always fun

[47U]

23 minutes ago, cliffy said:

letting owners just safety wire two bolts AFTER showing them how to do it bares the reality of what I speak,

Cliffy speaks the truth.

[Schllc]

40 minutes ago, cliffy said:

As a long tie A&P and having come in behind many many "owner's  maintenance" issues I am VERY dubious of "owners" doing their own maintenance.

I had a recent experience though with one who wanted to change his own C model engine mount (paint it) and I agreed to "interview" him at his hangar. Much to my surprise he turned out to be as good as the best A&Ps I have ever worked with BUT bear in mind he was the exception to the rule. After his work, I found only 2 minor issues to address before I signed it off. 

Just my experience tells me most owners own evaluation of their abilities to do quality aircraft maintenance  is way beyond their actual abilities. Having done hands on training at maintenance seminars and letting owners just safety wire two bolts AFTER showing them how to do it bares the reality of what I speak,

I'm sure there are a few that can but not the majority by my experience. 

There is absolutely no doubt that if owners were allowed to maintain their own planes, lots of abuse of the privilege would occur.  It is human nature.

However, just like any other regulated item, efficacy is the goal. 

Example:  Allow owners to do their own maintenance.  If an owner does something afoul of the FAR, first offense a warning, second a substantial fine and loss of license for a year.  Third time loss of license for life.

Not exactly a suggestion, but anything you incentivize you get more of, and what you punish you get less of....

Why punish all the people who are competent and responsible to prevent morons from killing themselves?  What happened to natural selection?

 

That being said, I would just be happy with a realistic list of what owners can do, as well as bi annual inspections.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

There is absolutely no doubt that if owners were allowed to maintain their own planes, lots of abuse of the privilege would occur.  It is human nature.

However, just like any other regulated item, efficacy is the goal. 

Example:  Allow owners to do their own maintenance.  If an owner does something afoul of the FAR, first offense a warning, second a substantial fine and loss of license for a year.  Third time loss of license for life.

Not exactly a suggestion, but anything you incentivize you get more of, and what you punish you get less of....

Why punish all the people who are competent and responsible to prevent morons from killing themselves?  What happened to natural selection?

 

That being said, I would just be happy with a realistic list of what owners can do, as well as bi annual inspections.

I think the annual inspection should cure most bad maintenance. If the owner did bad maintenance, it would cost them more to correct it, so there would be a bit of negative feedback.

[kortopates]

14 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I think the annual inspection should cure most bad maintenance. If the owner did bad maintenance, it would cost them more to correct it, so there would be a bit of negative feedback.

In theory maybe, but the owners doing subpar maintenance are usually the ones seeking out pencil whipped annuals. They go unchecked till either an incident/accident or more commonly a new owner gets a surprise very expn$ive first annual.

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

In theory maybe, but the owners doing subpar maintenance are usually the ones seeking out pencil whipped annuals. They go unchecked till either an incident/accident or more commonly a new owner gets a surprise very expn$ive first annual.

I happen to be pretty libertarian on this issue. 
I mean we are not flying hundred of paying passengers around with a 100,000# of fuel.  
I know there would be some awful consequences to that path.  I also know that my plane will be as well maintained and safe as it currently is, if not more so. 
I have rebuilt engines in everything I have ever owned prior to plane ownership. I absolutely have confidence that I could properly overhaul my engine if it was allowed.  There are also more than a few tasks on my plane that while capable, I do not want to do!  I was more than happy to pay someone to reseal my tanks!
I also have no sympathy for the dolt who shouldn’t do it, but does.  
We all know people who if they told us they did the work we would feel comfortable, and we also know people who if they told us we wouldn’t get within 100’ of that plane!  I still love them, but I know I don’t trust their attention to detail. 
People who do shoddy maintenance and pistol whipped annuals will pay the price when they sell their planes. 
It’s relatively easy to tell if a plane has been well maintained or not.   When I bought my Aerostar I didn’t pay for a pre buy. Partially because of what I was doing with it before I used it, but mostly because I looked intently at the logs, personally inspected it and met the owner, and the main maintenance provider, and lastly and most importantly, it had been flown at least once a week for the last year. 
 

enough of another feckless bureaucratic hot mess over regulating. 
Loosen the reigns already….

caveat emptor

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

In theory maybe, but the owners doing subpar maintenance are usually the ones seeking out pencil whipped annuals. They go unchecked till either an incident/accident or more commonly a new owner gets a surprise very expn$ive first annual.

Completely agree with that unfortunate reality, but if bubba wants to experiment with his life, I’m ok with letting him. 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Completely agree with that unfortunate reality, but if bubba wants to experiment with his life, I’m ok with letting him. 

Except he's also experimenting with his passengers' and people on the ground's lives!

While I, too, feel GA private maintenance is over-regulated I believe there is both more to aircraft maintenance than seems at first-glance, and a need for at least some standard to work to.  While not everything in A&P school is needed for what we desire, I suspect there are good reasons that you need something like 4,000 hours (2 full-time years) of training and experience to be a an A&P but only 40 hours to be turned loose as a private pilot!

Frankly, I'm pretty happy that I have an A&P friend that has supervised and signed off on everything I've needed to do that I was comfortable doing.  I'm good with that.

[Schllc]

13 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Except he's also experimenting with his passengers' and people on the ground's lives!

While I, too, feel GA private maintenance is over-regulated I believe there is both more to aircraft maintenance than seems at first-glance, and a need for at least some standard to work to.  While not everything in A&P school is needed for what we desire, I suspect there are good reasons that you need something like 4,000 hours (2 full-time years) of training and experience to be a an A&P but only 40 hours to be turned loose as a private pilot!

Frankly, I'm pretty happy that I have an A&P friend that has supervised and signed off on everything I've needed to do that I was comfortable doing.  I'm good with that.

Don’t disagree with anything you said. 
I would just add that the ground risk is pretty small, and a lot more are injured in other transportation modalities than would ever be hurt by badly maintained aircraft. 
As for the passengers…. Well, they know the person they are getting in the plane with!

I just think harsh consequences are ultimately much more effective that punishing the law abiding/competent among us…

[MikeOH]

Agree, the ground risk is ridiculously small; look at how low insurance premiums are if you don't want passenger coverage!  My comment was more the 'political fall-out' concern with taking away a rule that 'protects the public'...OH, THE HORROR!  The FAA is going to worry about that, I'm afraid.

I do tend to be a little less cavalier about passengers; yeah, they may know the person, but I'm not sure that really makes them responsible for accepting the risk of their pilot's mechanical prowess, or lack thereof!

Frankly, I also agree with your last sentence...but that ship sailed long ago: we wouldn't have 10% of the laws we do if that principle had been allowed in practice

[Aaviationist]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Except he's also experimenting with his passengers' and people on the ground's lives!

While I, too, feel GA private maintenance is over-regulated I believe there is both more to aircraft maintenance than seems at first-glance, and a need for at least some standard to work to.  While not everything in A&P school is needed for what we desire, I suspect there are good reasons that you need something like 4,000 hours (2 full-time years) of training and experience to be a an A&P but only 40 hours to be turned loose as a private pilot!

Frankly, I'm pretty happy that I have an A&P friend that has supervised and signed off on everything I've needed to do that I was comfortable doing.  I'm good with that.

Funny, I said the same thing about using an oxygen generator above an altitude the manufacturer says it doesn’t support. Funny how you circle talk and argue for whatever suits you on a particular day. 
 

whatever makes your maintenance the cheapest and fastest isn’t always the best idea. 

[MikeOH]

Just now, Aaviationist said:

Funny, I said the same thing about using an oxygen generator above an altitude the manufacturer says it doesn’t support. Funny how you circle talk and argue for whatever suits you on a particular day. 
 

whatever makes your maintenance the cheapest and fastest isn’t always the best idea. 

Your inability to comprehend the difference in the two situations does not surprise me.

Carry on, troll.

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

In theory maybe, but the owners doing subpar maintenance are usually the ones seeking out pencil whipped annuals. They go unchecked till either an incident/accident or more commonly a new owner gets a surprise very expn$ive first annual.

Those people are probably already doing their own maintenance and just not putting it in the logbook.

What we’re talking about is a means to help the conscientious owner legally log maintenance, and provide him a means to learn some things as well.

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

In theory maybe, but the owners doing subpar maintenance are usually the ones seeking out pencil whipped annuals. They go unchecked till either an incident/accident or more commonly a new owner gets a surprise very expn$ive first annual.

Perhaps, but those guys are already doing their things. In that case, it is the IAs that are pencil whipping annuals that should be punished. I have known a few.

[Yetti]

. am going to give points for consistancy

[MB65E]

Good Conversation!

Turbo, Andy, Mike, I like your comments and ideas. I think the reg about wheel removal was prior to Disc brakes requiring the caliper to be disassembled. 
As a tech I’ve enjoyed helping owners understand their airplanes, work with them, and make their airplanes safer. I have met people that while still customers, they truly have become good friends. 
The state of GA at the surface kinda sucks. However, if each IA has a core group of customers that actually want their airplanes as good as they can be I think we’ll be ok. I’m sure those groups exist all over the country. What I have seen come out of shops is crazy. Most owners don’t know a good annual from a bad one. Ink is the same. All it takes is a little communication, F4 tape, and wax lace cord. Common trends I’ve seen preventing this from happing is airport managers, liability insurance is too high, and the car dealers techs make more money. 
 

-Matt

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Those people are probably already doing their own maintenance and just not putting it in the logbook.

What we’re talking about is a means to help the conscientious owner legally log maintenance, and provide him a means to learn some things as well.

THIS ^^^^^

We know that people are doing their own maintenance.  Heck, even here on MS we hear of hangar fairies doing x or y.

If we tightened up the annuals, that could catch/stop a lot of junk maintenance.  So the "pros" are part of the problem.

I do like the idea of stretching the annual out to 2 years.  It is annoying to have an asset that is held hostage for 1/12 or more of the time