Jump to content

Mooney Service Center Annuals


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, SkyTrekker said:

I took it to SWTA for my first annual, and had a great experience working with JD and Laura.  It is currently at SWTA again for my second annual.  I've been super pleased with the level of service the JD and team have provided, and it is clear to me that SWTA is a top-notch shop with high standards and MSC-level Mooney know-how.

I really enjoy the peace of mind that comes with doing annuals (and major Mooney-specific work) at MSCs.  I expect to continue the practice.

 

100% agree. I just completed my first annual with them, too, and headed back in another month for upgrades at his shop.

Having said that, I had a small wierd panel lights problem that JD looked at during annual and we could not figure it out so he suggested I contact Don. Called Don on Monday, he told me what part to remove and send to him and now it is fixed headed back to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Most of the work and hours a new IA will do to your plane if they have not seen it is the AD Research work.   This is a good 8-20 hours of work it's not really creating value for you, but they have to do it prior to putting their name on the line.  A good IA that knows the problem areas to inspect is just as good as an MSC.   I think it is better approach to created focus areas to inspect each year and go through each system thoroughly instead of trying to take the whole plane apart and put it back together.

For the most part, all IA's I know subscribe to service to perform an AD search. If they trust what they see from prior years they can just limit their research to recent one. But I don't know of anyone that still does this manually - its just too easy to miss one on an appliance. If the owner is doing his/her part to maintain a status list of recurring and non-recurring AD's then it shouldn't take the IA to update/review at annual. Services like ADLog make this really easy for owners and help to organize their maintenance records.

Entirely agree that an IA that knows the problem areas to inspect should be as good as a MSC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kortopates said:

For the most part, all IA's I know subscribe to service to perform an AD search. If they trust what they see from prior years they can just limit their research to recent one. But I don't know of anyone that still does this manually - its just too easy to miss one on an appliance. If the owner is doing his/her part to maintain a status list of recurring and non-recurring AD's then it shouldn't take the IA to update/review at annual. Services like ADLog make this really easy for owners and help to organize their maintenance records.

Entirely agree that an IA that knows the problem areas to inspect should be as good as a MSC.

The OP was talking about a New IA to the plane.   If there is an accurate AD log then yes should be good, but might still have to verify in the log books.  Newer planes and engines have it easier since many of the ADs were corrected at the factories.   I found some inconsistencies between the FAA search and the service the IA was using.

Edited by Yetti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

For the most part, all IA's I know subscribe to service to perform an AD search. If they trust what they see from prior years they can just limit their research to recent one. But I don't know of anyone that still does this manually - its just too easy to miss one on an appliance. If the owner is doing his/her part to maintain a status list of recurring and non-recurring AD's then it shouldn't take the IA to update/review at annual. Services like ADLog make this really easy for owners and help to organize their maintenance records.

Entirely agree that an IA that knows the problem areas to inspect should be as good as a MSC.

Why is the onus on the maintainer and not the owner to assure AD compliance?  The FAA seems to have it backwards, in Canada the owner is responsible for tracking and assuring compliance with AD’s. I can sign out the Annual with no fear of enforcement action for missing an AD.

Being a responsible AME I try to do due diligence by finding and in forming the owner of applicable AD’s, but the owner bears the ultimate responsibility for compliance.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Why is the onus on the maintainer and not the owner to assure AD compliance?  The FAA seems to have it backwards, in Canada the owner is responsible for tracking and assuring compliance with AD’s. I can sign out the Annual with no fear of enforcement action for missing an AD.

Being a responsible AME I try to do due diligence by finding and in forming the owner of applicable AD’s, but the owner bears the ultimate responsibility for compliance.

Clarence

That's very interesting to hear about differences between US and Canadian regs. I'd say though that in the US the onus is on both "inspector" and the pilot. I used inspector only because it becomes relevant for the maintainer when signing off on the annual inspection, but not for ordinary maintenance. But the onus is on the pilot with every flight. But yes, the FAA holds us both accountable here. In some respects it makes sense, in that most owners, especially new owners, aren't going to be able to research applicable AD's alone and really do need the advice of their maintenance professional to interpret and comply. Nor do owners necessarily even have access to the resources maintainers are required to have.  

Realistically every maintainer is an also an educator for their pilot/owner clients on the acceptable maintenance practices and regulations.

I wonder if this difference has anything to do with why the limited reciprocity rules between US and Canada for maintaining each others registered aircraft in that the FAA doesn't allow a Canadian AME to do annuals on US registered aircraft? But its probably more complicated than that because I assume Transport Canada maintains their own database of ADs.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

That's very interesting to hear about differences between US and Canadian regs. I'd say though that in the US the onus is on both "inspector" and the pilot. I used inspector only because it becomes relevant for the maintainer when signing off on the annual inspection, but not for ordinary maintenance. But the onus is on the pilot with every flight. But yes, the FAA holds us both accountable here. In some respects it makes sense, in that most owners, especially new owners, aren't going to be able to research applicable AD's alone and really do need the advice of their maintenance professional to interpret and comply. Nor do owners necessarily even have access to the resources maintainers are required to have.  

Realistically every maintainer is an also an educator for their pilot/owner clients on the acceptable maintenance practices and regulations.

I wonder if this difference has anything to do with why the limited reciprocity rules between US and Canada for maintaining each others registered aircraft in that the FAA doesn't allow a Canadian AME to do annuals on US registered aircraft? But its probably more complicated than that because I assume Transport Canada maintains their own database of ADs.

   

Transport Canada like the FAA has a database of AD’s that it sees as applicable.  It is searched by the aircraft registration and covers the airframe, engine and propeller, appliance AD’s are searched separately.  I will sometimes use both the Transport Canada and FAA databases to clarify AD’s.  

Our technical record log books can have 4-5 sections,  airframes, modifications and AD’s, engine and propeller and the fifth section covering components like floats, rotorcraft transmissions etc.  These logs are 8X11” books and held in a binder.  With a proper log book it makes AD record keeping much easier, but not always foolproof.  The back section of the engine and propeller sections have their own AD sections.

Another difference is we don’t determine the aircraft to be “airworthy” during an Annual inspection.  The only time “airworthiness” is determined is during issuance of the C of A by Transport Canada.

Clarence

Edited by M20Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were pieces and parts of an AD log when I got the plane.  It was almost easier to start over using the IAs service list of items.   He sent me home with a list of homework.   I spent a good 5 hours trying to resolve items on the list.  Got about 80% resolved.  Might have been faster if I had more airplane maintenance background.  Together we spent another 2-3 hours resolving the rest of the items.   I thought it a good learning experience.  The complete AD list would be easier for a new to the plane IA to go through in about an hour.

I would think it interesting to make a standard hand a check over at the end of an annual type pilot responsible to be knowledgeable enough to know if all the ADs were complied with.  Much less if the fuel servo finger screen was checked, even though it is on the 100 hour inspection list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do owner assisted maintenance and inspections.  My AP/AI has previous Mooney experience in his repertoire and we use the standard Mooney inspection checklist.  I am certain the airplane is airworthy and know what I am flying when departing into a 400ft overcast.  Many prefer to just send the airplane to the shop.  The owner is responsible for the airworthiness of the airplane.  I keep up a spreadsheet that lists ADs and the compliance date that maps back to the log book.

Mike Busch has it right then he says the inspection should produce a list of items that must be taken care of and a list of items that can be deferred.  If you have you regular guy work the deferred items then annual will take less time and cost less.   Taking your airplane to a new shop is a good way to be held hostage and end up with a very large maintenance bill.  I know of a case where the shop removed a cylinder without speaking with the owner.

I have never seen a list of Mooney 'problem' areas that should be watched.  Such a list would be useful.   Is there one on the space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

I have never seen a list of Mooney 'problem' areas that should be watched.  Such a list would be useful

Your AP with his "previous Mooney experience in his repertoire" should know. And if he doesn't know what is it you're paying him for? This is what I mean when I say being "versed" in the type and why a well regarded MSC is worth it. If your AP doesn't know the type like the back of his hand, he is wasting your time and money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Why is the onus on the maintainer and not the owner to assure AD compliance?  The FAA seems to have it backwards, in Canada the owner is responsible for tracking and assuring compliance with AD’s. I can sign out the Annual with no fear of enforcement action for missing an AD.

Being a responsible AME I try to do due diligence by finding and in forming the owner of applicable AD’s, but the owner bears the ultimate responsibility for compliance.

Clarence

The onus is on the operator every time they fly in the US (FAR 39.9).  

To add to the general topic certain AP/AI’s are great when it comes to certain types.  Being a MSC does not imply you are getting a Maxwell Annual.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M20F said:

The onus is on the operator every time they fly in the US (FAR 39.9).  

To add to the general topic certain AP/AI’s are great when it comes to certain types.  Being a MSC does not imply you are getting a Maxwell Annual.  

While the onus is on the operator/ pilot before flight, it seems odd to carry out enforcement action against the maintainer who may miss some obscure AD when the owner should be responsible for ensuring compliance.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

While the onus is on the operator/ pilot before flight, it seems odd to carry out enforcement action against the maintainer who may miss some obscure AD when the owner should be responsible for ensuring compliance.

Clarence

This is why I always advise every pre-buy should be an annual.  Gives us all skin in the game.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that there is not a lot of mystery to an annual inspection.  It's a really through walk around with a compression check.  The owner who is knowledgeable enough to know which of the three ADs in quick succession have been completed on the oil pump gear should also be able to know how their plane is operating more so than the once of the year trip to the maintenance facility.  Does plane ownership life work like this... probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used both MSCs and non MSCs and really haven’t noticed any difference.  The key is finding a good mechanic.  Lynn Mace at MRN was a good Mooney mechanic before he became an MSC.  Not sure he could be any better now.  Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, laytonl said:

I have used both MSCs and non MSCs and really haven’t noticed any difference.  The key is finding a good mechanic.  Lynn Mace at MRN was a good Mooney mechanic before he became an MSC.  Not sure he could be any better now.  Lee

Lee, I certainly agree about Lynn being good before he became a MSC but he also is seeing a lot more Mooneys these days. I think that's good for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started the annual on my E today. removed cowls, access panels, spinner, spark plugs, PFS exhaust. Tomorrow I'll jack plane and remove wheels, seats, battery and start lubing. I don't put in 8 hour days, I also started 3 batches of muscadine wine, but I should be ready for Lynn to check compressions, boroscope inspect, check gear loads, inspect all the controls and systems I've exposed and we'll go over the check list. It will take me a couple of days to put things back together. Unless we find something amiss I will owe AGL for 6-8 hours and will have probably put in close to 40 hours myself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom:

It is not smooth and comes with a bunch of valleys and troughs in the sheet metal.  Don't ask me why.  It just is.

And before you ask, my MSC started their relationship with me by saving me about $50,000 in "lemon" costs.  Then he went on to save me another $17,000 or so in "not airworthy so drop the asking price by the amount to repair it" costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.