Maintenance at Elstree - Beware

[A and C]

Nik-Nak

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

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

[mad_jock]

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

[jonwilson]

Maybe a good maintenance facility!

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

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

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

[rgsaero]

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

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

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

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

[julian_storey]

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

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

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

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

[jimjim1]

Libel

The Old Fat One (sorry but you said it mentioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[julian_storey]

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

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

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

[The Old Fat One]

jimjim1

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IO540]

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

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

One has to be very careful...

[The Old Fat One]

One has to be very careful...

Indeed.

One is reminded of the old adage.

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

[007helicopter]

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

And what exactly would that achieve?

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

[maxred]

The problem

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

[robin]

Let us know the outcome.

[AndoniP]

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

[IO540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[maxred]

Yep

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

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

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

[A and C]

The other side of the coin

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

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

[IO540]

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

[maxred]

The issue

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

[yakker]

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