Where do I get that job ? Start at 6am and finish when the work is finished. Saturdays and Sundays. Yes I take breaks during the day .... after all I am human.

Working in a workshop with people all doing the same. No I don't drink coffee all day because it makes me sick.

I get paid well for my job and average about 9 hours a day. If you wimps want to complain about my work I invite you to come work with me during wet season.

As for SIDs this could have be a good thread, but was derailed by some peoples hate of LAMES. :ugh:

LFA,
The choice to own an aircraft is yours only (and possibly the bank) so becomes your problem.
They are no more expensive, if you can afford it, than beautiful women or German sports cars. I guess a lot cheaper; I am sure there are posters here who can vouch for that fact after their divorce.
The LAME bashing here is pointless as the average charge of the LAME is a LOT LESS than the German car mechanic. There are the good, bad, and average in all areas.
I am still, after 50 years, passionate about this industry, as are most pilots and engineers of my vintage. Our biggest concern is the dumbing down in all areas and the people coming through now who view it as just a job.
18 months now from whoa to go to become a LAME and for a pilot 200h to be in the RH seat of a airliner. In both cases a knowledge of procedures is emphasised more than a thorough understanding of the systems and their interactions with each other; one module done and passed so forget all and move onto the next one.
I have tried to explain to some how things really work and why; the stock answer is "I know" and the eyes glaze over. At that point I walk away and show no further interest in them. Sad!

Its quite funny all those that say they know me but actually don't. I actually get on very well with owners operators etc. Its just the odd few that rock my boat. I always look for the best outcome in all the work I do and the team around me.
And as for working im wondering how many of you miss xmas or new years day working in the heat of summer protecting others community houses lives or weekends to be on call but not get paid for it. How about ringing your local plumber or electrician to come out after hours. Yep they do that for free. And don't forget when your on a trip and you have a dead mag and go to the hangar and expect everyone to drop what they doing and give you 100 precent because your just the most important person in the world.


And then don't forget that we know nothing and you all know it all. Fact is most pilots what they know about maintenance can be written on a head of a pin with a felt tip marker.


This is what we do week in week out. Every wonder why there arnt many Lames on here.
Fact is Lames are a dying breed. Money is not the best for the legal responsibility that we hold. When a Dr makes a mistake he takes one out at a time, we take multiply. And if its so easy why don't you do it,
But bus drivers like leadsled that know it all but actually don't that tell you that you are not issuing a M/R right but never have issued one in their life and tell you doing it wrong and you don't know what your doing but never have signed for anything either, typical of the breed.


Its easy to be brave when you don't have to sign for it

PS: Speaking of law, I will give you a tip, it can be very expensive publishing the statement that somebody is a liar


Read what I wrote leadsled I think the radiation at altitude has diminished some of what left of your grey matter.
I said I don't suffer fools liars etc if you read that into yourself then feel free but that is not what I wrote.


And those that would not me work on a wheel barrow or your aircraft that's fine no problem. Please PM me with your name and aircraft rego so if you do have a break down ill know not to come out and get you going again.


And BTW frank over 35 years full time work on aircraft and that dose not count of a full life time in and around the industry.

yr right/wrong,

It's amazing how your writing goes from indecipherable gibberish to mostly legible, when it suits you...

Yr-right,
If I owned an aeroplane, I'd let you work on it, as you seem to be a conscientious bloke that would produce a positive outcome for my aeroplane.

But there is no way in hell I would permit YOU to put pen to paper on its logs!!

I know we are only on an internet forum, however at least trying to type up something that makes sense is just as important to making your point, as it is to entering information on an aeroplanes logs.

__________________________

I took the time recently, in light of this discussion to view the invoices of a few friends, and I almost fell over.

The worst was......
100 hourly inspection to VH-XXX.... $XXXX.XX

They didn't improve much from there.

The hourly rate paid to LAME's is just a joke! Any wonder it cannot retain people...the smash repair industry is not much better.

The smarter LAME's are issuing invoices that show actual time on the aeroplane, and as a seperate line, the time spent doing the administrative tasks associated with that work.

The owners getting the dual line invoices are surprised, as the cost of paperwork is often half the bill.

How many owners on here are paying $100 per hour or more for maintenance?

As propstop says, most are happier to pay more for their porsche than they are for their 50 year old cessna.

To the several LAME's who may have taken offense at my previous comments, I hold your trade in the highest regard. Personally I have no real complaints about any of the work I have received, or any of any of the bills relating to the said work that I have paid, and that is all of them.

Back to the subject of SIDS, whether they are mandatory in other countries or not, my observation is that they are required. Seemingly good looking Cessnas, when thoroughly inspected are nothing more than a heap of corroded metal gathered together by rivets and paint. Cessna, in this instance know what they are talking about.

I feel for some Cessna owners, their pride and joy has had its value reduced to nothing more than the second hand value of the viable parts. Looking through the Aviation Trader, I see Cessna aircraft with SIDS completed are for sale at around the value they they sold for prior to the term being coined. I also see Cessna aircraft being advertised with the rather dubious "SIDS compliant" label, which suggests to me that the owner is of the opinion that the aircraft will pass these inspections. I also see bargain basement prices for aircraft that would have fetched double or even triple the asking price a few years ago, that may or may not pass a through SIDS program.

Very little lasts forever, certainly not Cessna aircraft. Certainly I am glad I sold mine some time before SIDS were invented and purchased a machine built this century, but even it has had corrosion and age issues.

Buy a pre SIDS Cessna at your peril. A post SIDS Cessna may last another couple of decades or so if the work was done correctly and the aircraft is hangared.

The problem with the mandatory SIDS (and other blanket rulings from the regulator) is that a few of the old Cessna's were rebuilt, maybe 5-10 years ago, due to the regular inspections finding problems or simply as a restoration project. Now these owners or subsequent owners are told they have to have a full inspection despite knowing that the whole aircraft was stripped and rebuilt not that long ago. Yes it will pass the inspection with flying colours but it is another cost imposed upon a conscientious person who looks after their aircraft.

I agree, and the biggest problem with anything mandatory is that it caters only to the lowest common denominator. I really do feel for some Cessna owners and I know of a few exactly as described by Dexta.

But what to do? Personally I am totally in favour of giving the LAME much more scope in what he/she does. Mandatory stuff makes me want to rebel ;-)

Yr wrong,
I did note what you wrote, here maybe the the problem is that you can't read and understand what you wrote. Context is everything.
Tootle pip!!

Quit the bickering or the thread gets locked. :ugh:

really you guys, I'm going back to Aunty!

Laws, unfortunately are always made for the lowest common denominator.
From what I've seen of a few GA aircraft that I've been involved with during SIDS inspections, there are some pretty bad aircraft out there.A similar age motor vehicle would have been totally rebuilt or scrapped long ago.

How CASA can ensure these aircraft are rebuilt or scrapped without impacting on the good ones is a difficult subject. If you talk to truckies in NSW at least, they will tell horror stories of RMA and Police inspections on their perfectly "serviceable" vehicles. Unfortunately major defects and loading problems still regularly turn up even in that almost strict regime.

How to handle SIDS in Australia in a "fair" way seems to me to be an impossible task . Denigrating the LAMEs who have to make the decisions on what needs to be done within an almost impossible regulatory system achieves nothing but show that the poster doesn't remotely understand either the legal or practical area that LAMEs work under daily for a wage well under that of the equivalent motor tradesman.

Ultimately there will be no LAMEs. Who would come into an industry that chronically underpays for work done (including the paperwork) and exposes the LAME to massive potential legal liabilities. My recommendation when asked is to avoid the job and go somewhere else that pays well and isn't so full of legal traps.

Wunwing

I have been reading this thread with quite a bit of interest.

Here in New Zealand, the SID's program is also mandatory. What I am hearing around the campfire is that these inspections are turning up some serious issues with some otherwise well maintained aircraft. I have seen a few pictures of defects that would have caused serious accidents if they were left much longer. I can think of at least two very nice looking Cessna's in which wheet-bix looking wing ribs were replaced due to a SID's inspection.

As to the argument between some of the pilots and engineers on here, if a pilot makes a mistake, they generally pay the consequences immediately. By comparison, an engineer's oops may lay dormant for years before causing an accident. I have to sign an aircraft is airworthy and I have no idea what you are going to do with it once it leaves my hangar. Imagine going to jail because of a mistake you made on a job you did 20 years ago! It has happened.

LAME's take their jobs seriously and I have never met one who intentionally does a bad job. Having said that, there are good ones and some not so good.... just like pilots I guess.

You might have figured out that I am a LAME..... And a (private) pilot..... And an aircraft owner. This SID's program is not one that we have asked for, so can we please accept that it is here, we all have to make the best of it we can, and get on with it? Peacefully??

Looigi,
By the sound of it, the NZ experience is much the same as here.

Even before the SIDs were published, based on experience. I decided that, if I ever bought another 100 series Cessna, I would only buy one with completely rebuilt wings. This came about as a result of an association with a program to completely rebuild C-152 to "better than new" standards, part of the "better" being effective corrosion proofing during re-assembly.

Nothing I have seen since has suggested that was an excessively cautious decision. Some C 402 have varied from ugly to scary. None, nil, naught have been "good".

One thing I like about my activities in NZ (and US/CA) is the almost complete absence of the kind of rancor that so infests aviation in Australia, with various AU groups for ever at each other's throats, handing an already pre-divided sector to the "regulators" to conquer with minimum effort.

This is evident throughout the Australian based threads/posts on pprune, and most other Australian aviation related blog sites.

With the exception of your CAA doctors (the head honcho being Australian), even NZ CAA is a relative pleasure to do business with, compared to CASA here, CAA NZ being a "can do" outfit, versus CASA "can't do".

Is is so surprising that so many other countries have followed the NZ approach to aviation legislation in their own reform programs, it works.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Sorry about the slight thread drift, folks.

The amount of work that the s required just to do the inspectors is in believeable. A lot of SIDS is also referenced SBs etc which a lot of you do not wish to do. So you have to find out what has been done. What needs to be done.
A 310 for example take nearly 3 days of work in just looking and doing research into the log book. That's before you have even lifted a panel. So that takes one person 24 hours that needs to be paid for. So are you saying that it should be free ? It gets worse if it a 400. Even 100 and 200 series aircraft take a considerable amount of time. Then you have to have a guy if required to do eddy current insp that on a 310 for example going to cost upwards of $3000 and the cost continues. I and a lot of us find some of these insp a waste and it's clear that what the reasoning is behind it is. How ever it's not a pick and choose. It's also clear that it's picking up a lot of SBs etc that have not been complied with. Dose it make it safer. Yes and no.

NZ Advantage
 

The SIDS experience in NZ has been better managed because of a couple of significant differences. NZ does not have CASA Schedule 5 and the ARA process addressed many aircraft poor records and compliance matters with modifications and repairs many years ago. There are other advantages like the 337 system but all of what has been implemented in NZ could be implemented in Australia. Except it won't work if it's Australianised like other regulatory reform.

Have a look at some of the photographs on the following and then say SIDs is a waste of money.

CASA Airworthiness Bulletin

You should have seen the cracks in the elevator torque tubes of the C172 I flew. What a mess after deskinning.

IMHO those photos prove nothing.

You shouldn't need a SIDS programme to find those issues. Some of the examples in that bulletin are examples of gross negligence or incompetence. They were certainly did not come about through proper maintenance.

If the relevant manufacturers inspections had been carried out by a competent person most of the those examples would have been found without a SIDS programme. For those items that may not be picked up on an inspection checklist, my experience has been that any engineer worth his salt will know from experience to look for these issues as well.

This ^^^^^. :D

The scary part is this is just the Cessnas I've seen similar with Chieftains

One of the things that attracted me to the Twin Commander was the inspections. Because of past wing spar problems things like what was illustrated would get picked up early

I'll bet Pipers will get a SID too

I agree that some of the photos on the CASA doc show items that should have been picked up on regular inspections but some of those and the bad ones that I've seen would never have been picked up without at least partial de-skinning.

Until SIDS I'm not sure that an owner would agree to any LAME proposal to remove the skin just because there may be a problem underneath.

Wunwing

Omg. These are just a few pics. Some examples of what is out there to be found.
You don't wish to do SBs or manufacturers insp you wish to do Schedule 5. Yet you expect that everything is looked at. Well it can't. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. Oh I'll just de rivet this wing to have a look. Oh and we won't charge you as well because you expect that as well.
Point is if these were old cars they be off the road

In most countries the regs normally spell out the owner's obligations regards the maintenance.
It is normally the owner that is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is maintained in the correct manner. My experience has always been that the LAME or A&P desires a greater depth that many owners are prepared to accept.
There would appear to have been many owners/operators that wanted Sched 5, AC43 App C, or similar minimal levels that are perceived to cost the least.

The SID's has highlighted the aging aircraft philosophy for many and all the Pipers I currently work on are maintained to the manufacturer's schedule with the SAIB's and SB's being used for the preventative tasks.

Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Corrosion SAIB | AMT Community


https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/SAIB/

Here is the listing for a 140..
PA-28-140
CE-11-14 01/05/2011 Stabilizers- Vertical Stabilizer on Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Attach Point Corrosion
CE-11-13 01/05/2011 Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Spar Corrosion
CE-10-17 02/23/2010 Landing Gear - Piper PA-28 and PA-32 Main Landing Gear Torque Link Inspection Interval
CE-11-42 06/29/2011 Flight Controls: Control Cable/Pulley Inspections
CE-11-10 01/05/2011 Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Corrosion on Flap Hinges, Brackets, and Ribs
CE-09-23 04/07/2009 Fuel: Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34
CE-09-17 03/10/2009 Fuel: Piper PA-28 Series Aircraft Fuel Vent and Supply Hose Condition
CE-11-01 10/04/2010 Stabilizers -Horizontal Stabilator – Turnbuckle
CE-11-11 01/05/2011 Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, and PA-34 Aileron Hinge Fitting Corrosion
CE-11-12 01/05/2011 PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Rear Spar Corrosion at Fuselage Attach Fitting
CE-13-26 03/27/2013 Engine Air Intake System; Air Box Vanes
CE-14-22 07/10/2014 Fuel Selector/Shut-Off Valve
CE-14-23 08/06/2014 Powerplant; Air Intake

Again, I think all the owners would subscribe to the free notification and publication service offered by both the FAA and Piper.

Those guys, at least, have been proactive and should have an inkling of any plans Piper may have for the future re-write of any schedules.

The beauty of many of those inspections is that a regular spray of Inox or similar would go a long way to big savings later on down the track.

Surely there can't be many owners about that are just ignoring this basic stuff.

the core of the problem isn't the corrosion, the cracks or the deterioration.

the question is why owners want to persist with old aeroplanes?
the answers are easy to see if you look.

design standards, those things that are so poorly understood, haven't been maintained by engineers for years. they have been adulterated by clerical arse coverers for years to the point that they are near on meaningless.
why weren't corrosion issues addressed at the design phase?
why were companies allowed to design for a throw away 12 year nominal life?
couldn't anyone see the current issues developing?

litigation, the great contribution made by lawyers, :yuk: has seen what were cheaply produced aeroplanes so loaded up with insurance costs that they became inordinately expensive investments.

amortisation against income tax has not been available to owners for as long as I can remember.
only businesses can amortise and write off the value of an investment against the income it generates. so while businesses can dispose of a zero residual value item and replace it with a new one to be written off over time the poor old private owner is stuck with an inordinately expensive item that stays at its purchase price.

certification has at its core a huge logic fault.
if I buy a car and I prang it that is my problem. the manufacturer has no real issues once the guarantee period has expired.
I'm free to drive and maintain that car as I wish within roadworthiness guidelines. if I prang the car the manufacturer isn't hauled in front of a court and made to pay huge penalties. outside of the warranty period we have effectively gone our separate ways.
as a result of this and other factors cars are cheaper than aeroplanes.

why in hell does the legal system pursue aircraft manufacturers to the point that none are even commercially viable now?
why is it that CAsA were sued 10 million for the crash of the restored warbird when it suffered a cracked jet pipe?
CAsA had nothing to do with the aircraft manufacture, nothing to do with the aircraft restoration, nothing to do with the maintenance. so why was it liable?
why it was liable is a legal pox that needs to be corrected.

all of these factors conspire to make aviation a hopeless industry.

issues with LAME's, commercial viability, crappy old aeroplanes are all just symptoms of an environment that hasn't been healthy and hasn't worked well in decades.
since you've micromanaged it into a death, thanks for nothing CAsA.