The basic service on the TB20 is really easy. Just doing the oil and the filter is about an hour.
What takes time is getting the cowlings off; the lower cowling needs to come off to get to the oil drain, and that needs 2 people to avoid damage. Also if you try to remove the lower cowling without removing the prop spinner first, you will probably crack the front of the cowling, so that is extra time. It also takes longer if one wants to avoid making a mess on the floor 
It takes another hour to do the spark plugs, but I guess not everybody does them.
Then there is other assorted messing around, so about 5 hours total to do it properly, or 3 man-hours.
Cutting open and inspecting the oil filter (not many do that, but it’s really important) is maybe half an hour.
As regards companies, most of the ones I have a personal experience of (which is quite a few by now), without a single exception they
So, you will easily find A who is absolutely delighted with Company X and B who is really unhappy about them. And a year later A and B will swap over.
It makes it damn hard to do due diligence.
The company who did my TCAS installation (I am not naming it) is a very big UK firm, EASA145, FAR145, and was recommended by several for avionics work but all warned me to not go near them for straight maintenance because having a dealership for a popular type they have a captive market and they overcharge massively and then people haggle to get the bill back down.
So I went there, got a Grade A bodge job which at times was at the “comical” level where I objected to something really obvious but the guy doing it just didn’t get it at all (like cables running across an access hatch hole – this is the surplus cable which you get in most TCAS installs because all four antenna cables have to be the same length, and which has to be put somewhere) and even at the very end when I collected the plane (not the first time I collected the “finished” plane, but that’s a longer story) and found the circuit breaker panel half hanging off, due to screws not replaced. So, quite unhappy, I phoned them and the owner came down and forced some obviously wrong screws in there. I was just happy to get out of there and headed straight for the Annual so I could inspect everything and sure enough found quite a lot… the writeup has more details.
I think the GA maintenance scene has difficulties making money from the average customer who gets 5 quotes and goes for the cheapest one. It leaves no slack for project management or even employing skilled people. As of today I know of two very good A&Ps who are going to work on jets – better working environment, more money, and better future.
The requirements to become a pilot are clearly documented in the UK in CAP804 – theory exams, training hours, exams etc.
What is the route/requirements to become the EASA equivalent of an A&P engineer?
Can you do this without actually working for a Part145 organisation?
(Achim),
We once got an O-320 that was overhauled at MTU, yes the place where the Airbus engines are done too …. after that we had ZERO problems for 20 years. My father used to say that “nobody does it like them” … It was in the plane for 1987 and needed one new cylinder in 2013.
“nobody does it like them”
I still remember a very good article written by a former MTU chief engineer and piston engine specialist, published in “Aerokurier” in the late 80s, where he says analogously “the best you can do for your engine is to fly it at least once a week for about 45 minutes under load …” (sorry Achim)
But surely in this case the A&P didn’t sign a release to service, for an engine which didn’t rotate. It doesn’t sound like a dangerous situation. He just wasted a lot of his client’s money…
These aircraft were flying, engine overhauled by an A&P (not an shop), unable to rotate the engine normally, it would rotate, but feels like their is compression while their was not compression yet, and almost stuck when it reached compression. They where hard to start sometimes :-S
Starter just had a hard time rotating the engine, one of them was wrong size crankshaft bearings, don’t recall the other one.
I wouldn’t say that a one man company would be bad, I think their are lots of fine and very experianced persons able to do this work. It’s just the few that do a bad job, without correct manuals, or without correct tools, who are to be avoided I think.
I think the GA maintenance scene has difficulties making money from the average customer who gets 5 quotes and goes for the cheapest one.
True, I don’t think the cheapest one, is the cheapest one on the long run. For example, someone which doesn’t have to pay for documentation, tools and calibration can always give a better price. See my previouse post about ELT / mode S transponder, which are not being tested.
What is the route/requirements to become the EASA equivalent of an A&P engineer? Can you do this without actually working for a Part145 organisation?
See EASA Part 66 for license information and EASA Part 147 for requirements on training schools. It requires the applicant to have enough experiance within a certain time frame, which is quite hard to meet if your not working in aviation maintenance full time. You could also need type ratings, which require both theory exams as on the job training.
These aircraft were flying, engine overhauled by an A&P (not an shop), unable to rotate the engine normally, it would rotate, but feels like their is compression while their was not compression yet, and almost stuck when it reached compression. They where hard to start sometimes :-S Starter just had a hard time rotating the engine, one of them was wrong size crankshaft bearings, don’t recall the other one.
I would not say this is a criticism of the A&P having an overhaul within his privileges. I think this is just human stupidity, and evidence that a stupid person can get through any exams given enough time. A&P or EASA66 exams are obviously not going to involve Laplace Transforms and Bessel Functions otherwise 99% of the people would never qualify
Let’s face it, most avionics installers do not understand how the interconnections actually work. For example they don’t know how the XYZ/400Hz interface carries the heading information, and they would be unable to use a scope to check if the signals are right. All they know is how to find the wiring diagram in the back of the IM and how to connect it up. ARINC429? Forget it. If it doesn’t work you phone Garmin.
To select the correct bearings you just need to get the engine MM, open it on page 1, then go to page 2, and continue. Each page has an exploded drawing and the next page has the parts list with the mfg’s P/N next to each one. So one just has to order that part.
I just get a bit “interested” when the US system is criticised Here in the UK we have many people who do that and it is very very rarely I see a real justification for it, which is based on a fault in the system. For example I recall one anti N-reg bloke telling me there is no enforcement of them here – but there is no enforcement of G-regs and if I wanted to do something dodgy (like flying with no CofA, no insurance, no maintenance, etc) I would use a G-reg every time because it doesn’t attract attention.
Flyer59 wrote:
We once got an O-320 that was overhauled at MTU, yes the place where the Airbus engines are done too …. after that we had ZERO problems for 20 years. My father used to say that “nobody does it like them” … It was in the plane for 1987 and needed one new cylinder in 2013.
The IO360-C1C I am currently flying was major overhauled by MTU almost 25 years ago. I had it top overhauled 2 years agoand it’s still running with no signs of trouble. Uses a quart of oil every 18 hours. The cams looked great when cylinders were replaced and oil analysis is perfect. I wonder if MTU still does piston GA overhaul?
Probably not
I see the usual “Europe does it better because everything is certified” versus “America is better because the buck stops with the individual, so he’s more careful” arguments above, in this 5 years old thread
