Light Aircraft Costs Schedule 5 v.s. Manufacturer Maintenance Schedules etc.
 

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if some of the more experienced guys out there could give me some info on the differences in costs between servicing your light aircraft on CASA Schedule 5 compared to other maintenance schedules like the Manufacturer Maintenance Schedule or anything else you guys use.

For private owners, is it really economically viable to use a more detailed maintenance schedule and are people using Schedule 5 to cut their costs?

What is driving light aircraft maintenance in reality? Is safety the most important factor or is this too expensive for some owners and using a less detailed machinate schedule is their only option?

Some real life actual cost figures of what it costs you per year to maintain your aircraft, and on which maintenance program you use and why would also be great!


Thanks in advance!

Steven.

The more important choice is that of the maintenance organisation. You must choose one that has a deep understanding and long experience in the maintenance of the type and model being maintained.

Most manufacturer's maintenance schedules require too much unnecessary maintenance and not enough necessary maintenance, resulting in the Waddington Effect. Unfortunately, the person considering whether to approve a System of Maintenance must take into consideration the manufacturer's maintenance schedule when deciding whether to approve the System of Maintenance, so often the same outcome is produced.

Incompetent, misguided or pencil-whipped maintenance produces the same practical outcome, whether it's done under the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, the CASA maintenance schedule (i.e. Schedule 5) or an approved system of maintenance.

An experienced maintainer will know how and when to do more of the necessary maintenance and less of the unnecessary maintenance. Schedule 5 will give you more flexibility to do that, if you have the option to use Schedule 5. If you can get the same flexibility enshrined in an approved system of maintenance for the aircraft, so much the better, but the manufacturer's maintenance schedule may get in the way.

(Typical example of this and the Waddington Effect: Injectors on fuel injected piston engines. They are constantly cleaned in operation by a wonderful solvent called 'AVGAS'. The greatest risk of them becoming partially or completely blocked arises during removal, cleaning and replacement required by maintenance schedules. Some engineers may produce scary pictures of dirty solvent after injectors have been removed and 'cleaned'. The dirty stuff comes almost entirely from the outside of the injector. An engine monitor and knowing how to use it will tell you if you have a partially or completely blocked injector.)

Unfortunately, the drive for getting rid of Schedule 5 or an equivalent and imposing more maintenance more often is driven by people who think that more maintenance more often must equal more reliability and more safety, and who - surprise surprise - make money from doing maintenance or regulating the doing of maintenance.

Everything Creamy said :ok:. Also make sure that whoever you choose has experience on your model aircraft . It's an expensive time consuming exercise paying a maintence organization to make mistakes and learn the idiosyncracies of your pride and joy. :{

I think one of the biggest differences between Schedule 5 and the manufacturers schedule is that Schedule 5 gives greater flexibility about replacing time lifed parts.

Creamy……. I think we have a POTY winner with that post.

Says everything it should and nothing it shouldn't.

BZ that man! :D:D:D:D

Life components have to be done on both shed 5 or manufactures

Are Yr sure about that?
As a bit of research, (in yr spare time), have a look at the differing requirements of a Baron electric fuel pump under both schedules (sch 5 vs manufacturer)

He's sure, but he's wrng.

Find someone that won't change it if the manufacture says it has to. Fact is if it goes pear shaped and you have not complies with what the manufacture has said then who holds the blame. Bit like SIDS really.
Gp back and read some over threads as this issue has already been spoken about.
It's no different to manufactures SBs.

And creamy the super hero of all aviation as you would know shed 5 is only work sheets to do a check. It's only one part of a whole maintence program which is listed on your lbs. So while you may op for shed 5 casa can and have said no and have you do a Som or manufactures. As we'll you still must comply with ADs and SB and limitations in the m/m.

I believe that everyone has to comply with an AD. An SB on the other hand is not an AD, and the operator/owner could elect not to have the SB done if not thought applicable. The maintenance organisation gets a waiver signed, and the responsibility for not having the SB carried out is the operators. Am I wrong yr right?

No your not. Read what casa now say. Only if the word recommend is used may you have the option not comply. And remember ADs are country of origin as we'll.

The Chief Engineer tells me it is the CAR30 organisation that is responsible for the aircraft being released with ALL due maintenance carried out.
The Service Bullitens that I have seen are mandatory, recomended or customer convenience. The mandatory ones are carried out without reference from CASA of other regulator.
CASA Schedule 5, part 2 is the minimum maintenance required for issue of the MR.
I had a look at one of the helicopter Log Book Statements, which could be likened to the Aircraft Maintenance Program of larger machines, it lists OEM schedules, Schedule 5 for EIR,as well as components hard landing etc etc.
CAR 41 1 states that components are to be included in maintenance scheduleTo answer the OP question, my first inspection by my maintenece org was a little expensive, but after that I have paid about 3,000 per 100 hourly for cessna 206

Just one example, CASA requirement new lower spar cap at 11,000 hours cost $80,000+
Manufacturer has no spar life

Another round of the decades-old, pointlessly circular argument. Feels suspiciously like the usual spiral dive...

But never fear: The new, simple 1998 regulations will make it all crystal clear. :ok:

Death spiral? OP is asking about costs. And that could cause a death spiral I guess.
Out in the GAFA, the maintenance seems to be done to the owners whimsy.
Maybe there needs to be a tightening up of standards, and a separation of private and "commercial" operations and maintenance.

Oh look CASR 1998 is nearly here. Now there is pause for thought, if an AD or other mandatory requirement is missed who bears legal responsibility, should an accident occur?

A test, ED and yr right:

What does the periodic removal and cleaning of injectors on injected piston engines achieve?

I'm not interested in generalities or references to legislative bullsh*t.

I'm interested in knowing what contaminants, precisely, build up where, precisely, on injectors on piston engines. What gets cleaned when injectors are removed and cleaned?

What risk is being mitigated, and why, when injectors on injected piston engines are removed, cleaned and replaced?

I repeat: I'm not interested in generalities or references to legislative bullsh*t.

Give us the hard facts from experts at the coal face. :ok:

Creamie, your joking...right?
Unfortunately it appears you have not been present when someone has
Removed injectors for cleaning, as I can tell you, it is quite necessary,
Continental are 300hrs or periodically,
GAMI say 100-200 hrs for cleaning.
And please cut it out with the old " doing it for $$, or creating work bulls#€T,
I'm sick to death of it.
Next time I remove some injectors I promise, I will take some pictures and
Send to you.
Avgas...cleaning medium.. Not so much..
Kero...yes more so.

Firstly, schedule 5 is not used in isolation.
Schedule 5 is a list of things to look at, not how to maintain
Your aircraft.
Guide-
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...-operators.pdf

Some choice quotes..

"However, some operators of privately operated aeroplanes favour CASA Schedule 5 over the manufacturer’s schedule, because it appears at first glance to be simpler (and cheaper) than the manufacturer’s schedule or an SOM. However, you should bear in mind that Schedule 5 is just a list of inspection items, a ‘shopping list’ of tasks to be completed either every 100 hours, or 12 months (whichever comes first), without any specific instructions on how any of the inspection items listed in the schedule should be carried out."

Remember also that under CAR 42V (1), because all maintenance is required to be carried out in accordance
with the applicable approved data, you must still consult the manufacturer’s maintenance manuals for the airframe, engine and propeller, as well as applicable literature such as service bulletins, for instructions on how to carry out inspections and corrective maintenance.

And this one,

"If you do not follow the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, you should know why, and be able to explain your reasoning to an auditor or accident investigator."

Here is the schedule 5 section on ignition systems.

IGNITION SYSTEM
(1) Remove the spark plugs, clean and inspect them, check the spark plug electrode gap, test the spark plugs and renew them if required.
(2) Inspect the spark plug high tension leads and ceramics.
(3) Inspect the magneto housing.
(4) Inspect the breaker compartment and cam follower.
(5) Inspect the breaker points for serviceability and check the breaker points gap, magneto engine timing and synchronisation.
(6) Inspect the switch and earth leads.
(7) Refit and torque the spark plugs.
(8) Refit the spark plug high tension leads.

Do you see anything explicitly mentioning magneto 500hr inspections?

This paragraph is at the start of the schedule 5 text.
(You say there is nothing saying in schedule 5 you must do components?)

"6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule." (Schedule 5)!


I don't think you will find too many LAME's out there that will sign out a magneto that is past it's 500hr inspection limit, I certainly wouldn't, and for bendix, yes I'm afraid in will do the 4yearly also.

But Dukes fuel pumps?
Vac pumps?
Yeah, your right, let's let them go so they fail right when you need them most.
Even though you as a registered operator are responsible that all maintenance is
Bla Bla Bla... You already know.

Let me ask you this, say you have a 182 with a McCauley, under AD/Prop/1, would you operate
It with no consideration to calendar, because it's hours only. Or would you take my advice to
Do it in accordance with the manufacturers timeframe, or do you require some pic's of corroded or failed hubs, the former means a lot more parts in the bin, the latter means.....

You keep referring to human factors without saying it, it is obviously a part of everything
We do, it should not be used as a reason, to not do something, however unnecessary you think
It is.

Quote:
"An experienced maintainer will know how and when to do more of the necessary maintenance and less of the unnecessary maintenance. Schedule 5 will give you more flexibility to do that"

First part, Not worded how I would put it, but I sort of agree,
But saying schedule 5 gives you more "flexibility" is a furphy..

I believe from a CASA insp.

""However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.""

Same old argument.

Creamy.

Our cleaner is worth around $15000. Do you have your car serviced. Is it injected. Dose it say when you fill your car up at the service station that our fuel has cleaners in our fuel.

Have a look around the base of your injectors are they clean or dirty. Next go do some research and attuatly see how they work. Then come back and ask.

Next vac pumps and mags. Do you do the o/h periods on them and the scheduled service on them. What about your electix fuel pump or what about your trim jacks or u/c motor or gearbox. None of the above are in the sched 5 work sheets.

But it's a con isn't just to take your $$$$.
Funny thing is your prepared to tell me and try and belittle me about lop and engine operation but you don't know the a simple basic engine components and how they work. You can read all you like in a book but nothing beats hand on experience.

Btw I know how an injector works. 👍

Eddie.
To answer your question.

Unless the aircraft is controlled by a maintence controller the the person (lame) that signs of each cat is and the lame co-ordinator will be deemed the responsible as we'll as the owner.

Also where in the reqs dose it state a wavier is legal. If the sb is recommend the casa has give a direction that it is now recommend and may be viewed as that. If an Ad states a Sb then it must be done if it's applicable to the aircraft in question.

If the aircraft is under the controll of a maintence controller then they take the reponasabillity for the paper work and the lame takes resopability for the work carried out.

Yr Right, this would contradict CAR 41, for Cat B maintenance.
As a LAME certifying in a category I don't see the log book only the work sheets, so how could I be responsible for something not on the worksheeets?
I think you are right about SBs, if an AD is raised refering to the SB it becomes mandatory as well.

If you do all the work you don't even need work sheets if all is places in the log book.
As an owner you are reasonable unless under control of a maintenance controller as we'll.

No, I'm not.Yes I have been. I didn't ask you to tell me your opinion. I asked for things called "facts". That's why I said:Just facts please.Don't you comprehend the patent nonsense in one organisation saying it's OK to run a component for 300 hours without cleaning, and another organisation saying 100-200 hours for cleaning, when both components are used in exactly the same operational circumstances?I didn't say that. Please revisit your highschool comprehension texts.Right on cue....I realise that people in Australia are willing captives of thousands of pages of regulations. (And BTW: You don't have to quote them at me. I know them off by heart.)

What I was trying to ascertain is whether anyone has any idea about the physical reality of how a component works and where the 'dirt' comes from, or are merely trained monkeys who just go through the rote-learned motions.

Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts.

Go over to Beechtalk and read about how a real aviation country with a real GA fleet deals with these manufacturers' periodic arseplucks. A couple of quotes.

The first from Walter Atkinson:"... Once we had engine monitors, we could see that cleaning them was the most common problem".

".... I've run a few engines to TBO without EVER cleaning the injectors."

One from John-Paul Townsend from GAMI:..."[M]ore people get clogged nozzles as a result of the removal and reinstallation process than through normal usage."

Periodic injector removal for cleaning is an example, par exellance, of the Waddington Effect. If you can't or won't see it, you are part of the problem.

I have seen more problems from periodic replacement of oil filters than from fuel nozzles, but that is for another thread.
Although I believe you are correct in this case, as you are suggesting, the contamination is on the outside, covering the airshroud on NA injected engines. not a problem for turbo charged engine injectors. The workshops I am experienced with don't service the nozzles unless there is a problem relating to the nozzles.

Quote,
"Take a deep breath, put down the banana, and try providing some facts."

Nice. Honestly, what's the point, great, you have spoken to a few people and
Latched onto whatever suits your argument, nothing anyone else states is
Worth taking in that's obvious.
I just offered to send you some pics of injectors that are built up with deposits
Internally and I get shot down.
You insinuate we should go to where the real GA is, yes I have been to the
States on numerous occasions.
Your mind is made up creamie.
We are all uneducated monkeys.

The data demonstrate that periodic removal, cleaning and refitting of injectors creates more defects than it solves. If that's too traumatic for you to accept, Perspective, that's your problem.

You refer to an important difference, ED, that used to have me worried (until I studied the system and the data): NA injectors as compared with TN/TC injectors.

When the engine is running the NA injectors are sucking in air through the fine screen at the bottom of the airshroud. I used to worry that the fine screen would eventually get clogged if there were any impurities/particles/dust in the air inside the cowling. But then I saw what the fuel in the injector lines does when the diaphragm in the manifold closes on shut down...

As I said creamie,
Human factors is not an excuse to either,
- not carry out a maintenance task,
- not follow the reg's, which you seem to conveniently brush over in my response, after I pointed out the text covering components.

Yes there are many that over maintain, probably balanced out by those
Who under maintain.
As you say, you mention the difference between cont. and gami injector
Cleaning schedule, the same could be said for bendix and slick mags.

That does not mean I take it apon myself to pick whatever time I please.
Maybe you have more flexibility to work within the FAA regs than we do here.

Creamie.
It's quite obvious you don't understand how an injector works. I will give you a clue. It's two parts. Air and fuel and as you have aluded to Walter not cleaning his nozzles it shows also what little he knows as we'll whoops wastnt he who also said he ran his engine 0/80

Consider this.
Pt6-67 in a 1900d. 200 hours between service.
Pt6-67 in an 802 air tractor 100 hrs betwen service.

Now consider this. A gami injector are set to an engine to a much finer tolacemce than a standard injector although now this is much less than earlier engines.

As you said earlier leave the piano playing to the people that know. Go get some lessons if you won't to play with the big boys.

Now for a matter of interest how is an engine monitor going to tell you that the air bleed is contaminated. And second you don't need a fancy engine monitor to tell you that a nozzle has a proplem. A simple fuel flow or fuel px indicator will tell you the same thing. It will only tell you which cly is having a proplem. Then anyway good practise will tell you to do the others plus a whole lot more.

Passing strange reading through these posts that the same confusion and differing "Opinions" seems to be as rife in the engineering side of our industry as on the operations side. I confess I am no expert on maintenance, I rely as much as possible on the advice of them that are, if a LAME tells me this should be done, then do it.

What seems to creep into anything to do with regulations per say, is compliance at the end of the day relies on the "Expert" opinion of CAsA, FOI's for operation, AWI for maintenance among whom there seems to be the same level of confusion and differing opinions.

From my experience in the USA, outwardly anyway, aircraft generally appear far better maintained than here.
I guess there are sh.t boxes there the same as here, but by and large they are few and far between, on the surface anyway.

Statistically there doesn't seem to be problems with maintenance in the US, and for sure there isn't the same level of confusion over what to do and when to do it.

It is also patently clear that maintenance costs in the USA are vastly less expensive than Australia.

A few pointed questions across the Tasman seems to indicate that our Kiwi brethren don't seem to have the same problems or costs that we do either.

Their reg's are in plain English and everyone seems to "Get" what they mean.

I often wonder how much the costs of committing aviation in Australia would reduce if we were to adopt similar Reg's as the country where most of our aircraft are built.

Would our aircraft end up better maintained or worse?

Would aviation be more safe or less safe?


Would we be having the same discussions on this website?

So let us consider this.
The manufacture has no control of the aircraft once it leaves it's hangars and flys anywhere in the world.
He also knows nothing about his product at all and places extra requirements ie servicing just because he feels that way. Next an accident occurs and what happen. The lawyers get involed and sue the manufacture. Hence we end up over regulated and controlled by low life nutters

I agree that if maintenance is required, by law, to be done, it must be done to comply with the law. And if it must be done, the person doing it must do it properly, to comply with the law.

That's obvious.

But that's not my point.

My point is that the law in Australia should not require periodic removal, cleaning and replacement of piston engine injectors, because the data show that:

IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

IT'S COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

Hard data from the single biggest piston GA fleet on the planet demonstrate that the manufacturers' periodicity for this item was an arsepluck and caused more problems than it cured.

There are many other examples.

Not opinion. Hard data.

This is nothing new. The Waddington Effect is well known.

You show me some dirty solvent after cleaning an injector, I'll show you a pilot with CVD who can't pass a colour vision test.

Both very scary. Both completely irrelevant to safety.

It's regulation by gut feeling rather than science. Old Wive's Tales rather than data.

If the combined technical wisdom in Australia considers periodic removal, cleaning and replacement of piston engine injectors is still necessary, that would go a long way to explaining the thousands of pages of regulations dictating every facet of anything to do with aviation in Australia, for no substantially different safety outcome than is achieved in the US.

(It's not important to this discussion, but I note that GAMIjectors come in both NA and Turbo versions, as do CMI and Lycoming injectors.)

Walter has forgotten more about aircraft piston engines than you'll ever know. The quoted text explains why.

Walter safely flew an aircraft with a piston engine with a cylinder that measured 0/80 on the static check. He did it deliberately (and with an SFP) to prove a point. The point is completely lost on you, because what little you know has been rote-learned.

For you: 0/80 = engine broken. But it flew safely and the data captured on the engine monitor showed the engine was operating normally. For you: "Injector must be cleaned". But many engines have been flown to TBO without periodic injector cleaning, and the data captured on the engine monitors show the engines were operating normally throughout.

Undetered by those facts, you stubbornly stick to your rote-learned folklore because you know yr right.

As I said. How can you show on an engine monitor that the injector nozzle is blocked at the air inlet ?????

Walter is not an engineer. Walter is a PILOT. Walter may be a good pilot that dose not make him an engineer. He may know about engine but dose not make him an expert.

He proved this by running an engine with 0/80.

Dose lycoming or tcm or casa as eng 4 allow this. I'll answer it. NO it dosent. But he is an expert. So where dose it say that casa demands that nozzles in this case be removed and cleaned at 200 odd hours.

What is quite clear is you really don't know much but are just a sheep and are happy to follow what's been told to you.

If you won't to point the finger how about your industry that changes excessive rates for postage or photo copying or my favorite to be thinking about you when he is on the sh$ter.

The difference we generally do this job for love and most of us have a conchion. Plus when we f up we kill people. The likes of your self as an instant expert on all things engineering is quite sicking.

But hey you obviously know more about engineering than I do even though this is all I've done for the last 34 years Maybe you should become a lame then you can do all your own maintence.

Just out of a matter of interest how many of you out there have had a problem in flight that was cause due to a maintence mistake

Me. In a fully laden PA31, in Central NSW, in summer.

Further more ALL maintence is done IAW. That's it. IAW. This means we done it all with approved data that is supplied. Not data someone has done on a personal matter and not supposed it for evaluation. Drs or sicentis don't post there findings till it passed others that can replicate there findings.

These are the same people that said that American Airlines double there O/H on engines from the airforce. Once again I showed how the airforce hours for o/h was around 300 hours. Then I was called dangerous. Also data that not approved is not data. It cannot be used. If it was STC then approved then it's ok if it's not from the manufacture.

And your classic that it causes more problems than it fixes. Data. Where is your data to prove that.

Rats do tell or pm me please with details.

No need for a PM. Someone didn't do a magneto pack up properly AND left the ring spanner on top of the engine for good measure.

I now carry a small mirror on a stick for preflight inspections.

Nasty no excuses for that !!!!

The majority of in-flight problems I've had were caused by maintenance mistakes, usually manifesting themselves during the flight immediately after the 100 hourly/annual.

Engine probes left disconnected ... tools left in the engine compartment and under the cabin carpet ... access panel missing ... spongy brakes ... circuit breakers pulled (my mistake to miss it on pre-flight, but the aircraft shouldn't leave the hangar that way) ... magneto 2 degrees too far advanced ...

I could go on.

It's what happens when humans fiddle with complicated machinery.

That's why I dread the post-annual test flight.

And of course with the advent of engine monitors and pilot education on proper engine management, pilots started to notice how many injectors ended up partially clogged as a consequence of "cleaning".Yes, and while you and your ilk were wailing and gnashing your teeth and consulting the holy maintenance manual and making sacrifices to the cylinder god, the engine was run and flown normally, with engine monitor data to show the engine was running normally on all cylinders. Folklore v facts.It's not hard, but it does require an objective mind and a willingess and capacity to learn, by reference to the laws of physics and hard data.