More maintinance frustrations....

[PT20J]

I take mine to my Garmin dealer because they do a lot of pitot-static certs from installations. No guarantee, but I think it’s more likely a better bet than my A&P.

[A64Pilot]

I’m pretty sure but not certain that an A&P can perform an annual condition inspection on an amateur experimental home built aircraft.

Truthfully I tend to avoid them, only have done one. They aren’t nearly as involved as a Certified airplane, biggest difference is there is no Type Certificate to ensure conformity to, if it has a Holley carburetor and ignition from a Ford Mustang then fine, so long as it appears to be airworthy, and see that’s my problem. How can you really determine the airworthiness of hardware store bolts, car, maybe motorcycle parts, lights from Ebay, tires from Tractor supply, ice maker water line brake lines or whatever?

I really have seen ice maker water lines for brake lines on factory built LSA’s, it’s pretty common.

[Fly Boomer]

19 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Interesting time for owners and mx professionals alike. Demand for maintenance is up, supply seems to be tightening; perhaps due to consolidation, perhaps due to a large number of maintenance professionals retiring.  I’ve often thought about going experimental.  Building an airplane is out of the question right now. Buying a pre owned, amateur built aircraft has all the risks of buying a pre-owned certified aircraft plus the risk associated with the amateur build…and it will still need an IA performed annual.

I really think owner assist maintenance is the most reasonable third way. However, it requires a different type of investment. Humility, patience and personal time are sometimes in short supply among aircraft owners. 

When I first started doing owner assist maintenance, I was basically removing panels and changing tires. After a decade of taking on increasingly complex tasks (fuel tank repairs, mag, starter, generator, engine R&R etc), I can honestly say no one knows my airplane as well as I do. Almost no dispatch issues in the last decade.
Monetarily owner assist maintenance has cost me pennies on the dollar by aviation standards, but it’s taken years of investing in relationships to get here.

 

 

Any advice for someone wanting to R&R their engine?  I have done a dozen car engines, but this seems way more complicated.

[A64Pilot]

I think we are discussing 91.411 & 413 checks, an A&P can do the .411 check (Static system) but I’m nearly certain they can’t the 413 check (transponder) as they are both due every 24 months and are done together, what’s the point of having an A&P do the Static check if you have to take it to an Avionics shop to do the 413 Xponder check, which I believe is also a Static system test?

[Fly Boomer]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I really have seen ice maker water lines for brake lines on factory built LSA’s, it’s pretty common

If cheap is the objective, then cheap is what you get.  A lot can go wrong with a certificated airplane that has quality parts, and has had good maintenance -- with Experimental, it's right there in the name.  Not for me.

[A64Pilot]

The factory built LSA’s aren’t I don’t believe Experimental though, but self as in not FAA Certified, built to ASTM not FAR standards I believe.

Never having had anything to do with them I can’t speak as to what ASTM standards are, but apparently ice maker plastic water lines are good enough for brakes and Tygon (weed eater yellow plastic fuel lines) are acceptable for fuel lines too. I’ve just noticed these from a walk around looking at one.

Rotax has it looks like 1970’s Bing motorcycle carburetors. 

I can’t imagine why anyone would want Tygon fuel lines, I have to replace those on my weed eater, chain saw etc every few years because it gets hard, brittle and breaks.

I don’t think these things are going to age well

[MikeOH]

Experimental bothers me, if I built my own, from the perspective of selling it later: I would never want that perpetual liability. I’d have to scrap it…which would kill me!

I don’t think you could waiver your way out of it…buyer’s family could still sue, as could subsequent owners down the line!

For those who think I’m paranoid consider that Richard Collins scrapped his P210 to avoid future liability concerns…and that was a type certificated aircraft!

[GeeBee]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Experimental bothers me, if I built my own, from the perspective of selling it later: I would never want that perpetual liability. I’d have to scrap it…which would kill me!

I don’t think you could waiver your way out of it…buyer’s family could still sue, as could subsequent owners down the line!

For those who think I’m paranoid consider that Richard Collins scrapped his P210 to avoid future liability concerns…and that was a type certificated aircraft!

Three words. "Sellers Liability Insurance". It also very cheap. 

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Any advice for someone wanting to R&R their engine?  I have done a dozen car engines, but this seems way more complicated.

Sent you a DM to avoid hijacking thread.

[MikeOH]

Just now, GeeBee said:

Three words. "Sellers Liability Insurance". It also very cheap. 

Is it available for Experimental aircraft?

Also, if so effective why wouldn’t Richard Collins have availed himself of that option rather than scrapping a perfectly good airplane? He was a pretty smart guy.

[GeeBee]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Is it available for Experimental aircraft?

Also, if so effective why wouldn’t Richard Collins have availed himself of that option rather than scrapping a perfectly good airplane? He was a pretty smart guy.

I have found even a lot of "so called" aviation insurance specialists do not know about it.  I once went to an aviation insurance seminar sponsored by Business and Commercial Aviation magazine. My agent when I flew corporate, who is a good friend and pilot went with me. He knew more about aviation insurance than the guy conducting the seminar and he pointed us all to seller's liability. 

As to is it available for experimental? I don't know, but I do know this. Any risk can be insured. If they can insure rockets, and their payloads, I am sure experimental seller's liability  is available. 

P.S. I met Richard Collins once. He was not a pleasant person.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I have found even a lot of "so called" aviation insurance specialists do not know about it.  I once went to an aviation insurance seminar sponsored by Business and Commercial Aviation magazine. My agent when I flew corporate, who is a good friend and pilot went with me. He knew more about aviation insurance than the guy conducting the seminar and he pointed us all to seller's liability. 

As to is it available for experimental? I don't know, but I do know this. Any risk can be insured. If they can insure rockets, and their payloads, I am sure experimental seller's liability  is available. 

P.S. I met Richard Collins once. He was not a pleasant person.

Yes, I’m sure Lloyds of London will write a policy…for a price.

You claimed, initially, that it was “cheap”; now, you admit you don’t know if it’s commonly available for experimentals; the topic at hand.

Not sure what Collins’ personality has to do with the quality of his decision making?

 I simply raised a valid concern that perhaps others hadn’t considered when building.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m pretty sure but not certain that an A&P can perform an annual condition inspection on an amateur experimental home built aircraft.

Truthfully I tend to avoid them, only have done one. They aren’t nearly as involved as a Certified airplane, biggest difference is there is no Type Certificate to ensure conformity to, if it has a Holley carburetor and ignition from a Ford Mustang then fine, so long as it appears to be airworthy, and see that’s my problem. How can you really determine the airworthiness of hardware store bolts, car, maybe motorcycle parts, lights from Ebay, tires from Tractor supply, ice maker water line brake lines or whatever?

I really have seen ice maker water lines for brake lines on factory built LSA’s, it’s pretty common.

I’m pretty sure that many certified aircraft use opaque “ice maker” vinyl tubing for brake lines. It’s a bonus in a Citabria or Decathlon as you can see the lines from the front seat. It’s obvious if the system is low on fluid. 

“Ice maker water lines” might be the perfect material for the job. Why make things more complicated, expensive and harder to procure than necessary?

Robert Pirsig’s “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance” Discusses the difference between looking at a machine romantically and logically and why sometimes both are in order.  There’s a passage where a riding partner is having trouble with the handle bars slipping on his new BMW. The protagonist suggests a small section of aluminum beer can as a shim. The owner of the BMW is off put in the suggestion of beer can aluminum gracing his BMW. The protagonist knows it’s likely that the German engineers who designed the bike would logically see beer can aluminum as the perfect material solution, but the BMW owner is hindered by his romantic view of his superior German machine.

 

[philiplane]

Surprisingly, a good grade of 1/4" polyethylene has a working pressure of 200 PSI.

[GeeBee]

27 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Yes, I’m sure Lloyds of London will write a policy…for a price.

You claimed, initially, that it was “cheap”; now, you admit you don’t know if it’s commonly available for experimentals; the topic at hand.

Not sure what Collins’ personality has to do with the quality of his decision making?

 I simply raised a valid concern that perhaps others hadn’t considered when building.

Sorry, I did not know a Cessna P210 was an experimental.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Sorry, I did not know a Cessna P210 was an experimental.

HUH? Never claimed it was!

To spell it out: If Collins had liability concerns over a CERTIFICATED aircraft it is pretty reasonable to be concerned that liability for an experimental aircraft might be at least as significant.

[Yetti]

24 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Surprisingly, a good grade of 1/4" polyethylene has a working pressure of 200 PSI.

I guess we don't want to talk about static system tubing then.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Yetti

[GeeBee]

28 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

HUH? Never claimed it was!

To spell it out: If Collins had liability concerns over a CERTIFICATED aircraft it is pretty reasonable to be concerned that liability for an experimental aircraft might be at least as significant.

Well let's think about it logically. If you can buy liability insurance for an experimental aircraft, seller's liability would be a no brainer, especially since it is a diminishing risk.

[Skates97]

On 8/21/2023 at 7:25 PM, Ragsf15e said:

Before you sell and plan to do all your own maintenance, find a shop that will let you help on current annuals.  Then take 3 or 4 days off and do everything you want, and supervise what they do.  It’s really the best of both worlds because you know everything that’s done, yet you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to or don’t have as good of skills for.  But you can personally do everything you want to your specifications.  And you get an appreciation for how long it might take to do 100% yourself.

Over the years I have found that if I take the expected time and then double it, that it is a good approximation for the amount of time it will take me.

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Interesting time for owners and mx professionals alike. Demand for maintenance is up, supply seems to be tightening; perhaps due to consolidation, perhaps due to a large number of maintenance professionals retiring.  I’ve often thought about going experimental.  Building an airplane is out of the question right now. Buying a pre owned, amateur built aircraft has all the risks of buying a pre-owned certified aircraft plus the risk associated with the amateur build…and it will still need an IA performed annual.

I really think owner assist maintenance is the most reasonable third way. However, it requires a different type of investment. Humility, patience and personal time are sometimes in short supply among aircraft owners. 

When I first started doing owner assist maintenance, I was basically removing panels and changing tires. After a decade of taking on increasingly complex tasks (fuel tank repairs, mag, starter, generator, engine R&R etc), I can honestly say no one knows my airplane as well as I do. Almost no dispatch issues in the last decade.
Monetarily, owner assist maintenance has cost me pennies on the dollar by aviation standards, but it’s taken years of investing in relationships to get here.

I've had the same experience. My first owner assist was me removing panels and lubricating everything. Over the years as I built rapport with my AP I have done more and more on the plane under his supervision and inspection of work performed. Installed my G5's, GNC355, EDM900, alternator conversion, Powerflow Exhaust, rebuilt the flap pump and a brake cylinder, upgraded yokes, to name a few. More than once I have asked him when he could get to something to have him say, "You can do that, it's in your wheelhouse." He's kind enough to answer all my questions and let's me borrow tools if there's something I need but don't have.

Don't expect that relationship and trust right away, it took years to build.

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

HUH? Never claimed it was!

To spell it out: If Collins had liability concerns over a CERTIFICATED aircraft it is pretty reasonable to be concerned that liability for an experimental aircraft might be at least as significant.

Likely more so. 

I speak with some experience when I say that Richard Collins personality had a lot to do with his decision making.  His P210 was based a few hangar rows over from my Mooney at HGR.  I was a pretty low in the airport hierarchy the few times that we crossed paths and it was clear he had no interest in even casual pleasantries. It became clear that he wanted to remain clear of the community in general. I don't mean friendly not familiar, I mean...well aloof is the kindest descriptor that comes to mind.  I think his decision to scrap the 210 was driven by his general feelings towards the type of person that he felt would be in the market for a 9000hr P210.

[Shadrach]

44 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Surprisingly, a good grade of 1/4" polyethylene has a working pressure of 200 PSI.

Which is good. However all applications that I have seen are subject to pressure from the weight of the fluid.

[RobertGary1]

I could never be the drop it off guy. People who aren’t natural mechanics either need unlimited buckets of money or end up selling. 

[Shadrach]

6 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Over the years I have found that if I take the expected time and then double it, that it is a good approximation for the amount of time it will take me.

I've had the same experience. My first owner assist was me removing panels and lubricating everything. Over the years as I built rapport with my AP I have done more and more on the plane under his supervision and inspection of work performed. Installed my G5's, GNC355, EDM900, alternator conversion, Powerflow Exhaust, rebuilt the flap pump and a brake cylinder, upgraded yokes, to name a few. More than once I have asked him when he could get to something to have him say, "You can do that, it's in your wheelhouse." He's kind enough to answer all my questions and let's me borrow tools if there's something I need but don't have.

Don't expect that relationship and trust right away, it took years to build.

No greater compliment than a professional's confidence.  I took a shorted mag to a local shop for repair. The mechanic who I knew and had worked with before told me to take it back to the parts washer and start breaking it down.  We had it completely IRAN'd in about an hour.  He then asked if I needed him to swing by my hangar later to inspect the installation and sign it off.  I already had another IA lined up but the offer in and of itself meant a lot.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

HUH? Never claimed it was!

To spell it out: If Collins had liability concerns over a CERTIFICATED aircraft it is pretty reasonable to be concerned that liability for an experimental aircraft might be at least as significant.

What he did to his airplane was essentially "euthanasia" -  In his mind his plane had lived 90% of it's life.   The plane could have "lived longer".  The P210 was certificated under the FAA’s old CAR 3 rules and therefore with no required airframe life limit.   Cessna engineers stated the P210’s airframe was ‘tested to the equivalent of 10,000 flight hours’ but it did not fail and that does not mean that they couldn't have simulated testing longer.  

What Collins did was emotional and most would say totally irrational.  It's like the liability concerns of letting "grandpa" live past 85 - "he might give the family estate away - or he might set the house on fire - or he might harm a neighbor's pet or child....".   

Collin's actions have no bearing upon Certified vs Experimental liability.

"Certification" of GA aircraft is just a contrived system of rules, that by definition and design, limit liability of the parties involved.  The "rules" may be based upon any combination of physics, material science, real or accelerated material aging testing, observed performance or by bureaucratic decree.  You can like them or agree with them or not - But they are the "Rules" for Certification.  They are the "rules" that the manufacturers' play buy - the rules that the maintainers' play by - the rules that the owners' play by - and lastly the rules that the COURTS MUST PLAY BY in order to ascertain and assign liability to the responsible parties for Certified Aircraft.

Richard Collins, who intentionally destroyed a perfectly Certified Cessna P210, would have only been liable if he, as an Owner, knowingly either broke the "rules" or authorized others to "break the rules".  (i.e. - installed icemaker vinyl tubing in his brake lines, etc).  Perhaps this was an admission by Collins that he "had not been playing by the rules" all those years.  

Edited August 25, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

What he did to his airplane was essentially "euthanasia" - 

I think there may have been a bit of an "I can't have her anymore so no one will" sentiment.  This guy still felt sharp when he hung it up. He quit flying because he lost his stomach for the risk of instrument flying and VFR only flying was so boring to him that it was not worth it to continue.  As much as I like XC travel, the most fun you can have in an airplane is in a low powered, tail dragger...preferably with tandem seating and the wings on top.  I feel sad that he was blind to the absolute joy of flying for the sake of flying.