Maintenance at Elstree - Beware [Archive]

julian_storey

26th Oct 2010, 22:10

There is only one unless you include CABAIR and it's NOT them . . .

Our aircraft (a pretty tidy Diamond Katana) has been maintained by these guys for the last five years and after having had some doubts about the way in which it was being maintained, decided instead to take it to Diamond Aircraft at Gamston for its annual.

As it turns out, out we were right to have concerns.

Diamond have identified that NO AD's or SB's have been complied with in the last five years, lifed items were not being replaced (for example the rudder cables were four years overdue for replacement), when the engine was changed it was rewired illegally with automotive grade electrical connectors (like you would buy from Halfords) - and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have a multi page report from Diamond itemising just how negligent these guys appear to have been. It's pretty damning reading.

Essentially the aircraft has repeatedly been released to service in an un airworthy condition and flying illegally for over five years. One of the turn buckles on a rudder cable was really badly corroded. Reckon it might have been quite exciting had that snapped in flight.

Neither the manager nor the directors at at this company dispute what we claim. In fact, I telephoned one of the directors this evening and he offered me £2,000 'to go away quietly'. Not really enough when the bill for putting right their mess has come to over £12,000. He told me that they are on the brink of insolvency (yes I recorded the call) and that if I sue him for more and win, then it will push them under.

So if you have an aircraft, think carefully about where you maintain it!

I wish you luck with the libel suit

Something is only libellous if it's untrue. I only wish that this WERE untrue.

peter272

26th Oct 2010, 22:44

In that case it will be interesting to see how the CAA deal with things. They are quick enough to jump on pilots when we screw up.

IO540

27th Oct 2010, 05:33

The CAA will do nothing. They would shut down much of UK maintenance if they took interest in this kind of stuff.

Mike Cross

27th Oct 2010, 06:34

I attended a CAA Safety Evening some years ago at which one of the speakers was a CAA Surveyor. He talked about his work and how they found exactly the sort of things described by Julian. I stuck my hand up

"So you found aircraft that had Certificates of Release to Service that should not have been issued because the aircraft were not airworthy?"

"Yes, that's right."

"What action did you take against the persons who had signed the Certificates?"

"Airworthiness is the responsibility of the operator."

Sad but true.

A and C

27th Oct 2010, 07:13

At least you have cleared Cabair from responsability for your problems.

I would be carfull about the "it was rewired illegally with automotive grade electrical connectors (like you would buy from Halfords)".

This sounds like some one is spicing thing up a bit as it is some times very hard to tell the diffence between automotive and aviation hardware simply because it is the same thing with a very diffent price tag. Just one look at a Robin electrical system will illistrate the point.

julian_storey

27th Oct 2010, 08:18

it is some times very hard to tell the diffence between automotive and aviation hardware

I'm not an engineer and almost certainly couldn't tell the difference. I can only really go by what the guys at Diamond are telling me and I'm happy enough that THEY can tell the difference.

Diamond also found that the oil pump housing had been damaged and that "someone had gone mad with some sealant" to stop it leaking. (Remember that the guys at Elstree replaced the engine and nobody else has worked on the aircraft since).

So pretty much anything is possible . . .

maxred

27th Oct 2010, 08:50

I am going through exactly the same thing, different maintenance lot. IO540 spot on in that the CAA will do NOTHING.:ugh:

I had a conversation with senior at Gatwick last week, who hinted it is all my fault, the second time this has been insinuated.

Best of luck, if owners actually knew what was going on, and took an interest:pthen all hell would break loose. Problem appears that a lot of them are just glad to get the aircraft back in the air, at cheapest cost, illegal or not.

Dont think this is libel:confused:

julian_storey

27th Oct 2010, 08:52

Don't think this is libel

Stating something which is true, is not libellous.

robin

27th Oct 2010, 09:24

So let's get this straight - a less than honest organisation could claim and charge for,say, a zero-timing of your engine but not carry out the all of the work or use correct parts.

As an owner it is my fault if there are things wrong that appear later and it is down to me to sort out the court case.

Our regulator, who we pay for through taxation and various exorbitant charges, is not prepared to take action or help, but considers we have the responsibility, even though we are not qualified to do so.

Scandalous, and, I expect, would not stand up in court

Capetonian

27th Oct 2010, 09:45

Something is only libellous if it's untrue.

Successful actions for libel have been brought where only the truth - or the claimant's version thereof - was stated. A lot depends on the reasons for publication and the extent to which the information was disseminated.

That said, if you feel that your facts are correct, I don't think you have much to fear from stating them, but your statement above as it stands is not bulletproof.

julian_storey

27th Oct 2010, 09:50

A lot depends on the reasons for publication and the extent to which the information was disseminated.

I think that the aviation community has a moral responsibility to protect its members from people like these guys, before they end up killing one of us.

Capetonian

27th Oct 2010, 10:01

I agree, but we are moving into the realm of subjective opinions, rather than facts.

Because there's a cool breeze off the sea and I'm sitting outside with no shirt on, I feel cold. That does not validate me stating : "It is f**king cold here today."

Johnm

27th Oct 2010, 12:33

While the operator is responsible for the airworthiness of aircraft CAA is responsible for licencing engineers, so if they had the bottle they could revoke the licences.

Meantime if you have solid evidence of a trader persistently failing to meet obligations of fitness for purpose then to Trading Standards you should go.

wsmempson

27th Oct 2010, 12:50

Capetonian

I think that problems Julian Storey is complaining about are not subjective at all; either an AD has been observed, or it hasn't. Either specified maintenance has been carried out or it hasn't. Either lifed items have been replaced or they haven't. There is no grey area in the middle or room for alternative interpretations of a maintenance schedule.

This is not a case of someone arguing over whether the weather is hot, cold or normal as, in this instance, there is no qualitative measure of performance - the measure is quantitative.

I think that Julian Storey has done the right thing in going public on this; what is depressing is how unlikely it would seem that the CAA is to do anything about such dangerous practices.

Pianorak

27th Oct 2010, 12:53

So if an aircraft has been signed off “considered to be airworthy at the time of the review”, let's say 1 April, this need no longer be the case on 2 April when Airworthiness is the responsibility of the operator.

This may well be Scandalous, and, I expect, would not stand up in court

However, once I have been killed in a non-airworthy aircraft it will be a matter of extreme indifference to me whether the case stands up in court. :ugh:

If our regulator is not prepared to take action then maybe the time has come to restrict PPLs to aero engineers, fully qualified to sign off the ARC. ;)

robin

27th Oct 2010, 13:34

Pianorak

Actually that is pretty much the case with the class 2 medical and also my MoT - only valid on the day. But my garage does give a warranty for the work it does on my car. I'm not sure if that is the case with the maintenance organisation. It's certainly not the case with my doctor!!

Mike744

27th Oct 2010, 14:18

Stating something which is true, is not libellous.

Might help by heeding newsanchors, if you're unsure of anything preceed it with 'allegedly' :E

Pianorak

27th Oct 2010, 14:36

Robin Actually that is pretty much the case with the class 2 medical and also my MoT - only valid on the day.

Yep - can't argue with that. :rolleyes:

Vizsla

27th Oct 2010, 15:09

As someone who had a more immediate midair failure after picking up the a/c
after a top overhaul on a Lycombing 180 - they had "forgotten" to fit the piston oil scraper rings. As said, CAA were apathetic and solicitors failed to get any satisfaction and cost me a fortune.....and it was also on Public Transport:ugh:

IO540

27th Oct 2010, 17:21

I don't think the CAA prosecute firms which pay them fees.

wsmempson

27th Oct 2010, 18:18

IO540 wins a cigar, methinks....

It's a bit like academia used to be where, if you made Professor at a university, the only way they could get rid of you was if you were guilty of "moral turpitude".

julian_storey

27th Oct 2010, 19:55

I actually have quite a bit of faith in the CAA (if not in EASA!) and genuinely suspect that they will do something.

They need to go in there and sort these guys out (or shut them down) before they kill someone.

greggj

27th Oct 2010, 21:05

I do sincere hope they do.
Cos this is bloody outrageous !

A and C

27th Oct 2010, 21:12

I find the "CAA never acts" storys a little hard to take I know of a number of companys that have had no end of trouble following "paperwork" issues (and one engine overhaul company that was shut down).

We must understand that mistakes do happen however missed AD's on the scale quoted above would seem to indicate the Subpart G company has missed a lot of things during the paperwork audit.

stickandrudderman

27th Oct 2010, 22:29

The Old Fat One

27th Oct 2010, 23:11

Capetonian,

Don't know about your neck of the woods, but in the UK the truth is an absolute defence against defamation (both libel and slander) and trumps any circumstances.

For a pursuer to win a defamation action they must first prove that the written or spoken word is false (and the onus is on the pursuer). If they do prove it to be false, they still have plenty of other hurdles to get over as well. If they cannot prove it is false, they lose.

JS is one hundred percent correct - it is never defamatory to speak/write the truth. Just make sure you can prove it is true, in case they come at you with the heavy duty lawyer squad.

FullyFlapped

28th Oct 2010, 09:32

It would appear that Elstree is generaly a place to avoid, what with sudden runway closures, hostile A/g operators and dodgy maintemance outfits. Can't be long before the planning application goes in for "affordable housing".
Hmmm. Unfortunately it's also the most convenient place to use for those of us "oop Norf" wishing to get into central London ...

If a company has consistently acted in this manner, and particularly if some of the ADs/work not done addresses safety in some manner, would this not potentially construe reckless endangerment, and as such be of interest to the old Bill ?

yakker

28th Oct 2010, 13:22

This also highlights when changing maintenance companies, the new company has to go through all the paperwork, and inspect the aircraft to verify the work has been done, and done correctly (at the owners expense). Is this not why Part M was introduced, or am I wrong?

englishal

28th Oct 2010, 13:36

Hmmm. Unfortunately it's also the most convenient place to use for those of us "oop Norf" wishing to get into central London ...
Damyns Hall?

I've seen an annual done overnight at one place....at least the day before the aeroplane was parked on the grass and the next day it was parked in exactly the same position yet had an annual. Including radio annual I might add, which promptly failed just after take off.

My friend was pre-flighting his (company's) twin engined turbo prop before a flight just after maintenance. It had been taxied back by the maintenance company and during the walk round he found one of the cowl plugs in the back of the engine.......

I get really annoyed with idiot maintenance outfits. Our mags had a 500 hr service last year...all well and good, except that they should have had a major o/h according to the ARC. So more downtime while they are sent away for 3 weeks to be overhauled again at another £1300. 3 weeks later they fail (causing the aeroplane not to start). Our maintenance outfit took them apart and found a rusty spring inside causing the problem which they fixed.

There are some really good engineers out there, and some real cowboys. The one we use now come under the really good category - they know what they are doing, are happy to show and advise, you can wander around their facility, and they are always happy to help in any way. They are extremely experienced in all aspects of what they do and I am gobsmacked how they can manufacture panels and aerofoils from sheet metal and get it exactly right. The difference is that they take pride in their work and love doing it, unlike some others I could mention who just see pound signs.

Dawdler

28th Oct 2010, 16:48

I wish you luck with the libel suitbut noting Neither the manager nor the directors at at this company dispute what we claimNo case to answer?????

AdamFrisch

28th Oct 2010, 17:01

I think Damyns Hall is equally quick, if not quicker than Elstree with the option of the overland and the tube. It is however a shortish grass field, so might not be suitable for all aircraft. It's very friendly and cheap, though.

172driver

28th Oct 2010, 17:13

Hmmm. Unfortunately it's also the most convenient place to use for those of us "oop Norf" wishing to get into central London ...

Denham. Quick train to Baker Street.

Agaricus bisporus

29th Oct 2010, 12:57

Oop North.

Stapleford? Tube 3 miles away?

The CAA are historically rubbish at enforcing anything company wise. They'll jump on individual pilots as quick as blink, but companies, no.

I once had reason to "discuss" with them a UK scheduled airline that ran a fleet of 5 aircraft none of which was fit to fly for fundamental maintenance-related reasons and had documentary evidence to prove it. They - or rather the Flight Ops Inspector involved denied that the CAA had any right to spring a surprise maintnance audit or to investigate the matter and nothig was done. A number of similar reports from others over the years has apparently had similar (non) effect.

Ther may well be issues of responsibility among the overseers of the company's CAA licences who would not wish it to become known that this had been going on undetected under their remit, causing questions to be asked about their efficiency in overseeing their charges...It could be that they just don't want questions asked about their own eficiency and it's easier to turn a blind eye and simply deny their existence, like the police often do with problem crime crime areas.

niknak

29th Oct 2010, 14:07

When my best mate first opened the village garage he worked to very high standards and charged less than most (and still does), consequently he took a lot of business away from a nearby competitor.
Said compeitor attempted to spread rumours that my buddy wasn't doing all the work and wasn't replacing parts he was charging for.

My mate responded by offering customers all the old parts he'd had to replace back when the job was done and, because all operational parts of the garage are filmed H24 for security purposes, anyone can sit down and watch the full screen version of their vehicle being attended to.
It works a treat and the offer still stands.

If every pilot/flying organisation insisted on having all old parts returned, it would make life pretty awkward for the cowboys out there.
Additionally, if every engineering organisation was legally obliged to maintain a computerised link to the regulatory authorities which records a comprehensive report of parts used, where they were sourced and the actual work done, as well as giving a copy to the customer, that should clean up the industry.

I know that would take some organising and there would be a cost, but if it stops Julian's experience reoccurring or something worse happening, it would be worth it.

IO540

29th Oct 2010, 14:12

and then all you would need is some jobsworth in the CAA to say that every part must have an EASA-1 form (which is not the case now, though many like to claim so) and the whole of GA grinds to a halt...

2close

30th Oct 2010, 11:01

Our (group owned) aircraft was found (during the first inspection by our new maintenance company) to have laminar corrosion separating the top cap from the main spar a few years back and the extent of the corrosion was such that the aircraft had gone through approx. two years worth of Annuals, 50's, 150's and a CofA. It cost £12,000 to put right.

The photographs were shown to 3 x CAA Surveyors who all agreed (off the record, of course) that there were very good grounds for negligence on the part of the previous maintenance company.

But we were also told that, even if we did formally complain the chances were that no action would be taken as negligence would be very difficult if not impossible to prove.

wsmempson

30th Oct 2010, 15:41

What aircraft was it, 2Close?

A and C

30th Oct 2010, 16:00

I always have the parts that have been removed from an aircraft avalable for inspection, after all they are the customers property..................................................ev en the 70 or so screws that had to be drilled and "easyout-ed" from a pannel!

Ho Hum that might be the answer to why the removal of a pannel that should take about 10 min was chaged at almost three hours.

mad_jock

30th Oct 2010, 16:21

A and C why did you let an Avionics Engineer attempt to remove the panel in the first place prior to you doing it? ;)

jonwilson

30th Oct 2010, 20:49

I was talking to a facility the other day about PA28 maintenance and was refreshed to hear the views they have and their approach to doing a good job. After seeing many years of poor to very average maintenance on aircraft I was beginning to think that there was nobody capable of maintaining my aircraft. I would not take my push bike to some I have been to.
The lot I went to see the other day seemed spot on and the engineers I spoke to certainly knew what they were talking about, but like many others it may just have been talk talk talk.
If anyone wants to know how I get on then drop me a pm but I will not name the company here, but it's based in the southwest.

What I simply cannot understand is that we are talking about a flying machine here and not a car for example but some of the work I have seen in the past has been seriously wrong.

The CAA should be cracking down on some of these facilities because I am sure poor work ethics have contributed to many incidents in the past, some very serious.

rgsaero

30th Oct 2010, 21:26

There some very strange opinions posted here. For example - Why because there's a maintenance organisation which is ALLEGED to be less than excellent should aviators "avoid Elstree"? No-one is charged for maintenance at Elstree just because they land there, buy fuel or indeed park an aeroplane there! The runway's fine and services generally not expensive.

Next - when one gives the logbooks to a maintenance organisation and instructs it to carry out a 50 hour, annual or whatever, there exists a contract. If the case described here is true it's as plain as the essential parts of a male dog, that the MO failed to honour that contract, by failing to carry out the work specified on the schedule laid down by the relevant authority - not once but consistently over an extended period. So - sue them, the company and the relevant officers of that company for breach of contract, fiduciary duty etc, taking moneys under false pretences etc. You may find that the Company has no resident, full-time engineer or indeed one listed as a Director; this is something any a/c owner should know about their MO. In any case, whoever the engineer who "signed off" the annuals etc should also be sued (they have to put the CAA Eng No. in the logs so you know who they are.) Personal legal actions tend to attract the attention of the recipient!

The only way to stop this malpractice is to attack the perpetrators - legally. Put them out of business!

Or I suppose you could accept a small payment and let some other poor sod who doesn't read forums (and most don't) get ripped off…… or perhaps hurt when his a/c fails while airborne. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

julian_storey

31st Oct 2010, 20:53

From the huge number of PM's I've received, it seems that my experience with these people is not in any way an isolated one.

Might I suggest that anyone who has yet to contact me and who has had a similar 'Elstree maintenance nightmare' drop me a PM with some details and I'll forward them to the CAA.

If a company has consistently acted in this manner, and particularly if some of the ADs/work not done addresses safety in some manner, would this not potentially construe reckless endangerment, and as such be of interest to the old Bill ?

That might just be an option. The police would certainly have been interested had there been a fatal crash.

jimjim1

4th Nov 2010, 06:56

The Old Fat One (sorry but you said it:) mentioned

in the UK ...
For a pursuer to win a defamation action they must first prove that the written or spoken word is false (and the onus is on the pursuer). If they do prove it to be false, they still have plenty of other hurdles to get over as well. If they cannot prove it is false, they lose.

Sadly, in England and Wales, you have the exact wrong end of the stick. I learned a little about English Libel law when following the Simon Singh case and for the defendant (the one defending the allegation of libel) the position is horrific. The burden of proof is on the defendant. The claimant (alleging libel) can claim any meaning that they choose to the words published and the defendant then must successfully defend the claim (of libel) to win. At the extreme, if you don't turn up in court you simply lose. The claimant has to prove nothing. Exactly nothing at all.

Please see the reference[1] for a proper explanation from a lawyer:-)

The legal costs are horrendous (£500k-£1M) and in general not all costs can be recovered from the losing party. Mr Singh has estimated that he may be out by £50k or more at the end of the day even though he has been awarded costs and even though the case did not get as far as a trial. The total costs have been estimated at £300k for both parties.

The claim (of libel) in this case was based partly on claiming that the word "bogus" meant something like deliberately and dishonestly and fraudulently deceitful. The court of appeal eventually dismissed such a strong meaning "In its context the word is more emphatic than assertive".

The next worry is that the burden of proof is "balance of probabilities" (not exactly sure about this - sorry). Even if you are correct it is easy to lose.

This was illustrated in the Singh case by the difference in the judgements reached in the original ruling on meaning and the appealed ruling on meaning. It was breathtaking. That two successive courts could reach such divergent conclusions on the same case is most disturbing.

Finally there are no-win-no-fee legal firms out there who may think it worth raising a claim even if the claimant has no money.

In England mentioning anyone in print (including on-line) is hazardous to your wallet.

julian_storey

4th Nov 2010, 10:22

Given that everything I have posted on this thread is 100% true and absolutely verifiable, I can't say that I am massively concerned about being sued for libel.

In my view, repeatedly releasing an aircraft to service for five years, having failing to attend to AD's, mandatory SB's and having not replacing time limited components (eg. rudder cables FOUR years overdue) is just a bit dangerous.

Frankly I'm happy to run the pretty negligible risk of being sued for libel if it stops any of us unwittingly flying around in potentially dangerous aeroplanes.

The Old Fat One

4th Nov 2010, 11:18

jimjim1

Many thanks for your well written and informative response. Actually. I'm not a million miles from what you have described, and in my earlier post, I was going to allude to the "Maxwell Defence": ie. that he always sued, thereby creating a deterrence effect against those that would report him.

On hindsight my choice of words is poor, but the law is clear. The truth is not defamation.

If (always a big word) you can prove the truth and if (again...) you are not easily intimidated by threats of legal action, then the ball swings back into the pursuers court.

Corporate entities nowadays tread warily when faced with those that don't play by their rules. I refer you to the world famous Macdonald's libel case, often referred to as the biggest PR disaster in corporate history.

In this instance, your man is confident he has the facts and the outfit in question does not appear to be of a size that has the resources to clobber back. Having approached a solicitor myself re defamation, it is not something they take on lightly if the claim is fanciful. If (that word again) the facts are as reported here, no no-win-no-fee solicitor would touch it with a barge pole, as they would be taking all the risk on a no-hoper.

Incidently, would the libel sit with him anyway? Tripadvisor have just been successfully sued because a punter posted an inaccurate review on their website.

IO540

4th Nov 2010, 12:00

Proving the truth could be hard though. You will find that witnesses disappear, because most people can't be bothered, and most won't put money or time where their mouth is. Also, with an aircraft, evidence of the truth may have been destroyed because you want to fly the thing, after all....

Very recently I nearly sued a builder over a bodge. He was a specialist conman, knowing exactly what people have to do to get him. I had to get a surveyor's report (£400) as the first step; my own photos of the bodge were almost worthless even though the report merely confirmed them. The penny dropped with him (that the country court would be next) when he got the report, but not 1 second before.

One has to be very careful...

The Old Fat One

4th Nov 2010, 16:20

One has to be very careful...

Indeed.

One is reminded of the old adage.

Never wrestle with pigs. You'll get covered in s*** and the pigs will love it!

007helicopter

4th Nov 2010, 20:34

The only way to stop this malpractice is to attack the perpetrators - legally. Put them out of business!

And what exactly would that achieve?

would cost a lot and certainly no compensation would be forth coming

maxred

4th Nov 2010, 20:58

007 you are correct. This problem runs much deeper, as always.
I am meeting with the CAA on Tuesday, re the exact issues noted by the original poster.What will I achieve???? I have filed 9 MOR'S against two maintenance outfits, and yet it is I, the owner operator, who appears to be the problem:ugh:
These outfits signed off an aeroplane that was non compliant - end of. What do I do - complain to the regulator, who are only interested in protecting their position and pension.Complain to the outfit, who tell you pay your bill, piss off, and stop moaning:rolleyes: I want to stop them, and leave only professional organisations looking after maintenance, however, unless owners march, the regulator pays attention, and owners have financial recourse to the outfit concerned ,then not much can, nor will change.
This is my second time round on one of these outfits, but they are still there.Turfing out aeroplanes that potentially are non-compliant - Tuesday should be illuminating:uhoh:

robin

4th Nov 2010, 21:10

Let us know the outcome. :D:D

AndoniP

5th Nov 2010, 14:45

this may sound terribly american, but have you thought of suing the outfit? for negligence or whatever? at least you'll be compensated for it and they'll lose their business for being crap.

IO540

5th Nov 2010, 15:05

In the UK you can recover only your economic loss, which is less than most people think and, for a private person, can be very low indeed.

Against that you have a duty to mitigate your losses so e.g. if a plane is grounded through illegal/unsafe maintenance, and the engine goes rusty inside as a result, you (probably) can't claim for the engine because you had a duty to protect the thing during the AOG time...

As a general comment, maintenance is a tricky area and while I don't support this for a moment, I can see the CAA's passive stance. Most of the UK flight training industry, and many private owners, operate old wreckage, which is simply uneconomical to maintain to "paperwork perfection". And the capital to replace it with newer stuff is not available.

So a lot of maintenance is done "on the nod". You can do it overtly, with INOP stickers on avionics, Or you can do it illegally, usually with the owner's consent/direction, by ticking boxes and not doing the work; this is widespread but not usually unsafe since most maintenance requirements do not directly (on a fixed wing) impact safety.

A lot of CAA/EASA maintenance requirements are simply stupid e.g. if I was on a G-reg I would need the o-ring seals in the emergency gear release valve changed every 2 years; these have a life of 20-30 years and no plausible means of preventing the valve's success in dumping the system pressure and lowering the gear even if they are leaking. This is an all-day job which costs about £1000 and most people cannot do it correctly because it is fiddly, and eventually the threads on the hydraulic fittings get stripped and then you have a ~£5000 bill...

Not doing ADs is illegal and stupid, but even then there are things which are pointless safety-wise e.g. seat belt life limit ADs when the seat belts are in a perfect condition.

And much depends on the owner's attitude to resale value. With many planes this is so low that trashing the resale value by not doing ADs is not a huge issue. It just hits the next owner...

If the CAA got totally pro-active on this they would shut down GA as we know it. The issue is not shutting down the cowboys; it is the owners who in most cases ask for this level of maintenance. Most MOs are quite capable of returning the plane from the Annual with a gold plated elevator - if you ask them to do it.

Then there are the crooks who are told to do XYZ and who do only X and charge you for XYZ, but they would probably claim that they were acting on verbal instructions, and billing for labour is very hard to pin down.

Maintenance is a tricky area. GA planes are not BMWs which you can drop into a BMW dealer and expect a reasonable job done. There are good firms and bad firms, but all owners need to understand what needs to be done and work with the MO to agree a schedule. It is simply not possible to leave the plane parked outside and collect it a few days/weeks later. Not unless you are very lucky.

maxred

5th Nov 2010, 20:00

I trusted that my aeroplane would be looked after. I am not a 'mechanic' type'. I fly them - it is my utmost pleasure and hobby. However, one I display, the other transport my young family. It is vital therefore that they be maintained to the highest standard. I pay through the nose for this, or certainly have in the past, and I expect it to be correct. In fact I demand it be correct, it is the 'law' is it not?

Therefore, when I check, and discover that one aircraft has been through two outfits, with several A/D'S not done - subsequently grounding my aircraft since May, you can see why I am slightly hacked off.

That is their job - to ensure that the aeroplane is compliant. It is illegal to sign an aeroplane into service, with A/D'S not complied with. If I had hit a hill, the insurers check the logs, and it is me to blame for not ensuriing my aeroplane was maintained correctly. I know some sectors within the industry operate 'under the radar' but that does not make it right.The beauty in this case is that I supplied the manua:rolleyes:ls and a full A/D list, and still no one bothered their arse. Still managed to charge me 6k, and 12k for an annual:\No detail, but one removed a vacuum pump, blew air in it, told me it worked, charged me 500 quid, no note in the log, and the thing should have been repalced/overhauled. I have subsequently fitted the new one outwith 'the annual'.:ugh:

A and C

5th Nov 2010, 22:58

If you try to do the job properly owners on these pages will be slagging you off for ripping them off and being over restrictive in the interpritation of the rules.

Usualy I find myself having to pick up all the flak for doing jobs on an aircraft that the last maintenance company should have done, but neglected to do so. No surprize then when the bill for years of neglect comes as a bit of a shock when it arrives all at once?

IO540

6th Nov 2010, 07:50

That is, I think, a part of the point I was trying to make. One can't blame it all on the MO. For every owner who gets a "suprise Annual" there was at least one before him who at some stage gave instructions to do the dodgy work.

maxred

6th Nov 2010, 12:09

A&C and there is the nub. I do see both sides, in fact I want to see both sides. The problem is the usual UK TAKE ON THINGS. To many trying to eak a living out of too few,who cannot afford to fly in the first place.Owning and operating an aeroplane is nuts, fiancially. Unless you do the hours, it is a very expensive exercise, and getting more expensive. No issues with this.We all know and acknowledge the pros and cons,it has been debated endlessly.However, safety, aka maintenance, is a very serious issue,therefore when you put it into the MO, you want the facts - transparency. If the MO takes a view,then you need to be in the loop. Not - have the plane back 'airworthy' ,neglect to tell.or record, several non conformancies, charge you an arm and leg,and then all of a sudden ****,what happened there.:\
Some years ago there was a great case of the MO who calculated how much the annual bill would be by dividing his operating costs and profit, by number of customers. It ended up with a dwindling customer base, who were paying more and more, in fact in the last year of his operation cusomers were reciving bills for annuals in the region of 27k. Mines that year was 14k, he quoted me 2.5k:ok:It all ended in tears:rolleyes:Hows about three uk approved MO'S? Thats it. Closely monitored, transparent charging, monthly payments to them with no danger of them going bust,and them charging properly and sensibly. SATISFIED CUSTOMERS ALL ROUND:)

yakker

8th Nov 2010, 08:37

The MO gets an aircraft in for an annual, not seen it before, goes through the paperwork and inspects the aircraft. ADs are found either not done or not done correctly, the customer is informed and realises he will have to have the work done and pay this additional cost. Aircraft finished back in the air, bill sent. Customer now complains about the cost, eventually the MO compromises reducing the bill just to get paid. The following year the customer takes his aircraft back to the previous MO, because they were so much cheaper.
Not always the MOs fault.

A and C

8th Nov 2010, 09:16

Have I seen that!!

Some years back an owner asked us to do the annual check on his aircraft, the last MO had not done any AD's or SB's four of the AD's involved control or major structual inspections, all items that could end your life very quickly if left undone.
The whole thing was summed up at the end of the inspection when the oil pressue failed to get into the green arc.

The owner said to "leave it" as it had been like it for years! I was not about to release this to service with a potental oil pressue problem so we investigated it.
It turned out that the last MO had fitted the wrong PX sender, so this had to be changed, they had also (no doubt during the investigation of the snag) lost the nuts from the back of the gauge and had fitted american nuts on a metric thread............... the result of this was the gauge had to be replaced as well due to the damage done to the gauge. Quite early in the investigation we found that the engine oil pressue was in fact running over pressure, no doubt the oil PX had been set at a high pressure in an attempt to cover up the indication issues.

The net result is that for the first time in years the owner was flying an airworthy aircraft, however he was very unhappy with the price and refused to pay for what he considered to be unnessesary work, eventualy a settlement was reached and the aircraft went back to the former MO.

I have little doubt that the owner is now flying around and very happy in is cheaply under maintaned death trap.

IO540

8th Nov 2010, 09:47

however he was very unhappy with the price and refused to pay for what he considered to be unnessesary work

D*ckhead.

For me, any apparent issue with the ignition, oil or fuel system is an absolute no-go item.

That said, I have installed a backup oil pressure gauge because the Socata one has a bit of a "history".

It does amaze me how many people turn up in say a nice new Porsche or a Merc and climb into some right piece of wreckage. It's a weird psychology...

A and C

8th Nov 2010, 11:53

I think that it all comes from being told in the media that flying is safe and that it is all "CAA approved" and that nothing can go wrong.

This results in an attitude of "nothing will go wrong to my aircraft" and so they apparently don't have to worry about expensive maintenance.

The fact that the carefull and therefore expensive maintenance is what keeps flying safe seems to get lost in the nice walm feeling of only paying £800 for an Annual check!

julian_storey

23rd Nov 2010, 10:29

I am given to understand that following a CAA inspection of our aircraft, the maintenance organisation responsible has had it's approvals suspended pending further investigation.

Can't really fault the CAA on this one. They were made aware of something dangerous, they investigated it promptly and took decisive action.

Doesn't help get the HUGE bill paid, but it might stop them doing the same thing to other people.

flyingphil1

24th Nov 2010, 17:11

As far as I can see Julian is the first to put in print what many have thought over the years. I am not a lawyer so offer no advice but I cant see the point of a libel action for something that so many know to be true and anyway I don't see anyone saying they are going to sue.
The good news is that I have heard on the grapevine the "elstree maintenance" (cant we say the name?) team have a new lead engineer joining who, I know, is of excellent pedigree .... maybe the owners have taken Julian's thread seriously .. if so well done to Julian, a man amongst sheep...... I hope you get some compo, yet may be able to return and know you have improved the facility.

julian_storey

24th Nov 2010, 17:44

Thanks Phil.

I genuinely have no wish to see them go out of business, but they did need to be stopped from carrying on the way they were, before they killed one of us.

If the rumours you have heard are true, it sounds like they may have had the wake up call that they needed.

EDFLY

24th Nov 2010, 21:05

It only happened because you pushed it forward but you were backed by a good MO who new what they are doing. But it just goes to show you get what you pay for.

A and C

25th Nov 2010, 05:40

Fortunaly you don't have to deal with the European system that is big on paperwork but I do have to ask if you follow the aircraft manufacturers recomendations to the letter?

EASA consider these recomendations as mandatory and give the maintenance company no option but to do unnessesary work in the face of common sense.

You simply can't say "my annuals only cost £120" as it is meaningless in this case, we too have customers who have the time and ability to work on their aircraft and so reduce their bills. I think that you need to price your work at £ 42/hour and then see just what an annual check is worth.

Returning to the thread I have seen increasing evidence that the CAA is getting more agressive on rule enforcment and are actively looking for those companys that are not doing all the work required.

Mike Cross

25th Nov 2010, 06:20

Assuming that Silvaire is referring to a Silvaire his costs are not out of order. In the UK ours are around £195.

What you need for the annual on a Silvaire is a relatively short list:-
Oil filter
Fuel filter
Air filter
Oil
Rocker gaskets

During the course of the annual you may find bits that need replacement but they are not part of the cost of the annual, they are items that, if you have your wits about you would be found and fixed during the year.

The vast bulk of the cost is in time, not materials. We usually have 3 people doing it over 3 days, including the test flight. It involves removal of prop and cowlings, all fairings and inspection panels and the seats. A thorough clean and inspection, inspections required by AD's, a compression check and lubrication of hinges. Some might think 9 man days is excessive for something that's basically a glider with an engine nailed on the front but it's an old aeroplane and we like to be thorough.

stickandrudderman

25th Nov 2010, 08:03

It's not unlike the car repair business (which I'm in).
Some people are grateful when you find a number of faults on their machine and will be happy to authorise and pay for the work. Others will assume you're trying to rip them off and will post poor reviews on internet forums. (I'm not referring to the OP here, it's a general observation)
It comes down to integrity at the end of the day.
If the company has integrity they will always find as much wrong with your machine as they can and then offer you information such that you can make the correct decision on whether to proceed with that work or not.
Is it a safety issue?
Is it a legal issue?
Is it a reliability issue?
Is it a cosmetic issue?
Is it a performance issue?
Is it an issue for the re-sale value?

These discussions get easier once you have established a relationship with your repair organisation because they originate from a position of mutual trust.
What you should never do is assume that the cheapest is the best!