Maintenance
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the airframe that includes removing all the inspection panels, interior trim etc and refitting it after. Jacking the aircraft up (and lowering it after), removing all the wheels, regreasing wheel bearings, battery, instruments, filters etc etc. And you can't inspect anything until it's clean.
Hi all
Several points: I've had millionaire owners begrudge me my very cheap rate for Permit renewal, until I invite them to take it to a JAR-145 outfit.....I'm not keen on owners mucking in unless I know them personally and know that they are competent with a spanner.I'd like to see an owner go down to his local VW/Audi/whatever main dealer (or his dentist or his solicitor or the farmer who raised his dinner...) and tell the mech that they're mucking in with them to save costs....there's two sides to the paperwork equation;I've had the aircraft's books handed to me in a plastic bag, completely out-of-date, check pages not filled in,etc....I've had owners carry out mods and only find out after the fact (quote: oh, yeah, I changed the prop.Guess I forgot to tell you.Sorry...)....some owners have a grossly unrealistic expectation of how long it can take.It's quite common for even minor tasks to eat up time,such as undoing and replacing screws and the like corroded into place because neglectful owners don't keep an eye on their aircraft!) and especially paperwork snags.Also, when the paperwork wends it's way to the authorities,it's out of my hands and phoning the Feds to try and speed things up only irritates them!
There's more to it than just spanner-turning!
regards
TDD
Several points: I've had millionaire owners begrudge me my very cheap rate for Permit renewal, until I invite them to take it to a JAR-145 outfit.....I'm not keen on owners mucking in unless I know them personally and know that they are competent with a spanner.I'd like to see an owner go down to his local VW/Audi/whatever main dealer (or his dentist or his solicitor or the farmer who raised his dinner...) and tell the mech that they're mucking in with them to save costs....there's two sides to the paperwork equation;I've had the aircraft's books handed to me in a plastic bag, completely out-of-date, check pages not filled in,etc....I've had owners carry out mods and only find out after the fact (quote: oh, yeah, I changed the prop.Guess I forgot to tell you.Sorry...)....some owners have a grossly unrealistic expectation of how long it can take.It's quite common for even minor tasks to eat up time,such as undoing and replacing screws and the like corroded into place because neglectful owners don't keep an eye on their aircraft!) and especially paperwork snags.Also, when the paperwork wends it's way to the authorities,it's out of my hands and phoning the Feds to try and speed things up only irritates them!
There's more to it than just spanner-turning!
regards
TDD
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said TDD
Those of us in GA engineering see so many A/C that only come in for annuals as they don't want the expense of trusting their 50's / 150's to a 145 organisation, how wrong could they be? most of the exorbitant annual cost is going over and re-doing SB's / AD's and routine maintenance that may well have been carried out but has never been recorded in the A/C's history so as a certifying engineer you have to re-do the task to satisfy yourself that it has been done.
I'm all for customer participation but only on a verbal basis, i.e. keep the customer informed of any problems as soon as they arise and invite them in to take a look if they want and you soon build up a relationship of trust, but never would I let a customer work on his own A/C during a check. What he does to the A/C when he takes it away is his business, I have no control over that.
IO540
I agree your 50 hr inspection is little more than a preflight if done on the N reg, it is however a fair bit more involved on the G reg under LAMS. As an aside your friendly A+P is not doing you any favours if he lets you run the engine without cowlings for a leak check. Most manufactuters including Socata state run engine with cowling in place at 1200 rpm for proper cooling for two minutes then remove top cowling and check for leaks. Any ground run without cowlings can only be doing damage to your engine. Just a bit of friendly advise.
JB
Those of us in GA engineering see so many A/C that only come in for annuals as they don't want the expense of trusting their 50's / 150's to a 145 organisation, how wrong could they be? most of the exorbitant annual cost is going over and re-doing SB's / AD's and routine maintenance that may well have been carried out but has never been recorded in the A/C's history so as a certifying engineer you have to re-do the task to satisfy yourself that it has been done.
I'm all for customer participation but only on a verbal basis, i.e. keep the customer informed of any problems as soon as they arise and invite them in to take a look if they want and you soon build up a relationship of trust, but never would I let a customer work on his own A/C during a check. What he does to the A/C when he takes it away is his business, I have no control over that.
IO540
I agree your 50 hr inspection is little more than a preflight if done on the N reg, it is however a fair bit more involved on the G reg under LAMS. As an aside your friendly A+P is not doing you any favours if he lets you run the engine without cowlings for a leak check. Most manufactuters including Socata state run engine with cowling in place at 1200 rpm for proper cooling for two minutes then remove top cowling and check for leaks. Any ground run without cowlings can only be doing damage to your engine. Just a bit of friendly advise.
JB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jeppsbore
I do the 50hr check exactly as per Socata maintenance manual. Every item is ticked off.
I know some people disagree but think of this:
a) the FAA oversees about 10x more GA planes than the rest of the known universe, and there is no evidence of problems they have which the CAA fleet doesn't, and
b) The manufacturer is better placed to decide what should be done, rather than some generalised CAA checklist which will, at best, be generalised.
One can argue with this but it soon resembles the argument that all convicted child molesters should be executed upon conviction, on the grounds that one cannot take any risk.
Statistically, the % of incidents attributable to lack of maintenance is very low. The % of incidents attributable to defective maintenance is also very low, but these numbers are probably comparable in the order of magnitude. I know this sounds cynical but if you take your G-reg in for an Annual after every 10hrs airborne time, you are probably increasing your chances of it plummeting compared to it seeing the JAR145 firm only once a year - simply because the chance of somebody messing it up is greater.
Not to mention the very obvious fact (obvious to any owner who started off with something new) that most damage to an aircraft is done during maintenance. Screws chewed up, threads damaged, cowlings cracked, bits of composites chipped off, windows scratched, etc. Apart from stone chips on the prop, every piece of damage I see was done during maintenance.
There is no problem doing a short run with cowlings off. I have an EDM700 which monitors CHTs and EGTs for all 6 pots. No point in removing top cowling only; most leaks will be on the bottom. Lyco's recommendations are all based on a near total lack of engine instrumentation, which is quite reasonable.
I do the 50hr check exactly as per Socata maintenance manual. Every item is ticked off.
I know some people disagree but think of this:
a) the FAA oversees about 10x more GA planes than the rest of the known universe, and there is no evidence of problems they have which the CAA fleet doesn't, and
b) The manufacturer is better placed to decide what should be done, rather than some generalised CAA checklist which will, at best, be generalised.
One can argue with this but it soon resembles the argument that all convicted child molesters should be executed upon conviction, on the grounds that one cannot take any risk.
Statistically, the % of incidents attributable to lack of maintenance is very low. The % of incidents attributable to defective maintenance is also very low, but these numbers are probably comparable in the order of magnitude. I know this sounds cynical but if you take your G-reg in for an Annual after every 10hrs airborne time, you are probably increasing your chances of it plummeting compared to it seeing the JAR145 firm only once a year - simply because the chance of somebody messing it up is greater.
Not to mention the very obvious fact (obvious to any owner who started off with something new) that most damage to an aircraft is done during maintenance. Screws chewed up, threads damaged, cowlings cracked, bits of composites chipped off, windows scratched, etc. Apart from stone chips on the prop, every piece of damage I see was done during maintenance.
There is no problem doing a short run with cowlings off. I have an EDM700 which monitors CHTs and EGTs for all 6 pots. No point in removing top cowling only; most leaks will be on the bottom. Lyco's recommendations are all based on a near total lack of engine instrumentation, which is quite reasonable.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having owned around 10 aeroplanes thus far, half PFA, half CAA, the majority of horrors have come from M3 establishments.
That said, I know of many establishments who are thoroughly diligent and offer superb customer service so this is not a knocking post.
Worst offenders - maintenance organisations attached to flying clubs - keep them flying, spend nowt !
I've had machine screws replaced with self tappers, a fabric repair signed into the logbook as satis - it was silver gaffer tape, sewn on. An inverted valve seized solid - the aeroplane had just been given a new C of A and flight tested !
On the PFA side, I had one aeroplane with a fresh permit, after the delivery flight I noticed a bit of oil and a nasty exhaust smell - the manifold on No3 was cracked 40% round and there were 4 serious oil leaks.
I have been fortunate to work with a very good engineer for the last few years, we have a good relationship, I work, he checks and signs and I pay for his time. Not everyone is able or willing to do this but it certainly works well for some.
Get a recommendation, visit the premises, talk to the mechanics and the engineer - don't forget, there are probably only 1 or 2 guys who sign the stuff off, the rest are paid mechanics with varying amounts of experience.
If you are not happy, write and document everything and don't be afraid to consult the CAA if you don't get a reasonable result.
That said, I know of many establishments who are thoroughly diligent and offer superb customer service so this is not a knocking post.
Worst offenders - maintenance organisations attached to flying clubs - keep them flying, spend nowt !
I've had machine screws replaced with self tappers, a fabric repair signed into the logbook as satis - it was silver gaffer tape, sewn on. An inverted valve seized solid - the aeroplane had just been given a new C of A and flight tested !
On the PFA side, I had one aeroplane with a fresh permit, after the delivery flight I noticed a bit of oil and a nasty exhaust smell - the manifold on No3 was cracked 40% round and there were 4 serious oil leaks.
I have been fortunate to work with a very good engineer for the last few years, we have a good relationship, I work, he checks and signs and I pay for his time. Not everyone is able or willing to do this but it certainly works well for some.
Get a recommendation, visit the premises, talk to the mechanics and the engineer - don't forget, there are probably only 1 or 2 guys who sign the stuff off, the rest are paid mechanics with varying amounts of experience.
If you are not happy, write and document everything and don't be afraid to consult the CAA if you don't get a reasonable result.
Hello again,
One problem is that the flow of GA engineers is drying up because the pay and conditions are often miserable and not worth the effort of going thru all the exams and training.The JAA exams aren't making it any easier.Mechs prefer to work for the airlines because the pay's a lot better, conditions are cleaner and you don't have to argue with the owner and you get training courses from time to time! In fact, many mechs are leaving aviation to work in other trades and I know a few that have become pilots.It's better to be clean and indoors up the front than lying under a Cessna, not to mention the much higher level of respect accorded pilots.GA has to improve T and Cs to retain the existing people, not to mind tomorrow's generation.
regards
TDD
One problem is that the flow of GA engineers is drying up because the pay and conditions are often miserable and not worth the effort of going thru all the exams and training.The JAA exams aren't making it any easier.Mechs prefer to work for the airlines because the pay's a lot better, conditions are cleaner and you don't have to argue with the owner and you get training courses from time to time! In fact, many mechs are leaving aviation to work in other trades and I know a few that have become pilots.It's better to be clean and indoors up the front than lying under a Cessna, not to mention the much higher level of respect accorded pilots.GA has to improve T and Cs to retain the existing people, not to mind tomorrow's generation.
regards
TDD
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working practices re-think
Following the comments from Smarthawk I have had a look at the way I do the maintenance on my fleet, the aircraft do spend about 3.5 days in the hangar to compleat the LAMS annual but as I don't have to allocate the time to a customer I had not been looking at the items already prepaired to enable the minimum of time out of service.
I have a number of parts such as spark plugs, airfliters, brake pads and mainwheels that are ready serviced and so these are just a "part swop" at the time of the check. this cuts the aircraft down time but of course the work on the removed parts is being carried out while the aircraft are in service, the bottom line is that these parts along with the paperwork take about another 1.5 man days to re-work.
I don't think that my manhour estimate is to far adrift from that of smarthawk but one advantage that I have is that I dont have to work around other people in the hangar.
I have a number of parts such as spark plugs, airfliters, brake pads and mainwheels that are ready serviced and so these are just a "part swop" at the time of the check. this cuts the aircraft down time but of course the work on the removed parts is being carried out while the aircraft are in service, the bottom line is that these parts along with the paperwork take about another 1.5 man days to re-work.
I don't think that my manhour estimate is to far adrift from that of smarthawk but one advantage that I have is that I dont have to work around other people in the hangar.
