What we have are "rust buckets" !

[cliffy]

When ever someone comes on this site and is new and looking for a Mooney we all seem to want them to find the "Holy Grail"

We tell them to find a low time, good as new airplane. In reality a needle in a hay stack by the way many pilots treat their airplanes

Yes spoiler alert! I'm going to make some comments not too well received by many.

Let's look at how we operate our Mooneys. If you fly 75 hrs per year (or the airframe has 4,000 hrs since 1970) (and not many do) the airframe is actually being used 

less than 1%  (0.008) of its time on the ramp. It has spent 99% of its time just sitting there rotting away. 

For those who tie down outside it spends realistically its entire life sitting out in the sun's heat in the summer and the snow rain and cold in the winter.

How long would your NEW car last with that treatment? Would you even put your new car through that gauntlet?

And here we have a half century old airplane under those conditions that we place our lives in its hands every time we take to the sky!

YET- Many of us still cling to the CB Club and look for ways to get the quick and cheap annual, do minimal maintenance and have numerous items INOP 

in the airplane.

What we have in many cases are in reality  RUST BUCKETS that we go aloft in. And its us doing it to ourselves. 

Just walk around and look at your  own airport.

How many of you would go out to a 1970 Ford that has been sitting outside for 30 years and just jump in it and drive across the state let alone the country?

Yet we do that all the time in airplanes that sit rotting away year after year.  And many of us do nothing about it. 

What do you think it does to all the avionics in the panel? And yet many jump in and fly IFR with them. With no thought of testing or maintenance until

something breaks in flight and then its likely to get deferred. 

Sure you say "we have annual inspections"! HA!   How many times do we see airplanes that go 2 and 3 years between annuals? (with no flying)

Here's a question I have asked a couple of times on here-

HOW MANY INOPERATIVE ITEMS DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR AIRPLANE RIGHT NOW?  If you can't say "NONE" then YOU are the problem. 

If you can't afford to fix what breaks on your airplane then you have more airplane than you can afford and YOU are the problem.

Most accidents IMO are caused by incompetence or "too much airplane for the level of the pilot"(financial or skills). I've studied it for over 60 years. 

I've watched and read accident reports and most come out the same way. Too much airplane for the competency level of the pilot. 

When I see a plane come through the shop with differed maintenance I know the owner can't afford the plane he owns and his skill level for that airplane

is probably lacking also.

Look yourself in the mirror and ask if YOU are part of the problem!  I've seen too many smoking holes and many are tired together with the same theme.

If you can't afford to fix your airplane when it breaks then you can't afford the airplane.

If you can't afford to fix your airplane when it breaks your own skill level is in question. 

One leads to the other.  Too much airplane for the pilot to handle.

 

[hais]

Regarding "NONE", how do you explain MEL? Airliners have those too, and I don't think we can extend the argument they are unsafe.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

If you own an airplane, you can never say “there’s nothing to do”.

 

But it does give you an out with the honey do’s. You can always say “I don’t have time to do that right now, I have to work on the airplane”

[Pinecone]

Hmm, the 757 went into operation in 1982.

So some of those flying are older than my Mooney.

YES, you need to maintain them, but you also need to maintain new aircraft.

[cliffy]

1 hour ago, hais said:

Regarding "NONE", how do you explain MEL? Airliners have those too, and I don't think we can extend the argument they are unsafe.

 

How many avail themselves of an MEL list?  No argument if they do but the vast majority don't.

Even an MEL has to have a drop dead date for re[air or removal.  They don't just hang on an MEL forever. 

[hais]

38 minutes ago, cliffy said:

How many avail themselves of an MEL list?  No argument if they do but the vast majority don't.

Even an MEL has to have a drop dead date for re[air or removal.  They don't just hang on an MEL forever. 

Practical, as opposed to safety reasons?

[thinwing]

my bravo doesnt sit outside and shows it

 

[Shadrach]

My Executive has been hangered it's whole life and the exterior paint leaves a lot to be desired. However, the airframe is clean and corrosion free. I don't really care what anyone thinks of it. It's safe, operational and has an excellent dispatch rate. It's purpose is to shepherd my family and stuff to different regions of the country at 150kts. I could not give two $hits what the pilot lounge, coffee club curmudgeons or a potential shopper thinks of it. It’s not for sale. It’s a tool for travel.

[A64Pilot]

Some are as you describe, but not all.

The fleet is aging however, and isn’t being replaced, the FAA loves to talk about the aging aircraft “problem”, but statistics don’t yet reflect it, very few aircraft have accidents based on age, nearly zero.

Insurence guys can speak to that, in fact I’d say the aircraft seem to age better than the pilots.

Please don’t tell my 76 year old airplane or 100 yr old car they are rust buckets, they don’t know any better. I’m certain they will still be doing their job when I’m gone as my 41 yr old Mooney should

 

 

[DCarlton]

I really don't know any pilots currently that neglect their airplanes or avoid fixing things that are inoperative.  I do everything I can to keep up with maintenance and do whatever I can to make the plane as safe as possible.  Most everyone in my aviation circle seems to do the same thing.  I can't say none but I can say one.  I have one recent avionics squawk (not required equipment) and it'll get taken care of soon too.  

[201Steve]

There is only a small market for the vintage birds... who can take care of them well. We exist in a place where some people have not yet arrived... and others have suprassed. You have to be wealthy enough (x% of the cohort), an appropriately rated pilot (x% of the cohort), capable of ownership (x% of the cohort), but not *too* wealthy, where you would be in the market for a new bird...Cirrus, TBM, Etc.... so the rest go to buyers who don't *quite* qualify, but it scratches the itch... for awhile. It's not a great playing field for the airplanes themselves.

[hais]

Perhaps the OP thinks many pilots fly around with airplanes that aren't airworthy. Hard to explain why that doesn't show up in accident statistics.

[cliffy]

29 minutes ago, hais said:

Perhaps the OP thinks many pilots fly around with airplanes that aren't airworthy. Hard to explain why that doesn't show up in accident statistics.

One- I've seen many "unairworthy" airplanes flying around in my 60 years in aviation

Two- You are not looking at the parallel between the mentality of accepting INOP equipment  and being totally proficient as a pilot in your airplane

Its a attitude . An attitude of doing everything in your power to be competent and correct on every aspect of aviation.

Generally if you participate in a discussion board like here you may be less likely to commit  the errors mentioned but not always

If you let the little things go by then the big ones bite you. Again its an attitude

 

Here's another question to ask yourself-- "I fly a Mooney with one alternator and one battery and I fly IMC, when was the last time I had my battery checked for capacity"?

OR do you ascribe to the thoughts of- "HEY look, I got 7 tears out on my battery before it wouldn't start my airplane. "

If you had an alternator failure in IMC and you're down to battery only power how long will it last?

Have you ever tried to get on the ground or into VFR conditions in say 15 minutes? You may only have 15 mins or less battery if its old. 

BTW it will still start your engine even if its low on capacity for emergency purposes. 

Again its an attitude

[hais]

6 minutes ago, cliffy said:

One- I've seen many "unairworthy" airplanes flying around in my 60 years in aviation

Two- You are not looking at the parallel between the mentality of accepting INOP equipment  and being totally proficient as a pilot in your airplane

Its a attitude . An attitude of doing everything in your power to be competent and correct on every aspect of aviation.

Generally if you participate in a discussion board like here you may be less likely to commit  the errors mentioned but not always

If you let the little things go by then the big ones bite you. Again its an attitude

 

Here's another question to ask yourself-- "I fly a Mooney with one alternator and one battery and I fly IMC, when was the last time I had my battery checked for capacity"?

OR do you ascribe to the thoughts of- "HEY look, I got 7 tears out on my battery before it wouldn't start my airplane. "

If you had an alternator failure in IMC and you're down to battery only power how long will it last?

Have you ever tried to get on the ground or into VFR conditions in say 15 minutes? You may only have 15 mins or less battery if its old. 

BTW it will still start your engine even if its low on capacity for emergency purposes. 

Again its an attitude

Fair point, but that's decision making impacting both new and old airplanes. I don't think we can make the case that having an old airplane makes a pilot more susceptible to poor decision making.

[cliffy]

2 hours ago, hais said:

Practical, as opposed to safety reasons?

Regulations

Everything installed in an airplane must be in working order for flight or MEL'd or placardd/removed.

If its inop in Pt 91 ops (without an MEL for that slecific airplane) it has a specific means to make the unit inop and

record the item in the maintenance log book. 

If it has an MEL then the MEL procedure has to be followed. 

Inop items just can't sit in the airplane without some kind of maintenance item recorded.

 

[cliffy]

3 minutes ago, hais said:

Fair point, but that's decision making impacting both new and old airplanes. I don't think we can make the case that having an old airplane makes a pilot more susceptible to poor decision making.

Not at all what if was inferring 

[Guest]

I think the condition of the fleet has as much to do with shitty maintenance going out there as it has to do with the attitude of the owners.  If you don’t want to spend much on maintenance, I’m sure you’ll find a maintainer willing to oblige.  Water seeks its own level.  

Having read these pages for many years, I’m honestly surprised at the things you guys endure and tolerate from your maintainers.

Maintaining an airplane is good condition takes loads of money and loads of dedication from both parties.

 

[Dialed In]

OK Cliffy, I may be in this category but not for the direct reason your stating. My plane has 7500 hours on the airframe, NDH, and has always been hangered.  When I took over ownership it was in immaculate, however dated, shape.  I have not put a dent in it since I bought it in 2017.  I have taken it to a different shop every year but one for annual since I purchased it.  Why? Was it the $3500 annual inspection fees? No.  It was because every year I had to go through what some careless A&P had done and redo it myself with oversight.  I have been fed up with A&P's in my area and it is very, very frustrating to pay someone $100 an hour to dick up my plane and have to do the work over again.  There are too many things to list and I don't want to write a book but it has been items like the heim joint that attaches the governor cable to my brand new governor they installed was so loose I could move the arm over a 1/4, that's why my brand new PCU 5000 was wondering.  I had new screws installed in my interior, they were too long and poked through the skin it made me absolutely sick.  An oil leak developed at the back of the engine could it be the 2400 hours on the engine?  Nope, the new vacuum pump that was installed three years ago was so carelessly installed they left some of the old gasket on the flange which made the new gasket leak, stupid and careless. There are many many more examples that I have and these are respected shops.  Do you think I want to pay these guys $100 an hour to fix a leaky vacuum line on a brittain autopilot?  No I'll do it myself when I get time.  I do want to thank the people like M20Doc and several other that provide good advise on here it's helped me out many times.  

[Dialed In]

As an aside I believe a good expensive maintainer is much cheaper than a poor cheap one.  I wish we had some good maintainers around here maybe I just haven't found them yet but it is not from a lack of trying.  

[Guest]

Some of the issues might just be the little time it takes to get an A&P, from the FAA site, 1900 hours or 1 year.  In Canada it takes 4 years or approximately 8000 hours, made up f two years of college, and 2 1/2 shop training.

[Schllc]

I may be missing something, but what was the objective of the rant?  
Is it that negligent people who shouldn’t own aircraft are skewing statistics?  
I also think the “none” comment may be a bit extreme. 
I have a Hobbs meter and an additional cigarette lighter installed in the baggage area of my aircraft.  Both are INOP and it has nothing to do with my ability or willingness to correct.

My plane is a g1000 and the time on the MDF is the only time that matters, and I have no use for the cigarette lighter in the baggage area. 
I’m  certainly not going to ground my plane, or waste time putting it down for these items.  I’ll wait for an airworthy or routine maintenance item to come first. 

[DCarlton]

5 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I may be missing something, but what was the objective of the rant?  
Is it that negligent people who shouldn’t own aircraft are skewing statistics?  
I also think the “none” comment may be a bit extreme. 
I have a Hobbs meter and an additional cigarette lighter installed in the baggage area of my aircraft.  Both are INOP and it has nothing to do with my ability or willingness to correct.

My plane is a g1000 and the time on the MDF is the only time that matters, and I have no use for the cigarette lighter in the baggage area. 
I’m  certainly not going to ground my plane, or waste time putting it down for these items.  I’ll wait for an airworthy or routine maintenance item to come first. 

I have an extra hobbs meter and cigarette lighter if you need one.  Not sure I want to part with the lighter though.  It's nostalgic.  

[Utah20Gflyer]

The wing leveler and aileron trim system are INOP in my plane.  I disagree with the previous owner that the aircraft needs aileron trim so although I will likely fix it at some point or remove it just cause I like everything to work but it's just not a priority at the moment.  I'm looking at installing a modern auto pilot and don't think the effort to fix the wing leveler is going to be worth the year I would use it.   

I don't think I am the problem.   As time progresses my airplane gets better and better.  For me that seems acceptable.   Perfection is sometimes the enemy of the good.  Ultimately it's my plane so I'll do with it what I want.   Yeah it's sad when people neglect airplanes but it's their property not yours. 

If you care so much then buy all these airplanes you don't think aren't being maintained well enough and maintain them yourself to your exceptional standard.  If you don't then you have failed, LoL.

 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Some of the issues might just be the little time it takes to get an A&P, from the FAA site, 1900 hours or 1 year.  In Canada it takes 4 years or approximately 8000 hours, made up f two years of college, and 2 1/2 shop training.

That's the required class time if you elect to go to an approved A&P school.    There is another path to becoming eligible to take the exams, which is 18 months of documented experience performing supervised maintenance for a single rating (i.e., airframe or powerplant), or 30 months for combined ratings.   If the documentary evidence of the supervised work is accepted then one is eligible to take the written exams, which makes one eligible to take the practical exams.

Your requirements up there are a little more stringent.    My understanding is that Europe is worse, where the ratings aren't very broad in scope;   you can work on only what you were trained on, e.g., airliners, GA, and I think in some places it's even marque specific, e.g., you have to have a Mooney rating, etc.   

[MikeOH]

Wow, Cliffy!  Wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning?  That's one depressing diatribe...again, what was your point?  Trying to run more people out of an already shrinking GA population?  To what end?  I mean, the accident rate has not been getting worse.

Hope you feel better, soon!