I concede the market and also the type of service provided may be influencing factors. If demand outweighs supply by a sufficient order of magnitude (look at the quality of restaurants in Venice) or in certain types of services (flying aeroplanes commercially definitely belonging to that category), you may be in a position to have things done your way (or, in the former case, to provide a shabby service).
In the US SavvyMX is very, very popular and they happen to work with a huge portion of the Cirrus fleet over there. For some reason in Europe it seems to be that shops either completely refuse or play well with them. The owner of Savvy is Mike Bush.
That is completely unsurprising to me.
A lot of this is to do with the long term relationship you have built with the maint company.
Some make this easier than others. And it can be the company, or the owner. There is a lot of people in GA who drive a €100k car but who argue down to the last €1 on the maintenance of their 1973 C152.
I know for example that most people who bought TBs from Air Touring (UK and German sole agencies) had the most difficult relationships with them, often bordering on litigation. But this wasn’t because the AT staff were nasty (most were nice). It was because AT was mostly at war with Socata over warranty cost reimbursement – a special problem which obviously happens only with new planes.
Different people approach this “relationship problem” in different ways. I deal with these issues by making my own arrangements (which N-reg makes considerably easier). Others can’t or don’t want the hassle of that so they try hard to work with whoever they need even if it is difficult. This often means accepting substandard work, but most people can’t tell it is substandard unless something actually falls off.
But, the word gets around this very small scene, fast. You can get slagged off all around the airport in the time it takes you to walk from one end of the airport to the other – literally. So if you have a bust-up with one firm, others won’t touch you either. That incidentally is why a GA forum requiring the use of full names will either be virtually useless or people will use fake full names (possible only on a free site).
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
In the US SavvyMX is very, very popular and they happen to work with a huge portion of the Cirrus fleet over there. For some reason in Europe it seems to be that shops either completely refuse or play well with them. The owner of Savvy is Mike Bush.
there are at least two shops in the UK who will work with SavvyMX: Gama and RGV
But what I think must disturb them even more is your American consulting company that you want to be in control (to some extent) of the maintenance being done on your plane. Again, if they are a competent and experienced business holding the necessary licenses to maintain your aircraft, they don’t need someone remotely supervising their work. I at least wouldn’t want that. And with enough other business on hand, I would probably refuse to work under this kind of “nannying”. Just as they did…
A few points:
-a major shop that doesn’t know Savvy by now is not well informed
-every shop has the possibility to deny working for a cuszomer who uses Savvy – they apparently didn’t
-aircraft maintenance is not a black or white thing. Particularly if it’s N-reg. there is a lot of grey. One has to differentiate very carefully between airworthiness items, safety items, recommended items and optional items – otherwise maintenance of a Cirrus will cost you double or even triple of what is necessary and will take you to the cleaners. For that, a consultant makes sense – pilot owners cannot usually know all that stuff. And shop owners will tend to declare a lot of things as airworthiness or safety items….
For that, a consultant makes sense – pilot owners cannot usually know all that stuff. And shop owners will tend to declare a lot of things as airworthiness or safety items….
And what is that aircraft owner supposed to do when the shopowner (who has to sign the paperwork and is by law responsible for any consequences) tells him that a component need to be replaced while his consultant tells him the part is good for another 1000 hours?
All the maintenance facilities I have dealt with so far and am dealing with now would simply refuse to work under these circumstances.
what_next wrote:
And what is that aircraft owner supposed to do when the shopowner (who has to sign the paperwork and is by law responsible for any consequences) tells him that a component need to be replaced while his consultant tells him the part is good for another 1000 hours?
Then each side would have to justify its view with appropriate reference. In the end you want your annual so you are going to follow the shop and accept it. After that you end the relationship and start telling everybody and posting about it everywhere. That alone should keep the shop from trying to shaft the customer. Social media are a good means to discipline businesses.
You can’t imagine what happens if a customer of ours posts a justified complaint on TripAdvisor. Heads rolling…
Do Savvy do this for EASA-regs?
It so, that would be REALLY interesting!
As regards the part which can be operated “on condition”, and in the photos sent to Savvy looks like it is good for another 1000hrs, most shops, when dealing with a savvy (no pun intended) owner should ask him for his view on it.
In reality, most parts are not that expensive. For example I replace filler cap o-rings every year or two – 20 quid. It would be interesting to see a significant-cost item on which Savvy and the European shop’s FAA A&P could have a strong disagreement.
But then I don’t own a Cirrus so I don’t know what sort of items might make good examples of this. Mechanically, an SR22 is a very conventional plane. The only curious thing is their 100hr service. I wonder how many owners really run the oil to 100hrs. I know that at 100hrs my oil would not even light a bonfire in the garden…
After that you end the relationship and start telling everybody and posting about it everywhere. That alone should keep the shop from trying to shaft the customer. Social media are a good means to discipline businesses.
If that was indeed the case, almost all aircraft (and car) repair shops should be out of business since a long time 
All the maintenance facilities I have dealt with so far and am dealing with now would simply refuse to work under these circumstances.
The times they are a-changin’. Or a Dick Collins once put it " life’s just not simple any more". Things have become more complex and service companies have to adopt to that.
Then each side would have to justify its view with appropriate reference. In the end you want your annual so you are going to follow the shop and accept it. After that you end the relationship and start telling everybody and posting about it everywhere. That alone should keep the shop from trying to shaft the customer. Social media are a good means to discipline businesses.
As far as I know, most of the troubles don’t arise around the physical conditions of components and whether it is technically good for another year or not.
Most discussions are about airworthiness requirements, i.e. does this part legally need to be exchanged / overhauled or not. The framework of ADs, SBs, TBOs, ICAs, maintenance manuals, etc. is quite complex and many shops not only purposely ride on that – some of them just don’t seem to kmow the exact legal situation regarding certain components. Again, we are talking N-reg. here.
If that was indeed the case, almost all aircraft (and car) repair shops should be out of business since a long time
Yes, but they aren’t.
Why?
IMHO because some 99% of owners can’t tell. They don’t know the legal requirements, and they won’t know something wasn’t done right unless something falls off the aircraft (or the car). Looking under inspection covers? Nobody does that.
OTOH, what we don’t know is what resistance Savvy get in the USA. But they are probably very happy even if 50% of US shops refuse to work with them.
I heard of a good one recently. N-reg, engine overhauled by an EASA 145 company, no A&P anywhere, and then installed and signed off by an FAA A&P/IA. My view is that this aircraft is not airworthy. But it depends on whether the IA’s external inspection of the engine and of the work pack qualifies for the requirement that the work done (i.e. the engine overhaul) was done “under the supervision of” an A&P. I wonder what Savvy would make of that one…
My guess is that Savvy are vulnerable because of their distance, so they must play pretty safe.
