Silvaire wrote:
An IA has no role in maintaining the aircraft when performing an Annual Inspection.
100%, however, there are a number of A&P, I/A’s around, one of which I was recommended too. He brings his, assistant, under the guise of the ‘’avionics guy’’, and bingo. Owner then trapped. From initial inspection, and a check of the AD, SB, list, here poor owner, are 150 defects. Then the On Condition items come under scrutiny. I received back 81 job cards, which incidentally I had drawn up myself, marked – OWNER DEFERRED. I then ask him to confirm in writing, where I had instructed that. He currently cannot provide it, because guess what, I never actually stated that. Sorry, as the MB video clearly demonstrates it is a cash cow awaiting exploit. When the owner then complains, he is a cheapskate, wanting to skimp on maintenance. All the owner actually requires is clear transparency on what work is required, what is it going to cost, and how long. But…….for an owner to get that in writing, is almost impossible.
one of which I was recommended too
Who recommended him to you and what does he say now?
Beechbaby – could you email me the stuff the guy is objecting to?
It would be hilarious if he is raising SBs (not ADs) and claiming resulting airworthiness issues.
boscomantico wrote:
Who recommended him to you and what does he say now?
Currently ongoing, and under discussion. Not for open internet, but he is now concerned that I am going to put commercial pressure on him, i.e. bill him for everything NOT done, and obviously MOR in to the FAA. I await a 337 from him, for a repair I did authorise, but no log book entry, and no 337 as yet. The joys…..
Peter wrote:
Beechbaby – could you email me the stuff the guy is objecting to?
PM you later. It will give you a good laugh..
I don’t provide my logbooks in written form to my IA, always in electronic form. All entries in my log book are on sticky and I place them in my permanent copy, then scan updates. The IA must provide me with a written list of discrepancies and I authorize any maintenance. Several times, I have requested an annual inspection entry with the wording that the aircraft is not airworthy and a list of discrepancies is provided to the owner. I would not allow a list of discrepancies found on an inspection to be entered into my logbook. Reasons I have done this include:1) my IA is going on vacation and won’t be available to do required repairs; 2) the IA traveled 8 hours round trip at my expense and to resolve the remaining discrepancies, I did not want to pay him for another round trip when parts showed up; 3) Numerous times a pre-buy was performed by a shop, and I did not agree to all the discrepancies listed and wanted my own mechanic to resolve discrepancies. An example on Bonanzas, shop demands that all wing bolts be replaced IAW a service bulletin, it is not required and the seller won’t pay for it, My mechanic would return the aircraft to service with his signature listing any maintenance actually performed and sometimes a note to the affect all discrepancies resolved. Of course the way the wing bolt discrepancy would be resolved would be: not required by regulation or AD. That would not go into the log book as it is irrelevant. Buyer and seller would agree on all maintenance and who was to pay for what. The list of discrepancies is not needed to be kept by the owner as a part of the permanent record.
BeechBaby wrote:
He started by listing 97 defects, and a quote for 12k.After some colourful discussion, involving a sex act, and a direction of travel, we got it to 32 Airworthiness defects that had to be done, in reality whittled to seven items, which were actually carried out.
As an A&P/IA AND and aircraft owner & pilot, I can tell you that there are many sides to this coin .
Here’s my observation:
Every owner is different !
I have some clients that are so ANAL about the Mx on their planes, that even the slightest cosmetic defect needs to be dealt with, let alone the strictly Airworthiness items. With this type of client, if you give a miss to something then he comes back and says "hey you missed this & that, you’re obviously NOT doing your job ! "
I think his approach, starting with a very detailed list, then sitting down with the client and TOGETHER determine what level you BOTH are comfortable with is excellent .
This way he has demonstrated just how thorough his inspection is but you have the OPTION to deffer.
Honestly, I think this is the best possible approach.
So what’s your beef ?
Michael wrote:
sitting down with the client and TOGETHER determine what level you BOTH are comfortable with
BeechBaby wrote:
After some colourful discussion, involving a sex act, and a direction of travel, we got it to 32 Airworthiness defects that had to be done, in reality whittled to seven items, which were actually carried out.
Those two describe the same process I guess?
achimha wrote:
Those two describe the same process I guess?
I guess so, but we’ll have to wait for BeechBaby to let us know
Michael wrote:
So what’s your beef ?
Michael, as always a bit more to it, and more than I would share on an open internet forum. Suffice to say, it would appear that for 5k, I got an oil change. Oh, and a list of 91 supposed defects. I also provided a very comprehensive list of the previous annual, which specific items I was running on condition, a full list of AD, with a compliance register, and SB report. Had this guy actually checked the previous annual list, and when he told me the aeroplane required a mag overhaul, when it had been fitted with new mags the previous annual, I began to suspect that all may not be quire right.
I expect a bit more….No? So, in my book a beef. Perhaps others see this as par for the course. Think that is what Mike Busch may have been angling at
It’s like a marriage having a mechanic – you both have to share some of the same interests and outlooks on life. Pretty often I find the broader consensus amongst pilots to be that unless you fix absolutely everything down to the 1mm chip in the paint or change a cylinder if it’s below 80/80, you’re unairworthy and unsafe and you should not be a pilot or aircraft owner at all. Pilots can be a pretty harsh bunch. I think Busch has done well in combating that attitude, but it’s still rather prevalent.
I prefer the fix-repair-overhaul method to maintenance. But the more complex plane you get, the more likely the maintenance and the approach to it shifts towards white glove mechanics and service centers. They can deliver fast and great service, but always at a premium cost (I don’t at all buy that service centers deliver more expertise, though – sometimes the contrary, they often have younger and fresher A&P’s with less experience). They like to replace with new, not overhaul. When you’re on a budget, that approach can be devastating. But if you do have the money, you save time and can sleep extra sound knowing your replacement part is new.
Depends on what type of personality you are and what budget you need to accommodate. Myself, my only weapon in the Fast, Good, Cheap triangle (you can have two, not three) is giving up the Fast.
