Just learned my C is junk

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I’m pretty new to this IA thing. I’ve only done 5 annuals so far, 2 airplanes twice. The Mooney doesn’t need annuals anymore, but I still need to do AD searches. 
 

I keep 2 lists for each airplane. The AD list and the recurring AD list. They are in Excel files, so I keep the  files and give the owners the printouts. The first year takes a couple of hours to do the research and enter the info into the spreadsheet, but after that you just need to do the deltas and it doesn’t take long at all.

Exactly

What software do you use? I’ll likely be looking for some soon, the company used to pay for it, now I will.

Software I used to use kept it’s own files by tail number, Once you entered all of the components, it would search for AD’s each time you asked it to, and any old AD’s it kept the resolution of them, of course you could print them and I did and left a copy in the airplanes records. But once all the components were entered all you needed to do was to see what had been added or if any had been changed and update the serial numbers and add new components.

[chriscalandro]

This all coming from a person that believes nobody builds new GA airplanes and “all there is is all there will be”

 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

This all coming from a person that believes nobody builds new GA airplanes and “all there is is all there will be”

 

Well with Mooney that is likely true.  And if you look at the FAA Prelim Incident and Accident Report (ASIAS) Mooney's are grinding into the ground regularly every week.  There are 4 on the 10 day list - 2 gear up/collapse and 2 off field crash landings.  2 weeks ago there were 5 on the list.  And then there are the hangar queens just rotting away.  Most will be scrapped or just sit around and never fly again like the subject of this thread.  The pool is shrinking.  

And if you want to qualify it as "nobody builds new affordable GA airplanes" I think that is true.  The 70's are long gone. 

The FAA, in their latest Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040, predicts that the US fleet of fixed wing piston general aviation planes will drop from about 140,000 in 2020 to about 115,000 in 2040.  "The largest segment of the fleet, fixed wing piston aircraft, is predicted to shrink over the forecast period (2020-2040) by 26,365 aircraft (an average annual rate of -1.0 percent).

Edited July 3, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

‘So a prudent IA will research a new to them aircraft back today one, you for some reason refuse to understand that. 

I'm not sure you're actually reading our posts, but that's okay.

 

[1980Mooney]

15 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I’m pretty new to this IA thing. I’ve only done 5 annuals so far, 2 airplanes twice. The Mooney doesn’t need annuals anymore, but I still need to do AD searches. 

I am puzzled by your comment that "The Mooney doesn't need annuals anymore".  Can you elaborate?  I thought that every plane has to undergo an annual inspection in order to be legally airworthy.  Maybe I am missing your point.

Edited July 4, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I think Rich got a progressive, or phase, inspection plan approved for his Mooney.  

Doesn't a Progressive Inspection, over the course of a year, entail exactly the same level of inspection, the same depth, cover the same completeness and thoroughness as an Annual Inspection?  Isn't the Progressive just breaking the process up into several segments of shorter duration rather than occurring all at one time?  Therefore, everything "comprising" the airplane still needs and gets an "annual" inspection.

Edited July 4, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[chriscalandro]

19 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Well with Mooney that is likely true.  And if you look at the FAA Prelim Incident and Accident Report (ASIAS) Mooney's are grinding into the ground regularly every week.  There are 4 on the 10 day list - 2 gear up/collapse and 2 off field crash landings.  2 weeks ago there were 5 on the list.  And then there are the hangar queens just rotting away.  Most will be scrapped or just sit around and never fly again like the subject of this thread.  The pool is shrinking.  

And if you want to qualify it as "nobody builds new affordable GA airplanes" I think that is true.  The 70's are long gone. 

The FAA, in their latest Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040, predicts that the US fleet of fixed wing piston general aviation planes will drop from about 140,000 in 2020 to about 115,000 in 2040.  "The largest segment of the fleet, fixed wing piston aircraft, is predicted to shrink over the forecast period (2020-2040) by 26,365 aircraft (an average annual rate of -1.0 percent).

I quoted exactly what he said and it wasn’t about mooneys. He believes nobody is or will build GA airplanes, manufacturing has stopped, and “all there is is all there ever will be”

I agree with you about Mooney, but without a modern design and process it’s never going to be a competitive option. 
 

meal I’m saying is this A64 dude is a dingus and I’ve never seen him post anything that makes sense to anyone but himself. 

[carusoam]

Chris,

 

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help you.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help others.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help MS.

 

Three reasons you can save your effort…

You can always shoot him a PM.

Let’s see where @DaveL is at lately?

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I am puzzled by your comment that "The Mooney doesn't need annuals anymore".  Can you elaborate?  I thought that every plane has to undergo an annual inspection in order to be legally airworthy.  Maybe I am missing your point.

I have an Approved Inspection Program (progressive maintenance plan) for the airplane. I never have to do another annual as long as I own it. 
 

I split the inspections into three phases. Engine, Airframe and Landing gear. I can do each one in an afternoon instead of having the plane down for a week. Besides, it keeps my IA perpetually current without doing anything else. The FAA inspector suggested it. He said it is right there in the regs, but nobody ever does it.

[N201MKTurbo]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Doesn't a Progressive Inspection, over the course of a year, entail exactly the same level of inspection, the same depth, cover the same completeness and thoroughness as an Annual Inspection?  Isn't the Progressive just breaking the process up into several segments of shorter duration rather than occurring all at one time?  Therefore, everything "comprising" the airplane still needs and gets an "annual" inspection.

You are exactly correct.

It has more advantages for me than the airplane. Instead of doing 4 annuals a year to stay current, I do three 1/3 of an annual to stay current.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have an Approved Inspection Program (progressive maintenance plan) for the airplane. I never have to do another annual as long as I own it. 
 

I split the inspections into three phases. Engine, Airframe and Landing gear. I can do each one in an afternoon instead of having the plane down for a week. Besides, it keeps my IA perpetually current without doing anything else. The FAA inspector suggested it. He said it is right there in the regs, but nobody ever does it.

Now I’m not really good at mathematics, but 3 afternoons doesn’t equal one week of work, unless there’s a time warp in Arizona.

Clarence

[N201MKTurbo]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Now I’m not really good at mathematics, but 3 afternoons doesn’t equal one week of work, unless there’s a time warp in Arizona.

Clarence

It has to do with calendar time VS  available time.

[A64Pilot]

21 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Doesn't a Progressive Inspection, over the course of a year, entail exactly the same level of inspection, the same depth, cover the same completeness and thoroughness as an Annual Inspection?  Isn't the Progressive just breaking the process up into several segments of shorter duration rather than occurring all at one time?  Therefore, everything "comprising" the airplane still needs and gets an "annual" inspection.

A progressive is not considered an Annual, but in 12 Calender months it will encompass an annual.

They are normally on far more complex airplanes than single engine pistons, assumption is as they are normally way more work than an annual that’s why one progressive will suffice for four annuals or however many majors, but without looking I do remember one progressive, just never paint much attention as I have never and never expect to do one myself.

‘I had never heard of a single engine airplane with a progressive inspection program, only smaller aircraft that I have heard of having one is a helicopter.

A progressive due to its increased records keeping etc is generally not considered logical for small aircraft, or so I was taught.

2)    Progressive Inspections. The progressive inspection is a complete inspection of the aircraft, conducted in stages, with all stages to be completed in a period of 12 calendar-months.

a)    Must Be Requested. An owner/operator using a progressive inspection program must submit a written request to the responsible Flight Standards office having jurisdiction within the applicant’s location. In response to the owner/operator’s request, the FAA will review the submitted program and either concur with the request, or issue a letter of denial. There is no requirement for the FAA to approve a progressive inspection.

1.    Since progressive inspection programs developed by the manufacturer may not automatically fit the needs of individual owner/operator, an owner/operator may have tailored its progressive inspection program to fit its operation.

2.    The owner/operator’s progressive inspection program may be more restrictive than the manufacturer’s program, but it may not be less restrictive unless sufficient justification is presented to and accepted by the FAA.

 

b)    Starting a Progressive Inspection. Progressive inspections must start out with a complete aircraft inspection, either an annual or 100-hour inspection. Inspections after this initial inspection follow the schedule defined in the program. The owner/operator must provide an Inspection Procedures Manual (IPM) that explains the progressive inspections with the inspection schedule and examples of the forms and records with instruction for their use. They must also provide, with the written request, the name of a mechanic with Inspection Authorization (IA), a certificated and appropriately rated repair station, or the aircraft manufacturer who will conduct or supervise the inspections.

c)    Inspection Intervals. Intervals for the inspection of aircraft are based on the manufacturer’s recommendations, field service experience, malfunction and defect history, and the type of operation in which the aircraft is engaged.

Edited July 5, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

13 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

 

It has more advantages for me than the airplane. Instead of doing 4 annuals a year to stay current, I do three 1/3 of an annual to stay current.

You could of course just gone to a seminar once a year or done it online, the online one is painful, I won’t do that again, and proved your were “actively engaged” lots of verbiage, but no simple explaination 

‘I have also heard of people conducting four annuals on their aircraft in one year too, but not a progressive, your the first I have heard of.

As I’m sure you know the FAA wrote into the regs about the once a year approved course for renewal. then later circulated a policy letter amongst themselves saying an IA had to be “actively engaged” in maintenance.

Two things wrong with that, first a policy letter is not regulatory, and secondly they as far as I know never defined “actively engaged”

I believe this is the policy letter, and I can’t specifically determine the min amount work or scope of work to define actively engaged, and inspectors all seem to have different opinions.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-08-04/pdf/2011-19741.pdf

Years ago I was in Atl at one of the seminars given by GBAA for free, and the FAA inspectors show up after the seminar to renew, so I waited in line to get my card stamped, gsve the inspector this and last years course completion document and he said that’s not enough, you have to prove you were actively engaged, I won’t renew you. So I was irritated and asked him to define actively engaged, he said in his opinion that I needed four annuals,one per quarter for him to renew me, I said I hadn’t done four annuals a year just a couple, he said I can’t renew.

Of course if you do four Annuals, once per quarter, then the class isn’t required, so why is anyone here?

He was being an ass, so I got in line with an inspector I knew, who stamped my ticket, you see he knew I was accountable manager at a repair station, which of course counts too.

I still don’t think they have defined actively engaged, I just went through this getting an 8610.1 to re-test, I just sent her logbook entires of my two aircraft, but she was initially wanting signed affidavits from people who’s airplanes I maintained, can you imagine asking for that?

I don’t even think sending the FAA copies of their logbooks to prove I’m actively engaged is really ethical.

I assume since the inspector recommended it, simply splitting the annual into three parts was enough to satisfy them?
You wouldn’t believe how much pain there was writing the repair station manuals, I ended up hiring a technical writer to write them, it took months and lord knows how many revisions, if it wasn’t suggested I bet you would still be writing.

I’ve never seen a progressive or heard of one for a single engine piston, there can’t be many.

Edited July 5, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

14 hours ago, carusoam said:

Chris,

 

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help you.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help others.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help MS.

 

Three reasons you can save your effort…

You can always shoot him a PM.

Let’s see where @DaveL is at lately?

Best regards,

-a-

No, no PM’s please. I’ve just been ignoring him, he knew what I meant and that’s the number of GA aircraft are declining every day, they aren’t being replaced, others understood and showed him the numbers.

Long ago my Father told me to not get in the mud with the hog, all you do is get covered in filth and the hog loves it.

[chriscalandro]

On 7/4/2021 at 8:21 AM, carusoam said:

Chris,

 

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help you.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help others.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help MS.

 

Three reasons you can save your effort…

You can always shoot him a PM.

Let’s see where @DaveL is at lately?

Best regards,

-a-

Rest assured it takes minimal effort to call out this dude on his mostly wrong and inaccurate maintenance comments. 

[chriscalandro]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

No, no PM’s please. I’ve just been ignoring him, he knew what I meant and that’s the number of GA aircraft are declining every day, they aren’t being replaced

You made another, mostly incorrect, definitive statement. 

[A64Pilot]

Do you believe that GA manufacturing is “coming back” or is the words “pretty much” what you don’t understand?

Every year  for the last several years the number of Ga aircraft have been diminishing, sure there are a few nearly million dollar aircraft made each year, but only a few and most who fly can’t afford a close to a million dollar aircraft, that’s about four times the average home cost in the US. 

Your upset because I stated anyone who ties their aircraft down in a South Fl is wasting a diminishing resource.

I still believe that, and people who through their greed who won’t take care of ANY diminishing resource are robbing future generations of being able to participate in activities that they enjoyed, except of course for the few who can afford  

Are you the one that said hangers are so expensive it’s better to just let an aircraft rot until it wasn’t airworthy in ten years, and then just get another one?

When I’m too old to fly, my two aircraft should be very airworthy and hopefully some younger person with the passion to fly will get them. I hope that won’t for another twenty years though.

In 1975 a Cessna 172’s asking price was 16K and change, average US house price was 32K

Edited July 5, 2021 by A64Pilot

[markgrue]

On 7/4/2021 at 9:41 PM, A64Pilot said:

I’ve never seen a progressive or heard of one for a single engine piston, there can’t be many.

Cessna has a progressive inspection program for the 150 and the 172.  I am sure they have others as well but those are the ones I work with every day so I am familiar with them.

 

Mark

[chriscalandro]

We already know your reading writing and comprehension skills are challenged. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by chriscalandro

[EricJ]

On 7/4/2021 at 5:21 AM, carusoam said:

Chris,

 

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help you.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help others.

Shooting other MSers doesn’t help MS.

 

Three reasons you can save your effort…

You can always shoot him a PM.

Let’s see where @DaveL is at lately?

Best regards,

-a-

I'm not sure that calling out somebody who regularly posts erroneous, misleading, outdated, or misguided information is bad for MS.

[Guest]

There’s nothing wrong with correcting a post which may have wrong information.  But surely as adults we can do it without drama and overinflated egos.

Clarence

[carusoam]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'm not sure that calling out somebody who regularly posts erroneous, misleading, outdated, or misguided information is bad for MS.

there are some good ways to do this and some not so good ways…

More of a Quality issue, than a Right / Wrong issue…  

 

Like everyone or not… we still want everyone coming back…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[BKlott]

My Dad and I used to joke about putting our airplane on a Progressive Maintenance Program. “Isn’t that the program where you are always working on the airplane?”, was our punchline.

Now I have a different point of view. “Progressive Maintenance”, to me, is just another term for “Aircraft Ownership”.