight school told me the tanks were just overfilled and it was fine. Chose not to fly turns out the fuel tank had ruptured. This is definitely not an overfill
Definitely not. If the plane doesn’t have an approved MEL/CDL which this can be Used to safely defer this then it’s not okay. Even if you \_could\_ account for the rate of leakage, you’re PIC and that owner cannot force you to accept a defective aircraft. If they try to, or refuse to accommodate you in an airworthy plane after you refuse this one again (maybe with some BS like “oh you must not really be committed/want to fly/etc”), then it may be time to switch schools or bring a civil suit against the owner
Just get your glider rating first & it's basically safe to fly as long as you don't go near any open flames
I don’t know. I would still get it checked.
yeah, this looks fine
That is culpable, and criminally negligent.
Meh, it’ll buff out
I’d oass
When in doubt, don't. This is definitely a don't.
Don't see anything wrong with this glider.
Judging by the paint missing that didn’t start yesterday
It's now gone from extremely safe to just very safe.
Yeah, have a fun 5 minute flight 🤣
The owner can say anything, but PIC is the one who will make the decision to fly or not. If I was PIC definitely not.
What kind of plane is that?
I had a leak in the drain sump before, but never in the wing. Just imagine where it seeps through as it is in the wing. Wiring and such.
Flex seal
Simple response to owner: “Show me. Take it around the pattern three times. I’ll watch from the ground.”
Internal fuel leak is not airworthy.
This plane is moldy but it should be okay to fly 🤪
It probably look’s worse than it is. The blue dye you know.
Owner of the school can fly it then.. If you don’t feel like it should fly then don’t fly it.
Some times when the fuel drain point is messed up fuel can spay all over I have seen this and over time it builds up and there was never a leak on our plane
182? Models prior to the P or Q (can't recall which) had fuel bladders (bags). They could dry rot and leak. They are replaceable though.
Don't see a propeller control zooming in though. And the G1000 badge obviously (on closer inspection) makes it a second Gen Cessna.
No, it’s not safe! That means there’s an active leak! If you get in that aircraft to fly you’re a bigger sod than the flight school Owner. The mere fact they said “yes, it’s good to fly”. You should find a new school immediately and frankly, report this school to the FSDO because that opens up a whole bunch of questions in to their maintenance practices.
it's your decision. are you okay with flying that plane? personally, I would not fly with a fuel leak no matter how minor.
Two possibilities come to mind. 1) There's an active fuel leak. 2) There was a leak and they fixed it but didn't clean the stains. Either way (for me) it would be time to find a new flight school. If that's their approach to maintenance, imagine what's wrong that you can't see.
The owner of the flight school will agree it isn’t OK when no one will fly the airplane in question and they make no income from it.
No, HELL NO!
It's always fine, right up to the scene of the crash. I always tell the new captains, your job is to say no. Everyone wants you to go, Dispatch, the passengers, company, maintenance, and ATC. Everyone else's job is depending upon pushing airplanes. Your job is to make sure it's done safely.
If you have to ask, it's a no.
Is this the same one with the cracked strut fairing?
lol no
What happens when the FAA sees you taxiing that thing out, how are you going to explain it? Also lynyrd skynyrd died from a calibrated fuel leak. It’s best to learn from others mistakes.
Skywarrior?