Originally Posted by
wrench1
My comment was to your blanket statement that any owner who doesn't perform a 100 hour is lazy or a cheapskate and in context to whether a 100hr is required or not. I too have 40 years in the mx business, however, my experiences differ to yours. I won't deny there are owners out there as you have mentioned, which could include several 135 operators I know as well as well. However, I was in a position to select which owners I assisted so in all honesty I would never work with people who operated as you describe. And this included both my airplane and helicopter customers. So, in my opinion, your statement is mis-informed or inaccurate of all owners simply because they do not perform a non-required 100 hour inspection. In my experience, it's not what gets done on an aircraft, it's the who and how that aircraft is maintained. Lastly, in the last 30 years or so, I can state without hesitation that "economics" has never been a deciding factor in any decision made by any owner I assist. But if you believe simply complying with more inspections makes an aircraft safer then I respect your belief.
If you wish to change the subject we can speak about what gets done versus who and how they do it. My assumption is that, as with a physician, I go out to do no harm and strive to make things better. Not everybody ends up doing that but frequent maintenance by anyone with average abilities is better than delayed mainenance has been my experience.
if economics was not the root cause of why the maintenance interval is being stretched, then what was the reason? It actually all boils down to money. Convenience, remoteness even weather to the extent that it can be forecast are not valid reasons in my view, but rather are excuses for delaying. We all drone on about safety and how it has to be elevated above the need to leave the ground ( no pun intended), so you have to walk the talk. Of course one can do a poor job of inspecting or even create an issue one fails to see in the course of doing work but that is never the intention and your corallary implication that it would not be true that the more eyes on something the greater the liklihood something will be seen, is something I reject.
We can debate maintenance philosophy all week but in my experience, in many instances, I didn't know the customer or their machine until I did an inspection and didn't have the luxury or conscience that allowed me to walk away ( although there were a couple of situations so heinous that it was the only choice). I actually was the person who frequently would tell an owner " look, you don't have to bust your butt getting here before you hit 100 hours". As I said above, there is nothing magic about that number and was often met with surprise when it was explained they really didn't violate any regulations if they never did the 100 hr inspection. I stopped doing that because I saw it get abused because they really were cheap or lazy. Yes, most of the time more inspections would be my choice no matter who does them because in my experience there are more competant mechanics than incompetant. Your mileage may vary and past performance is no predictor of future returns. It's like the dilemma of the landing light. Do I test it on preflight if I know it worked last night or will it be the lst time it lights and doesnt burn out, thereby leaving me with no landing light when I need it. You can disagree all day long but there is no real reason for testing it if it worked.....or is there? Things do take a turn for the broken at the most unexpected times.