More Maintinance B$

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Again, I'm glad everything worked out well for you. But with all respect, you're still justifying, and in almost every accident situation that's the attitude that got them where they ended up. None of us have ever made a perfect flight and I've shared some things I've done on here that I never want to do again. Thanks again for sharing what you did and for being receptive to all of the replies that you're getting.

I am pretty sure you are conflating "justifying" with "rationalization".   This is an important distinction.

justify

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalization

The act, process, or result of rationalizing : a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.

So, in the case you actually mean Justify... yes, absolutely I am justifying my decision to continue... I am NOT rationalizing it, or rationalizing my decision to make a slow acceleration to a partial power takeoff...  I admit that part was not prudent and not having done that would have changed how this scenario played out.

The go decision was justified due to the timing of when I realized there was something amiss, had it not been I would have aborted... I felt more confident flying away from the ground at the time than I did pulling the throttle back and attempting a high speed abort.    I did not rationalize a poor decision at the time and I am not doing it now. 

I am unsure why you have chosen to take a few words posted on this site and  insinuate I have an attitude that will somehow be detrimental to me or get me into trouble.  Because we disagree on a situation I was present for and you are only reading my brief account of, I have a poor attitude?  That is a pretty bold judgement you are placing on me and I boggle as to why you might think I should take that as anything but hostile.   

 Perhaps you have not considered what can go wrong with an "always abort"  mindset...  Have you considered what a fiasco my situation would have been had I decided to try to abort and the throttle WAS stuck?  Have you considered that being at high speed, attempting to abort could have resulted in a float down the runway trying to bleed that speed off and then a possible runway excursion?  Do you know how much runway I had in front of me for my scenario?  Do you know how much of it I would have used slowing down?

I am harping because I am baffled at the judgement you have made of me given the very little info you have about the situation.   I mean, dang,  Im not Chuck Yager, but I fly a 60 million dollar jet professionally, train yearly, Have instructed professional pilots in a 142 school, own 3 aircraft,  have no accidents of fault on record, not even and incident, no violations, yet you dont even give me the slightest benefit of the doubt...

It comes off to me as very arrogant.  You claim to want to learn, but instead of asking me why I did something, you tell me I was wrong and I have a dangerous attitude.

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Austintatious

[LANCECASPER]

2 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I am pretty sure you are conflating "justifying" with "rationalization".   This is an important distinction.

justify

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.
2.  

 

The go decision was justified at the time I realized there was something amiss, had it not been I would have aborted... I felt more confident flying away from the ground at the time than I did pulling the throttle back and attempting a high speed abort.    I did not rationalize a poor decision here.

I am unsure why you have chosen to take a few words posted on this site and  insinuate I have an attitude that will somehow be detrimental to me or get me into trouble.  Because we disagree on a situation I was present for and you are only reading my brief account of, I have a poor attitude?  That is a pretty bold judgement you are placing on me and I boggle as to why you might think I should take that as anything but hostile.   

 Perhaps you have not considered what can go wrong with an "always abort"  mindset...  Have you considered what a fiasco my situation would have been had I decided to try to abort and the throttle WAS stuck?  Have you considered that being at high speed, attempting to abort could have resulted in a float down the runway trying to bleed that speed off and then a possible runway excursion? 

 

Who said "always abort"? Definitely not me.  I talked about where down the runway someone could make a go/no-go decision. How is that always abort?

Apparently I misunderstood the purpose of your post. I see now by the title that you are simply wanting to complain about maintenance and aren't open to the possibility that things could have been handled better. If you'd like, I have no problem going back and deleting my posts. 

To reply about the words justify and rationalize, especially after your last post I agree with you completely, instead of using "justify", the word rationalize should have been used instead. (verb (used with object),ra·tion·al·ize

1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

Regarding your attitude though, it's pretty obvious that you are convinced that you are right,  so I'll leave it at that. I didn't offer anything to you in the spirit of hostility, and I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way. This forum is all about different points of view. If we all thought the same why would we come here just to hear what we already know? Personally, I need and appreciate attitude adjustments. If I'm looking at something in a way that someone thinks could get me hurt I want to know about it and appreciate them thinking about me. Even if someone tells me something that deep down I really don't want to hear, I still realize that the easiest thing for them to have done was to say nothing. A lot of people read these posts,  so who know? Someone may benefit from another point of view. 

[Austintatious]

2 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Who said "always abort"? Definitely not me.  I talked about where down the runway someone could make a go/no-go decision. How is that always abort?

Apparently I misunderstood the purpose of your post. I see now by the title that you are simply wanting to complain about maintenance and aren't open to the possibility that things could have been handled better. If you'd like, I have no problem going back and deleting my posts. 

To reply about the words justify and rationalize, especially after your last post I agree with you completely, instead of using "justify", the word rationalize should have been used instead. (verb (used with object),ra·tion·al·ize

1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

Regarding your attitude though, it's pretty obvious that you are convinced that you are right,  so I'll leave it at that. I didn't offer anything to you in the spirit of hostility, and I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way. This forum is all about different points of view. If we all thought the same why would we come here just to hear what we already know? Personally, I need and appreciate attitude adjustments. If I'm looking at something in a way that someone thinks could get me hurt I want to know about it and appreciate them thinking about me. Even if someone tells me something that deep down I really don't want to hear, I still realize that the easiest thing for them to have done was to say nothing. A lot of people read these posts,  so who know? Someone may benefit from another point of view. 

Ahh, so if not "always abort" then by what metric have you decided MY go decision was unjustifiable?  You seem to gloss right over that part about you not being there.  You provided no criteria other than your opinion by which I should have chosen a high speed abort over simply continuing to lift off.

No need to delete your post on my account.

I am never convinced I am right... I constantly question myself and my thoughts and actions.  If you go re-read the OP, I even stated "Maybe I should have aborted".  There is a difference here though between you and me and speaking after the fact on my go decision...  I was there and I say MAYBE I should have aborted... You WEREN'T there and say I definitely should have aborted and that I have an attitude because I don't agree with you.    I have questioned myself on decisions I have made where even in hindsight they were 100 percent the correct decision.

I take no issue with you offering your point of view on what you might do in a situation like mine... but you didn't stop there did you?  It was that you pretty much asserted I not only made the wrong call, but that I had an attitude about it and you ignored any points I had to the contrary.

Nonetheless, If you appreciate different points of view why ignore mine?  You still have not bothered to address the points I brought up about the dangers of a high speed abort.  We could have been talking about go/no go theory this whole time, instead we are now hashing out my "attitude".

So, I am done with this rough conversation...  if you wish to discuss continuing vs aborting takeoffs and can do so without being judgemental and accusatory with me I am happy to have that discussion, it is my life blood and I am always happy to have those sorts of discussions.

[LANCECASPER]

5 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Ahh, so if not "always abort" then by what metric have you decided MY go decision was unjustifiable?  You seem to gloss right over that part about you not being there.  You provided no criteria other than your opinion by which I should have chosen a high speed abort over simply continuing to lift off.

No need to delete your post on my account.

I am never convinced I am right... I constantly question myself and my thoughts and actions.  If you go re-read the OP, I even stated "Maybe I should have aborted".  There is a difference here though between you and me and speaking after the fact on my go decision...  I was there and I say MAYBE I should have aborted... You WEREN'T there and say I definitely should have aborted and that I have an attitude because I don't agree with you.    I have questioned myself on decisions I have made where even in hindsight they were 100 percent the correct decision.

I take no issue with you offering your point of view on what you might do in a situation like mine... but you didn't stop there did you?  It was that you pretty much asserted I not only made the wrong call, but that I had an attitude about it and you ignored any points I had to the contrary.

Nonetheless, If you appreciate different points of view why ignore mine?  You still have not bothered to address the points I brought up about the dangers of a high speed abort.  We could have been talking about go/no go theory this whole time, instead we are now hashing out my "attitude".

So, I am done with this rough conversation...  if you wish to discuss continuing vs aborting takeoffs and can do so without being judgemental and accusatory with me I am happy to have that discussion, it is my life blood and I am always happy to have those sorts of discussions.

You must be a joy to fly with  . lol 

[Austintatious]

14 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

You must be a joy to fly with  . lol 

Thank you for this post... tells me all I need to know.  

I'll buy you a tank of gas if you can quote any part of the post you responded to that is any sort of attack or slight at you or anything other than me making an attempt to come back to a discussion about Aviation.

You clearly want to keep it personal, so find someone else to rag on for whatever reasons you have for doing so.

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Austintatious

[Austintatious]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In Military accident investigation we call discrepancies that weren’t the direct cause of the accident, present but not contributing. They wrre considered important because especially if there were a couple they speak to the quality of maintenance.

So for instance if this 182 broke a crankshaft and went down in a housing area and did a lot of collateral damage or if there was a big lawsuit it’s obvious that the battery didn’t contribute to the accident, or at least in my opinion it would be very difficult to attribute a broken crank to a battery.

First I have to acknowledge that thankfully I’m no insurance expert, but in my insurance policy there is a statement to the effect that if the aircraft isn’t airworthy, the insurance isn’t in effect, I can’t quote chapt and verse but I know for my insurance to be in effect I have to maintain airworthiness. Unapproved parts on an airplane render it unairworthy. Let me be a little more concise, whenever there is a TSO for a part, and the replacement isn’t manufactured to that TSO and the part is critical to the operation of the aircraft as a battery is, then the aircraft isn’t airworthy.

So in my opinion in that instance the insurance company can walk leaving you all by yourself, I have no idea if they would but they could just as surely as the aircraft wasn’t in Annual.

There are quite a few ways I believe that you can invalidate insurance, most I think are common sense

Good post.   I agree that the insurance companies require the aircraft to be airworthy.  What I do wonder is if their definition is the same as the FAA.  I would think it is.   Do you know of any cases where an incorrect part has caused a denial of insurance even though it was not a factor in the accident? that might make for some interesting reading.

[Andy95W]

My gut tells me that as two professional pilots, you guys would likely enjoy meeting each other in person at OSH or MooneyMax, and you’d probably find a lot to talk about (and agree on).  But the impersonal nature of the internet caused this spiteful discussion.

Sorry to interrupt, I’ll butt out now. 

[ilovecornfields]

It’s painful to read, but it’s a good discussion. I’m personally better at “treat every landing like a potential go around” than “treat every takeoff as a potential abort” especially at my home field on a nice day.

I did something stupid once (only once!) and didn’t abort a takeoff I should have. I was cleared for an immediate takeoff with a jet close-in behind me and as I was getting ready to rotate felt a resistance in the controls. I was able to pull up enough to start flying but felt progressively more resistance to the point that I could barely hold takeoff attitude and just as I was about to really crap my pants I heard “trim in motion.”

You guessed it- I took off with the autopilot on (usually I have it in FD mode but for some reason I must have hit the wrong button). Thankfully I was able to disconnect the autopilot and re-trim and had an uneventful flight, but it was clearly the WRONG decision.

I’ve thought about it a lot and tried to justify (rationalize) why I did that. I remember being worried that the jet behind me wouldn’t have time to go around or that I might go off the end of the runway (although I had plenty) but the best I could come up with is that I just hadn’t started the takeoff roll with the mindset that I might really have to abort and had a problem that I didn’t understand and had never thought about or anticipated before. To paraphrase a famous quote , this is one of the reasons why flying is dangerous - you often get the test before the lesson.

I appreciate both of you sharing. It’s a good discussion. Hopefully we’re all mature enough that we take others internet criticisms with a grain of salt. I’m convinced you both mean well and have learned from both of you.

[A64Pilot]

31 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Good post.   I agree that the insurance companies require the aircraft to be airworthy.  What I do wonder is if their definition is the same as the FAA.  I would think it is.   Do you know of any cases where an incorrect part has caused a denial of insurance even though it was not a factor in the accident? that might make for some interesting reading.

Most all of my flying hasn’t been GA, but no I actually have very little (thankfully) experience with insurance. I’d suspect myself that unless it’s egregious or the cause of the accident they wouldn’t even know, exception to that I guess is if the FAA or NTSB investigates, they publish findings then the insurance Co would know?

I wouldn’t expect it to be even a consideration unless there was the possibility of a rather large claim, but that’s pure speculation.

I operate on the belief that you buy insurance for the improbable outcome and if I have it, I won’t do anything that might jeopardize coverage. I guess one of the more obvious and easy to catch SNAFUS would be flying without a medical, does anyone know of insurance not paying because the pilot’s medical was over due?

decent article on the subject

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/safety/insurance/we-wont-pay/

Edited June 27, 2023 by A64Pilot

[Austintatious]

4 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Most all of my flying hasn’t been GA, but no I actually have very little (thankfully) experience with insurance. I’d suspect myself that unless it’s egregious or the cause of the accident they wouldn’t even know, exception to that I guess is if the FAA or NTSB investigates, they publish findings then the insurance Co would know?

I wouldn’t expect it to be even a consideration unless there was the possibility of a rather large claim, but that’s pure speculation.

I operate on the belief that you buy insurance for the improbable outcome and if I have it, I won’t do anything that might jeopardize coverage. I guess one of the more obvious and easy to catch SNAFUS would be flying without a medical, does anyone know of insurance not paying because the pilot’s medical was over due?

I found an article about this topic... According to that article it is unlikely they would deny the claim.  The circumstances that might would be if the medical being out was a cause, IOW, the pilot was denied because he was unsafe to fly or if he had attempted to get a medical he would have been denied.  That and big injury or death $$ enter the equation.

The article said they typically just pay because many times paying the claim is cheaper than litigation and since aviation is such a small community, no insurance company wants a reputation of denying claims on shaky grounds or on technicalities.

[A64Pilot]

5 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I found an article about this topic... According to that article it is unlikely they would deny the claim.  The circumstances that might would be if the medical being out was a cause, IOW, the pilot was denied because he was unsafe to fly or if he had attempted to get a medical he would have been denied.  That and big injury or death $$ enter the equation.

The article said they typically just pay because many times paying the claim is cheaper than litigation and since aviation is such a small community, no insurance company wants a reputation of denying claims on shaky grounds or on technicalities.

While you were posting I was reading possibly the same article. I would think the size of the possible claim may play into it too, taxi into a bizjet and do a million or more in damages and I think they look harder than if you just had a prop strike, but that’s supposition.

Still I think it very foolish to save $100 on a battery and possibly invalidate your insurance to say nothing of the FAA, it’s just not worth it

Edited June 27, 2023 by A64Pilot

[Fly Boomer]

4 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I do appreciate the constructive criticism though... as pointed out, I don't hold out that I did nothing wrong... I certainly should not have assumed that the shop did their job. And by doing a slow throttle increase to partial power I made it so that I didn't discover a problem until high speed.

I'll bet slow throttle application is safer than firewalling it, and trying to keep the airplane going in a straight line.  That extra 100 HP can make things squirrely.

[Fly Boomer]

17 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

While you were posting I was reading possibly the same article. I would think the size of the possible claim may play into it too, taxi into a bizjet and do a million or more in damages and I think they look harder than if you just had a prop strike, but that’s supposition.

Still I think it very foolish to save $100 on a battery and possibly invalidate your insurance to say nothing of the FAA, it’s just not worth it

The guys I know with fake batteries aren't concerned about insurance payouts because they don't have insurance.

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Good post.   I agree that the insurance companies require the aircraft to be airworthy.  What I do wonder is if their definition is the same as the FAA.  I would think it is.   Do you know of any cases where an incorrect part has caused a denial of insurance even though it was not a factor in the accident? that might make for some interesting reading.

Lots of stories but very little evidence. Mostly the insurance company wants a copy of the logbook showing an annual on the last 12mo and that's it. I haven't seen them wade into the minutia of the definition of approved parts or airworthiness beyond the logbook entry. 

[Boilermonkey]

4 hours ago, Andy95W said:

My gut tells me that as two professional pilots, you guys would likely enjoy meeting each other in person at OSH or MooneyMax, and you’d probably find a lot to talk about (and agree on).  But the impersonal nature of the internet caused this spiteful discussion.

Sorry to interrupt, I’ll butt out now. 

And OSH isn't too far away!   

[MBDiagMan]

11 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I wanted to address this...   That is correct, I did not.  Reason being that it was a changing of a Vacuum pump and the shop ran the aircraft after changing it.   So yes I trusted they had done the job properly. 

I get your point, don't trust the mechanics, and I agree with you... your point is also my point, If I cannot trust the Certified A&P's to do a simple job and hand me back the aircraft without a screw up like this... why do I need them in the first place?   If there is a need for me to double check their work via testing to make sure it was done properly, then why cant I just double check my own work?

 

Everyone makes mistakes.  Even the pro that keeps your airplane going.  We are the PIC’s.  The final responsibility rests on us.  We should always look around after maintenance even if we don’t know what we’re looking at.

I went to a safety seminar some years ago that was put on by Lucky at Air Salvage of Dallas.  He goes out and brings in the remains of crashed Aircraft.  The NTSB literally consults with him to learn more about accident investigations.  I know this to be true because my late wife’s twin sister worked for the NTSB and told me so.

Lucky showed us a pile of scrap aluminum that was once an airplane.  It had been used for giving inner city kids flight instruction in a program to try to help them into an aviation vocation.  When annualled, a mechanic left a flashlight behind in the fuselage.  Shortly thereafter the aircraft was used to practice stalls.  When it was pitched nose up, the flashlight fell into bulkhead hole through which a control cable was routed.  It jammed the cable and the instructor and student perished.

Lucky’s message was to always have someone else look around and see if something isn’t right.  He said that even a secretary from the office would have seen the flashlight.

Flying is not forgiving.  We need to all try to see everything we can and not be afraid to question the mechanics or anyone when things don’t seem right.  We should give ourselves and those who fly with us every chance.  The first flight after maintenance is as serious as a heart attack.  IMHO that fligh should have no passengers and all precautions possible should be taken like staying in glide distance of the airport, minimal fuel on board, no passengers etc.  I’ve been around Aviation long enough to see a few tragedies up close and personal and some basic precautions would have gone a long way.

So sorry if this came across as condescending, because it is not my intention.  I learned a serious lesson from Lucky at the expense of someone else.  I want to share it with others.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by MBDiagMan

[Austintatious]

10 hours ago, MBDiagMan said:

Everyone makes mistakes.  Even the pro that keeps your airplane going.  We are the PIC’s.  The final responsibility rests on us.  We should always look around after maintenance even if we don’t know what we’re looking at.

I went to a safety seminar some years ago that was put on by Lucky at Air Salvage of Dallas.  He goes out and brings in the remains of crashed Aircraft.  The NTSB literally consults with him to learn more about accident investigations.  I know this to be true because my late wife’s twin sister worked for the NTSB and told me so.

Lucky showed us a pile of scrap aluminum that was once an airplane.  It had been used for giving inner city kids flight instruction in a program to try to help them into an aviation vocation.  When annualled, a mechanic left a flashlight behind in the fuselage.  Shortly thereafter the aircraft was used to practice stalls.  When it was pitched nose up, the flashlight fell into bulkhead hole through which a control cable was routed.  It jammed the cable and the instructor and student perished.

Lucky’s message was to always have someone else look around and see if something isn’t right.  He said that even a secretary from the office would have seen the flashlight.

Flying is not forgiving.  We need to all try to see everything we can and not be afraid to question the mechanics or anyone when things don’t seem right.  We should give ourselves and those who fly with us every chance.  The first flight after maintenance is as serious as a heart attack.  IMHO that fligh should have no passengers and all precautions possible should be taken like staying in glide distance of the airport, minimal fuel on board, no passengers etc.  I’ve been around Aviation long enough to see a few tragedies up close and personal and some basic precautions would have gone a long way.

So sorry if this came across as condescending, because it is not my intention.  I learned a serious lesson from Lucky at the expense of someone else.  I want to share it with others.

 

No sir, Not condescending at all and I agree with every bit.  I have already multiple times in this thread said that I regret here is not double checking the mechanics and acknowledge I should not have trusted them, and usually I do not.  I am typically standing over them (on my cars and my plane) watching everything.

I certainly should have removed the cowl and taken a look.  Well, in actuality, I sort of did...  After they had done the Vacuum repair, I did an oil change, I am always careful after an oil  change to look around very closely for forgotten rags or tools.   My wife was helping and I even showed here the shiny new Vac pump.  I say I sort of checked out their work because, I did not really scrutinize the running of the hose to the pump.  When I first took off the cowl after the issue, It was not immediately clear that the hose was in the way, it was not until I had someone actuate the throttle while I watch that it became clear. 

What I should have done was as you say, make a test flight.

 

That all being said and my faults admitted to... The bigger picture here is that, you must admit, someone being able to maintain their own Prop-Jet Lancair  while I cannot maintain my own Mooney is a bit silly.  I play by these rules even though I do not agree with them.  And Remember, This situation is not the only one I have had... Plenty of other Snafu's with maintenance. Here is what I put in my OP

I STILL have gouges in my cowl from a mechanic letting my aircraft fall off a spinner jack...  Incomplete annuals from even MSC's.  Having to hunt down and hound people for logbook entries.  Parts being broken and then not replaced ( grease fittings on landing gear),  Wrong nose tire being installed resulting in super sensitive steering,  Turbo oil line being improperly routed after turbo change, causing it to chafe through from rubbing from vibration....  The wrong %$^&  DAMNED propeller being installed on one of my aircraft!!!    ARG!!!  YES, all this and more has happened to me in 2 years of aircraft ownership!

Again, this is not a comprehensive list... Plenty of other issues

So, I get it, even the Pro's make mistakes... But it seems that every last time I have maintenance, there is a screw up.  I get an occasional goof, but nearly every time?   If the certified mechanics can screw it up this often, well then, I prefer to screw it up myself. 

I know the rules wont change, but it would make sense and would be nice.... Thing is, I like my Mooneys, but I know I will be selling them in a few years because the maintenance situation is untenable for me.  I have my hands tied on what I can legally do, and I am sick of the mistakes made by those I am forced to have work on my aircraft.   I will be buying something experimental and doing the maintenance myself when I feel confident in doing so.

 

 

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I know the rules wont change, but it would make sense and would be nice.... Thing is, I like my Mooneys, but I know I will be selling them in a few years because the maintenance situation is untenable for me.  I have my hands tied on what I can legally do, and I am sick of the mistakes made by those I am forced to have work on my aircraft.   I will be buying something experimental and doing the maintenance myself when I feel confident in doing so.

My solution was to go to A&P school, but I know that's not an option for everybody.   Most people I know who feel this pain find an A&P that they can work with to do most of the work themselves and get it inspected and signed off.   You can log the wrench time when you do this and accumulate it toward getting signed off to take the A&P exams.   Finding an A&P that you can work with is a potential hurdle, but this is what a lot of people do.

[kortopates]

I am another one that got his A&P for all its benefits; foremost to be a safer pilot. But i kid you not, it’s a lot more effort than the what it took to get say a Private and Instrument certificates.
I have a Lancair project i never completed and frankly grew out of with my present Mooney.
But i wouldn’t want to buy a Mooney worked on by an unlicensed pilot owner, that would seriously devalue the plane in my opinion.
Personally i think the best thing for getting quality maintenance is to develop a relationship with someone local to you that will be there for you when you need them.
But For those that don’t see the value in certified aircraft there is the experimental home built aircraft route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

I am another one that got his A&P for all its benefits; foremost to be a safer pilot. But i kid you not, it’s a lot more effort than the what it took to get say a Private and Instrument certificates.
I have a Lancair project i never completed and frankly grew out of with my present Mooney.
But i wouldn’t want to buy a Mooney worked on by an unlicensed pilot owner, that would seriously devalue the plane in my opinion.
Personally i think the best thing for getting quality maintenance is to develop a relationship with someone local to you that will be there for you when you need them.
But For those that don’t see the value in certified aircraft there is the experimental home built aircraft route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know if I completely agree with you. I supervise four owners who do most of their wrenching. They have all done some bone headed things and I have explained where they went wrong and how to make it right. They are all vested in making their airplanes great. And they all strive to do as best as they can. In most cases they will spend more time on a task than a shop would. Instead of just making a part airworthy, they will strip it and repaint it, or completely disassemble it and replace all the seals where a shop probably wouldn’t. Or it would cost a fortune if they did. 
 

So there are some owners that would cut corners to save a buck, I haven’t met them.

[McMooney]

honestly, everytime i get in the plane it's my ass on the line; I value my ass very much. 8)

yes i'd trust me working on it,  even more than i trust the ap/ia.  If experimentals don't decrease in value, why would my mooney?  I'm gonna sell at a price i'm good with, some guy doesn't like it, uhmm see ya

[EricJ]

9 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don’t know if I completely agree with you. I supervise four owners who do most of their wrenching. They have all done some bone headed things and I have explained where they went wrong and how to make it right. They are all vested in making their airplanes great. And they all strive to do as best as they can. In most cases they will spend more time on a task than a shop would. Instead of just making a part airworthy, they will strip it and repaint it, or completely disassemble it and replace all the seals where a shop probably wouldn’t. Or it would cost a fortune if they did. 
 

That's generally been my experience as well, but it may take a little bit to figure out whether an owner is this type or...

9 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So there are some owners that would cut corners to save a buck, I haven’t met them.

...this type, which I have run across.   It is generally not in an A&P's interest to put their name in the logbook of these owners.

An owner of the first type, though, that has the talent and takes the time do something with a pride of ownership as well as recognition of their special vested interests, can be a joy to work with and the results can be expected to be better than a shop working under time/cost constraints.

I don't think this should detract from the value of an airplane, either, and for some might increase it.   I can certainly see somebody arguing that it would diminish the value, just to diminish the value, like missing logbooks, etc. 
 

[Joshua Blackh4t]

The problem with checking after maintenance is that there is the same chance that I leave a screwdriver in there than my mechanic doing it. Possibly more.

After every issue, there is always something that would have stopped it. But if that something had been applied all the time, it might cause other problems.

Likewise owner maintainence or adapting a non-certified autopilot. Always think of the worst case scenario, and there will be someone out there who manages to do worse. 

[mike_elliott]

38 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I’m guessing that there are still more airplanes crashed and written off weekly by pilots than by maintainers.

It should be zero for both, and telling that it isnt. Maintainerss and pilots both get way to sloppy. Fly like a pro, wrench like a pro. Lets stop this crazy trend so we can have a few less to face west and toast to at the Mooney Summit

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

I’m guessing that there are still more airplanes crashed and written off weekly by pilots than by maintainers.

You are correct. No need to guess. 
 

What other causes of accidents are on the list?

1. Loss of control in flight
2. Controlled flight into terrain
3. System component failure — engine
4. Fuel
5. Unknown
6. System component failure — non-engine
7. Unintended flight into instrument meteorological conditions
8. Mid-air collisions
9. Low altitude operations
10. Other

https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/06/24/top-10-causes-of-fatal-ga-accidents/

https://pilotinstitute.com/aviation-accident-causes/#:~:text=The largest cause of fatal accidents in general aviation is,Flight into Terrain (CFIT).