More Maintinance B$

[Austintatious]

11 hours 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. 
 

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

Great post... And I want to point out... that while I play by the rules, There is nothing about a certified aircraft that guarantees that someone has not done their own work.

Twice now I have been at a maintenance facility and seen a planes that looked a bit rough... I asked about them and the shop said something along the lines of  " Yea we are doing an annual on that plane, he has been flying it the last 5 years out of annual "   If some owner pilots are willing to do that, you can bet they are willing to do illegal work.

On my last altimeter check, There was a big leak.  We found, in the line from the pitot tube, a push to connect joiner like you would see on a refrigerator. 

Don't forget, the is a LARGE list of things owners CAN do to their aircraft, so buying certified in no way protects you from shoddy owner performed work. 

And to further make my point, the regs actually allow OWNER MADE PARTS on certified aircraft.  https://www.cessnaflyer.org/maintenance-tech/item/984-owner-produced-parts-regulations-interpretations-and-applications.html

Imagine that... I can MAKE my own part, but I may not be allowed to legally install it.   I am about to do this actually with some wheel fairings. I am going to make a mold of them and make some Carbon fiber ones.  Of course Ill have to find a mechanic to install them!

 

 

[Pinecone]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:09 AM, Utah20Gflyer said:

I think rather than converting the rules to the same as experimental we should get it changed to the same as LSA where by getting a certain amount instruction you can perform additional maintenance functions.   Say take a six month class as night where they instruct you on proper maintenance procedure to do certain functions.  After the class you are tested for competency and if found competent given authority to do that type of work on any plane you own.  Maybe split classes into different competencies like engine, landing gear, avionics, sheet metal, inspection, etc.  

An A&P would essentially be the commercial certificate for repair work.  Then link the two so with enough owner repairman instruction and experience you can obtain the A&P.  
 

Being both very mechanical and having a lot of humility about my capabilities I think I could safely operate in a Wild West maintenance scenario, but at the same time knowing my limitations I would desire more knowledge and structure for that process which the above described program would provide. 
 

That would be a great way to do it.

Trained and tested to do certain work.  And count that and logged work performed towards full A&P

[Pinecone]

On 6/26/2023 at 11:26 AM, A64Pilot said:

I know, military, but before starting engines we did a flight controls check, which included ALL flight controls, throttles are a flight control, as is the rudder, but who was taught check rudder free and clear? For some reason civilian airplane pilots are only taught check the stick / yoke?

Hmm, in ATC and TAC we did a flight controls check after EVERY engine start.   Crew chief signaled the check, the used their hands to indicate control movement.  So for rudder, they held their hand fingers parallel to the ground and vertical.  They would flap it like a fish tail, then the pilot would push the left or right rudder pedal and the CC from mirro the motion with his hand.  They would check the 3 main controls, plus flaps and speed brakes.  And, if the pitot could be reached, they would check pitot heat.

This was done EVERY flight.

[mike_elliott]

wonder how much an FBO could charge to have a 3 man crew do a flight controls check after every engine start for an owner? While a good idea, I doubt many Mooney's would be in the queue for this service. Works well when you have a whole army of techs on staff tho.

[ilovecornfields]

There are definitely some good points here. I remember early on when I picked my plane up from annual and told them I planned to fly it around the airport for a while then fly home the next day. The shop owner said “That’s a great idea! Most people just fuel it up and fly home.”

I have no delusions that I can do any but the simplest maintenance tasks myself but I’ve definitely caught things that others didn’t do correctly. “Trust but verify” protects both parties.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

wonder how much an FBO could charge to have a 3 man crew do a flight controls check after every engine start for an owner? While a good idea, I doubt many Mooney's would be in the queue for this service. Works well when you have a whole army of techs on staff tho.

Even my ancient C has this line in the Before-Takeoff Check. It's actually the FIRST item:

1.  Flight Controls--CHECK for unrestricted travel.

I also check for proper direction of everything. Taxiing confirms that the rudder moves the right way, since it's hard to see from the left front seat; elevator is easy to check, and when I turn the yoke, the aileron I turn towards should be up and the one I turn away from should be down.

4 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

There are definitely some good points here. I remember early on when I picked my plane up from annual and told them I planned to fly it around the airport for a while then fly home the next day. The shop owner said “That’s a great idea! Most people just fuel it up and fly home.”

I have no delusions that I can do any but the simplest maintenance tasks myself but I’ve definitely caught things that others didn’t do correctly. “Trust but verify” protects both parties.

I always make a test flight, once around the pattern with landing to a full stop, after any maintenance [even oil changes that I do myself.] Take off, raise gear, zoom around, lower gear, land, exit runway and taxi back. Then I can think about going somewhere; now that there is no service at my home field, this is very important, even though it's just a 15-minute flight there's a lot of you-can't-land-here space in between. The one lap tests everything except leaning the engine and cruise performance.

[kortopates]

Great post... And I want to point out... that while I play by the rules, There is nothing about a certified aircraft that guarantees that someone has not done their own work.
Twice now I have been at a maintenance facility and seen a planes that looked a bit rough... I asked about them and the shop said something along the lines of  " Yea we are doing an annual on that plane, he has been flying it the last 5 years out of annual "   If some owner pilots are willing to do that, you can bet they are willing to do illegal work.
On my last altimeter check, There was a big leak.  We found, in the line from the pitot tube, a push to connect joiner like you would see on a refrigerator. 
Don't forget, the is a LARGE list of things owners CAN do to their aircraft, so buying certified in no way protects you from shoddy owner performed work. 
And to further make my point, the regs actually allow OWNER MADE PARTS on certified aircraft.  https://www.cessnaflyer.org/maintenance-tech/item/984-owner-produced-parts-regulations-interpretations-and-applications.html
Imagine that... I can MAKE my own part, but I may not be allowed to legally install it.   I am about to do this actually with some wheel fairings. I am going to make a mold of them and make some Carbon fiber ones.  Of course Ill have to find a mechanic to install them!
 
 

I agree, i should have been more clear, i was referring to allowing unsupervised owner maintenance at the start of the thread - much like Canada allows with some aircraft. It does devalue the aircraft and adds restrictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin Schmidt]

Ultimately, maintenance and even the most causes of accidents(fatal non-fatal) boil down to ego. For owner maintenance to work and a shop, one must take ego out and admit to oneself that that do not have the skill, knowledge, tools to do something.  Yes even a shop needs to practice that.

In terms of accidents, an example if a pilot actually cuts the ego out one should not get to the point of spacial disorientation in IMC when you are not proficient or those that do it without being trained. It is safe to say ego is the greatest killer and the most preventable. ego is, also, a major driving force of why we continually get new regulations.

the difficulty is it is anyone's guess to how to fix that.

[A64Pilot]

20 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

wonder how much an FBO could charge to have a 3 man crew do a flight controls check after every engine start for an owner? While a good idea, I doubt many Mooney's would be in the queue for this service. Works well when you have a whole army of techs on staff tho.

You don’t need anyone to do a flight control check, you can do it all, you check the rudder is connected on pre-flight and moving the pedals confirms it moves, everything else you can see from the cockpit.

‘Interestingly I got a safety email from the FAA a couple days ago, topic is first flight after maintenance, it’s three .pdf files. I don’t know how to attach those but here is a couple of screen shots from the first .pdf. It’s on topic.  a few would still be alive if they had done a flight control check, and how many check throttle and trim as part of a flight controls check, throttle you can check before starting engines. 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by A64Pilot

[skykrawler]

The "Spanish Embrarr" - flight KC1833 - the aircraft was totaled.

"The aircraft’s skin was deformed from the stress of the uncommanded manoeuvres and the leading edges of the wings were wrinkled."

More accurately, the manoeuvres were commanded, but for a different aircraft configuration.

But, I guess it was a successful landing.

[N177MC]

NIL:   Maintenance Induced Failures ( MIFs )are a serious problem and aircraft owners/pilots need to be extremely vigilant with the post Mx flight.

I'm an A&P/IA, I have a 3 man shop: Me, Myself & I ...   Whilst I realize, from a safety point of view, this is not ideal, ie. not having a separate set of eyes reviewing the work would be better, it has become extremely difficult to find A&Ps.  FRankly I've given up.

That said, I am shocked that most owner/pilots do NOT perform post Mx check-out flights . 

I remember one client that called me early one saturday morning complaining that the transponder was INOP , could I come over and have a look.  So I'm driving to the airport and it's miserable out, low ceiling, heavy rain, etc., and I'm thinking: WTF, I just signed off the Annual the previous evening and the owner wants to go flying in this crap ?

It turns out that not only he was intending to go flying, he had filed a multi-hour X-country in hard IFR with pax ! 

The transponder problem was a G1000 glitch that had nothing to do wit the Mx, but rather the owner up-dating the database that morning.  So he wasn't going anywhere fast, but I can tell you I gave him a stern warning that I would not touch his plane again if I ever catch him NOT performing a proper post Mx flight, in good VFR and sans pax ...

IMHO: Big shops have the worst track record for MIFs simply because they tend to use non-certified and less & less experienced mechanics that actually do the work.  The old guy with all the experience is spending all of his time in the office dealing with "business" , NOT on the shop floor ! 

 

[A64Pilot]

On 7/1/2023 at 5:30 PM, skykrawler said:

The "Spanish Embrarr" - flight KC1833 - the aircraft was totaled.

"The aircraft’s skin was deformed from the stress of the uncommanded manoeuvres and the leading edges of the wings were wrinkled."

More accurately, the manoeuvres were commanded, but for a different aircraft configuration.

But, I guess it was a successful landing.

Yeah, they walked away, to me that’s successful.

Issue as I think I understand it and why it was so difficult to control wasn’t just reversed ailerons, that’s not that hard to fly, any model airplane pilot has probably made that building mistake, I know I did.

But the Embraer as many modern aircraft use both the spoilers and ailerons for roll control, so ailerons and spoilers were operating in opposition to each other because the spoilers were not reversed, which I assume increases drag tremendously on that wing, huge adverse yaw and I’m not sure what else, because I assume there was a computer involved and lord knows what it did

[bcg]

As an IA and ATP I understand the complaint. However, removing maintenance requirements on aircraft is not going to make them safer. I would recommend obtaining an A&P certificate to any owner. There was an Alaska comment. Most pilots in Alaska I believe are A&Ps. Or at least the average is greater.  
I tried not to comment, but complaining about poor maintenance on a form is not going to solve your problem. Maintainers leave the field because other fields pay more and have less liability. Those that are still left in maintenance I feel truly love aviation. I’ve been asked by several to open my own shop. Why? 
Love the one you’re with!
-Matt

I would love to get an A&P, the requirements are just prohibitive. I only want to work on my plane, I don't need to learn about fabric repairs or turbines and I have a decent amount of mechanical knowledge already. It would be nice if there was a limited certificate to allow maintenance to piston GA planes and a way to test out of some of the requirements based on previous knowledge. Rebuilding non-aviation air cooled engines, or other mechanical repairs should be counted as experience. I don't expect it to happen though, so I work under supervision. I'm EXTREMELY grateful that I'm allowed to do that by my shop, every time I have something done at a shop where I'm not allowed to be involved (when I'm away from home), something gets broken or missed.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[47U]

12 hours ago, bcg said:

I would love to get an A&P, the requirements are just prohibitive.

Your shop might know how strict your FSDO is regarding documenting experience, but there is a path forward.  When you preflight your aircraft… that’s a maintenance activity.  Removing panels for the annual, inspecting per the annual checklist, it all counts.  Even cleaning the belly counts for time, with proper wording… it’s inspecting for corrosion, right?  If you start documenting now, with the support of your shop (if you can swing the time, volunteer to help out in their shop), in a few years you might satisfy the FSDO that you have the required maintenance experience.  There’s plenty of resources online (and otherwise) to prepare for the written.  If you’re knowledgeable and mechanically inclined, the practical should be also doable.    

https://www.faa.gov/mechanics/become/experience

[A64Pilot]

For the average owner an A&P isn’t worth it, the written’s alone were a real bear to me, moreso than any pilot written. The oral and practicable I sweated because I had no fabric or Radial experience etc., but it was a breeze.

In my opinion if you can find an A&P/IA that allows you to work under their supervision that’s your ideal situation.

Just don’t forget he or she is in business to make a living, be sure you pay them well for them supervising you so that they will continue the relationship. Too many think they should get the sign off without any inspection and for free.

When the A&P/IA signs it off they are accepting liability, they need to closely inspect and be compensated for both liability and their time.

Personally anything that’s hidden, I have to see it go together, Master cylinder for example, I have to see the O-rings etc., not just see it work after it’s all back together.

In my opinion pilots / owners should be involved in maintenance, having a through understanding how something works goes a long ways to knowing how to deal with it when it’s not working right or what measures can be done to deal with the problem etc.

Military pilots had to play the “drop of oil / hydraulic fluid” game and draw out a detailed schematic of where the fluid flowed and every system in the aircraft, even had to draw out schematics of the FLIR systems etc. to make them understand what it meant when a caution light illuminated.

Although Military pilots didn’t, the best way I think to fully understand a system is to take it apart, clean it, inspect it and put it back together with new consumables. You rebuild a brake system and you know exactly how it works, so if one starts sticking or dragging you likely know why and or how it might could get worse and a better idea how to deal with the issue for example.

[bcg]

Just don’t forget he or she is in business to make a living, be sure you pay them well for them supervising you so that they will continue the relationship. Too many think they should get the sign off without any inspection and for free.

I've been known to send an invoice back and ask them to put more time on it because I didn't think I'd been charged enough. If they spend 2-3 hours helping, supervising and teaching them I want them to get paid for it. I'm not really trying to save money by doing my own work, I genuinely enjoy it but the biggest thing is that it gets done sooner when I do it myself. The extra bonus is I know how things work so if there are problems away from home, I can usually get it going enough to get back home and make a permanent repair.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[M20F-1968]

I have not read this whole thread, but I do have a comment....

If you take your plane to any shop, MSC or not, you do not know who is actually doing the work.  

Yes, there are very few A&P/IA's that know Mooney aircraft very well.  I have such a relationship and find it provides the best situation as I know who is doing the work, I can assist if it is within the scope of something I can do well, and I can be there to learn, observe, and know that the plane is put back together reliably and responsibly.  As a community of owners, we need to support the individual mechanics that have this level of skill and knowledge.

John Breda

[hubcap]

I have read so many horror stories about mechanics and airplanes, but how many people have great experiences?

Am I the only one here who has a great shop and mechanic to work on my airplane? I can’t say enough good about the folks who take care of Myrtle. They are geared for service and safety. They are reasonably priced and have done great work for me and always in a timely manner.

 

 

[ohdub]

1 hour ago, hubcap said:

I have read so many horror stories about mechanics and airplanes, but how many people have great experiences?

Am I the only one here who has a great shop and mechanic to work on my airplane? I can’t say enough good about the folks who take care of Myrtle. They are geared for service and safety. They are reasonably priced and have done great work for me and always in a timely manner.

 

 

I've been taking my J to Clarence's shop for all 8 years that I've owned her. Nothing but great experiences!

[OR75]

3 hours ago, 47U said:

Your shop might know how strict your FSDO is regarding documenting experience, but there is a path forward.  When you preflight your aircraft… that’s a maintenance activity.  Removing panels for the annual, inspecting per the annual checklist, it all counts.  Even cleaning the belly counts for time, with proper wording… it’s inspecting for corrosion, right?  If you start documenting now, with the support of your shop (if you can swing the time, volunteer to help out in their shop), in a few years you might satisfy the FSDO that you have the required maintenance experience.  There’s plenty of resources online (and otherwise) to prepare for the written.  If you’re knowledgeable and mechanically inclined, the practical should be also doable.    

https://www.faa.gov/mechanics/become/experience

possible in theory, but in practical it is unlikely to happen unless the applicant has been working in a very structured and documented environment (salaried in a maintenance shop, repair station, military) for the reasons you mentioned 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, OR75 said:

possible in theory, but in practical it is unlikely to happen unless the applicant has been working in a very structured and documented environment (salaried in a maintenance shop, repair station, military) for the reasons you mentioned 

Actually it happens more than you might think.  I just helped a buddy study for and pass his A&P exams after getting signed off for experience.   He's been a serial airplane owner for many years, including multiple warbirds/experimentals, etc., and has generally done his own work for years with oversight signatures when needed.

Rich, aka @N201MKTurbo, used a similar process.   It's definitely do-able for those interested and so inclined.

[Ragsf15e]

Sorry to go back a page and I don’t want to resume the fighting, but I think a “high speed” abort in a multi engine Jet is a much different animal than a “high speed” abort in a Mooney.  I’m not saying that we should abort and slide off the end of runways for every little thing, but controlling and stopping your single engine airplane during an abort is pretty straightforward and we’re rotating around 65kts, so you’re unlikely to get seriously hurt or hurt the airplane trying to stop even if you do go off the runway.  Trying to stop from 110kts in a 12,000lb (or more) jet is a much different thing, and you have power to climb out regardless of almost any failure (flight controls being an obvious exception).  
So yeah, if you’re on a very short runway, maybe that’s a factor in your mooney abort decision, but being at “high speed” in my Mooney and aborting is just fine if I have a problem.

[N201MKTurbo]

When I got my A&P with experience, I asked the inspector who was interviewing me about the experience requirements. I said I couldn’t find anything in the regulations about documenting your work history. He said if they wanted to dispute your work experience, they would have to get the legal department involved and essentially start criminal proceedings against you for making false statements on the application. They really don’t want to do that. 
 

Your best bet is to convince them you know what you are doing. They really wanted to disqualify me in the oral. But after 4 hours of questions, they couldn’t find anything I didn’t know.

[EricJ]

46 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Your best bet is to convince them you know what you are doing. They really wanted to disqualify me in the oral. But after 4 hours of questions, they couldn’t find anything I didn’t know.

And these days the O&P tests are mostly determined by the computer, outside of the DME's control, so it's a bit more predictable.  The modern study guides are pretty good for preparation.   The tests are still a right b*tch, but I think it's harder for them to try to fail somebody intentionally, since everybody gets the oral questions and practical tasks from the same pool.

[N201MKTurbo]

16 minutes ago, EricJ said:

And these days the O&P tests are mostly determined by the computer, outside of the DME's control, so it's a bit more predictable.  The modern study guides are pretty good for preparation.   The tests are still a right b*tch, but I think it's harder for them to try to fail somebody intentionally, since everybody gets the oral questions and practical tasks from the same pool.

I think what you are saying applies to the practical test. I was talking about the interview where the inspector has to approve you to take the written and practical tests. You didn’t have to do that. Your school approved you to take the tests.