Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

So much appalling maintenance...

I agree; my A&P/IA works on airbuses on night shift, making 2x more than he was making in GA.

But he has a sh1tty quality of life. All short haul maintenance is done at night and usually outdoors, so you can imagine what that’s like in UK winters. He will burn out a few years from now. Once his kid grows up, he won’t need to live this crazy life. These guys pay the price of the cheap airline tickets we fly on, in destroyed lives. If I won the jackpot I would give him a million so he can chuck it in tomorrow…

What this probably means is that all the mechanics in GA will be older guys. That’s ok…

Negligent maintenance is a different thing. It’s driven by various factors, including both crooks running the companies, and poorly behaved customers in equal measure.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

What the world’s aviation regulatory bodies need to do, is what Russia does: Any aircraft over 50 years old is automatically in the experimental category and can be maintained by owner. Now that’s logic. But we’ll never see that here in the west.

The problem of a lack of candidates willing to turn spanners for a living in not confined to GA. I’ve been trying to recruit motor vehicle technicians for two years without a single credible applicant and I’m offering 42K; way more than an aircraft tech will earn in your average GA workshop.
Arguably the job of a GA aircraft tech is relatively easy compared to a Motor Vehicle Tech but the responsibilities are enormous and I know a couple of techs who have preferred to fix garden machinery for a living. Same money but no responsibility whatsoever.

Forever learning
EGTB

I am not so sure those are the major reasons.

In the UK, for decades, being an “engineer” has been unfashionable. Even when I was at univ (1970s) a sure way to make a girl uninterested was to say you were an engineering student. After univ, “unemployed” was quite a good choice And usually accurate since most univ degrees taught you next to nothing “useful for a job” anyway. I don’t think it is any better today, among young peoples’ attitudes to engineering skills.

The old system of apprenticeships gradually disappeared and this has directly resulted in most plumbers etc being in their 50s and above. Or they are from Poland, etc, and they are usually good

I don’t think a mechanic in a Part M company has any personal responsibility. He didn’t do the work. The company did the work. In every case I have seen (and I have seen lots) that is how it pans out. It is only if you are N-reg and use a freelance A&P that he is responsible.

I think there are deep structural issues in GA maintenance, to do with most customers being unsatisfied / having unrealistic expectations, due to having old planes which have been neglected (by previous owners) for decades and which cost a fortune every year to keep legal. The money spent is substantial but is handed over only grudgingly. Throw in some % of crooks in the business (inevitable; as the old sayings go: you can judge a man by his friends, and we get the politicians we deserve, so the customers get the suppliers they deserve) and you have a good mix

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

AdamFrisch wrote:

What the world’s aviation regulatory bodies need to do, is what Russia does: Any aircraft over 50 years old is automatically in the experimental category and can be maintained by owner. Now that’s logic. But we’ll never see that here in the west.

I think what we have in the US is a generally reasonable compromise: the work on my certified aircraft and many others is done as a joint effort between owners and A&Ps, most of whom do it for fun and a few extra dollars with 99% of paperwork being confined to logbook entries. Its just fun, few hassles, and it keeps a simple plane safe.

My recent Garmin transponder/ADS-B installation is an exception to the above, one that I hope does not signal the FAA way of the future within my lifetime. The actual installation was done by an A&P and I, and was simple. What then followed, repair station integration testing, airborne performance testing with government approval, 337 generation, sign-off etc was the worst experience in my 15 years of aircraft ownership and maintenance. An example of how Garmin plus Government can screw anything up, removing the simplicity, pride of ownership and joy from any job.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 03 Sep 20:21

Silvaire wrote:

An example of how Garmin plus Government can screw anything up, removing the simplicity, pride of ownership and joy from any job.

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Antonio
LESB, Spain

I’ll write up my ADS-B saga at some point, but for now I’ve had enough of thinking about it and its not directly applicable to European GA. For now: I will never buy anything again from Garmin – I think their business model is coercive, disingenuous and self serving. Manuals that lack basic data for user configuration, certified equipment sold direct with obsolete firmware requiring paid dealer service to update and so on. Finally, a design that does not properly distinguish between flying and taxiing (air on ground error) as reported by many, preventing many from passing the 337-required FAR 91.227 on-line performance check and potentially resulting in registered letters from FAA, followed eventually by termination of FAA ADS-B services for that aircraft. The FAA side is mainly 21st century style incompetence and lack of discipline: virtually inapplicable STCs being used under FAA ‘guidance’ on types different than approved, 337s inappropriately required by FAA for minor mods etc. A horrible dogs breakfast of poor quasi-regulation.

FAA will tell you what they like about future plans but in the real world FAA ATC is apparently hardly utilizing the huge investment being made by owners. The fairly obvious motivation for ADS-B OUT is government tracking and 3 locations/minute records of every flight for future use, i.e. building infrastructure to support future taxation. I think the first taxation-based use (probably already in use) will be local government using ADS-B based Flight Aware tracking to chase down “habitually based” aircraft for 1% property tax collection. Simple arithmetic shows there is a huge amount of money in it.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 03 Sep 23:35

“I don’t think a mechanic in a Part M company has any personal responsibility. He didn’t do the work. The company did the work. In every case I have seen (and I have seen lots) that is how it pans out. It is only if you are N-reg and use a freelance A&P that he is responsible”

It’s not just about what the law says.

Last Edited by Stickandrudderman at 03 Sep 21:53
Forever learning
EGTB

Some maintenance done right :


The bill must fit the large work involved

LFOU, France

Unless the owner has a good monitoring system of when different components or items need attention, and is able to ensure the work is properly recorded in the log books, I fear a lot of GA aircraft are verging on a fault finding and replace when needed system, rather than preventive maintenance. A bit like essential utilities where grids are repaired when there is a low tension trip.

OTOH the owner wants a quick turnaround and a low cost, OTOH a proper annual inspection should take longer, have more components checked, and cost more than what the market is currently demanding.

It may be that owner maintenance and the LAA inspector system may be more robust these days.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top