Trick for fuel tank repair

[Lionudakis]

So why do so many people believe that A&P's don't know how to seal or repair a fuel leak in our Mooney's? It's great that there are business's like Weep No More, but are they really the only people competent enough to fix a Mooney? I'm in my 28th year of being an aviation maintenance professional (A&P/IA, pilot) and still find it insulting that we are assumed to be less than able to complete a simple task on a very simple airplane. Yes, the Mooney is a very simple airplane. The vast majority of us take our profession very seriously and would appreciate a little respect for what we do and what we put on the line everyday so you can safely fly your Mooney.

I second (or 3rd or?) this.

[marks]

Clearly Mike didn't use Weep No More or he would have said so. Weep No More has sealed hundreds of airplanes. Three planes, including a newer Ovation, were in the pipeline being serviced at the same time when I was there. So with all those planes being serviced I'd like to know if anyone on Mooneyspace has used Weep No More in the past ten years and now has any new or unsolved leaks? - My bill at Weep No More came to $7,725. I wanted to do the job before I had the plane painted. - Sabretech wanted to know if the system Weep No More has is exclusive to them so that the same job can't be done in the field. To my knowledge, I've never seen the equipment that Weep No More utilizes being used by any A&P in the field,and it would take a long time for me to share second hand, some of the unusual leak problems I heard about speaking to Paul as well as speaking to two other guys (one in the hangar next to me)who had tried to fix their tanks elsewhere with no final success. I also believe the sealant is definitely an improvement over the original sealant used at the factory. -- So if anyone on this site has used Weep No More in the past ten years but isn't satisfied let's hear it!

[bnicolette]

Many fuel leaks are successfully repaired by A&P's on Mooneys. Does Weep No More or any of the other experts never have to repair a leak after they've been in the tanks? Is their system exclusive to them that we can't do the same thing in the field? I'll be repairing a leak in my right wing at my annual which is due in the next two weeks. I'll let you know how it goes. I suspect I'll have more money in my pocket to use burning 100 LL than paying the experts. I hope I never achieve the title of expert! That means I know it all!

I thought Weep No More process was specific to them? Don't they have a specialized chemical and application process that nobody else currently does to remove the sealant? I could be mistaken though.

I have a friend that used a local shop to repair/patch his tanks and it cost him over 11K in labor. From what I understand it is a very labor intensive operation. I think that is where the other "specialty" shops come into play and are a better deal since they "specialize" in that area they can complete the task in a much shorter time? Again, I could be mistaken.

[danb35]

The chemical that Weep No More uses to strip old sealant is commercially available, but I believe the equipment they use to apply/recirculate that chemical is unique to them. There's nothing stoping another shop from doing something similar, but I don't know of any others that do.

Sabremech, if you're a practicing A&P, you know perfectly well that not all A&Ps are equal--some are better than others, and/or are better at certain things than others. This is, of course, true of any trade or profession. When it comes to the fuel tanks on Mooneys, there are lots of bad stories out there regarding lots of mechanics trying to fix them, and failing. Don Maxwell, one of the better-respected Mooney mechanics out there, doesn't do tanks beyond patches. It would seem, given these facts, that there may be more to successful fuel tank work than just reading the manual and doing what it says. I'd suspect that list would include small hands and long, skinny arms (neither of which I have).

Of course, there's also the fact that some mechanics just don't follow (perhaps don't read, or maybe even don't have) the manual. That's why, for example, we have AD 85-24-3, requiring inspection of the sealant because some boneheaded mechanics sealed over the drain holes in wing ribs.

Certainly there's nothing magic about a Mooney's fuel tanks. However, it appears that some skill is needed to repair them effectively, and that skill is something that at least some A&Ps don't have. I'm sorry it offends you that many aircraft owners/pilots (not just Mooney, BTW; I see the same sentiment expressed for Bonanzas, twin Cessnas, and other types) feel more comfortable seeing a specialist when their aircraft have problems, but that seems a perfectly sensible approach IMO.

[marks]

Feb. 2012 edition of Aviation Consumer has an excellent article on fuel tank leaks and reseals I think Sabremech should read. It explains that Don Maxwell no longer does full tank reseals and then says, "Maxwell does a couple of tank repair a week, but sends reseal work to Paul Beck at Weep No More." So what does that tell you?

[Sabremech]

I'm well aware of what it takes to strip and re-seal or repair fuel tank leaks in a Mooney or a Dassault Falcon for that matter. The chemical used is Poly Gone and I could easily build a system to pump it in my tanks and recirculate it to strip my tanks. Do I really want to strip and re-seal my tanks? No. I will continue to repair minor leaks until I feel it is necessary to do a complete strip. I'm not intimidated by the time it takes to get this task completed or am I concerned that I will have not done it to the book specifications or better. I've done some pretty big jobs already and that's just part of the job. If Don Maxwell doesn't want to do full strip and re-seal, well that's fine. What does that have to do with any A&P who is confident in the work he or she can do from doing this job?

I wish Weep No More all the best in business as we need all the business's we can get especially in this economy. I don't expect to go into the tank re-seal business anytime soon, but want to point out that there is plenty of talented technicians out there capable of fixing the problems our little Mooneys may have. The original posters solution for a problem is a good one. May be temporary, may last for years. Who knows. I give him and his A&P credit for trying something different to find a solution to a problem.

[PilotDerek]

Isn't the permanent solution to having to reseal tanks over and over, Bladders?

Let the debate begin!

[marks]

Sabremech, the problem is that there are many confident A&P's who try to do the work in the field, but as the owner, you don't just give them credit for trying, the owner gives them his money, and yet as our poster points out, the problem is still not fixed. So while the A&P might sometimes delay the problem and save the client money, sometimes if the job had been done by Weep No More, the costs for the first efforts would have been saved and the tanks don't leak. So sometimes after paying Don Maxwell repeatedly to fix the problem, Don in Texas sends the plane to Minnesota to get Paul at Weep No More to do the job. The confident A&P has the money in his pocket for trying and the owner beats a path to Minnesota to finally stop the leaks.

[jetdriven]

Isn't the permanent solution to having to reseal tanks over and over, Bladders?

Let the debate begin!

Our bladders are 23 years old and not a leak yet. But, only a "temporary solution"

[jetdriven]

Sabremech, the problem is that there are many confident A&P's who try to do the work in the field, but as the owner, you don't just give them credit for trying, the owner gives them his money, and yet as our poster points out, the problem is still not fixed. So while the A&P might sometimes delay the problem and save the client money, sometimes if the job had been done by Weep No More, the costs for the first efforts would have been saved and the tanks don't leak. So sometimes after paying Don Maxwell repeatedly to fix the problem, Don in Texas sends the plane to Minnesota to get Paul at Weep No More to do the job. The confident A&P has the money in his pocket for trying and the owner beats a path to Minnesota to finally stop the leaks.

Also, FWIW I flew a Maxwell sealed airplane back from his shop last month and it didnt leak. Its a viable cheap repair. But when you are staring down a 10K bullet, consider all options.

and none of this bullshit reasoning, which was the answer to my "why not and 8K bladder 64 gallon kit for your 64 M20E?

"Well, for me it was not $8000. It was $6000.00. Also, my own personal bladder will not let me fly as long as the fuel bladders would allow me to. Plus, with a useful load of 1008 lbs. I really cannot afford the loss of useful load that the bladders would cause. According to the O&N website (Mooney Bladder manufacturer), the price does not include installation so the 64 gal option is $7750 and then you have to add 50 hours of labor according to their site and of course that is if all goes perfectly. So lets say they charge $65.00 an hour you are now looking at over $10,000 (Quite a bit higher than the reseal). I have a 5 year warranty and solid tanks for $6000 (this price included labor, materials, etc...). All that made it an easy decision for me."

yeah, too much fuel and a 974 lb useful load is untenable.

[marks]

I'm sure when Maxwell patches a leak the plane doesn't leak when you're flying it home, but when will the next leak appear or when will the cabin have a whiff of fuel in the air? Bladders are a fairly permanent solution. People choose bladders for the same reason they go to Weep No More. If the loss of useful load doesn't bother you, bladders are a good choice and should be on the list of options. I do have one warning about Weep No More. The warning is that if you plan to use them get your name on the list ASAP. When I was there last month Paul was already booked well into 2013. Paul charges less than the other "experts" who scrape your tanks by hand and can possibly gouge you (in more way than one). So decide how many times you want to patch and pick your poison.

[Sabremech]

Marks, whether it's bladders or tank re-seal, at some point you're going to have to do maintenance to them. We don't know when that will be, could be after the first flight, could be 20 years down the road. I'm glad that Weep No More is doing well and is in business to do what others don't want to do. I'll do my own maintenance and tank work as long as I'm the owner of my Mooney. Mine and my families well being is dependent on my work and no one elses in my plane.

The gouging goes both ways!

[N201MKTurbo]

All the leak repairs I did to my tanks was to fix the job that Weep No More (Wilmar) did. Their system ruined the paint on the bottom of my wings and wheel wells. They did an incomplete job of resealing the tanks. I didn't want to pay the $2000.00 transportation to have them do warranty work, so I fixed it myself. I have heard that a lot of people have had good experiences with them, that's why I went there in the first place, but I was very disappointed and will never do business with them again.

Send me a PM and I'll tell you the whole story.

[danb35]

I didn't want to pay the $2000.00 transportation to have them do warranty work, so I fixed it myself.

Paul Beck, the owner of Weep No More, has posted here that his warranty includes his travel to your location to fix any issues. Was he unable to do this in your case?

[marks]

N201TN, I don't think I should send you a Personal Message. I think you should tell everyone "the whole story". I see that you pointed out the name "Wilmar". Did you have this job done years ago when the process was being developed at Willmar or did you have this job done in the last seven years or so by Paul Beck? As for Sabremech, some solutions appear to be fairly permanent, such as that described by the bladder story of no leaks for 23 years, and of course you're going to patch your own tanks. The reason for my ongoing banter with you is that while you seek respect for yourself and other confident A&P's, you fail to give respect to aircraft owners who choose to seek the best service and are willing to pay top dollar to get it. You make it out that you are so much smarter and save money while mocking owners who are willing to travel or pay for the best. Owners go to Don Maxwell and Weep No More for good reasons and are not stone-simple-stupid like the airplane. About one out of five accidents are the result of poor maintenance so when you find service where simple repairs are double checked by more than one mechanic, you know you're going to pay more, but good people can make simple mistakes on simple airplanes and the results can be tragic. I believe one cause of deadly accidents are overconfident pilots and mechanics.

[Sabremech]

Marks, many people feel as I do that just because you have MSC doesn't make you the best. I have no concern where you or anyone else chooses to take your airplane for maintenance. If you read my posts you will see that I am representing A&P's viewpoint. You'll also see where I've stated that shops like Maxwell's or Weep No More are good to have and that I hope they are doing well. Have I chided you for taking your airplane where you want to for maintenance? You don't have to respect me because I'm sitting here typing away on a key board offering other Mooney owners a different perspective than the myths perpetuated by forums. All I ask is that you respect the A&P who is working on your airplane regardless of where he or she works as long as they work in a professional manner.

I beg to differ with you on the 20% of all accidents are the result of poor maintenance. Where are you getting that number from? You've really peaked my interest on this statistic. I'd love to see your source.

[marks]

Sabremech, I may have misunderstood your posts, but you can rest assured that I respect the people who work on my airplane. You haven't been personal with me, but you did make statements of how others foolishly waste their money in your opinion. As for the accident statistic, I believe the number I've read before is that 17% of all GA accidents are mechanical in nature and that the majority are the result of poor maintenance or inspections. I will try to reproduce that statistic or a correction for you with a little research. Incidentally, TODAY is my 8th anniversary of living through a total loss of power in hard IMC by suffering a fire in the engine that was caused by an A&P who failed to reconnect the fuel pressure gauge after attending to a hot mag. He wasn't my regular mechanic. The fuel was spraying into the engine bay like perfume out of a perfume bottle. When the exhaust manifold got hot enough the fire ignited instantaneously. I made a U-turn from over the ocean in the fog with just partial panel, because the vacuum system had burned in the fire. I landed on the Hyannisport Golf Course during the Robt. F. Kennedy Memorial Golf Tournament. WBZ Boston was there with Live TV coverage. The NTSB report makes entertaining reading. That A&P nearly cost me my life and I don't respect him. He never even said he was sorry. 10/15/2004

[marks]

Sabremech, If you would just Google the words,"General Aviation Maintenance Accidents" you will quickly find a report of the same name prepared by the FAA/Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. The fourth sentence in the Introduction states: "For instance, Ropp and Lopp in 1998, found both general and corporate aviation lacking in any sort of structured safety management system for maintenance operations, in spite of the fact that maintenance related accidents comprised as much as 21.3% of the accidents in 1997." I really thought that my 20% estimate was common knowledge as confirmed in this report. I also found it interesting that the first paragraph had this to say, "The analysis revealed that among the maintainers, skill-based errors were the most frequent cause of accidents, followed by violations committed by both professional maintainers and owner-operators." So there's your statistic. You being in the business, you should be aware of how often poor maintenance causes accidents.

[Sabremech]

Hi Marks, thank you for informing me of your incident and I'm thankful that you're still around to share it. Gives me a new perspective of your views. I am certain that I did not make any statements of people foolishly wasting their money. I don't find that anywhere in my posts or even a hint at infering that. As far as the accident statistics pointing to maintenance as having a direct cause or partial cause, I find reports that vary from 7%-17%. This data includes the amateur built aircraft accidents which went from 6000 on the register to 16000 during this timeframe as being a major contributor to this statistic. It's impossible to corelate how many of the amateur built airplane accidents were caused by A&P's as most of them are maintained by the owner/builder who doesn't have an A&P license(Maintenance-related accidents. a comparison of amateur built aircraft to all other general aviation, FAA, CAMI Oklahoma City ,OK.) So the 20% is a high percentage, but can not be directly linked to the A&P population as a whole. That being said, 20% being related to maintenance is a high number, but 80% being directly linked to pilot error is even worse. How do we change these percentages? Being in the business, I am aware of the statistics but not at the number you quote. Depending on the source and what the drivers were for the research, the numbers vary substantially.

I think that if we want to continue this debate we should start our own thread as we've wandered far off from the original posters topic, which I will say once again, that I believe that what he and his A&P did for a repair was acceptable whether it lasts one flight or 100 flights.

[N601RX]

20% sounds very high. I used to spend a lot of time just reading through the NTSB reports,(bored at a previous job) and I don't remember 1 out of 5 being mx related. When I see reports like this I usually want to know what criteria used to come up with their numbers. Numbers can be made to say anything.

[jetdriven]

check the 2010 Nall report. It showed maintenance failure related accidents at 17%, and this was a new trend. They theorized that flying is getting too expensive so owners defer maintenance and airplanes dont fly often enough.

[marks]

Sabremech, I think the comment that you made that you could seal a tank "for a fraction of what some Bozo's are spending." indicated to me that you thought some guys were foolishly wasting their money and you were much smarter than to do that. When some people talk to you about their maintenance concerns about their Mooneys you're ready to "puke". But you being smarter than them, realize how stone-simple-stupid a Mooney is - so in all I thought I detected a little bit of superiority in your posts. I could be wrong. - The 20% estimate was one I read before and I don't defend it in any way. I've also read the 17% number. I certainly don't blame all maintenance accidents on A&P's. In fact it seems to me that owners often try to get their mechanics to cut corners because it's "good enough". - For me I say no new thread. I say let's forget it.

[N601RX]

The Nall report says over 50% were from experimental aircraft, many of which were probably still in their phase 1 testing. It also groups mechanical falure and manitaince related. These are not the same thing. A mechanical failure could be a nose gear collapse on landing.

[Sabremech]

Hi Marks,

Can you show me where I stated "for a fraction of what some Bozo's are spending" in this thread? I went back and read all of my posts and never did I say this or infer it. Also, where did you come up with the "maintenance concerns about their Mooney's' I'm ready to puke? You must be reading someone elses posts as I did not state any of what is claimed. I don't claim to be smarter than anyone here. I'm an A&P/IA for a living and how many of us are there on this forum? We're in the minority and would it be foolish for us to not offer sound advice to a non A&P aircraft owner?

I'm not willing to throw in the towel on this now and forget it. This is exactly how I see a rating system for mechanics turning out. I now have to defend myself for comments I never made. Show me where I made any of these comments and I will apologize to you and the group.

[jetdriven]

Those comments were from John Green.