@huv: that’s a good story, we can all take our lessons from it. Thanks for sharing!
Great story, @huv, and many thanks for posting it. BTW I wonder how long the overhaul outfit ran the engine on the dyno? But even that may not have revealed the problem, if the avgas tank was high enough.
But there must be a scale of acceptableness.
Yes of course. The seat belt etc I would not be concerned about. But any access behind the instrument panel has potential for stuff – even leaving a screwdriver there which jams the controls later. I never fly the plane post-service unless I have personally inspected under all the access panels: the two panels at the base of the windscreen, and the two belly panels if they were removed.
Huv’s story relates to a different aspect which is how much you trust the company doing the work. That must be a factor for any owner… syndicates tend to have less choice (the only agreement will be on the lowest quote, I guess). This is why I am happier to have an engine built by a known-reputable US shop than by any European shop. I have hundreds of emails detailing similar experiences. One UK pilot had his engine buggered by a top overhaul (they left something inside) and they then buggered the overhauled one again. But, being an admin here, had I posted huv’s story myself I would be slammed here for slagging off maintenance shops etc etc etc – often by the same people who earlier told me stories of their own disasters 
On a Permit aircraft, where we do most of our own work, flying with a Group member as pax wouldn’t count as carrying a passenger. I make a point of climbing steeply on rear tank, after switching off electric pump, which has on two occasions lead to a request to return for early landing.
Both post maintenance, but not first or second flight.
One air leak at mechanical pump, the other, in 2016, fuel leaking at pump.
We don’t have a fuel pressure gauge.
If everything OK, I’ve no worries about where I go after maintenance.
I’m more than happy to fly any aircraft after maintenance that I’ve been involved in.
Whether or not I’d choose to fly with many of the owners/pilots is a completely different matter….
PS Maoraigh – were the two issues you cited as a result of the preceeding maintnenance?
It really depends on the nature of the work. But generally for things like post oil/filter changes, after doing a ground run, I’ll fly solo for about half an hour, land, and re-check for any evidence of leaks. Work on the fuel system? I want a good hour or so of flight time with a decent long climb in there to verify there’s nothing wrong with the fuel flow, including a climb on the aux tank (which is not gravity fed). Permit aircraft like Maoraigh.
Not so much as a no passengers (I’ll take another pilot) or no overwater – even if I had no overwater flight to do ever – for instance when I was living in the United States and had the Cessna 140, I would want to do at least one local maintenance check flight. More of “I want to do a bit of local flying and make sure everything works, before heading out cross country” type of policy rather than overwater specifically.
Yes. Both after maintenance.
The air leak was at the mechanical pump, following it being opened by an aviation mechanic at an Annual Inspection, before going on Permit. That Jodel had a fuel pressure gauge, but nothing showed on first flight, which I flew. Later, a flicker of the fuel pressure gauge needle when on rear tank was reported. I was pax on next flight, and nothing odd was noticed. I then climbed on rear tank until engine lost power.
The incident last summer followed fitting a replacement inlet pipe to the fuel pump. No fuel pressure gauge fitted. I flew the LAA AirTest without any problems.No Aviation Engineer involved, except check after work. Next flight, the problem showed up. The Inspector, ex Air Force engineer, fixed it by work on the pipe inlet fit.
Peter wrote:
A maintenance company I used to use would not allow any of their people to fly in the plane
While noting the smiley I recall post operative flight after the prop. governor had been overhauled. I persuaded (I think for the first time) the chief engineer to accompany me. Well we barely climbed away because the prop would not go fine, so next time they carried out a static strobe test. It was an interesting experience.
Whether there is an increased possibility of things going wrong after maintenance – well I suspect the answer must be yes, because after “disturbing” anything mechanical there must always be a chance something else has been disturbed or not correctly refitted.
A very interesting article from Mike Busch has popped up in email.
