Illegal Maintenance

[fireflybob]

Just started to do some instruction at the local club again after a bit of a break.

I was horrified to note a leading member of the club committee with the cowls open on one of the club's trainers with spanner in hand attempting to rectify a defect which cropped up at the weekend. He is NOT a licensed aircraft engineer. Apparently this activity is a fairly common practice, especially at the weekend when licensed engineers are not available.

I don't want to rock the boat but I am not at all happy with this sort of conduct. The issue is not so much the competence of this individual to carry out maintenance but the fact that it is illegal and there is the liability issue to contend with.

Anyone got any good ideas as to how I can (tactfully) address this issue?

Thanks for any help.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Unfortunately this does seem to be a regular occurance. I caught my CFI repressurising a nose wheel oleo the other day, luckily one of my students is an engineer, so I dragged him over to have a check, where he found the fork seal had blown and immediately suggested grounding the thing until it could be checked properly and replaced. So that's what I did. Cue much histrionics from aforesaid CFI.

Remember as a/c captain it's your right to ground an aircraft you do not think is safe. Non-trained people doing maintainance is a worry, but most will only do little things that anyone with a smattering of mechanical knowledge could cope with. Problem is, it's illegal and if anything were to happen.......

One example of the wonderful maintainance system we have here.
A couple of months ago the electric fuel pump on one plane failed, the engineers turned up, had a look, said "it's ******ed" and ordered us a new one. It cost about £160 before VAT and fitting. I had a look at the pump and found that it was exactly the same one as in my old car. It even had AUTOMOTIVE PART stamped on the side!! thing is from halfords it's only £35 inc. VAT!! All because of one piece of paper! :o

This unfortunately can cause some people to cut corners a bit. If you're unhappy with that make sure you say so and if it means going somewhere else, then so be it , remember unless they are trained and licenced if it all goes wrong it will end up in your lap.

[ 06 September 2001: Message edited by: Say again s l o w l y ]

[Kermit 180]

Why dont you take a copy of the appropriate rule relating to maintenance and show this person, tactfully explaining that this aeroplane should be checked properly and is grounded until then. True, this is fairly commonplace, but it does not detract from the fact that the rules prevent this from being acceptable.

Kermie

[BEagle]

I have to say that this sort of thing is one reason why it would be virtually impossible for the CAA to support any proposals suggesting that NPPL training could be conducted on non-Transport (Passenger) category aircraft. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine that someone, having noticed a fuel pump was of automotive origin, went out and bought one from Halfords' - or the local scrappie - and then fitted it himself......

One of my aircraft was bought from a source in Wales (although I made them do an Annual first!) and was allegedly on a Transport (Passenger) CofA. Since we've had it I've had to spend thousands of pounds sorting out some of the earlier botch ups which kept coming to light. It had a 15 kt IAS error due to a snagged pitot-static line, various avionic wiring faults which were the result of dismally poor installation by a previous owner........ but a lovely engine and she flies nicely! It's going to cost another £7500 to get the FM-immunity mods done in the excellent local radio shop in a couple of weeks' time, but the funds are there thankfully! Incidentally, the reason I bought it was to replace another PA28 which we leased off a private owner; a number of times I'd seen him with a bag of spanners and the cowls off working on the engine. Although he hed appropriate FAA tickets, he was NOT licensed by the CAA, so he'd do his own maintenance and then fly over to a nearby 'mate' who did hold CAA licenses and get him to sign off the work. But we got fed up with the state of the ac and finally it went away........only to crash some time later.

Margins are so low in GA that people are indeed tempted to cut corners; unless that sort of practice stops, there is never going to be any easing of the mandatory maintenance standard required for GA training.

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[A and C]

If i was club owner i would be very carefull about letting low time pilots "write up" snags in the tech log without supervision after all its not uncommon to get some one write "radio U/S" and the aircraft is grouded untill a radio engineer is found to clear the open entry in the tech log only to find that the problem is the pilots headset !

The margins are thin in GA and this sort of thing can wipe out a whole weekend of flying for an aircraft which is probably 75% of a weeks revinue for it ,having said that if you feel that the aircraft is unfit for flight and you are sure of your facts then for safeys sake write up the snag.

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: A and C ]

[Noggin]

Perhaps you should point out that as well as being illegal, it will invalidate the clubs insurance. That will place the individual concerned in a position of liability, no doubt he has assets, house, car, plane etc all of which are vulnerable.

[fireflybob]

A & C, I agree with your comments about low hour pilots and supervision with respect to entries in the Tech Log.

However, this is not the situation I am alluding to. I am specifically concerned with non licensed personnel carrying out maintainence/defect rectification and the ramifications that this has with respect to legality, insurance and liability etc.

Several years ago my father (RIP) who was a veteran light aircraft instructor appeared as an expert witness when an instructor brought a case against the club/school for illegal/unauthorised maintenance after he was badly injured following a real EFATO. He won his case and a lot of money!

People who carry out these acts of illegal maintenance must realise that one day they might have blood on their hands and should leave the job of maintenance to a properly licensed engineer.

Finally, I have been around the tracks long enough to know that this sort of thing goes on but that does not mean to say the situation is acceptable.

[A and C]

I agree with all you are saying about illegal maintenance as a LAME i worked long and hard to pass the exams and dont see why the the public should be put in danger by idiots messing with things that they dont fully understand , my first post was writen to add some balance and to give an insight into the problems from the other side.

From a leagal point of view if work is carried out on an aircraft that requires a CRS then untill that has been raised by a LAME or a person approved by the CAA to do so then the C of A is invalid.

[Yogi-Bear]

I'm going to stick my neck out here....
My experience suggests that two-thirds of aircraft engineers couldn't hold down a job at the local automotive main dealer, or worse; the other third is wonderful! Because of the restrictions and the difficulty of removing an aircraft, the unscrupulous majority can (and do) hold the owner to ransom. Rip-off is the name of the game. The owner has no sanction. Many is the time I have known I could be doing a better job myself than the bent idiot with the spanner, but I'm not qualified? So can you blame anyone who feels capable, really? I've known PFA'ers with a permit aircraft who could outshine many a LAME and some who are abysmal. The CAA created this scenario; they need to sort it out. :mad: :mad: :mad: Rant fading.... :(

[Foyl]

Sorry, just going off on a slight tangent here.

Do you think that part of the problem is that most pilots aren't given a maintenance component in their training, and consequently are fiddling with stuff they don't know about, and haven't had thou shalt not touch and the reasons why (eg invalidate insurance etc) drummed into them?

There is a list of stuff pilots can and can't do in the regs, but even with the short list there are some things that can be royally screwed up if not done in the right way. But I have yet to find anyone who actually has a maintenance component worked into their flight training program. Or do maintenance guys think it's better that pilots don't look under the hood at all? ;)

[Say again s l o w l y]

I break it, you fix it. Mind you I don't pay for the work to be done.
Personally I have no interest in try to fix aircraft. Am I competent, maybe. I am an engineer (not a grease monkey) but let the people who's job it is fix things, the risk is just too high.

[Salvador]

Just the other day I reported a control restriction in a Pitts S2A - aelerons go wonky circa 170 mph. The engineers shrugged their shoulders and hadn't inspected the diagonal wing wires and told me not to use the aelerons at this speed. I guess first that they haven't read the operating manual. Guess2 I shall not flying this machine again.
Hey I've only got 400 hours on type. :mad:

[A and C]

Yogi of corse engineers are all incompitent rip off artists after all they have overalls on and get dirty and worst they are part of the working class and may even belong to a trades union.

That is why you only pay them about half the hourly rate of that you would pay in the average BMW outlet to fix something far more safety critical ,yogi i wish i was as wise as you.

[Yogi-Bear]

No you don't, A & C, because then you would have had to have had my experiences and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Maybe half the rate but twice the hours? I didn't tar ALL engs. with the same brush. You know where you stand. If you are in the third that I trust, be proud and rest content with that.
Y-B.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sorry A&C, but I agree with Yogi.

The best LAMEs are worth their weight in gold, but you know as well as we do that there are people out there who don't deserve the right to keep their licenses.Similarly, there are people with permit aircraft (homebuilts, microlights and gliders) with no licenses and utterly perfect aircraft. Just take a walk down the flightline at Cranfield in July.

In law a LAME does not have to do the work on a CofA aircraft, but (s)he must have inspected and signed for it. The real problem is people who decide to bypass that part of the requirement. The sad fact of life is that the people most guilty of this are those least able to get things right.

Personally I think PPLs and QFIs would learn a lot from doing some routine aircraft maintenance, but under the supervision of a qualified Engineer, not on their own!

As to persuading people to behave themselves. Ask three questions, in this order...

(1) Are you qualified to do that
(2) Do you have a family
(3) Do you know that your life insurance may not pay out if they find that you were killed, knowingly flying an illegally modified / maintained aircraft.

That usually does the job in my experience.

G

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]

[Lucy Kimbell]

Following recent allegations concerning the airworthiness of Pitts S2A G-WREN, Northamptonshire School of Flying Ltd, the sole owners of the aircraft, wish to advise all interested parties that a full and thorough investigation of alleged control problems has been carried out by our own licensed engineer and subsequently by one of the UK's leading Pitts experts. The aircraft has been signed off as fully airworthy and fit for flight.
A copy of the engineers' reports are available to any concerned party, and the Company fully acknoweledges, and is completely aware of, its obligations under the Health & Safety at Work Act, as well as its obvious obligations regarding the safety of its customers.

For further information and fullest details, please contact Roger Kimbell, Managing Director, Northamptonshire School of Flying. T: 01604 644678 or [email protected]

[A and C]

Interesting to see the way the customers see the aircraft maintanance business , looking from the inside i dont see 60% of the companys as places that will not do the job properly.
Yes there are places that i would not take my aircraft i know of one large company that invents work to do to bump up the bill because i was the technical rep for an owner and they soon changed there tune when it became apparent that they could not pull the wool over his eyes.

As to the standards of maintenance there are only about 5 % of the companys that i know that i would not put my aircraft with because of safety doubts ,this contrasts with about 50% of PFA projects that i see that i will have nothing to do with because the owners will not work to the correct standard , of course most of these projects never get finnished , the ones that do are normaly built to a very high standard and one RV-6 i inspected some time back is the best built aircraft that i have ever seen ,Mr boeing take note !

The fact of the matter is that GA engineering is not well paid and it is a strugle for meny of these companys to stay solvent and atract the type of people you would want to work on your aircraft in short GA gets the maintenance that it is willing to pay for.

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: A and C ]

[Hughes500]

First time I have been on this forum and a few observations about maintenance
1. Most maint organisations have very few licenced engineers, most work is done by grease monkeys and signed off by licenced engineers
2. Practically speaking your average ac and light helicopter are not complicated and do use automotive parts eg Hughes 300 starter motor is a GM part which costs about $ 50, because it is aviation it costs $ 450
3. The CAA is not interested in checking engineers or you as pilots it only wants to look at paperwork ( area office guys don't like getting hands dirty )
4. The ANO does state pilots are allowed to use non special tools on aircraft, ah I hear you ask what is a non special tool???
5. As pilots you can be authorised to do limited jobs eg oil changes regreasings etc etc.
6. The most worrying of all is we will be doing our own maintenance soon as the CAA is not interested in aiding people to come into the industry. To give an example of how the Campaign against Aviation goes about this, my fully licenced helicopter engineer attended the Bell Textron maintenance couse in the USA on the Jetranger. The CAA have refused to licencee him as they do not approve of the course - but what do Bell know they just make the bloody things !!!
AS you might have guessed by now the CAA's stated aim is to show a profit first.

Perhaps when our regulatory body gets its arse into gear problems such as pilots doing their own maintenance will start to go away :o :o

[Firkin L]

Yogi
You suggest that 66% of my profession are incompetent, stupid and crooked. I find this very offensive. I work for a large maintenance and aircraft operating company and I would challenge you to ask any of our pilots and customers of their opinion of our standards and integrity. We have about 30 engineers 15 of whom are LAME's and none of them fit your perception, therefore, I suggest, it must be wrong. Of course if you do have problems with airworthiness standards talk to the CAA about it or go to trading standards, they should be able to help. Alternatively why not get yourself an engineers licence and the appropriate type ratings, that shouldn't be a problem for someone like you should it?
May I suggest that the attitude you have displyed towards engineers in this thread is probably the reason why you have problems doing business with them.

[Yogi-Bear]

Nope, sorry FL but ‘tis other way around. I came to this business in the naïve expectation of high standards all around. Experience has taught me. My post was deliberately provocative because I think the whole SEP LAM scenario needs revision. Whilst it reflects my own experiences accurately, it can’t be held as representative of the whole trade. Genghis saw that but you and A&C appear to have taken it quite literally. Though two howls in a fortnight is not much for such a membership. There's a lot of silence out there…….

I have never put an aircraft with an organization of the size you describe and I think the concern is greater towards the margins of this business. However, before you jump for joy, I’ll give you this anecdote and, before anyone asks, no, I don’t remember.

Whilst relating my woes to another PBO (poor b***** owner) who happened to own his own motor workshop, he offered me the following story:-

Following another bout of unsatisfactory maintenance at a largish northern mo, he took his a/c to another mo, had the wings removed and trailered the fuselage to his workshop. There the engine was given a complete overhaul using parts imported direct from the manufacturer, fuselage returned, wings replaced at the second mo. and a/c flown away.

Was I shocked or even surprised by this relevation? No. At the time I was reeling from one of my own experiences. It seemed an eminently satisfactory solution to a familiar dilemma. So, somewhere, maybe to this day, there is an O-320 flying that is far better than its logbook indicates. Illegal maintenance. Yes. Unsafe? Who knows? But is it any worse than his alternative? Most likely not. I know there are plenty of daft owners out there, possibly me included. But our neck is on the line and that is a powerful incentive for getting it right. Far more motivational than an underpaid and resentful or maybe envious engineer will ever feel. So, I’ll throw it open to everyone. Which do YOU think is the more satisfactory outcome in this case, both for those in the air and those on the ground?

On a general note. The light aeroplane fleet is getting steadily older and needing ever more conscientious TLC. Who is best placed to see that they get it?

My next epistle might include “An Owners’ potted guide to engineering traps and pitfalls”. I’m thinking about it. ;)

FFB. If you are not happy with the direction of this thread, I don’t mind if you delete it. Private flying or Tech log might be more appropriate.

[A and C]

It sounds to me like you should engage a licenced engineer as a tech rep ,with a trade insider on your team you will soon get beter maintenance or find out if your expectations are unrealistic.

As i pointed out above i have saved owners a lot of problems and money by overseeing the maintenance of aircraft ,sometimes this advice will be that it is time to spend more money to save in the long term and this comes as a bit of a shock to some who think that all i should do is reduce the first bill i see.

As to taking the aircraft maintenance into your own hands and employing an unlicenced "expert" i,v seen this on a number of times the most interesting was when a tractor mechanic changed a cylinder on a lycoming and did not follow the corect practices the owner was happy with the cost saving untill after 20 min in the air the rocker shaft exited the engine wrecking the cylinder ,fortunatly the aircraft was within gliding distance of an airfield but what chance of redress from the tractor mechanic ?

[ 27 September 2001: Message edited by: A and C ]

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: A and C ]

[ragspanner]

It would seem that you have had a bad experience,possibly you have ,how could i know ?. It may be the case you are ticked off at having to cough up exorbitant amounts for what 'you' consider to be sub standard maintenance.Still good maintenance costs.
If you are going to make frankly ludicrous assertions about the numbers of bad engineers based on anecdotal evidence & your own eminently underqualified engineering opinion,why don't you confine it to the club bar !.Try coming up with some empirical data,until that time wind your neck in !.

[Kermit 180]

As Ragspanner said, good maintenance costs money. The answer: shop around, look for the best deal from qualified LAME's with good reputations and whos mechanics (not completely qualified), are well supervised.

There is litte point in getting wound up over these posts, the fact remains that the law does not allow for illegal maintenance of any aeroplane. If people do shoddy maintenance it is at their own peril, the rules are there for everyone to see and adhere.

Kermit

[Kermit 180]

And also to add that not only is dodgy maintenance at the peril of a pilot, but dangerous maintenance practices also endanger innocent people on the ground and in other aeroplanes. None of this helps to promote the safe and professional image GA wants, and needs, to send out to the general public.

[Bus429]

Ladies and gents,

Have to say I have seen good and bad maintenance all over the world.
Once, did some ad-hoc work at a certain small, grass airfield, near a motorway inter-change in the north of England.Observed several pilot/owners, who were not LAEs, doing their own maintenance, well beyond that allowed under the terms of their PPLs.
Unfortunately, conscientious engineers are often ridiculed (sometimes by their peers!) for applying the right standards. You will always find a gash hand somewhere. In my experience, some owners of aircraft are quite prepared to pay large sums for their toys but are unwilling to pay for good maintenance. I have seen some horrendous wiring behind the panels of most light aircraft I have had the misfortune to work on. This is often carried out by pilots themselves or engineers with a licence but not the right licence!

I've seen the industry from hands-on to QA and back again. To be frank, a very, very few members of the maintenance fraternity are happy to pull flankers as a way of ingratiating (apologies to those pilots for whom this is a big word)themselves to managers. Some managers are only too happy to condone or encourage this.
It surprises me all the more now that we have a large database of information and empirical evidence showing that failure to follow procedures can cause serious trouble.
An engineer needs to remember that his signature lasts for the life of the aircraft and then some.
I have also seen pilots "conniving" (or attempting to connive) with engineers to minimise the impact of a defect, especially on tight turn arounds. "It's not in the book but...." or "...should I write it up?"
Here's another. Tech log entry: "For info...." followed by a bona-fide defect! The engineer's response is often "Info noted". The implication of the "For info" is "it's probably OK!" This generates a similar mind set with the engineer. Remember, "For info" means nothing. A defect is a defect!! :mad:

Let's all remember this, you get bad pilots too! Remember the "Bristol Cowboy" (dodgy 707)? :rolleyes:

[HOVIS]

Yogi,

These ring any bells?

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!

Or

If you think maintenance(safety) is expensive, try having an accident!

Oldies I know but they still ring true. Another thing to remember is that if the lame is certifying for the latest work carried out how is (s)he to know if an unqualified driver has been fiddling about?

When certifying a task I inspect that particular area relevant to the job, not the entire a/c. If you have been tinkering and then the a/c makes like a lawn dart, who gets fingerd? The chap with his name on the techlog thats who.
So lets here less of this grease monkey,incompetant idiot rhetoric, have some respect. The lame takes more responsibility than any driver ever. The minute you as a pilot closes the door and signs the a/c back in, your responsibility to it ends.

The Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer remains responcible until 2 years after the a/c is retired!!

Apologies for spelling and grammatical errors.

[CONES R US]

Yogi,

yes you are sticking your neck out and that attitude could well earn said neck a good slapping!
all licensed engineers have worked hard for their qualifications - same as pilots - so why do you reckon 2/3 of us are crap?. I know there are some better engineers around than others, and as a contractor, I know which end of the scale I'm in as I would not be employed if i were no good.
If you want to fix your own plane and then fly it, fine, build a kit plane. If not leave well alone.
You suggested a rip off. HA! If you were to buy most parts required for an aircraft locally (ie halfords etc) the cost would be respectable. Then take those same parts and order them from an approved source - ie with a form one - and see a couple of zeros added ontothe price tag. What a suprise, Aviation is expensive. If you can't afford it, don't do it. I'd like to pursue my dream of driving exotic sports cars into walls, but I can't afford it so i dont do it (well not regularly anyway).
The hourly rate for a licensed engineer is usually less than the local garage charge for looking at your car and did that bloke spend years doing exams and getting certificates, and then redoing them when the rules change? I think not.
Just do me a favour and quit moaning


:p

[HOVIS]

cones r us,

FANTASTIC!

How do you type like that? it takes me a week to type this.

Last week news & rumours,
Yesterday Flying instructors,

Tommorrow,,,,ze vorld!!!!!

Keep up the good work.

[moon]

Another licenced engineer here, don't have time to write much at the moment, but Yogi has a point about the quality of some engineers. However, to say two thirds are incompetant displays either a lack of knowledge on the subject or just a severe problem with basic arithmetic.
Obviously I consider myself to be competant, with the responsibilities we have in this job, not too many people who aren't sure of their abilities would be able to go to work each day.
As often happens, the fly-boy has his head in the clouds (pardon the pun). He obviously thinks he has a right to look down (pardon the pun) on us lesser mortals. What next? Trolley dollies also getting ideas above their station? :D
Surely not.

[kiwispanner]

I see Yogi-Bear comes from the "Fairy Tale Land", says it all really!!!!
Just don't let him come down to NZ, cause the 66% of us 'incompetent engineers' may just give him a good slapping.

:mad: :mad: