A New Concept for Maintenance

[Helicopterhelp]

As a Licenced (CAA & FAA) Engineer I have thought of a fairly new idea that if there is enough positive feedback for I will go ahead and start up, first I would like to put it to the floor and let you all decide whether or not it is worth my time to follow up and if you think the service would benefit yourselves.

I am a highly experienced licenced engineer, Uk based and I have worked at various UK companies from Hangar sweeper up to and including Engineering/Maintenance Manager with Transmission and Engine overhaul experience thrown in. I speak directly with and have spoken to many of yourselves in the past and one of the gaps I see is the lack of liason between the owner/operator and the Maintenance company.

In a poacher turned gamekeeper move I would act as the interface betwen yourselves and maintenance , for instance, I am aware of where all the bills have a little slack to reduce them, I know how many hours should be allocated to what jobs, when a repair will suffice instead of replacement and what items removed have a core value, to name but a few .

When you receive your estimate for the work I can handle it from there on in and make sure that it is all a fair process. At the moment I know that sometimes no matter how well the customer services try to put it (and the majority of them also have very little engineering background) the estimates are a baffling, jargon riddled pest but I can very easily open all that up for you.

It would also be possible for me to carry out a pre-inspection review of your machines so you know what to inspect and can "Rate" the inspection that is then subsequently carried out.

The above services I would obviously charge for but again this would be "Fair" and entirely dependant on what types, how many and what cover you need but I'm confident that I would reduce your maintenance bill by far more than the service would cost you.

Anyway, that's the idea let me know how you feel in public or by PM and if the market is there then I'll get on with it.

[HeliEng]

I do not agree with your ideas, and I have a few points, so this reply may be a bit bitty.

It seems to me that you are out to screw over all the Maintenance Organisations, do you have a grudge to bear against someone in particular???

In my experience, customer service only writes on the quote what engineering tells them!!
Also, most of the customers I have come across, if they don't understand the quote, they'll ask, come in and have a look, and ask for the U/S part back.

What happens if you miss something? (We are all human) You tell the customer that the check should be straight forward with no great complications, and then the MO finds a serious defect? Is that not just a reciepe for bad feeling, whether it be between you and the MO, You and the customer or the customer and the MO.

Just my opinion :)

[Hairyplane]

Could it be that you have been involved in a bit of 'creative invoicing' in the past and either kept schtum or proffed from it to the extent that the disparities involved were regular enough/ of sufficient magnitude to flag up a business opportunity?
Just a thought....
As a newbie to heli's ( but very much an old git on fixed wing who has been stiffed more than once in the past by the classic quote me happy/ plane in 1000 bits/ no we didnt include that sir and its a million quid extra....) my work goes to reputable organisations. Reputation is earned by under promising and over delivering, leaving a net smile on the customers face (even though his credit card may be left sizzling in a bucket of cold water....)
When will maintenance and restoration people realise that those with a bit of cash have invariably earned it by providing a level of customer service unheard of by most and are wiley enough to spot a scam?
The net result is not only a lost customer but an energetic smear campaign to warn others.
How about this for just one scam -
My less than a year old Robin went in for a check a few years back. 'Sorry Sir but the oil cooler burst when we ran the engine up and we had to replace it. ' I go on holiday, my cheque is cashed, I ask for the part on my return and also ask what the CAA had to say about it. 'Er, we've chucked it away'.
Was it worth the fag of a £300(ish) County Court claim? Nah.
But did they ever even look at my aircraft again.....?!
If that were me I'd have said, 'we overtightened the union, buggered it up but fortunately had one on the shelf so no charge'.
Hairyplane

[Helicopterhelp]

HeliEng there is nothing untoward and I definately have no grievances with anywhere I have or will work in the future. I do however almost daily see customers who simply don't understand what is involved with a big inspection and could do with some assistance with their maintenance planning. I get calls off people who want to put their machines with us who have had massive maintenance bills and just can't see where it all went. There is a time to carry out an airworthiness 100 hour inspection and a time when it is worth "pulling" maintenance forward and carrying out a minor refurb when it's in pieces. Pre any inspection a good "Check A" can give you an idea of whether or not you can fit your expected maintenance around a flying programme or whether you should ask for a minor extension to cover some upcoming work before a possible extended down time.
I am not aware of any sharp practices or creative invoicing and always balance the customer's needs with what is done when a machine is in with us and I can appreciate that when there is a delay due to defects , lack of spares , manufacturer's info then the customer would have their mind put at rest if they had an independant input from someone who is unbiased. At the same time I have seen components removed and sent to overhaul shops when the maintenance required was an "On-Wing" job and if the owner had taken some advice before going ahead then he would have saved lot of labour and downtime.
There are some excellent maintenace facilities in the UK but I see that there is a gap between Customer and Engineer. Typical examples are a boost pump failing, customer quoted for a new pump when it could easily have had a part life fitted or in fact it's own repaired/overhauled during the time the aircraft was down for the inspection anyway.
I don't ever think this was a sharp practice it was more the guys in customer services only had "Boost Pump inop" to deal with and the owner simply does not have the time to think Mmmmm is there another way to deal with this ?

[Helicopterhelp]

At the same time I was recently working at a MO that was just about write off and order a new driveshaft when there was a very easy and perfectly suitable repair in the OM.

[HeliEng]

Helicopterhelp,

I think that you are correct in what you say about the gap between customer and engineer, but I do not think that you suggested solution is the way forward.
As an ex-engineering/maintenance manager, do you not feel that it should be an opportunity to educate. In my opinion, and using your example, it should not be down to the customer to have to pay an external company to find out whether they need a new boost pump or whether they can have their U/S one repaired, that should be down to the Maintenance-Engineering Manager/Chief Engineer or whatever that person is called in your organisation to give the customer the options and to give the pros and cons of each option.

I am not convinced that a customer will save as much on an inspection as they would have to pay to get someone to look over the machine pre-check and liase with the MO throughout.

You say in your post:
"I get calls off people who want to put their machines with us who have had massive maintenance bills"

Does this mean that you are currently "involved" with an MO, because I think I would certainly question your intentions (rightly or wrongly) if this were the case.
I would expect something along these lines.
"I work for XYZ maintenance organisation, and I can have a look at your aircraft before you take it to your MO, and tell you what actually needs doing" Then, when the big bills come through, "They are having you on, come to XYZ, we'll do your maintenance, they are obviously up to something, overcharging you and doing work that is unnessacery!"

Also, you seem to have changed the wording in your posts from "I am an" to "we are", that is why I ask the above.

You didn't really address the issue of not spotting something and the repercussions, any further thoughts?

[Helicopterhelp]

It has absolutely nothing to do with where I have previously or am currently working and as I said if it worth following then I will follow it entirely alone......Not some new 145 xyz org touting for business so let's put that one to bed straight away.

I am not proposing to carry out an annual before an annual, as I said a glorified check "A" would give a good indication of what to expect and only that no more, no less. This is only a very small part of what I am thinking, it is more the liason and independant balanced opinion. It would not be my place to supersede the 145 certifying guys it however would be my place to give personal attention and care whilst the machine is in for maintenance.

Once a machine is placed under my care then I would have a thorough working knowledge of that machine anyhow and wouldn't need to be all over it like a rash every day, it is more predicting,monitoring, assessing mandatory & non-mandatory req's, keeping the Maint programme sweet and taking care of or hopefully preventing the engineering headaches. How many maintenance companies provide true out of hours cover for the private owner ? Wouldn't it be lovely when a problem crops up any time of day or night just to make one call and then it is left to be sorted in the best way possible without any further need for worry.

[HeliEng]

If the aircraft in maintained under 145, would you not have to be approved by the customers MO in order to carry out "out of hours" tasks, not just be able to do them off your own back?

[Helicopterhelp]

Nah honestly I know this is a new idea and is still forming as I'm typing but I now see what you are thinking.
It is NOT as a hand's on engineer simply contracted to an individual machine. It is purely working as an "Off tools" job in an advisory/consultancy role with the maintenance being left to the suitably approved and more than competent companies . The idea is to it for multiple aircraft and do all their liason work therefore filling the Owner-Maintenance liason role which I personally feel is missing.

[Helicopterhelp]

The out of hours concept is more along the lines of going to the machine and carrying out the initial fault diagnosis then liasing with the maintenace company for the correctly certified repair work to be carried out whilst said owner can get on with his normal daily business.

[SASless]

Can you say "Consultant"?

They exist already....wise owners keep an "expert" handy for use when needed.

Shady...shoddy maintenance operations....they exist but get found out quick.

Professional, reputable shops get repeat and most importantly..."referral" business.

If you own an aircraft and do not research who you hire to work on your aircraft...shame on you.

If you do not have someone you can turn to that will look out for your interests when you are confronted with something you know little about....again...shame on you.

If you want to build a business as you describe...help one person. If you do a good job...word will get around. Screw either party....and that will get around too.

[Flingwing207]

If an operator has nobody in their organization who knows about maintanence, then they are at the mercy of the maintenance facility. Having you (or whoever) as a consultant doesn't really help them because you are no more/less reliable than the shop themselves.

Scenerio #1:
Pilot: Sir, just got a chip light
Operator (to repair shop): Fix the helicopter
Repair shop: You need a new transmission
Operator: s--t

Scenerio #2:
Pilot: Sir, just got a chip light
Operator (to repair shop): Fix the helicopter
Repair shop: You need a new transmission
Operator (to consultant): do I need a new transmission?
Consultant: Yep
Operator: s--t
Consultant: and you owe me $200 too

[Paradism]

Am I missing something here?
Since 28 Sept 2005, all JAR Operators have to have a Continuing Airworthiness Manager ("CAM") in order to comply with EASA Part M Subpart G. The emphasis being on the management of airworthiness rather than the commercial aspects.
Part-M Subpart G will in the near future affect all aircraft operators, at present it only affects those AOC operators aircraft on public transport C of A. The net effect is that there will be a mandated interface between an operator and a maintenance organisation with the CAM performing most of the functions proposed by Helicopterhelp.
The CAM has to be acceptable to the national authority and the simple fact is that if an Operator does not have that expertise "in-house", then they must contract it in.
It seems to me that Helicopterhelp already has a ready made market, fortunately for him, mandated by regulations, assuming he is acceptable to the authority.

[Helicopterhelp]

I am more than acceptable as a CAM according to my local Surveyor and the owner's need to have their machines operated in a continued, managed environment will be more of a bugger's muddle than you ever imagined, because they will be Non AOC then they will not have a current maintenance programme, they must have a current maintenance programme in order to fit into the "Managed" slot so where does it come from ? It is the operator's responsibility to manage the airworthiness issues and I'm assuming that every owner/operator will be "Forced" into signing a maintenance contract rather than work being carried out on an ad-hoc basis

[Paradism]

Helicopterhelp
I wouldn't want to be a CAM for non-AOC operators for all the tea in China. It sounds like a recipe for stress and ulcers to me. No only that, but there is a limit to the number you could safely handle, so you would be severely limiting your income.

[SASless]

My but you European lot must be a shady bunch....laws and rules requiring third party supervisors of maintenance....when is that going to happen for pilots too? You can't say the TRE/IRE system qualifies...as they represent the CAA despite being non-CAA employees?

[Paradism]

SASSless
Watch this space. EASA have started working on EASA Operations, and are currently consulting with industry. If Part-145 is anything to go by, they will adopt JAR-OPS and then revamp the whole thing. For the better? Fortunately I shall be retired by then.

[Helicopterhelp]

You can of course operate outside of the "Managed Environment" when it comes in but then you'll need the CAA to issue your ARC (The new TLA for a C of A) and I think they intend to make this difficult as they simply "don't want to do it"....From the Horses mouth so to speak.

[SASless]

Ah...the infamous retort...."Yes we know it is legal and permissible under the regulation...but that just isn't our policy."

(Usually heard when asking for a Crat to make a decision that requires taking a stand and "owning" the decision.) Somethng heard just before they make like crabs scurrying for a sandy hole.

[Paradism]

Helicopterhelp
I don't think the CAA will make it particularly difficult, they'll just make an "appropriate" charge.:{

[md 600 driver]

private aircraft owners may not want to reply to this thread as their engineering companys may also be reading

try a mail shot to all owners you can get all the details off ginfo or try a advertisement on pprune

may work may not
i am on the fence

[Helicopterhelp]

From The Horses mouth so to speak "It will be possible for us to issue your ARC but to be quite honest we don't want to get involved"
This means that all EASA registered machines flown in the UK will in effect require their own CAM, I will be providing a service that will encompass that role and far more, ensuring that you remain in a "Controlled Environment" For those interested read AMC M.A. 901 (a-d) On the EASA website Part M Acceptable means of compliance.
Suffice to say it will be a minefield for the unitiated.
If anyone wishes to not post a public comment then feel free to PM me and I'll discuss it further.

[Thomas coupling]

Helicopterhelp: It already exists to a cetain extent vis a vie independent audits. We employ a consultant engineer to audit us i.a.w. part M. even though we dont need a CAM in our industry currently as we are exempt.
What you are advocating is the role of an independent auditor with a commercial hat on - yes?

Could work, should work...but only for those who aren't savvy with the business your describing (which tant amounts to all private flyers and small AOC operators - seems to me once you get to a critical size...or use public money....no-one notices the extra 'zero' on the end of the bill:sad:

Good luck to you....I think you've found a crack in the system.

[Helicopterhelp]

Once you reach a critical size then you are bound by AOC rules to at least have a Maintenance Manager in the role of a CAM. For the smaller operations/owners this independant role will ensure that if your maintenance company does not work in conjunction with an AOC and therefore does not hold part M approvals and you yourself as a small flying school or private owner do not hold said part M approvals then you will still remain within the required "Controlled Environment" but you will also have an independant eye on what is going on day to day with the maintenance from a practical point of view and a review of your DOC's with the practical experience of when to go ahead with in depth maintenance and when to keep it airworthy.

[quichemech]

An unservicability is just that, who are you too make a judgement over what another licensed engineer has snagged, who also will over see or oversign your extented check A when you will have no maintenance approval from the MO.
Your idea seems to be an extension of the CAM role and would very possibly cause a great deal of friction between the MO and its customer, the only benefit I can see is that you will earn yourself commision.
No doubt as mentioned earlier you will still expect to be paid even when your own findings agree with that of the MO and as for your out of hours trouble shotting! Well who is to say you've got it right in the middle of the night having just been woken up and not seeing exactly what is going on.
Who also is not to say that you will make the right decision as to repair, overhaul or replace items as required and that you can find a better deal than that already offered.
It seems a path littered with problems, you only need to get it wrong once and the word will spread like wildfire. Damaging what I assume to be a good reputation.

[Helicopterhelp]

quichemech who do you see as providing the "Extension to the CAM role" ie the part I approval holder in the future then ? The same company that does the maintenance ? Nice one, I'd love a job there .........Licence to print etc. I will point out again that I'm not aiming to slate maintenance comanies or attempt to overturn decisions made by suitably qualified staff and yes, of course I would charge for it .....As for the middle of the night, I am not pretending to offer a knight in shining armour, what i am saying is that I am more than capable of initial fault diagnosis and I will actually answer the phone and react accordingly out of hours leaving the owner to get on with their own business.
I'm sorry to say though "who also will over see or oversign your extented check A when you will have no maintenance approval from the MO." displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole system I am aiming to offer.
You need a check "A" for a P/T flight only, correct ?
This machine will then have to be allocated to an AOC, correct ?
In which case the service I would be offering would be covered by the AOC's CAM, correct ?
I'm sure you work for an MO by your comments and username and it is misconceptions like this and fundamental misunderstandings like these that I am going to assist the customers not getting "Nipped" by.

[quichemech]

Hmmm, valid points, however I still foresee a pathway littered with misunderstandings and potential hassle.

Why not just offer your services as a CAM.

[Helicopterhelp]

Because I don't want a full time job I would much rather work on a consultancy basis and most places don't really need a full time CAM so I'd get really bored.........