Seven month annual....

[tigers2007]

Well, I finally received my vintage model back from the on-field A&P/IA. This entire ordeal was the coup de grace to sell my beloved aircraft. As you can see it’s E-LSA brethren is tucked in with it.

 

1. Basic Annual Inspection: $2300+300

2. Prop IRAN in lieu of A&P’s overservicing error: $1650 w/freight

3. Additional charge: $78 to install intake duct

4. $1050 total insurance premiums paid during extensive downtime.

 

A&P/IA claimed he has reported my aircraft to the FAA and all of the previous IA’s that have worked on it.

I have a 50-yr experienced IA that is familiar with the aircraft that is inspecting it and will make their own determination on the ridiculous “discrepancy list”.

 

To add insult to injury the on-field IA claimed “I should have charged you for the labor to install the propeller” even though he injected the hell out of it with a crap ton of grease against the service manual.

 

[MB65E]

Although that’s kinda silly. I’ve had longer annuals. I wouldn’t let a 7mo annual be a cause to sell your airplane. Now that it’s sorted out it should be relatively painless for several years. 
All of your numbers seem fair. Except you can’t blame the insurance on your guy. That’s just part of the cost. Decent rate I might add.  Your on-field guy is probably typical of most on-field guys.

I’d suggest building a better relationship with an IA. 
As an IA myself, these old airplanes do take some love. Each year I try to improve mine in some way. Some years the squawk list is around 50 items. Still there is not a more affordable 4 seat airplane. 
 

-Matt

[tigers2007]

Yeah I should have used the regular IA I’ve used in the past (or even the prior Mooney service center) and not the new guy. I was warned too.
At first glance I took his eye-opening “findings” as serious issues and as it progressed he was declaring even the most ridiculous things as unairworthy. When he blew in a crap ton of grease into the aluminum prop hub without following the factory specifications I knew this was going to end badly. He immediately pushed back and went on the defense (reporting my aircraft and prior IA’s to the FAA, etc). He insisted that the globe of grease in the prop hub were fine. This is the same guy who claims that a little dent on a non-structural part will make it fall from the sky (yet no MSC or other IA has made an issue of the 50yr old wear and tear...)
I’m just glad I got the plane back and I can move on. I was considering selling it prior to this experience and now I will. I bought the E-LSA to replace it for rec use. Plus I can legally do annual condition inspections on it. I have enough Mooney friends here to get a refresher.
My goal is to get a nice J in ten years when I retire. I only pay cash for toys so I’ll bank the sales proceeds and save my pennies.

[gsxrpilot]

Sorry for the whole situation. It can be a miserable and powerless position when the airplane is in for annual.

Thanks for sharing this as it's a very valuable cautionary tale for airplane owners. I think I've mentioned before that having the first job with a new shop be an annual inspection is like sleeping with the girl you just met at the bar at last call. The next morning you learn all sorts of interesting things you wish you knew prior but now it's a bit too late.

Start out with an oil change. And if that goes well, then maybe a simple upgrade or minor repair. After a full year of this and building the relationship, you might be ready for the big commitment of the annual inspection. That way you avoid the surprises of waking up and rolling over to a horrible new reality and no good exit options.

[steingar]

Sorry to hear.  I tend to stick with mechanics.  New eyes means new problems.  I remember landing a nearby airport with my freshly annulled Cessna 150.  the mechanic there looked it over and declared it had 7 AMUs worth of discrepancies.  I think some of these guys are maybe inexperienced in GA and don't know what they're doing.

[tigers2007]

The “warning” I received from another owner in-field wasn’t that convincing to me either. The person made some weak complaints about the IA that actually made me side with the IA. The other complaints about the IA’s arrogance is what really worried me. I figured I could handle that.

Again, when the IA insisted that I should have paid for the prop R&R labor for his screwing-up of my prop, it really sealed the deal that this guy is highly avoidable. Then add in the seven months to complete an annual while I was first in line.

The quality of his work appears to be up to par but the arrogance makes it questionable.

I forgot to add that the IA didn’t provide any documentation of the annual; compressions etc. I’m going to spend the $1500ish for another annual plus any additional for any actual necessary repairs.

[EricJ]

Very sorry to hear another example of this kind of behavior by IAs/A&Ps.   +1 on having annuals done in your hangar with owner assist.   Sometimes that's not possible/practical, but it does help avoid a lot of this sort of thing and give a much easier path to correction if it goes badly.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that one silver lining of the airline industry shrinking is that it'll free up a lot more IA/A&P talent that migrates to GA for work, since a shortage is looming as all the old guys retire.   If nothing else that might provide more choices and options on how to get things done.

 

[59Moonster]

On 10/14/2020 at 9:43 AM, steingar said:

Sorry to hear.  I tend to stick with mechanics.  New eyes means new problems.  I remember landing a nearby airport with my freshly annulled Cessna 150.  the mechanic there looked it over and declared it had 7 AMUs worth of discrepancies.  I think some of these guys are maybe inexperienced in GA and don't know what they're doing.

Makes you wonder if they have a boat payment that is due.

[Davidv]

This is partly why I often fly my plane 1200NM to get work done as I pass many MSCs and mechanics along the way.

[daytonabch04]

7 minutes ago, Davidv said:

This is partly why I often fly my plane 1200NM to get work done as I pass many MSCs and mechanics along the way.

I've learned to trust most MSCs, but I do start out small with oil changes and build from there.  Very few I'll trust for an annual.

[thinwing]

On 10/14/2020 at 7:54 AM, tigers2007 said:

The “warning” I received from another owner in-field wasn’t that convincing to me either. The person made some weak complaints about the IA that actually made me side with the IA. The other complaints about the IA’s arrogance is what really worried me. I figured I could handle that.

Again, when the IA insisted that I should have paid for the prop R&R labor for his screwing-up of my prop, it really sealed the deal that this guy is highly avoidable. Then add in the seven months to complete an annual while I was first in line.

The quality of his work appears to be up to par but the arrogance makes it questionable.

I forgot to add that the IA didn’t provide any documentation of the annual; compressions etc. I’m going to spend the $1500ish for another annual plus any additional for any actual necessary repairs.

than he did not complete your annual....what exactly did he log

[tigers2007]

than he did not complete your annual....what exactly did he log

Just a note that “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an annual inspection and found to be in unairworthy condition at this time. A list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated 10-09-2020 has been provided to the aircraft owner. (Signature)”

[thinwing]

huh!!!...in order for it to be considered an annual inspection....comp tests must be listed and logged.The statement that aircraft is unairworthy at this time is unusual I think...but regardless no compression check logged...its NOT an annual.That is the one thing that must be logged...others with IA may correct me if im mistaken...

[tigers2007]

That’s what I thought; I was in a rush to get it back into my possession ASAP. I live five hours away from the airport now and I didn’t have time to play any more games.

[EricJ]

7 minutes ago, thinwing said:

huh!!!...in order for it to be considered an annual inspection....comp tests must be listed and logged.The statement that aircraft is unairworthy at this time is unusual I think...but regardless no compression check logged...its NOT an annual.That is the one thing that must be logged...others with IA may correct me if im mistaken...

I'm not an IA, but I don't know of any requirement of compression results being required in the documentation.    FAR 43.11 provides the documentation requirement for an annual/100 hour/progressive inspection, which includes:

"if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”

That's similar to what he got, so I think his documentation is good.   An A&P can address the items in the discrepancy list and return the aircraft to service.

[Davidv]

2 hours ago, daytonabch04 said:

I've learned to trust most MSCs, but I do start out small with oil changes and build from there.  Very few I'll trust for an annual.

Yes, I've learned that whatever I'm going to spend in additional fuel is usually less than what I'm going to spend with someone who:

A. Is not familiar with my plane and makes a mistake that needs to be corrected later

or

B. Acts solely as a "parts replacement specialist" and not a mechanic.

[thinwing]

the above wording is what I expected...not "Ive have found this aircraft to be in an unairworthy condition."

[Parker_Woodruff]

2 hours ago, Davidv said:

Yes, I've learned that whatever I'm going to spend in additional fuel is usually less than what I'm going to spend with someone who:

A. Is not familiar with my plane and makes a mistake that needs to be corrected later

or

B. Acts solely as a "parts replacement specialist" and not a mechanic.

American Eagle/American is cheap from GGG-DFW-FLL/MIA.  I'd do the same thing when I lived in Lakeland.  Dropoff at GGG then airline to TPA.

[Dialed In]

Just a PP but how I understand it the annual has been completed and the list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner/operator of a part 91 aircraft.  The compressions are not required to be logged in the entry however it is nice to have them there for trend data.  It is the pilots responsibility to ensure the aircraft is airworthy so he or she takes the discrepancy list to an A/P of their choice to have the issues repaired. If the unairworthy items are because of an IA’s subjective opinion then they need to be inspected and signed off if the new IA is of a different mindset. It’s good you got your plane back, sorry to hear of this something similar happened to me it can be a nightmare and make you want to get out of avaition. IMO the only reason for another annual is to have another set of eyes on the plane for peace of mind.  

[Unit74]

14 hours ago, tigers2007 said:

Just a note that “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an annual inspection and found to be in unairworthy condition at this time. A list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated 10-09-2020 has been provided to the aircraft owner. (Signature)”

You do realize that is the proper way to log the annual inspection, correct? His only job during an annual is to inspect. Once the inspection is over, it transitions out of an inspection to maintenance. 
 

Once the airworthy issues are corrected, the plane is airworthy when the correcting A&P addresses the discrepancy list. There is also a difference between airworthy issues and “Should consider” issues.

In the future, you should insist on two lists. One with airworthy items and the other with recommended items. Also, all owners should try and not have the MX performed by the IA or his/her shop. This removes any Incentive to inflate any issues or be motivated by labor hours.

I realize this may be a hard proposal to digest. But it is a sound approach and may have limited your angst in the matter. I also understand that most owners allow the IA to perform the MX as well from this inspection. It’s basically a self licking ice cream cone for the shop though. 

[tigers2007]

Yeah I realize that the statement is minimally adequate. He has extensive notes of the compressions, etc; I saw them in the past. It has great compressions actually. This is a cautionary tale to all to learn from my experience. The annual-in-my-hangar is a requirement if one has no relationship with an A&P.

[Unit74]

14 hours ago, thinwing said:

huh!!!...in order for it to be considered an annual inspection....comp tests must be listed and logged.The statement that aircraft is unairworthy at this time is unusual I think...but regardless no compression check logged...its NOT an annual.That is the one thing that must be logged...others with IA may correct me if im mistaken...

This is absolutely incorrect. While logging the compressions has become a tradition, there is absolutely no mandate to do so. In fact, many log entries are wrong, but well intended in this respect. What is does is allow owners a way to follow dropping compressions and it is a convenient place to do so. But the same could be said about thing like tire tread wear or oil consumption or plethora of other things pilots might want to track. Use an MX spreadsheet or catalog the work orders otherwise.  But the only log entry required is wether or not the IA found the plane airworthy or not. End of story. If not, it is followed by the entry of “a discrepancy list was provided to the owner” and the entry is done. 
 

As the the erroneous entries, For instance, “inspected left brake caliper and rotor and found unserviceable. Replaced left caliper with PNxxxxx and left brake rotor with PNxxxxx.”  Or how about “ bore scoped number 3 cylinder and found cylinders wall scored and exhaust valve burned. Removed cylinder number 3 and replaced with overhauled cylinder from ABC Engines, part number xxxxxxx-xx. Ground run check completed, aircraft returned to service”

 

Both of the above anecdotal entries are ridiculous.  The only thing that should be logged is the “Removed cylinder number three and replaced with overhauled cylinder form ABC Engines, part number xxxxxxx-xx. Ground run check completed, aircraft returned to service”. But for some reason, APs tend to like logging their trade craft vs what is actually required, which is logging the repair made. What was wrong with the item does not matter to anyone but the owner. And once the work is done, it is irrelevant! So why is it even in the forever log? 
 

That’s my 50 cents worth. And the cash value of my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. 

[philiplane]

always remember- MPSAWTD.

Most People Suck At What They Do. It's the Bell Curve in action.

Finding the good people is harder than ever because so many young guys won't consider aviation due to the liability issues, and low starting pay. So we already have an extreme shortage of real talent. More than half of today's IA's will retire in the next 5-10 years. Thank your government for pushing liberal arts degrees in advanced basket weaving, instead of tech schools. All trades are affected, but aviation is affected the most.

And lot of the best techs won't work on smaller planes anymore, due to Cheap Owner Syndrome. I can't tell you how many people want an IA to come to their hangar and work for Burger King pay. At the other end of the spectrum, owners of late model planes expect to pay realistic rates, and they are getting the best services. It is the free market at work.

So getting the combination of an experienced, trustworthy, and available tech, is pretty close to winning the lottery these days.

As an owner, you need to ask the right questions in advance, and as others have mentioned, let a new prospect do minor work, before jumping into an annual you might both regret.

[jaylw314]

5 hours ago, Unit74 said:

You do realize that is the proper way to log the annual inspection, correct? His only job during an annual is to inspect. Once the inspection is over, it transitions out of an inspection to maintenance. 

I think most of the upset is about the specific notation "found to be in unairworthy condition."  It sounds inflammatory, and I can't imagine that this was not deliberate and intentional since the suggested wording is right in the FAR's.  I can't imagine there's any IA out there who doesn't know where to find it.

[tigers2007]

What is “unairworthy” to one IA may be “airworthy” to 126,936 other IA’s including FAA inspectors. There is a lot of grey area in this trade. For example, he determined that a tiny dent in a flap is “unairworthy” yet five IA’s have signed off on the aircraft as being “airworthy”. Thing has flown for decades yet one man claims it is not “airworthy” solely on that dent alone.

I had a MSC IA explain how my CAR 3 Mooney has no factory specific damage limits for any dents on this (non leading edge stuff). He said to not worry about it but also explained that an FAA inspector could arbitrarily ground my plane for bizarre reasons such as an innocent non-structural dent on a wing surface (from his own anecdotal memory).