After the annual inspection [Archive]

SNS3Guppy

13th Apr 2008, 12:36

By definition it can't be "too" invasive...otherwise there's be no point. Perhaps it's "just enough."

Speaking as a mechanic, when performing the inspection, I find everything. Some mechanics take minimum pay, do minimum work, and find as little as possible. My conscience and professionalism dictate that nothing is let slide.

Bear in mind that the inspection, be it a 100 hour of annual (or other) inspection is just that; it's an inspection. Work done to the airplane to correct discrepancies is in addition to the inspection. Depending upon who has done the inspections before and the degree of their thoroughness, the annual inspection may be very revealing. New owners are very often aghast at the cost, because the previous owner hasn't been taking quite such good care of the airplane, or because the previous maintenance wasn't quite so exacting or strict.

When I do work on an airplane and approve it for return to service, by certifing the aircraft as airworthy I take responsibility for it's present condition when I sign the paperwork. I take full responsibility for all the work done previously to the airplane. If a mechanic did a faulty repair or missed an airworthiness directive or required inspection 20 years ago...I just took responsiblity for it. I take that responsibility seriously. Very seriously, in fact. Accordingly, I can't let an airplane escape with that signature that isn't in full compliance that merits the signature. If work has been done improperly before, if parts and hours tracking and compliance has been in error, if items are found that others have let slide, I can't, because now I'm responsibile for them.

Bear in mind that the inspection is the requirement. The aircraft doesn't have to be returned to you in airworthy condition. Once the inspection is done, you can be issued a list of discrepancies and you can elect to have them fixed elsewhere if you prefer, or any other way you like...If I do the inspection, for example, nothing says I have to ensure everything is put right. I just can't release it as airworthy until it is. I can sign that the inspection has been performed and a list of discrepancies provided to the owner...and not sign the airplane as airworthy. That's perfectly acceptable. If the owner has his or her own mechanic, his or her own parts, or has another way to get everything back in compliance after the inspection is complete, more power to them. The work is separate. I can do it, someone else can do it...that's up to the owner.

Traditionally the person doing the inspection, or the shop doing the inspection, will also do the work to bring the airplane into compliance, but that's at the discretion of the owner. Professionalism demands that the owner is fully consulted before any additional work commences, and that the owner approve any additional expenses beyond the cost of the inspection, before the work is done.

There should be no surprises.

Depending on the size of the airplane and it's condition and complexity, a typical annual inspection should take three days or so to complete. Keep in mind this includes a very thorough examination and research on the maintenance records, as well as the physical inspection of the airplane itself. It includes verification that the work listed previously in the logbooks, was done, and done properly, particularly relevant airworthiness directives, repairs, etc.

Additional work required after the inspection is complete will determine how long the airplane is out of your grasp...could be a few days, or could be a very long time.

As an example, I had a 182 which had been annualed a year before, brought to me. The ailerons were rigged such that the control yoke was turned 90 degrees with the ailerons level...other than one airplane I saw with the ailerons rigged backward, it was the worst rigging job I ever saw. The engine mount was corroded, and it had so many problems that the subsequent repairs took nearly six months. It happens. It turned out to be so expensive that the owner sold the airplane for nearly nothing. A drop zone bought it and invested in the repairs, and now has a nice 182 for skydiving.

snchater

13th Apr 2008, 12:42

First flight yesterday after 2 week annual - static source blocked,CHT gauge u/s, panel rheostat u/s and avionics problems still persisting :ugh:

I have used the same engineers for 10 years - they know the aeroplane intimately and know that I always pay promptly - I know that all the snags will eventually be fixed in time for the plane to emerge from its next annual with a new set of faults :(

A and C

13th Apr 2008, 12:43

If done properly an annual check will not do any harm whatsoever, and it could safe you a whole world of hurt.

The problems usualy start when a very large job has to be carried out and it disturbs a bit of shoddy workmanship in the distant past.
Recently I had the wing off a PA28R to change the walkway skin but during the refitting of the wing we had big electrical issues that resulted from poor workmanship carried out six or seven years back. This cost the customer about 6 hours labour to fix.
But in the long run that is cheaper than having the aircraft go "tech" in the south of France.

dont overfil

13th Apr 2008, 13:29

snchater
Same here. Same engineers for 20 years. Last three years in a row returned with manifold guage not working, Replacement faulty each time, ASI missreading and many other faults.
Is the aircraft not flight tested after an annual?
DO

A and C

13th Apr 2008, 14:18

Don't overfill

There is no requirement to air test the aircraft after an annual check.

It disturbs me that the maintenance has not been done to your satisfaction, do you fore-warn the engineers of current snags so that they can pre-order parts?

As for the ASI & MP that is just sloppy workmanship.

Guppy

The same problems this side of the Atlantic but a different maintenance program and we are at the end of a longer parts supply chain.

SNS3Guppy

13th Apr 2008, 14:41

Is the aircraft not flight tested after an annual?

Not unless you come do it. A mechanic approves an aircraft for return to service. The pilot who flies it returns it to service.

The same problems this side of the Atlantic but a different maintenance program and we are at the end of a longer parts supply chain.

Parts can be problematic, but I've been the the same boat. Trying to get parts out of Piaggio, for example, is a little like pulling teeth. Just takes longer and is more painful.

Rod1

13th Apr 2008, 14:46

I have owned / part owned powered aircraft since 1991. In that time I have seen a lot of very bad M3 work.

Tools left on top of the engine (Several different maintenance company’s)

Lots of avionic problems, which were not there before.

A self-taper screwed through a rudder cable on a C of A (aircraft was supposed to have been test flown). The cable would not move at all, so the flight test was a complete work of fiction.

Prop bolts not wire locked

Oil sump plug finger tight and not locked.

Many more I have forgotten to remain sane.

For a while I owned a DR400, which was in very good nick. I took her to the same maintenance facility and one of the junior guys who liked the Robins did the work and the qualified engineer signed it off. The “enthusiast” left and the maintenance became very bad. Turned out the other grease monkeys did not like working on Robins. The Engineer seemed to have very little control on the work done.

It got to the point that I would spend ½ a day inspecting the aircraft after an annual before I would fly it. I ended up building my own aircraft and now I pull it apart, my LAA inspector does his very best to catch me out when he inspects it, and I do the work and put her back together. Typical Permit renewal (annual) takes me about 6 days, and my inspector about 1. My last Permit renewal, including £135 for the LAA fee, cost £248 in total and I did the test flight myself.

I would urge all owners to get as involved as possible in the maintenance of their aircraft, you may live longer.

Rod1

SkyHawk-N

13th Apr 2008, 15:08

Owning an N-reg I always get involved in doing it's annual. Although the mechanic is very good and has a good attention to detail, I find it reasurring to keep an eye on what he does and it is usually my job to put things back after he carries out each task. If something looks worn or in need of replacement I am there at hand to make an immediate decision and to see I am not being taken for a ride. I always recommend owners do this, you learn a lot and I believe it makes a better pilot of you.

TheOddOne

13th Apr 2008, 18:10

A mechanic approves an aircraft for return to service. The pilot who flies it returns it to service.

I picked up our aircraft a while ago after a check, nice sunny day, spent a while chewing the fat with the mechanics. When I said that I was going to do a few circuits and would any of them like to come along for the ride, they all shrank into the back of the hangar, mumbling excuses...

Perhaps they'd seen me flying before!

TheOddOne

S-Works

13th Apr 2008, 18:13

Had my annuals done by the same guy for years. He is very thorough and I am happy with the service. My annual takes a week at most.

The annual should just be the end of the years progressive maintenance so I have never seen why they take so long and rack up such massive bills for people.

My annual has been done this week. £1200 for the annual, plus 1 new tyre, 1 new brake disk and a set of oil hoses replaced at life on top of the usual consumables for a 50/100/150 type check. Avionics annual extra and the engine mount AD.

I have watched the work being done, the usual stuff, seats out carpets out, cable inspections, corrosion inspections, seat rails etc all following the maintenance schedule. Prop is on a 6 year overhaul so not due to next year.

Duplicate inspections done and released to service.

stevef

13th Apr 2008, 20:04

One manager I worked for would have invited you to leave the hangar after hearing you refer to his staff as that, Rod1.
And as for this:
I would urge all owners to get as involved as possible in the maintenance of their aircraft, you may live longer.
That opinion is insulting to the vast majority of maintainers and lowers you in the eyes of those that know better. And I quite agree about Robins - they rate along with Grumman AA5s as the worst aircraft I have had the misfortune to work on.

smarthawke

13th Apr 2008, 20:23

Agree with you 100% stevef - about all you said.

Whilst not condoning poor maintenance (and I speak with feet in both camps - engineer and aircraft owner/builder/pilot) the figures show that aircraft accidents have far more to do with the manner in which they are flown, than the engineers that maintain them.

I hope Rod1 that you never need the services of an engineer that reads your ramblings should your Ban-Bi be in need of more assistance than you can administer when away from home....

IO540

13th Apr 2008, 20:46

Unfortunately most UK maintenance shops are a bit disorganised. "Project management" is not their forte at the best of times.

An Annual on a complex SEP should take 2-3 days if they put say 3 people on it at the same time, having pre-ordered all the standard parts needed beforehand, and they don't work on 5 others at the same time (or when the other customers scream).

Unfortunately most of the UK fleet is ancient (~25 years average age) and the average plane will contain a pile of problems, partly due to age and partly due to bodges done in years past.

That is essentially the tradeoff between buying an old plane and buying a new/newer one. With a new one you can expect 10-15 years of essentially zero airframe related maintenance, with a corresponding reduction in downtime.

I pay about £2500 for my annuals; this is well above what I could get it done for, but I get it back in a few days rather than a few weeks. And the people doing it are nice and competent.

stickandrudderman

13th Apr 2008, 20:48

1 new brake disk

I'm intrigued,
Why only one new disc?

smarthawke

13th Apr 2008, 21:19

One brake disc? Because only one was corroded/worn to limits I would imagine. We're not talking cars here where discs and linings would be changed as a matched pair/set.

The theory of a 2-3 day complex SEP Annual is an interesting one. Yes for the basic inspection perhaps but not for the required standard servicing (oil/filters etc) defect rectification it just isn't possible to do the job properly in that time especially if you include the hours spent on the paperwork in this time?

As for working on more than one aircraft at a time, that has to be the way. What do we do if the pilot doesn't turn up with his aircraft when he says he will (work, weather etc etc) - sit around waiting? What happens when the parts to replace defective parts needed for your aircraft turn up a week later - does one drop everything to do your aircraft, put everyone else on hold and put the whole schedule back the necessary time? Or try and progress all the jobs and keep everyone as happy as one can? Then the owners can't come and pick up their aircraft for days (work, weather etc etc) and as for paying on collection...

If only we could only work on <5 year old aircraft, charge 2 to 3 times the hourly rate and plug a computer in a la car servicing and everything would be easier!

Great in theory....

S-Works

14th Apr 2008, 07:14

I'm intrigued,
Why only one new disc?

Because as smarthawke points out it was corroded and needed replacing. The other one was done during a 50hr check because my engineer believes in progressive maintenance replacing worn parts as they occur rather than trying to defer to the annual.

My aircraft is a 1979 Cessna with 3000 hrs and I don't have any airframe related issues either. The aircraft is flown very frequently 300 plus hours a year so has plenty of 50hr checks.

This means my annuals are quick and produce few problems and any parts needed are ready to hand.

I will also point out that there is not a single thing on my aircraft that is not in full working order or in need of replacement. I have a full airways FM immune avionics fit and the interior carpets, seats etc are 9/10. Not bad for nearly 30 years old!

Rod1

14th Apr 2008, 07:19

stevef & smarthawke

I find it a little hard to believe you read what I put, but I will expand.

>>Why Grease monkeys;

The DR400 had been looked after by this organization for several years and I had been very happy with the work and had built up a good working relationship with the Chief Engineer. Unknown to me the work had always been done by one Robin enthusiast who then left. At this point the organization should have advised me to go some ware else, but this was not what happened.

I booked the aircraft in for its annual as usual and delivered the aircraft on time. The “gentlemen” who were doing the work did not want to work on a Robin and took a very long time to do a very bad job. When I finally got her back I had many problems. The second time I had brake failure (with my family in the aircraft) I finally took the aircraft else ware to be sorted. Turned out (amongst many other issues) the “gentlemen” had rigged the brakes wrongly and fitted the wrong brake shoes.

I went back and had a “word” with the organization, using words a bit stronger than grease monkey to describe their incompetence. Far from being asked to leave, I received an apology, a very acceptable arrangement regarding the bill and an explanation on why things had suddenly changed for the worse.

You say you do not like working on Robin aircraft, but I hope you would not have handled this in a similar way. As you can tell, even after a significant amount of time I am still very angry that my aircraft was unsafe and put my family at risk. Calling the idiots responsible grease monkeys was very restrained in my book.:mad::mad::mad:

>>I would urge all owners to get as involved as possible in the maintenance of their aircraft, you may live longer.

You find this one liner “Insulting”. I have to say I have no comprehension why.

Bose uses an organization which actively encourages the hands on approach from the owner. He is very happy with them.

Flyer recently published an article on maintenance which encouraged Owners to get actively involved.

SkyHawk-N said “I always recommend owners do this, you learn a lot and I believe it makes a better pilot of you.”

I fully agree with this. Owners that get involved communicate much better with the organization doing the work on their behalf, they gain a much better understanding of the aircraft and all this may help them live longer. Organizations who allow owner participation on maintenance also have nothing to hide, others might.

I would genuinely like to know why you find my position on this insulting?

Credibility

One of you alluded to credibility so allow me to give you some free credibility advice. There are no “Ban-Bi” aircraft on the UK register. The Ban-Bi is an MC100 which is an all metal plan built aircraft which is similar in appearance to an MCR01, but is smaller and fiendishly hard to build. I would hate anyone to fit the wrong bits to the wrong aircraft…:=

http://www.dynaero.com/lien/indexuk.htm

I have 900 hours flying time. In that time I have had a number of big scares, including a total engine failure on take off, a partial failure over mountains and several more. All have been as a direct result of bad maintenance/parts. The fact that none of them turned into an accident was the result of a lot of luck. That said, there are good maintenance organizations. Steve ran a very tight ship before he retired (he is my LAA inspector). Bose and IO are happy with theirs and for all I know you two also represent shining lights in an otherwise far from impressive cottage industry.

Rest assured if either of you wind up on my strip with a problem I will do my best to assist. The Camaraderie of the air dear boy.:)

Rod1

gasax

14th Apr 2008, 07:31

When I ran a C of A aircraft I also had a serious of post 'maintenance' horrors.

disconected ASI, large adjustable in the wing, loose exhaust (all 8 nuts) loose rocker boxes and a large number of un-noticed or unacted upon agreed maintenance (including fitting the wrong piston rings....)

And yet all these people and organisations have CAA licences. Unfortunately the CAA's approach is that apart from taking the money the CAA are not responsible for maintenace - the owner is.....

Remember the last change to LAMS? CAA surveyors had noticed aging issues - mainly corrorosion, were not being addressed by the engineers and orgnaisations they licensed. So did they start policing things? Oh no they changed the LAMS schedule.....

The new CAMO arrangments have possibly even more of the same weaknesses. I'll certianly accept that no one is going to get rich maintaining aircraft - but they could make a living if they were just the tinyest bit organised and competent.

A and C

14th Apr 2008, 11:23

A lot of flack for mantenance companys but very little about penny-pinching customers who will do anything to save a quid or two.

Shall we start with the guy who for years who had his aircraft maintenance on the cheap, when he got to us he was very unhappy that we insisted that we would not release the aircraft with a mis-reading oil pressure indicator. He stated that "it had been like that for years and I know it is alright!" and seemed to think that I should release the aircraft on that basis.

Then we have the Tiger Moth owner who insisted that wew fit all the guchi stuff to the top end of the engine that he had been told about at the Moth club, We insisted that the engine was up to spec but he would not have it so an "expert" turns up and pulls off the cylinders & heads to take them for re-working. It was found (as we had said) the top end was up to the latest spec and this "expert" refitted the parts to the engine.
When he had finnished the job he asked me to do the paperwork because he did not have an engineers licence! No prize for guessing my reply

Smarthawk runs one of the two very good (fixed wing) maintenance companys on my local airfield, both are not cheap but they do first rate work however they are in the long run the most inexpensive way to get your aircraft maintaned.

Just one more thing Smarthawk, with a just little understanding you will get to love the Robin DR400!!!

Rod1

15th Apr 2008, 09:18

“A lot of flack for mantenance companys but very little about penny-pinching customers who will do anything to save a quid or two.”

I can fully understand that a customer’s finances must be a continual frustration to you. In your example the previous maintenance organization did not replace the oil pressure indicator, but you insisted. Is it the customer’s fault that the first organization did not do what it was supposed to? You did the right thing, why did the other engineers not do the same; it is after all the same customer?

Do you not think that for the Engineer / Owner relationship to work there has to be good communication and understanding of the issues? Customer participation greatly improves this by giving the owner a much better understanding of his aircraft and the maintenance required to keep it safe. I fully understand though, that some owners are very doggy characters, after all, most of them are pilots.:E

“Smarthawk runs one of the two very good (fixed wing) maintenance companys on my local airfield.”

Good to know. He has not responded to my question, could you PM me a contact number as I am keen to improve my understanding of his position on owner participation as he is obviously not a fan.

Rod1

A and C

15th Apr 2008, 12:06

The previous maintenance company had tried to fix the problem and had changed the px sender but had got the wrong part! so I had the option of replacing the indicator or sender.

To keep the cost down to the customer it was decided to change the indicator as the owner could find a buyer for this, unfortunatly when removing the indicator it was found to be damaged, an american nut had been forced onto a metric stud and this had wrecked the stud.

This damage had no doubt been done when the "cheap" company had been investigating the problem that they had tried to fix and failed.

The aircraft also had a string of outstanding AD's including flying control and major structual issues that should have been done over the previous two years, we did all that was required to put the aircraft onto an airworthy state and kept the owner in the picture but s soon as he had the aircraft the started refusing to pay the bill on all sorts of issues.
The stark fact is that we did no more than was required by law to let the aircraft fly but he could or would not see it that way, in the past he had the annual check done on the cheap and he could not accept that half the job was not being done.

After much unplesentness he paid most of the bill and next year retuned to the guy to would wipe an oily rag across the aircraft and "pen off" the annual check.

One can only wonder at some one who will willingly let his family and friends fly in an aircraft that he must is not being properly maintaned.

They say god protects children and drunks, I also wonder if he protects pilots who are too foolish to part with enough money to ensure he minimum level of safety required by law.

Rod1

15th Apr 2008, 12:46

Ok, so let me get this straight. The previous maintenance organisation had fitted the wrong part, and then damaged it by forcing on a nut of the wrong type? How was this caused by a penny pinching owner? Or are you saying he employed a bad maintenance organisation on the grounds that they were cheaper? Most owners assume that an annual is an annual and all are to the same standard. It is only with experience (hands on or getting bitten year after year) that a full appreciation is reached.

Rod1

A and C

15th Apr 2008, 13:25

Sorry but I was disturbed before I finnished the last post and if you read it in full you will get the whole story.

The fact of the matter is that you will never get more than you pay for, if some one says thay can do an Annual check for £750 you have to know that they are not doing the full job.

The guy had us fix his aircraft that had not had a "propper" Annual check and so required lots of aditional work, insted of thanking us for doing the job properly and going after the previous company we get the flack and have trouble getting the money out of him.

He had all the evidence of the items that had been ommitted form previous checks but he returned to the previous company next year for another £750 annual check.

How long it will be before he will be the subject of an AAIB report is any ones guess i just hope he dose not hurt anyone along the way.

S-Works

15th Apr 2008, 14:07

The fact of the matter is that you will never get more than you pay for, if some one says thay can do an Annual check for £750 you have to know that they are not doing the full job.

Please explain why? I pay £1200 for my annual and spent the week with the engineer watching him do the work and watching every item on the required schedule being inspected as required.

I have had annual checks done that costs several thousand pounds in the past and still found snags. Not once in 4 years have I had a snag after work by my current company.

As an interesting aside, I had my maintenance done by a company for a number of years, I moved it because even 50hr checks were coming in at over a grand. When I came to sell the aircraft the former engineer was asked to do a survey on the aircraft. He produced a seven page list of snags on the aircraft. EVERY single snag he listed I had an invoice from him covering. When I asked an independent engineer to come and validate the report he found nothing wrong and in fact liked the aircraft so much bought it on the spot at the full asking price.

The problem with majority of engineers is they don't like change and don't like the fact that an owner shows interest in their own aircraft. I think that engineers often try to perpetuate the myth that these jobs take several weeks to justify the giant bills.

Rod1

15th Apr 2008, 14:28

When I was running C of A aircraft I never found any correlation between the amount I paid and the quality of the work done. There was a correlation between the amount paid and the time the aircraft was off line for, but my most expensive (if I had paid) and time consuming annual was also the worst from a quality point of view (my DR400 mentioned above). I was paying substantially more than Bose, typically around £3000-£4000 for an annual, all in, but the aircraft were a little older than his.

Bose, as owner of the aircraft, is responsible for keeping it airworthy, so the fact that he takes such an interest seems normal to me. As you can see from the storeys above, from the engineers and the owners, there are a lot of less than professional people in this market. If you find a good company, stick with it, but get as involved as you can.

Rod1

Solar

15th Apr 2008, 14:43

I don't think a lot of engineers in my experience aren't all that happy with the owners "assistance" for what ever reason. Bose seems to have got a good deal but I doubt if that is the norm at least not in our area.
We have had some mediocre service on the club aircraft both from the larger and the smaller maintenance organisations the only thing in common would appear to be the bill.

SNS3Guppy

15th Apr 2008, 15:50

The problem with majority of engineers is they don't like change and don't like the fact that an owner shows interest in their own aircraft. I think that engineers often try to perpetuate the myth that these jobs take several weeks to justify the giant bills.

We just call ourselves "mechanics" over here. I'm a pilot and mechanic both...much more flying than turning wrenches these days, but still a mechanic.

I don't know what this "myth" is to which you refer, but if an airplane takes a few weeks, then it takes a few weeks.

I can think of one owner over the years to whom I gave an ultimatum; stay away from the aircraft when I'm working on it, (and keep your wife away)...or find someone else to do it. Generally I encourage all owners to learn as much as they can about the physical workings and condition of their aircraft, and I'm show anybody how to do the preventative maintenance they can legally do, if they'll commit to doing it responsibly with the right equipment.

An owner who wants to help with an inspection is always welcome, as long as he can do it and not make more work for everyone.

You seem to look down on the profession. You probably already know that a mechanic needs to know a lot more to become a mechanic than a pilot needs to know, to be a pilot. There's more training, it takes longer, the wages and returns are less, and the liabilities and duties are much, much greater. It's not something to enter into, nor undertake with frivolity; it's serious business. Some of us worked very long and hard to be able to do what we do, invested large sums of money in equipment and tools, and carry a great deal of liability over us in order to work...even if it's just replacing a simple gasket.

No doubt there are dishonest mechanics working out there; I've known a few myself. You insult a great many honest, hard working "engineers" when you look down on us and bad mouth us, however...and it isn't warranted.

S-Works

15th Apr 2008, 15:59

You seem to look down on the profession.

You insult a great many honest, hard working "engineers" when you look down on us and bad mouth us, however...and it isn't warranted.

Steady on their Tiger. At no stage have I insulted engineers, at no stage have I bad mouthed any engineers. I have NEVER intimated that I look down on engineers.

I have expressed great satisfaction with my engineer and the job he does and the price he charges. I have pointed out that as my engineer does progressive maintenance and as a result my annuals are quick and cheap. I have also stated that I have watched the work being done and as the person ULTIMATELY responsible for the maintenance I am satisfied that it is being done properly.

The only thing I have pointed out is that there seems to be a lot of engineers who do not like the involvement of the OWNER who is the PAYING CUSTOMER and the person RESPONSIBLE for the aircraft.

So you are picking a fight with the wrong person.

SNS3Guppy

15th Apr 2008, 17:15

So you are picking a fight with the wrong person.

I didn't pick a fight with you. Were that the case, when you regained consciousness, there would be no doubt in your mind.

What I did was take issue with your words. There's a very, very big difference.

The only thing I have pointed out is that there seems to be a lot of engineers who do not like the involvement of the OWNER who is the PAYING CUSTOMER and the person RESPONSIBLE for the aircraft.

There may, or may not be. However, you seem to think that the owner has some right to be in the shop and working on the airplane, and this is definitely NOT the case.

Next time you go in for surgery, tell the surgeon that you'd like to hold the knife, and you want him to charge less because it was "owner assisted." Next time you appear in court, tell your lawyer or barrister or whatever you call him that you want to argue your own case before the court...and expect to pay a lower fee as a result.

You do NOT have a right to work on the airplane or get involved beyond what the mechanic allows; it's not your certificate on the line...it's the mechanics. You didn't study and work and invest and risk the liability...he or she did. And does.

Generally speaking, I encourage owners to get involved as much as able. I find that most don't want to...until it comes time to pay the bill and then they want to be the one who dictates what needs doing and what doesn't. Even argue about it. At that point, they can have the airplane back in pieces and trailer it to someone else, for all I care. I'll bend over backward to help someone, but when I work on an airplane, there's no compromise, and the job is done 100% right.

You've probably seen the poster that says "Shop rate: 25.00/hour. 35.00/hr if you watch. 50.00/hr if you help."

Hopefuly you understand why.

S-Works

15th Apr 2008, 17:33

I didn't pick a fight with you. Were that the case, when you regained consciousness, there would be no doubt in your mind.

Don't be such a ****. Threatening to biff someone you have never met reaches new levels of stupidity.

You do NOT have a right to work on the airplane or get involved beyond what the mechanic allows; it's not your certificate on the line...it's the mechanics.

Show me where is said that? Personally I would never work on my own aircraft. I am a lethal assassin (see point above) not an aero engineer and thus have no skills or interest in that field. Does not stop me showing an interest in the work.

The rest of your comments are to stupid to answer.

I will just reiterate, that as the owner and paying customer I expect to see what is going on with my aircraft as I bear the responsibility under law for ensuring that it is done properly. It seems I may have lucked out finding an engineer that understands customer service and does not expect to operate behind closed doors in a cloak and dagger manner.

smarthawke

15th Apr 2008, 20:50

My apologies Rod1, I didn't hear the question.... Okay, something about 'a little knowledge is dangerous' was it?

So audience participation: the main reason owners want to 'help' is to keep the costs down - perhaps some want to learn a bit about their aircraft at the same time. I don't have time (and neither do my staff) to train owners on how to maintain their aircraft. Showing someone how to do something takes double the time it takes you to do the job yourself and who's going to pay for that? As for group owned aircraft - what do you do then? We have one go-between with groups for liasing otherwise you spend half the day answering the same questions from every individual member and who pays for that time as well?

I welcome owners wanting to know about their aircraft's maintenance - just not from a hands on approach - my personal experience and feelings.

At the end of the day it is I that is responsible for the standard of the maintenance and therefore the standard of the aircraft when it leaves the hangar - not the owner. It may be his/her responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the scheduled requirements but it is the licensed engineer that will have the Authority knocking on his door if there was a problem.

I don't disagree with the fact that there are differing levels of maintenance competence out there and some aircraft are cheaply maintained at a shocking level. As A&C said it is only when an aircraft like that goes to a decent establishment that things get properly rectified and the owner unfortunately has to pay the price. And owners then get miffed at that company because of the bill, not realising that they may have just saved their little pink bodies from a terrible fate.

As I've said before - give them a bill for £8k worth of shiny paint and they are delighted - charge half that on required engineering stuff that they can't actually see or understand and they get a right sad on! And all this for shed loads less per hour than they pay for their fast depreciating motor car at a garage with a computer that says 'no'.

And thank you for the kind comments A&C, still can't to grips with this wood stuff, God's composite or whatever you call it. Not seen a wooden engine yet....

PS Edited to say that I didn't reply earlier because I've been working late to keep my customers happy, Rod!....

robin

15th Apr 2008, 21:10

You do NOT have a right to work on the airplane or get involved beyond what the mechanic allows; it's not your certificate on the line...it's the mechanics. You didn't study and work and invest and risk the liability...he or she did. And does.

I'm baffled here

As an owner/operator, I am liable and responsible for the maintenance of my aircraft. The maintenance engineer is entitled to do anything they consider necessary for the safe conduct of flight, and are (under new regs) entitled to stop me doing any pilot maintenance, if they see fit

If the aircraft drops out of the sky through faulty maintenance, I will be the one held liable, and it is highly unlikely that the maintenance organisation will lose their licences. I, of course, will not be attending the enquiry, as I will have been welded to my ex-aircraft.

Some years ago an aircraft I was involved with lost all its oil because at a Star Annual they failed to replace a perished hose. The incident happened 2 weeks after the Star Annual. When the pilot (with great skill) landed back at the airfield with a seized engine, the part went missing and we had to fund £15k for a new engine.

If only they had put down in a field away from the airfield we might have proven negligence, but the need to keep the MO sweet meant we took an enormous financial hit, the the MO is still in business ruining other people's aircraft

rmac

16th Apr 2008, 06:13

Here's my little post maintenance list over time;

!. Prop fails to set full RPM on take off run - 3 times before they got it right.

2. Trim tabs so badly out of whack that aircraft needed muscle power to keep it straight and level at flying speed. (they were OK when they went in)

3. ASI failed to read on T/O run - twice

4. Exhaust pipe came off in my hand on pre-flight, three weeks after aircraft returned to service (I had never ever refused to buy a part that needed replaced).

The the following beautiful saga,

Engine comes back after top overhaul.
First start, no oil pressure - goes back in again
Next few flights prop hunts in high RPM - not receiving enough pressure - shop adjusts prop !
Engine starts to develop high temperatures- I insist on oil filter check- metal in filter - shop says this is normal bedding in !!!
I insist engine comes off and goes to independent shop for evaluation - if no problem shown, I will pay full cost - Engine found to be over tightened at collar of the crankcase, generating lots of metal, blocking oil flow to the prop and imminently about to come to a seizing stop....:ugh:

After months of arguing shop agrees to replace engine....

Post script - on moving to my new provider, wouldn't you ?- I had them do an unnecessary 100 hour to seek out any other problems - 35 snags of various types fixed - the worst of which was a heavily corroded strut on the engine mount that the new engine had been fitted to :eek:

remember, I had lavished attention on my aircraft, at no time had I ever refused to buy a new part or have a job done. As I would likely be the first at the scene of the accident, as a pilot, I know my aircraft intimately and am often the first to suggest preventative maintenance if I see a problem arising.

The shop involved is a very big name in the industry.

I am now very happy with my new shop, so happy in fact that I have taken an economic interest in the organisation which allows me a peer to peer relationship with the management. This helps a bit and I would recommend it as an option to actually taking part in the maintenance. With my mech skills that wouldn't be a good idea !:)

IO540

16th Apr 2008, 06:40

The shop involved is a very big name in the industry.

You should post its name. Let's face it, it cannot be that many, and it's one or two less as of recently.

This is why there is so much dodgy practice going on in maintenance. A company does a crap job but for political reasons the customer does the Proper British Thing and doesn't complain. So companies can do crap work for decades.

Look around any airfield that has a based maintenance company. I bet you more than 50% of the based planes fly elsewhere for maintenance.

smarthawke

16th Apr 2008, 07:03

There's a few home-based aircraft here where I write that go elsewhere for maintenance - mostly because the home-based maintenance outfits won't deal with them anymore for not wanting to pay bills!

And the other ones go elsewhere because they go to cheap and cheerful maintainers that only do as much as they are paid to do and that suits those owners because they don't want to pay for proper maintenance.

Works both ways, 20% of the aircraft we maintain come to us from nearby airfields that have maintenance based on their home airfields!

I totally agree that if someone has had appalling service then name and shame them - if what you write is 100% true then there can't be any threat of libel etc etc. It's these dodgy people that give us splendidly good guys a bad name....

S-Works

16th Apr 2008, 08:06

OK here is a thought. My engineer charges a good price for work. Lots of people come to him who have maintenance organisations on their home airfields. So is the suggestion that my engineer is one of these shoddy guys that only does as much as he is paid to do or maybe that these people value customer service and quality and are prepared to travel for it?

When I was based at another airfield I had my engineering done by the based company. Every time work was done I was raped on the bills. I never argued or caused a scene just paid them. In the end I moved my maintenance to the company I am with now and have no complaints since. It makes me wonder why maintenance companies think they should have a captive audience?

Also smarthawke and don't take this as an insult but as an idle curiosity question, why do you think it bad that customers on your field choose to have maintenance done else where but good that people come from other fields to you?

If there has one thing that I have learnt in a few thousand hours of aircraft ownership is that engineers are worse than girls in a locker room when it comes to fighting and bitching!!!! :p

IO540

16th Apr 2008, 08:30

However, bose x, what I believe you have not said is that you have

- a good personal relationship with your LAME

- he is a very small informal operation in a little wooden shed

- he allows you to help out ("owner assisted maintenance")

- there are no busybodies snooping around who would spot you helping out (that possibility makes maintenance people very nervous even if they would otherwise be all too happy to let you)

- you have a virtually private airfield

- you have an old plane which has had so many people working on it for so many years that nobody can tell who did what

- you have a hangar

IOW, you are more fortunate than most.

At most airfields, people (pilots, spotters, rumour merchants) are constantly walking past the hangars and looking inside, so everybody has to watch their back.

Even just having one's own hangar (and the key) dramatically changes the maintenance options, because one can bring in a known trusted person to work on the plane, without upsetting the locals.

robin

16th Apr 2008, 09:18

It makes me wonder why maintenance companies think they should have a captive audience?

Well, under the new EASA Part M rules, that is exactly what they will have. ...:ugh:

S-Works

16th Apr 2008, 09:36

Jesus Christ IO you can be a cheeky bastard at times!!!

My guy does not operate out of a ''shed'. I also don't do any maintenance on my own aircraft. Any work done on my aircraft is done in the engineers hanger by the engineer. I may occasionally take of the cowlings or wheel spats to help in advance of him starting but thats it.

Of course I have a good relationship with him, that is exactly how the relationship should be. I am the customer and he is the supplier. He naturally wants to have a productive relationship with me. This means involving me in all aspects of my maintenance, informing of any issues he my find as he goes along and giving advice. A proper engineer/owner relationship.

I may not have a shiny new TB20 but I can assure you that the records for my aircraft are completely in order and every piece of work ever carried out on the aircraft can be traced and verified. For an 'old' aircraft it has not covered many hours.

He may be small and 'informal' but he does the job in accordance with the regs.

TwoDeadDogs

16th Apr 2008, 09:40

Hi there
With regards to Permit aircraft, of which I am an inspector, I find that owners come in three kinds (a) the rich guy that will argue the toss on every thing, especially when it comes to money (whilst leaning on the latest Beemer) (b) the rich guy who follows you like a shadow around the aircraft while you try and carry out the inspection (and, at least once, has to ordered away on pain of refusal of permit) and does his level best to spend money.This type of guy will refuse point-blank to change a worn tyre or corroded metal unless you start closing your toolbox...(c)the ordinary guy, of whatever income level, who does what's required in terms of maintenance and servicing, is honest and does what he is told without complaint and pays on the nail.His aircraft is invariably clean, properly prepared for the inspection and his logbooks are up to date and he flies the most hours per year of the three.
Guess which kind I like?
there's good and bad on both sides.
regards
TDD

Rod1

16th Apr 2008, 12:39

smarthawke

Thanks for posting, even if you did not answer my question:ugh:

“Okay, something about 'a little knowledge is dangerous' was it?”

You are right; I am just an ordinary Joe who spent 1800 hours building an aircraft. That does not make me an aircraft eng,:{ but some knowledge is a good thing. Let’s consider a real life example;:ok:

An aerobatic pilot was practicing in a Zlin for a competition. Unusually he did not have a shoot, which he usually did. Part way through a maneuver there is a loud bang and one wing starts to fold upwards. Quick as a flash he understands what part of the wing has broken and he rolls the aircraft inverted, the wing folds back into position. Our hero is now sat upside down, with no shoot and a wing which will fold if he rolls upright.:eek: I

will not bother with the rest of the story; it will be on the net some ware. However he did survive, but he got mud on the nav light glass on one wingtip. The pilots name was Neil Williams and if he had not understood how his aircraft was bolted together he would have died. He got an apology, a replacement aircraft and mods were made to add glass tubes filed with Nitrogen to detect any problem with the spars.

“So audience participation: the main reason owners want to 'help' is to keep the costs down - perhaps some want to learn a bit about their aircraft at the same time. I don't have time (and neither do my staff) to train owners on how to maintain their aircraft. “

The old, I am very busy and it is far to complicated for a pilot to understand anyway! Let’s take another example. You do not like DR400’s or AA5’s, and I am not keen on Mr P or C so lets pick on a British classic, the Bulldog.:)

The Bulldog has a surprising number of access panels. The Panels have far more screws than one would expect. To inspect the aircraft it is necessary to remove the panels. I suggest that even your average pilot could do this job with almost no assistance. Having got the panels off the pilot could get a flash light and a mirror and learn about the condition of his aircraft, the way it is held together and how the controls work. Very easy to see how such knowledge could help him live longer. Or have I insulted you again?:rolleyes:

“some aircraft are cheaply maintained at a shocking level”

You like to use the word cheap. I think what you mean is licensed engineers carrying out work that is substandard or incomplete and then signing it off. You seem to imply that this is common. I suggest there are better words than cheap to describe this practice, Illegal, fraudulent, etc etc. Please understand that the average owner thinks that the CAA gives out licenses to people and that these people will only sign off a legitimate maintenance job. This naivety is partly due to the “its complicated and I do not have time to explain” approach. I have never skimped on the cost of maintenance, but the quality I have received has ranged from very very good, to really really incompetent/dangerous.

I asked you before why you felt Insulted by my statement that people should get involved. I understand why you disagree, but I still struggle with the “insulted”

Now I do not wish to imply that your organization is anything other than perfect, I have never hired your services, but people speak highly of you. None of the above is intended as any sort of personal attack.

Rod1

SNS3Guppy

16th Apr 2008, 18:26

Threatening to biff someone you have never met reaches new levels of stupidity.

I made no such threat, mr. "lethal assassin." More to the point, when you whined that a fight had been picked with you, I took the time to point out it had not.

I've been following your posts and comments here for some time, and what I see are overly egotistical, assinine comments, attacks on private pilots, and lording yourself out as some high model of aeronautical standard...you're what, a flight instructor with a little general aviation experience? Is that it? Do try to get over yourself.

S-Works

16th Apr 2008, 18:48

I made no such threat, mr. "lethal assassin." More to the point, when you whined that a fight had been picked with you, I took the time to point out it had not.

Really?

I didn't pick a fight with you. Were that the case, when you regained consciousness, there would be no doubt in your mind.

I've been following your posts and comments here for some time, and what I see are overly egotistical, assinine comments, attacks on private pilots, and lording yourself out as some high model of aeronautical standard...you're what, a flight instructor with a little general aviation experience? Is that it? Do try to get over yourself.

Don't be such an asshole. You know bugger all about me and I know bugger all about you, but at least I have made the effort not to make such assumptions.

Typical yank..... What you going to do now, send in the troops or fly over and knock me unconscious yourself?

IO540

16th Apr 2008, 19:52

With regards to Permit aircraft, of which I am an inspector, I find that owners come in three kinds (a) the rich guy that will argue the toss on every thing, especially when it comes to money (whilst leaning on the latest Beemer) (b) the rich guy who follows you like a shadow around the aircraft while you try and carry out the inspection (and, at least once, has to ordered away on pain of refusal of permit) and does his level best to spend money.This type of guy will refuse point-blank to change a worn tyre or corroded metal unless you start closing your toolbox...(c)the ordinary guy, of whatever income level, who does what's required in terms of maintenance and servicing, is honest and does what he is told without complaint and pays on the nail.His aircraft is invariably clean, properly prepared for the inspection and his logbooks are up to date and he flies the most hours per year of the three.

I've read instructors write about their customers in similar terms. Especially a certain well known female instructor writing about male punters with dyed blonde girlfriends...

However you are mis-classifying people. One of your rich categories is in fact a business/professional type who has got to where he is in life by NOT being a mug, and specifically by operating on the "trust but verify" principle. These types are the hardest people to please because they are very good at their respective fields (quite often engineering or some scientific discipline) and it is virtually impossible to pull wool over their eyes. But if you treat them as professionals and not as idiots, and prove that you are not one of the many crooks in aircraft maintenance, they will trust you, leave you alone, and pay you well.

smarthawke

16th Apr 2008, 20:46

Rod1. I'm afraid busy again but I've had a quick look and can't see where I said I was 'insulted' by the audience participation idea. Simply it doesn't work at our establishment. I wasn't talking about you in particular when discussing this subject - not many owners of the certified aircraft we maintain have spent 1800hrs gluing them together. I do find terms like 'grease monkey' insulting though....

When I certify that an inspection has been carried out I have to have trust in my (non-licensed) colleagues that the job has been done correctly. It would take me a long time (ie many days work, ie many Annuals) to gain that level of trust with an aircraft owner that I don't personally know and has minimal experience of the task in hand. To you it may just be a torch in a mirror through an inspection panel but you have to know what you are looking for.

My thoughts on Robins are that they are a superbly efficient aircraft (aerodynamically) but having firewall forward and a few other bits US Imperial and the rest metric is not great. The factory can be difficult to deal with and parts are often more expensive and difficult to get hold of compared to Pipers and Cessnas. But then again we look after a couple of Mooneys... Oh and they are made of wood and fabric and the engine rests on the firewall and is covered in cooling blast hoses so it's impossibly tight working on them. 2CV door handles are pretty though. AA5s are metal but glued together - great idea....!

I've never said I was perfect but at our place we do a damn good job - it may not be the cheapest (and by 'cheapest' I mean as I meant in previous posts 'cheap' as in 'not costing a lot' - but you interpret it otherwise if it pleases you) but the aircraft are maintained to a very high standard. As an owner/builder/pilot I fully apreciate the costs involved in aircraft maintenance and any of our owners/group reps are welcome to call in any time and see what we are doing and we keep everything we replace to show them why.

Next, Bose-x:

Confused again - where did I say that it was "bad that customers on your field choose to have maintenance done else where but good that people come from other fields to you". I actually said a number of aircraft go elsewhere because no-one wants to maintain their aircraft at their home airfield - mainly due to payment difficulties for services rendered. It was just a statement that wherever airfield you go to, not everyone has their aircraft maintained at their home airfield be it because the maintainers don't want to deal with them or the owners feel they can get a better deal elsewhere.

Incidentally, I knew (and still know) your engineer a long, long time before you were around and he is a great bloke and a very knowledgeable engineer to whom I owe a lot.

Oh and bose-x, next time you write things like: "If there has one thing that I have learnt in a few thousand hours of aircraft ownership is that engineers are worse than girls in a locker room when it comes to fighting and bitching!!!!" - best you don't read back your previous and subsequent posts like: "Jesus Christ IO you can be a cheeky bastard at times", "Don't be such an asshole.", "Don't be such a ****.", "The rest of your comments are to stupid to answer." and "you are picking a fight with the wrong person.".............

S-Works

16th Apr 2008, 20:56

Oh and bose-x, next time you write things like: "If there has one thing that I have learnt in a few thousand hours of aircraft ownership is that engineers are worse than girls in a locker room when it comes to fighting and bitching!!!!" - best you don't read back your previous and subsequent posts like: "Jesus Christ IO you can be a cheeky bastard at times", "Don't be such an asshole.", "Don't be such a ****.", "The rest of your comments are to stupid to answer." and "you are picking a fight with the wrong person.".............

Hey, I never said I was perfect!
:p:p:p

SNS3Guppy

16th Apr 2008, 23:20

Just as well. Some things are self-evident.

S-Works

17th Apr 2008, 07:00

Just as well. Some things are self-evident.

Some self examination might be called for in your direction as well.
;)

Rod1

17th Apr 2008, 08:14

My 'grease monkey' comment was intended to be an insult, but it was only aimed at the specific “gentleman” who screwed up my DR400, not engineers in general.

Rod1

SNS3Guppy

17th Apr 2008, 09:19

You find this one liner “Insulting”. I have to say I have no comprehension why.

I would genuinely like to know why you find my position on this insulting?

Probably because you intended it as an insult. Perhaps you answered your own question.

My 'grease monkey' comment was intended to be an insult,...

Rod1

17th Apr 2008, 09:25

“I would urge all owners to get as involved as possible in the maintenance of their aircraft, you may live longer.
That opinion is insulting to the vast majority of maintainers and lowers you in the eyes of those that know better.”

To which smarthawke added his agreement (that he found it insulting).

Clear now?:ugh:

Rod1

smarthawke

17th Apr 2008, 10:34

Ah, Rod1, now I see it.... in stevef's post not mine - I just agreed.

The figures show (and no it isn't 'lies, damn lies and statistics') that the majority of aircraft accidents are caused by some form of pilot error (ie the knob on the end of the throttle....!), not because an engineer has failed in his duty.

To urge owners to in the way you have is hardly likely to make them live longer and to therefore imply that the job would be better done by them than engineers is insulting IMHO.

Happy now? Must go, airplanes to maintain....

Rod1

17th Apr 2008, 12:13

To urge owners to in the way you have is hardly likely to make them live longer and to therefore imply that the job would be better done by them than engineers is insulting IMHO.

I was not suggesting that at all! If you read my posts you will see that. I said get involved, not do it.

Rod1

stevef

17th Apr 2008, 19:28

[My 'grease monkey' comment was intended to be an insult, but it was only aimed at the specific “gentleman” who screwed up my DR400, not engineers in general.]

Well, you did use the plural and say: 'grease monkeys' in your initial post, Rod 1! :)

There's good, mediocre and bad in every trade or pastime. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you a few shoddy maintenance yarns as well. :cool:

Robin400

17th Apr 2008, 19:46

DR400. When you know what you are doing it is easy to work on and maintain.

smarthawke

17th Apr 2008, 19:47

stevef, actually the quote was 'other grease monkeys' therefore implying more than one and possibly that all the other 'engineers' were 'grease monkeys' in the eyes of Rod1.....

I'm sure in Rod1's chosen profession they are all perfect people.

Robin400, I'm pretty sure I know what I am doing but that doesn't make a DR400 physically easier to maintain than a PA28.

robin

17th Apr 2008, 22:10

What is the difference between types

There are few ADs that make the DR400 more difficult than a PA 28 and it is an easier aircraft to work on

smarthawke

17th Apr 2008, 22:28

Okay, this is now all getting very difficult for a simple engineer.....

As I said in a previous post (or was it life?), a Robin has about 1" between the firewall and the back of the engine. The PA28 Archer (for example) has about a foot. This makes it physically more difficult to get to the back of the engine to work on it. This work may be mag timing, fuel pump change, oil filter removal (and remember there isn't sufficient room on a DR400 to fit a spin-on filter without an adaptor - pressure filter requires 25hr oil change/filter clean). Robins have cooling blast tubes and shrouds on mags (and just about every other component) just to complicate access. Instrument changes are a pain due to lack of access to the panel: PA28s aren't comfortable (head on rudder pedals) but far easier than a Robin.

Ooooh! Just had a brainwave. Train the owners up to help service their Robin's engine and that way they'll appreciate their aircraft more and live to a ripe old age....

Is that the Last Post I hear playing?