Is 7k over the top for Cessna Annual ?

[stevef]

With the greatest respect, I think it's commendable that pilots are keen on learning about their aircraft but your garage wouldn't have you on the shop floor whilst they were servicing your car so why expect the same from your aircraft maintenance company? The hangar is their property as much as the aircraft is yours. Who pays if you knock a magneto timer onto the floor or stand on compression test gauges...
Engineers want to get on with their job without people getting in the way and don't forget that if you slow them down to explain things, you'll end up paying for the time.
There's also the issue of employer's liability. Plenty of hazards in a hangar.
Explaining aircraft issues to an owner for a few minutes is normal in just about every hangar but in most companies I think it's unlikely that you'd be allowed much more.

Imagine if an engineering passenger kept looking over your shoulder whilst you were flying.

[9 lives]

at the end of the day its your property and you have every right at least to watch and learn what is going on.

...As long as your right to learn is being exercised in your hangar, with your facilities, and the person from whom you are learning is being fairly paid for the teaching time too!

Perhaps it can be presumed that everyone has the right to obtain a proper maintenance environment for their aircraft - exercise that right, and make the arrangements. Otherwise, it seems logical to select a maintenance service provider who has already put all of that in place.

As an aircraft owner and customer, you absolutely have the right to dictate the terms of the business you do, have work quoted, and have a detailed and accurate report of what was done, and how it was charged. And you have the right to expect that work to be of quality, and fairly priced.

As a maintainer, that person has a right to expect to be fairly paid for the time they apply to your aircraft (aside from correcting a defect they could have accidentally created). The maintainer also has the right to expect that all of their expenses are covered within the scope of the work accomplished. For my experience (with about twenty different maintenance shops), I don't see anyone getting rich maintaining planes. I do see well run shops, who charge fairly (meaning they profit) surviving to be there for the next owner who needs work on their plane. Interestingly, when I see shops who seem to flourish better than others, it appears to me that the maintenance service I am considering is linked to either aircraft sales, and/or a bustling flying service.

On the whole, 7k sounds hi for annual maintenance for a 172. But not knowing what was done, and what the aircraft needed, it becomes a "how long is a piece of string?" question. There are many necessary things which could take the bill that high, particularly if they have been deferred from past years. It's to some degree a matter of the starting point.

A friend who has a completely rebuilt and modified C 182 amphibian, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring it, and modifying it to be exactly what he wanted - it took several years. The total cost well exceeded the price of a new 182. (Even he did not plan that!). But he smiled, and paid the bill. I remarked to him that the work accomplished, though very expensive, was an investment in piece of mind and snag free reliability. That plane has never had an in service failure, and has now gone through three annual inspections, with only one snag once - a broken engine primer line. Nest for him, it has never left him stranded in some of the very remote places he flies. I have never heard him complain about the cost of maintenance.

I consider all sides of aircraft operation and maintenance before I assert that something was "expensive", as some things are too cheap, and thus even more worrisome!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Some may quibble about the definition of an engineer in that context. Stanley Hooker didn't spend his life building or maintaining aeroplanes, he spent his life designing them.

There arguably two different cultures in aeronautical engineering. There are those who think that all the work is in designing, testing and building the aeroplane, and then once it leaves the factory - all the work is done. And then there are those who think that aeroplanes magic themselves into existence, and then all the work starts. Both are, of course, completely wrong.


On the subject of involving yourself in your aircraft's maintenance - in my experience it can save a great deal of money, so long as you have taken the trouble to understand the issues properly.

I have a CofA aeroplane I lease to a flying school, and get maintained by a shop who are very competent, but are much more interested in getting the aeroplane out the door fast (good) than in keeping the bills down for me as the owner (less good). By challenging them on regulatory necessities, being prepared to go searching for serviceable second hand parts myself, and so-on, I can generally shave about a third off what the bills would be otherwise.

It's frustrating having to do this - but in my case at least, as they do everything else fully to my satisfaction, for the moment it's worth the trouble.

G

[A and C]

The cost of training

When I worked for British Airways they calculated that a tradesman who was supervising a new apprentice was only 70% effective, so depending on how much supervision you need you could well be increasing your labour bill by 30% if you "help".

[BigEndBob]

When I considered buying aircraft before leasing for my club a maintenance organisation told me Annuals start at £3k.
I have had private owners tell me bills of anywhere from 7 to 12k on sep.
I helped in a maintenance hangar long time ago, dread to think what some aircraft are really like when relatively cheap and worn bolts such as on torque links, don't get replaced, but owners get big bills for high value items. (Discovered how Piper u/c castings would crack).

And time again I have seen people buy and spend lots of money on an aircraft, yet don't budget to get some basic parts renewed.
I would have a long list such as plugs, mags, vac pumps, alternator, battery, torque link bolts.
Just change them all and have peace of mind that they will not need doing for a long time and hopefully the aircraft will not strand you in a far away place.

When I see the big bills people get, I sometimes wonder if every part has been replaced.
It would be interesting to cost out every consumable part.
I remember paying £25 per plugs (CSE price) 20 years ago.
So then £200 for new plugs that might last 200 odd hours.
Save getting the engineer out every few months to clean a plug @ ? hour.

Good example was watching some guys ready to set off in their 2nd hand recent purchase Mooney, paid 60k.
First flight abroad, mag drop. On seeing the plugs they all looked about as old as the aircraft, 12 years.
Why didn't replace all with new at purchase and save this problem.
New plugs were then fitted.