R44 12 Year Inspection

[valve guide]

Hi, was wondering if anyone can list what officially needs to be done for a 12 year inspection as opposed to a rebuild. I know it needs new mrb's and trb's but not sure what else requires to be done. If anyone had a rough costing that might be helpful also. Not wanting the Robbie bashing comments. Would be grateful for any help. Thanks

[aa777888]

I can only answer from a US perspective, i.e. not sure how things are mandated in other countries.

The answer is contained within the publicly accessible Robinson maintenance information, which also references the relevant Lycoming maintenance information.

https://robinsonheli.com/r44-maint-manual/

Above 2200 hours:

The answer is simple--throw away the life limited components and do the airframe overhaul. Same for the engine.

Hit the 12 year mark with less than 2200 hours and the answer becomes more complex because there are options:

If you look at Chapter 3, per the FAA type certificate you will see that the only parts that are CALENDAR limited are the main and tail rotor blades. Thus, if you have reached a 12 year calendar anniversary on an R44 but have not gone 2200 hours operating the remaining life limited components on the list, per the FAA the remaining components may remain in service if found in airworthy condition.

Where it gets a little subtle is that while Robinson recommends a 12 year inspection on those remaining components the FAA does not mandate it. So you can legally continue to run the helicopter in the US past the 12 year mark without doing a Robinson recommended and described (Chapter 2, Section 2.600) 12 year inspection. If you do decide to do a 12 year inspection (not overhaul, i.e. you are not throwing away the life limited components listed on the type certificate early) it should cost you around $40K USD. People do it both ways all the time.

Where the engine is concerned you have to follow Lycoming's instructions, which, as called out in the Robinson service manual, is Service Instruction (SI) 1009. That SI says that at 12 years the engine must be overhauled unless:
"For FAA Part 91 or EASA Part NCO (non-commercial) operations, only an appropriated rated and qualified maintenance person (or international equivalent) can allow the twelve (12) calendar year TBO to be exceeded after thoroughly examining the engine for corrosion and degradation in accordance with 14 CFR 43 Appendix D (or international equivalent) and determining that the engine remains in an airworthy condition. This inspection is to be repeated annually or as necessary to ensure continued airworthiness."

So under the right conditions you can allow the engine to go on-condition until 2200, although it may be that you start replacing seals and whatnot, and if the compression is starting to drop any A&P is going to tell you to throw in the towel and overhaul it.

[valve guide]

I can only answer from a US perspective, i.e. not sure how things are mandated in other countries.

The answer is contained within the publicly accessible Robinson maintenance information, which also references the relevant Lycoming maintenance information.

https://robinsonheli.com/r44-maint-manual/

Above 2200 hours:

The answer is simple--throw away the life limited components and do the airframe overhaul. Same for the engine.

Hit the 12 year mark with less than 2200 hours and the answer becomes more complex because there are options:

If you look at Chapter 3, per the FAA type certificate you will see that the only parts that are CALENDAR limited are the main and tail rotor blades. Thus, if you have reached a 12 year calendar anniversary on an R44 but have not gone 2200 hours operating the remaining life limited components on the list, per the FAA the remaining components may remain in service if found in airworthy condition.

Where it gets a little subtle is that while Robinson recommends a 12 year inspection on those remaining components the FAA does not mandate it. So you can legally continue to run the helicopter in the US past the 12 year mark without doing a Robinson recommended and described (Chapter 2, Section 2.600) 12 year inspection. If you do decide to do a 12 year inspection (not overhaul, i.e. you are not throwing away the life limited components listed on the type certificate early) it should cost you around $40K USD. People do it both ways all the time.

Where the engine is concerned you have to follow Lycoming's instructions, which, as called out in the Robinson service manual, is Service Instruction (SI) 1009. That SI says that at 12 years the engine must be overhauled unless:
"For FAA Part 91 or EASA Part NCO (non-commercial) operations, only an appropriated rated and qualified maintenance person (or international equivalent) can allow the twelve (12) calendar year TBO to be exceeded after thoroughly examining the engine for corrosion and degradation in accordance with 14 CFR 43 Appendix D (or international equivalent) and determining that the engine remains in an airworthy condition. This inspection is to be repeated annually or as necessary to ensure continued airworthiness."

So under the right conditions you can allow the engine to go on-condition until 2200, although it may be that you start replacing seals and whatnot, and if the compression is starting to drop any A&P is going to tell you to throw in the towel and overhaul it.


Thanks for the reply and very helpful. When they say inspect, exactly what does that involve? I remember for an AD on my Enstrom I had to get the blade grips removed and an x-ray type inspection done. Do you have any idea what is required under the "inspect" heading? Thanks again

[aa777888]

Thanks for the reply and very helpful. When they say inspect, exactly what does that involve? I remember for an AD on my Enstrom I had to get the blade grips removed and an x-ray type inspection done. Do you have any idea what is required under the "inspect" heading? Thanks again
:= Please re-read my post where you will find the exact Robinson manual chapter and section called out. You can then go and read that.

[WillyPete]

:= Please re-read my post where you will find the exact Robinson manual chapter and section called out. You can then go and read that.

That's the most polite version of RTFM I've ever read.

[roscoe1]

In the US, if operating part 91, the engine can be run on condition for as long as you are able to pass an annual inspection. Unless there is an FAA approved airworthinesss limitation on a part or assembly or an airworthiness directive that imposes a life limit on something, nothing is mandatory beyond an annual inspection. Service bulletins, instructions or other manufacturers information can only be recommended unless associated with an AD that makes them mandatory. Your insurance carrier may not allow you to avoid compliance with a so called " mandatory "service bulletin" but it's not a violation of the CFRs. Outside the annual or other inspection program you may use as an annual inspection substitute no other inspection or overhaul is required under part 91. Life limits in chapter 4 of most maintenance manuals is the only section that is actually FAA approved ( and signed by a Fed. on the document) in the maintenance manual.

As for me, I wouldn't fly in a ship that had not undergone all of the manufacturers recommended inspections and overhauls and part 135 normally makes them all mandatory but I also wouldn't bother arguing with an owner who doesn't do them if they understand the regulations. The engine manufacturers time in service and calendar time overhauls are recommendations only, not mandatory unless parts or assemblies are listed as airworthiness limitations.

[valve guide]

aa777888 Thanks I was traveling and its a bit difficult to read on the phone. I am now home and have uploaded the manual which gives the specific instructions. So thanks again for your help, I wasn't being lazy just wanted quick conformation of what I was told which I see is correct.

[valve guide]

Willy Pete, maybe you just need another slap on the forehead:)

[valve guide]

Roscoe1 thanks, I take all that on board.

[nomorehelosforme]

Willy Pete, maybe you just need another slap on the forehead:)

Valve guide, in your thread starter, you requested no Robbie bashing, yet you now appear to post a derogatory/ insulting post..... on a phone or a computer you can always click the link coloured blue.....

[valve guide]

Valve guide, in your thread starter, you requested no Robbie bashing, yet you now appear to post a derogatory/ insulting post..... on a phone or a computer you can always click the link coloured blue.....

Nomoreheloforme,I was actually quoting something that WillyPete had said himself in another post and the smiley face after it isn't generally associated with something derogatory or insulting. Regarding "you can always click on the link coloured blue" didn't it occur to you that to make the comment "its a bit difficult to read on the phone" meant that a) I had already done that and b) due to the size of the screen on the phone and continually zooming in and scrolling across it was "difficult" hmmm perhaps not but I hope that now clarifies it for you> No insulting ever intended to WillyPete or indeed your goodself ;-)

[tottigol]

Not 100% up to speed, but how many Robinsons actually make it to the 12 year mark?

[helicopter-redeye]

Most of them. Almost all. Minus a tiny number destroyed by pilot error/handling/training accidents.

[aa777888]

helicopter-redeye's snarky response is incorrect, at least from a US perspective.

In the US, Robinson helicopters tend to divide into two maintenance groups, and the answer is pretty obvious. The first group are the machines owned by schools and other organizations that literally fly them every day, weather permitting. These machines will typically see between 200 and 500 hours a year and will time out before calendaring out. The other group consists of machines owned by private owners who only use them for personal business or pleasure. Those machines will, of course, generally calendar out first. I'm pretty sure, but have no proof, that there are a lot more in the first group than the second. It can be deceiving. I suspect that controller.com is full of the second group helicopters. The first group just gets overhauled and keeps on flying, because those people are running businesses.

I bought mine out of the second group, as most do who are not buying new machines. I'm kind of between groups in that I do have a leasing agreement with the local school but between personal and school flying it's not quite hitting 200 hours a year.

[Paul Cantrell]

I can only answer from a US perspective, i.e. not sure how things are mandated in other countries.

Where it gets a little subtle is that while Robinson recommends a 12 year inspection on those remaining components the FAA does not mandate it. So you can legally continue to run the helicopter in the US past the 12 year mark without doing a Robinson recommended and described (Chapter 2, Section 2.600) 12 year inspection. If you do decide to do a 12 year inspection (not overhaul, i.e. you are not throwing away the life limited components listed on the type certificate early) it should cost you around $40K USD. People do it both ways all the time.So under the right conditions you can allow the engine to go on-condition until 2200, although it may be that you start replacing seals and whatnot, and if the compression is starting to drop any A&P is going to tell you to throw in the towel and overhaul it.

I won't argue with this interpretation, but another one I have been told by a couple different maintenance organizations is that the 12 year inspection is mandatory because of the wording in the maintenance manual. Again, I won't argue with what you said it sounds pretty authoritative... There are some components called out on the list like the MR transmission which is probably a good idea to inspect after 12 years ( especially in the coastal areas like greater Boston ). Problem being that I believe that can only be done at the factory,. And you might not like their answer, but once you send it to them I doubt you can ignore their decision.

I know there is a guy down south that does the full inspection, but I think he gets closer to $70K for the job. Every private owner I fly with that has hit this ( 4 I think ) have just decided to do the overhaul. If you know about this when you buy the aircraft, you can buy a used machine with hours on it so you aren't hitting 12 years with lots of component time left. But of course a large segment of private owners like to buy new machines...

As for the engine, a school I taught at ran their R22 engines past TBO, but did oil analysis... And they would all start making metal about 200 hours past TBO... It really didn't make sense to me. I don't know anyone who runs the R44 engine past TBO so I have no idea how that engine behaves. However, given that we are talking about private owners here, I don't think the additional risk of an in flight engine failure is worth the slight decrease in operating expenses... Private owners are seldom as experienced and current on autorotations, so you end up risking the entire hull, not to mention lives...

To some degree I see a difference between R22 and R44 owners... Seems like more R22 owners are struggling with operating costs... The R44 owners seen to be more composed of wealthier individuals that can afford the additional cost of the overhaul. Which, let's face it, is still pretty darn cheap compared to what it costs if you upgrade to a turbine machine...

[Hot and Hi]

Every private owner I fly with that has hit this [the 12-yr calendar life] ( 4 I think ) have just decided to do the overhaul.

We have one private owner here who will send their machine for a 12-yr inspection in January 2020. By then the machine will have 1,440 HRS TTSN. At an estimated 60 HRS per year, this will last them full 12 years before hitting the 2,200 HRS overhaul.

[wrench1]

I have been told by a couple different maintenance organizations is that the 12 year inspection is mandatory because of the wording in the maintenance manual.
FYI: Just to add to the above. It actually depends on how the aircraft is operated, Part 91 or Part 135, whether the 12 year becomes "mandatory." Part 91 ops only requires the owner/operator to select an inspection program which at a minimum would consist of an Annual and replacement of any items listed in the approved Airworthiness Limitations section of the MM (i.e., Ch 3, 3.300). This would also include any engine related Airworthiness Limitation items, if applicable.

On the other hand, Part 135 ops are required to follow a manufacturer's recommended maintenance program, or FAA approved alternate, which at a minimum adds the R44 Chapter 2 requirements (i.e., O/Hs, etc.) to the "mandatory" list along with the Ch 3 requirements.

[aa777888]

Thanks for that valuable clarification, @wrench1. Essentially the same as the requirements for the engine re: Part 91 vs. 135.

[Paul Cantrell]

FYI: Just to add to the above. It actually depends on how the aircraft is operated, Part 91 or Part 135, whether the 12 year becomes "mandatory." Part 91 ops only requires the owner/operator to select an inspection program which at a minimum would consist of an Annual and replacement of any items listed in the approved Airworthiness Limitations section of the MM (i.e., Ch 3, 3.300). This would also include any engine related Airworthiness Limitation items, if applicable.

On the other hand, Part 135 ops are required to follow a manufacturer's recommended maintenance program, or FAA approved alternate, which at a minimum adds the R44 Chapter 2 requirements (i.e., O/Hs, etc.) to the "mandatory" list along with the Ch 3 requirements.

This is a great example of what I was saying about airworthiness of a Robinson being tied to the maintenance manual. At least here in the US, you have to do 100 hour inspections even if the aircraft is not being operated commercially. So, a private owner, under part 91 has to do 100 inspections in addition to the annual, assuming they fly more than 100 hours per year...

[roscoe1]

No, under U S part 91, not for hire ( part 91 for hire is different), you do not need 100 hr inspections to be legal. You need an annual once every calendar year. Doesn't matter what the maintenance manual says unless the 100 hr requirement is in ATA chap. 4 as an airworthiness limitation ( and it isn't). The Cessna 150 manual has a 100 hr as well and you dont need to do that under 91 either. Helicopter or airplane is no different. You had better be able to tell the FISDO wonks what inspection you are using and why, as a lot of them are misinformed. CFR 91.409 is pretty clear. As I stated above the only part of almost all maintenance manuals in the US that is FAA approved is chap 4.

[rotormatic]

No, under U S part 91, not for hire ( part 91 for hire is different), you do not need 100 hr inspections to be legal. You need an annual once every calendar year. Doesn't matter what the maintenance manual says unless the 100 hr requirement is in ATA chap. 4 as an airworthiness limitation ( and it isn't). The Cessna 150 manual has a 100 hr as well and you dont need to do that under 91 either. Helicopter or airplane is no different. You had better be able to tell the FISDO wonks what inspection you are using and why, as a lot of them are misinformed. CFR 91.409 is pretty clear. As I stated above the only part of almost all maintenance manuals in the US that is FAA approved is chap 4.

FAA clarification on mandatory..,

[roscoe1]

That document clearly states that any method or technique that is in a manufacturers document that is called out in the tcds, must be supported by regulation. The regulation does not say you have to do 100 hr inspections if you are not flying for hire under part 91. I can't tell from your post if you agree or disagree.

[rotormatic]

Agree......

[wrench1]

At least here in the US, you have to do 100 hour inspections even if the aircraft is not being operated commercially. So, a private owner, under part 91 has to do 100 inspections in addition to the annual, assuming they fly more than 100 hours per year...
I believe you mis-read my post as your statement is not correct.

To clarify for you:
Part 91 private ops: Annual inspection; Airworthiness Limitations life-limited part replacement.
Part 91 for hire: Annual inspection; Airworthiness Limitations life-limited part replacement; current 100hr (or Annual in previous 100hrs) inspection only when operating as a "for-hire" flight. If you make one "for-hire" flight in a year then only one 100hr inspection is needed in that year--unless your "for-hire" flight is within the subsequent 100hrs of your last Annual. There is no 100hr requirement for a Part 91 private ops flight.

[Paul Cantrell]

I believe you mis-read my post as your statement is not correct.

To clarify for you:
Part 91 private ops: Annual inspection; Airworthiness Limitations life-limited part replacement.
Part 91 for hire: Annual inspection; Airworthiness Limitations life-limited part replacement; current 100hr (or Annual in previous 100hrs) inspection only when operating as a "for-hire" flight. If you make one "for-hire" flight in a year then only one 100hr inspection is needed in that year--unless your "for-hire" flight is within the subsequent 100hrs of your last Annual. There is no 100hr requirement for a Part 91 private ops flight.

So, for 30+ years I've been told by various maintenance organizations that the MM ends up requiring 100 hours in Robinson helicopters, regardless of whether they are commercial use or not. I did a bunch of research and must admit that it appears you are correct and that I was wrong. Sorry for the bad information!

[roscoe1]

So, for 30+ years I've been told by various maintenance organizations that the MM ends up requiring 100 hours in Robinson helicopters, regardless of whether they are commercial use or not. I did a bunch of research and must admit that it appears you are correct and that I was wrong. Sorry for the bad information!
I think we would all agree that doing the 100 hr, notwithstanding any possible maintenance errors that might happen in the course of maintaining a machine, is a good thing and represents a reasonable although arbitrary time interval to catch problems. An owner would either be a cheapskate, incredibly lazy or not the brightest bulb in the box to skip it because it isn't a legal requirement. There is nothing magic about 100 hrs. Somewhere back in the mists of the past, someone thought it would be a good interval based on the rates of wear and tear in aircraft that are now antiques.

Maintennce shops are in business to provide maintenance. Of course they will imply 100 hour inspections are truly mandatory because the maintenance manual says so. Robinson and perhaps others say that because they can see the liability issues with some joker flying his toy 400 hours in a year and doing only one inspection. Same thing with service bulletins . A manufacturer can call it mandatory because in their eyes it is, even though regulation doesn't say that unless it is in your ops specs. Think about it. If a manufacturer could actually make something mandatory, they would in effect be legislating. In the US and other places that is not allowed. That is why the Airwortiness Limitations schedule in the maintenance manual is the only FAA approved part of the book. They have made it into regulation by doing so. The type certificate backs that up, as does the US Code of Federal Regulations.

[wrench1]

An owner would either be a cheapskate, incredibly lazy or not the brightest bulb in the box to skip it because it isn't a legal requirement.
FWIW: While you bring up a valid point on a 100 hour inspection, your definition of an owner who doesn't comply with a 100hr is a bit misinformed. There are a number of private helicopters, to include various turbine models, that operate over 100s of hours with only an Annual performed. However, the reason isn't because the owner is a putz or lazy, rather it could be for several reasons. Perhaps the aircraft operates in a remote or isolated area where the nearest mechanic or maintenance facility might be several days away. So from a logistics and cost standpoint, staging the aircraft or flying a mechanic in to perform a non-required inspection every other month vs once a year doesn't quite make sense. Or, in a more urban environment the owner may maintain his aircraft to a level where a 100hr offers no additional oversight. Having been involved in these types of ops and owners, I believe your definition is not reflective of actual operations, at least not in the US.

[roscoe1]

FWIW: While you bring up a valid point on a 100 hour inspection, your definition of an owner who doesn't comply with a 100hr is a bit misinformed. There are a number of private helicopters, to include various turbine models, that operate over 100s of hours with only an Annual performed. However, the reason isn't because the owner is a putz or lazy, rather it could be for several reasons. Perhaps the aircraft operates in a remote or isolated area where the nearest mechanic or maintenance facility might be several days away. So from a logistics and cost standpoint, staging the aircraft or flying a mechanic in to perform a non-required inspection every other month vs once a year doesn't quite make sense. Or, in a more urban environment the owner may maintain his aircraft to a level where a 100hr offers no additional oversight. Having been involved in these types of ops and owners, I believe your definition is not reflective of actual operations, at least not in the US.
My opinion is not misinformed, simply different from yours. With close to 40 years in the helicopter maintenance business my opinion is shaped by the many part 91 (not for hire) owners I've crossed paths with. I've been the mechanic flown in to a remote area to perform an inspection. Flying a mechanic in once a year is what doesn't make sense to my mind, especially in remote areas. I've seen rodent damage, weather damage, contaminated fuel, things the owner missed on preflight (imagine that!) and things that were let go because they didn't have a part in exactly those situations. I know owners who will fly their family members in their helicopter as long as they can get it started. I have seen things that owners have buggered up and not told anyone about. Remember, I am not talking about any kind of commercial operation. Some private owners who are not licensed as maintenance people are excellent mechanics and very savy about safety but alas, some do not know which end of the screw stick to use. For the former, by all means overfly your 100 hr as you see fit. For the latter , well......

When you say it doesn't make sense I have to ask what you really mean by that. I can only assume you mean economic sense, because honestly I can't think of another reason to not get a mechanic out to the helicopter. Nobody ever said private ownership of a helicopter was inexpensive.

[Hughes500]

I am truly shocked that anyone wants to skip or stretch maintenance checks. Having owned and run many helicopters ( over 30 now ) I can assure you the best and cheapest maintenance is preventative maintenance. It is way way cheaper in the long run to over maintain a machine, eg a slight vibration from the main rotor for instance can lead to premature wear on other components, let alone the safety and piece of mind. There is no excuse that the machine is in a remote location or it is not cost effective.

[wrench1]

my opinion is shaped by the many part 91 (not for hire) owners I've crossed paths with.
My comment was to your blanket statement that any owner who doesn't perform a 100 hour is lazy or a cheapskate and in context to whether a 100hr is required or not. I too have 40 years in the mx business, however, my experiences differ to yours. I won't deny there are owners out there as you have mentioned, which could include several 135 operators I know as well as well. However, I was in a position to select which owners I assisted so in all honesty I would never work with people who operated as you describe. And this included both my airplane and helicopter customers. So, in my opinion, your statement is mis-informed or inaccurate of all owners simply because they do not perform a non-required 100 hour inspection. In my experience, it's not what gets done on an aircraft, it's the who and how that aircraft is maintained. Lastly, in the last 30 years or so, I can state without hesitation that "economics" has never been a deciding factor in any decision made by any owner I assist. But if you believe simply complying with more inspections makes an aircraft safer then I respect your belief.

[wrench1]

I can assure you the best and cheapest maintenance is preventative maintenance.
I agree 100%. And if you believe performing supplemental 100 hour inspections is part of that preventative maintenance, then I respect your opinion. To add to my previous post above, the owners I've assisted all make informed decisions on how they want their aircraft maintained. And that decision is not taken lightly. Most became personally involved in maintaining their aircraft which I supervised and signed off. Several worked for and obtained their A&Ps as well. But in-service discrepancies, like a M/R vibration, are separate issues from scheduled mx, unless you imply to wait until the next 100 to correct? But to stay in context of this thread, every aircraft operation is not the same. And to simply state, not performing a 100 hour inspection makes an aircraft less safe, is not an opinion I support based on my experience.

[roscoe1]

My comment was to your blanket statement that any owner who doesn't perform a 100 hour is lazy or a cheapskate and in context to whether a 100hr is required or not. I too have 40 years in the mx business, however, my experiences differ to yours. I won't deny there are owners out there as you have mentioned, which could include several 135 operators I know as well as well. However, I was in a position to select which owners I assisted so in all honesty I would never work with people who operated as you describe. And this included both my airplane and helicopter customers. So, in my opinion, your statement is mis-informed or inaccurate of all owners simply because they do not perform a non-required 100 hour inspection. In my experience, it's not what gets done on an aircraft, it's the who and how that aircraft is maintained. Lastly, in the last 30 years or so, I can state without hesitation that "economics" has never been a deciding factor in any decision made by any owner I assist. But if you believe simply complying with more inspections makes an aircraft safer then I respect your belief.

If you wish to change the subject we can speak about what gets done versus who and how they do it. My assumption is that, as with a physician, I go out to do no harm and strive to make things better. Not everybody ends up doing that but frequent maintenance by anyone with average abilities is better than delayed mainenance has been my experience.

if economics was not the root cause of why the maintenance interval is being stretched, then what was the reason? It actually all boils down to money. Convenience, remoteness even weather to the extent that it can be forecast are not valid reasons in my view, but rather are excuses for delaying. We all drone on about safety and how it has to be elevated above the need to leave the ground ( no pun intended), so you have to walk the talk. Of course one can do a poor job of inspecting or even create an issue one fails to see in the course of doing work but that is never the intention and your corallary implication that it would not be true that the more eyes on something the greater the liklihood something will be seen, is something I reject.

We can debate maintenance philosophy all week but in my experience, in many instances, I didn't know the customer or their machine until I did an inspection and didn't have the luxury or conscience that allowed me to walk away ( although there were a couple of situations so heinous that it was the only choice). I actually was the person who frequently would tell an owner " look, you don't have to bust your butt getting here before you hit 100 hours". As I said above, there is nothing magic about that number and was often met with surprise when it was explained they really didn't violate any regulations if they never did the 100 hr inspection. I stopped doing that because I saw it get abused because they really were cheap or lazy. Yes, most of the time more inspections would be my choice no matter who does them because in my experience there are more competant mechanics than incompetant. Your mileage may vary and past performance is no predictor of future returns. It's like the dilemma of the landing light. Do I test it on preflight if I know it worked last night or will it be the lst time it lights and doesnt burn out, thereby leaving me with no landing light when I need it. You can disagree all day long but there is no real reason for testing it if it worked.....or is there? Things do take a turn for the broken at the most unexpected times.

[wrench1]

why the maintenance interval is being stretched, then what was the reason?
That is not correct. No "maintenance interval" is being stretched for a Part 91, private ops aircraft. However....

I didn't know the customer or their machine until I did an inspection
It's this statement that I think reflects the major difference in our collective experiences. As I mentioned, I was in a position to fully review the owner and aircraft prior to any inspection or work. I had a Part 135/145 day job that provided a good income and basically half a year off. Back in the first 5 years I provided ad hoc mx services, I would always run into similar situations as you describe. However, once I established myself and shifted to more owner-assisted mx and more private helicopters, I dropped the ad hoc side and went owner-exclusive till I "retired" 5 years ago. In the 30+ years I assisted owners in this way, I only walked away from one person which unfortunately was not due to him becoming lazy or a cheapskate, rather he had some mental issues that could not be controlled. So it can really depend on the individual and situation on how mx is done or scheduled. But I can understand your view based on your stated experiences as I've lived them too. Best of luck.

[aa777888]

From a low time owner and pilot perspective, I think the 100 hour inspections are worth doing. Even though the problems are typically minor, we always find a few here and there. And when your A&P has infinitely more experience at recognizing broken stuff than you do, hell, it's worth having them just sit in your running helicopter every once in a while. They can more easily recognize sounds and vibrations that you might not. For example: that can be the difference between your fan needing balancing and a bunch of cracked engine air shrouds.