Maintenance at Elstree - Beware
 

Very disturbing stuff been going on with the maintenance of our aeroplane.

It's being put right at significant expense elsewhere.

Would advise PM'ing me for information before taking your aircraft there.

J.

Very good......................you have made all the maintenance company's as Elstree "suspect" of malpractice even those who have never seen your aircraft.

Have the guts to say what you mean and don't blacken the reputation of those who have done you no harm.

Julian

I wish you luck with the libel suit

There is only one unless you include CABAIR and it's NOT them . . .

Our aircraft (a pretty tidy Diamond Katana) has been maintained by these guys for the last five years and after having had some doubts about the way in which it was being maintained, decided instead to take it to Diamond Aircraft at Gamston for its annual.

As it turns out, out we were right to have concerns.

Diamond have identified that NO AD's or SB's have been complied with in the last five years, lifed items were not being replaced (for example the rudder cables were four years overdue for replacement), when the engine was changed it was rewired illegally with automotive grade electrical connectors (like you would buy from Halfords) - and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have a multi page report from Diamond itemising just how negligent these guys appear to have been. It's pretty damning reading.

Essentially the aircraft has repeatedly been released to service in an un airworthy condition and flying illegally for over five years. One of the turn buckles on a rudder cable was really badly corroded. Reckon it might have been quite exciting had that snapped in flight.

Neither the manager nor the directors at at this company dispute what we claim. In fact, I telephoned one of the directors this evening and he offered me £2,000 'to go away quietly'. Not really enough when the bill for putting right their mess has come to over £12,000. He told me that they are on the brink of insolvency (yes I recorded the call) and that if I sue him for more and win, then it will push them under.

So if you have an aircraft, think carefully about where you maintain it!

Something is only libellous if it's untrue. I only wish that this WERE untrue.

In that case it will be interesting to see how the CAA deal with things. They are quick enough to jump on pilots when we screw up.

The CAA will do nothing. They would shut down much of UK maintenance if they took interest in this kind of stuff.

I attended a CAA Safety Evening some years ago at which one of the speakers was a CAA Surveyor. He talked about his work and how they found exactly the sort of things described by Julian. I stuck my hand up

"So you found aircraft that had Certificates of Release to Service that should not have been issued because the aircraft were not airworthy?"

"Yes, that's right."

"What action did you take against the persons who had signed the Certificates?"

"Airworthiness is the responsibility of the operator."

Sad but true.

Thats better !
 

At least you have cleared Cabair from responsability for your problems.

I would be carfull about the "it was rewired illegally with automotive grade electrical connectors (like you would buy from Halfords)".

This sounds like some one is spicing thing up a bit as it is some times very hard to tell the diffence between automotive and aviation hardware simply because it is the same thing with a very diffent price tag. Just one look at a Robin electrical system will illistrate the point.

I'm not an engineer and almost certainly couldn't tell the difference. I can only really go by what the guys at Diamond are telling me and I'm happy enough that THEY can tell the difference.

Diamond also found that the oil pump housing had been damaged and that "someone had gone mad with some sealant" to stop it leaking. (Remember that the guys at Elstree replaced the engine and nobody else has worked on the aircraft since).

So pretty much anything is possible . . .

Not again
 

I am going through exactly the same thing, different maintenance lot. IO540 spot on in that the CAA will do NOTHING.:ugh:

I had a conversation with senior at Gatwick last week, who hinted it is all my fault, the second time this has been insinuated.

Best of luck, if owners actually knew what was going on, and took an interest:pthen all hell would break loose. Problem appears that a lot of them are just glad to get the aircraft back in the air, at cheapest cost, illegal or not.

Dont think this is libel:confused:

Stating something which is true, is not libellous.

So let's get this straight - a less than honest organisation could claim and charge for,say, a zero-timing of your engine but not carry out the all of the work or use correct parts.

As an owner it is my fault if there are things wrong that appear later and it is down to me to sort out the court case.

Our regulator, who we pay for through taxation and various exorbitant charges, is not prepared to take action or help, but considers we have the responsibility, even though we are not qualified to do so.

Scandalous, and, I expect, would not stand up in court

Successful actions for libel have been brought where only the truth - or the claimant's version thereof - was stated. A lot depends on the reasons for publication and the extent to which the information was disseminated.

That said, if you feel that your facts are correct, I don't think you have much to fear from stating them, but your statement above as it stands is not bulletproof.

I think that the aviation community has a moral responsibility to protect its members from people like these guys, before they end up killing one of us.

I agree, but we are moving into the realm of subjective opinions, rather than facts.

Because there's a cool breeze off the sea and I'm sitting outside with no shirt on, I feel cold. That does not validate me stating : "It is f**king cold here today."

While the operator is responsible for the airworthiness of aircraft CAA is responsible for licencing engineers, so if they had the bottle they could revoke the licences.

Meantime if you have solid evidence of a trader persistently failing to meet obligations of fitness for purpose then to Trading Standards you should go.

Capetonian

I think that problems Julian Storey is complaining about are not subjective at all; either an AD has been observed, or it hasn't. Either specified maintenance has been carried out or it hasn't. Either lifed items have been replaced or they haven't. There is no grey area in the middle or room for alternative interpretations of a maintenance schedule.

This is not a case of someone arguing over whether the weather is hot, cold or normal as, in this instance, there is no qualitative measure of performance - the measure is quantitative.

I think that Julian Storey has done the right thing in going public on this; what is depressing is how unlikely it would seem that the CAA is to do anything about such dangerous practices.

So if an aircraft has been signed off “considered to be airworthy at the time of the review”, let's say 1 April, this need no longer be the case on 2 April when This may well be However, once I have been killed in a non-airworthy aircraft it will be a matter of extreme indifference to me whether the case stands up in court. :ugh:

If our regulator is not prepared to take action then maybe the time has come to restrict PPLs to aero engineers, fully qualified to sign off the ARC. ;)

Pianorak

Actually that is pretty much the case with the class 2 medical and also my MoT - only valid on the day. But my garage does give a warranty for the work it does on my car. I'm not sure if that is the case with the maintenance organisation. It's certainly not the case with my doctor!!

Might help by heeding newsanchors, if you're unsure of anything preceed it with 'allegedly' :E

Robin Yep - can't argue with that. :rolleyes:

As someone who had a more immediate midair failure after picking up the a/c
after a top overhaul on a Lycombing 180 - they had "forgotten" to fit the piston oil scraper rings. As said, CAA were apathetic and solicitors failed to get any satisfaction and cost me a fortune.....and it was also on Public Transport:ugh:

I don't think the CAA prosecute firms which pay them fees.

IO540 wins a cigar, methinks....

It's a bit like academia used to be where, if you made Professor at a university, the only way they could get rid of you was if you were guilty of "moral turpitude".

I actually have quite a bit of faith in the CAA (if not in EASA!) and genuinely suspect that they will do something.

They need to go in there and sort these guys out (or shut them down) before they kill someone.

I do sincere hope they do.
Cos this is bloody outrageous !

I find the "CAA never acts" storys a little hard to take I know of a number of companys that have had no end of trouble following "paperwork" issues (and one engine overhaul company that was shut down).

We must understand that mistakes do happen however missed AD's on the scale quoted above would seem to indicate the Subpart G company has missed a lot of things during the paperwork audit.

It would appear that Elstree is generaly a place to avoid, what with sudden runway closures, hostile A/g operators and dodgy maintemance outfits. Can't be long before the planning application goes in for "affordable housing".

Capetonian,

Don't know about your neck of the woods, but in the UK the truth is an absolute defence against defamation (both libel and slander) and trumps any circumstances.

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.

JS is one hundred percent correct - it is never defamatory to speak/write the truth. Just make sure you can prove it is true, in case they come at you with the heavy duty lawyer squad.

Hmmm. Unfortunately it's also the most convenient place to use for those of us "oop Norf" wishing to get into central London ...

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 ?

This also highlights when changing maintenance companies, the new company has to go through all the paperwork, and inspect the aircraft to verify the work has been done, and done correctly (at the owners expense). Is this not why Part M was introduced, or am I wrong?

Damyns Hall?

I've seen an annual done overnight at one place....at least the day before the aeroplane was parked on the grass and the next day it was parked in exactly the same position yet had an annual. Including radio annual I might add, which promptly failed just after take off.

My friend was pre-flighting his (company's) twin engined turbo prop before a flight just after maintenance. It had been taxied back by the maintenance company and during the walk round he found one of the cowl plugs in the back of the engine.......

I get really annoyed with idiot maintenance outfits. Our mags had a 500 hr service last year...all well and good, except that they should have had a major o/h according to the ARC. So more downtime while they are sent away for 3 weeks to be overhauled again at another £1300. 3 weeks later they fail (causing the aeroplane not to start). Our maintenance outfit took them apart and found a rusty spring inside causing the problem which they fixed.

There are some really good engineers out there, and some real cowboys. The one we use now come under the really good category - they know what they are doing, are happy to show and advise, you can wander around their facility, and they are always happy to help in any way. They are extremely experienced in all aspects of what they do and I am gobsmacked how they can manufacture panels and aerofoils from sheet metal and get it exactly right. The difference is that they take pride in their work and love doing it, unlike some others I could mention who just see pound signs.

but noting No case to answer?????

I think Damyns Hall is equally quick, if not quicker than Elstree with the option of the overland and the tube. It is however a shortish grass field, so might not be suitable for all aircraft. It's very friendly and cheap, though.

Denham. Quick train to Baker Street.

Oop North.

Stapleford? Tube 3 miles away?

The CAA are historically rubbish at enforcing anything company wise. They'll jump on individual pilots as quick as blink, but companies, no.

I once had reason to "discuss" with them a UK scheduled airline that ran a fleet of 5 aircraft none of which was fit to fly for fundamental maintenance-related reasons and had documentary evidence to prove it. They - or rather the Flight Ops Inspector involved denied that the CAA had any right to spring a surprise maintnance audit or to investigate the matter and nothig was done. A number of similar reports from others over the years has apparently had similar (non) effect.

Ther may well be issues of responsibility among the overseers of the company's CAA licences who would not wish it to become known that this had been going on undetected under their remit, causing questions to be asked about their efficiency in overseeing their charges...It could be that they just don't want questions asked about their own eficiency and it's easier to turn a blind eye and simply deny their existence, like the police often do with problem crime crime areas.

When my best mate first opened the village garage he worked to very high standards and charged less than most (and still does), consequently he took a lot of business away from a nearby competitor.
Said compeitor attempted to spread rumours that my buddy wasn't doing all the work and wasn't replacing parts he was charging for.

My mate responded by offering customers all the old parts he'd had to replace back when the job was done and, because all operational parts of the garage are filmed H24 for security purposes, anyone can sit down and watch the full screen version of their vehicle being attended to.
It works a treat and the offer still stands.

If every pilot/flying organisation insisted on having all old parts returned, it would make life pretty awkward for the cowboys out there.
Additionally, if every engineering organisation was legally obliged to maintain a computerised link to the regulatory authorities which records a comprehensive report of parts used, where they were sourced and the actual work done, as well as giving a copy to the customer, that should clean up the industry.

I know that would take some organising and there would be a cost, but if it stops Julian's experience reoccurring or something worse happening, it would be worth it.

and then all you would need is some jobsworth in the CAA to say that every part must have an EASA-1 form (which is not the case now, though many like to claim so) and the whole of GA grinds to a halt...

Our (group owned) aircraft was found (during the first inspection by our new maintenance company) to have laminar corrosion separating the top cap from the main spar a few years back and the extent of the corrosion was such that the aircraft had gone through approx. two years worth of Annuals, 50's, 150's and a CofA. It cost £12,000 to put right.

The photographs were shown to 3 x CAA Surveyors who all agreed (off the record, of course) that there were very good grounds for negligence on the part of the previous maintenance company.

But we were also told that, even if we did formally complain the chances were that no action would be taken as negligence would be very difficult if not impossible to prove.

What aircraft was it, 2Close?