I think that to many people here, what he says is mostly old hat. But some (mostly newish owners) don’t know these things. Others know, but are constrained by some weird local European CAA’s airworthiness rules. Anyway:
Thanks Bosco. I have just, again, lived the dream, with a spectacular A&P/I/A, doing an annual for me. 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.
I was a ‘quote’ – a cheapskate, safety averse, and at one stage, he drilled into my Insurance documents, stating that I was not insured correctly. Torrid time again in maintaining my aeroplane. The level of ignorance and incompetence out there, is frankly astonishing. However, back in the air, and now wondering what to do, if anything, with this character. 
I have not often heard on any FAA IAs here in Europe that are so bad.
Mine is near perfect. He knows all these FAA orders and guidance documents. He would never say I must do something that is not required by regulation, unless of course he thinks (and explains why) it is actually a good idea to do the particular inspection/overhaul/replacement. The communication between owner and IA is very good.
BeechBaby wrote:
at one stage, he drilled into my Insurance documents, stating that I was not insured correctly
That’s bizarre on several levels. The most relevant one is that he is not responsible for enforcing local regulations and the FAA does not require insurance. I’d have fired the guy for incompetence.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d have fired the guy for incompetence.
Well, it is a journey apparently. The best laugh was that he wanted paid upfront, with me looking at the aeroplane lying in bits. I thought I had seen it all as far as maintenance goes, but, this took us to new depths. When I eventually went to pick the aeroplane up, with a sign off cert, and a test flight having --been completed—-, I found his inspection mirror lying on top of the cylinder head. At least it proved he had actually looked into the engine bay. He just kept quoting the ’’FARS’’, which is why this webinar is very relevant. I have just sent it to him….
I can’t watch the video where I am but such an IA would starve because nobody would use him twice.
The only way such people can carry on is in a situation where the customer is captive eg inside a maintenance company which you can’t escape due to choice, or politics eg they tie hangarage to maintenance.
To be fair a lot of GA owners are trapped like that… I was in such a situation for 10 years, but even more complicated.
As I always say, if hangars where people can work freelance were common, it would demolish this sort of thing.
I lose patience with Mike Busch’s audio recordings. He seems to want to say in 15 minutes what could easily be said in one. I listen for a few minutes and then I get angry that he seems to be deliberately wasting my time. I wish someone would give him some friendly feedback on this because he clearly knows his stuff, and if only he tightened up his presentations more people would want to listen to him and learn.
Rant over.
I think everyone agrees with that
Yes, but this one really is so essential and basic, it’s a must-see for aircraft owners. Of course, it applies 100% to owners of N-regs, and a bit less so to the owners of EASA-reg aircraft, because “the regulator” in that case is the EU/EASA and the local CAA of aircraft registration, which, like it or not, have some different ideas than the FAA.
After all though, in both “sytems”, it all revolves around the same point: liability. In the FAA system, the IA usually recommends to take some action as per the manufacturer’s guidance, then the owner declines and thus takes responsibility for this. In the EASA system, we now get those SDMPs, where the same thing happens. The owner declares to deviate from manufacturer guidance, takes full responsibility for that and alleviates the responsibility from the shop/engineer.
Under FAA regulations, the IA inspects the aircraft annually (acting on delegated authority from FAA) to determine whether it is airworthy. It either is or it isn’t. An IA has no role in maintaining the aircraft when performing an Annual Inspection. The owner separately maintains his aircraft on condition, through the year(s) with all associated logbook entries made by an FAA certificated mechanic, and generally no other record. There is no ‘maintenance plan’ and no ‘system’ other than FAA ADs (which the IA researches but does not control). The only exception is for those aircraft which have specific mandatory airworthiness related maintenance actions specified in the maintenance manual – which is unusual for light aircraft, for example my two aircraft have none.
