Having seen the list of 79 defects this looks like a prebuy inspection (i.e. not an inspection done on my own plane) done by someone who has been told to “find absolutely everything not in accordance with 100% correct standard practice”.
It would be acceptable (to me) to be given such a list, although I would question what the hell this A&P is trying to do to impress me and how much time he spent collecting it all. But to claim that many or even all of the items are airworthiness items is ridiculous. There are a few there but that’s all. You could generate such a list for any plane from the 1960s if you wanted to. For example one of the items was the use of an automotive crimp in some wiring, rather than “aviation” crimp.
Unless the A&P was briefed to find and list absolutely everything he doesn’t like then I would not let him anywhere near the plane for actual maintenance because it will be a black hole for money, and obviously once the thing is dismantled to some degree then any dispute is hard to solve because the plane can’t be flown, and potentially cannot be reassembled without another A&P’s involvement and the new A&P will then question what happened to the first one 
Really weird, I would say, and possibly this is an A&P who has never worked on actual aircraft, or has worked inside a wallet-clearing type of company. The latter is most likely because he seems to know what to look for.
That’s why I asked: who the bloody hell was the person that recommended that IA to Beechbaby and what does that guy say now, given the outcome?
It’s true, handing a 1960s Bonanza to some “unknown” IA is a risk. That’s why you want to be very sure the IA is someone who is known to be pragmatic and has experience with “successful” annuals on such old airframes.
Anyway, I still think that once it that the guy presented his 79-item list (and that he serious about it), it would have been possible to “fire him”, get a different (and really renouned) IA in and save the situation at reasonable extra cost.
BeechBaby wrote:
that for 5k,
Okay, NOW I understand -
BTW : That’s TENS TIMES what I charge for an Annual Inspection on a SEP !
Peter wrote:
For example one of the items was the use of an automotive crimp in some wiring, rather than “aviation” crimp.
You mean an electrical terminal lug, correct ? (A crimp is a noun, not an object)
I cringe when I see cheap “automotive” electrical lugs because it usually means that the repair/work was done by a rank amateur.
Ditto for household grade electrical wire.
There was a very highly publicized fatal accident of a young pilot in the US that was traced back to a cheap “automotive” hose clamp that failed. The father of the deceased went on a nation-wide campaign against the use of sub-standard parts in GA.
Yet this scenario is faced by anyone performing maintenance on any aircraft which has been touched by anyone but themselves since it was built.
What you don’t do is list everything you don’t like and demand rectification.
Peter wrote:
Yet this scenario is faced by anyone performing maintenance on any aircraft which has been touched by anyone but themselves since it was built.
And what is your point ? What does that have to do w sub-standard hardware ?
What you don’t do is list everything you don’t like and demand rectification.
An IA is a free agent, he can indeed “demand” whatever he feels fit and the owner/operator/client can tell him to piss-off just as well.
I would actually expect that the IA i hire and pay makes me a complete list of discrepancies. We can then discuss what’s really necessary and what can be put on hold or dismissed.
Automotive clamps and home depot zip ties and similar stuff are off limits for me – and will not be used by anyone who is serious about aircraft maintenance.
This does not mean pragmatic and cheaper solutions cannot be found.
Howard wrote:
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.
Isn’t that the case for 99% of all video clips on any subject?
It doesn’t help that Mike Busch only has 5 points that he’s been making 24/7 for the last 15 years on all channels there are.
Peter wrote:
Really weird, I would say, and possibly this is an A&P who has never worked on actual aircraft, or has worked inside a wallet-clearing type of company. The latter is most likely because he seems to know what to look for.
Well, hindsight being 100% clarity. Apparently he is used to Boeing 747 types, where he pitches up, plugs in the lap top, and checks what and where AD’S have not been done. Then sends an invoice. I was in a certain predicament where I required a roving A&P/IA, and in fairness was told that this guy wanted into the GA market. Well, I tried, and then found out the hard way again. The company that I have had my maintenance done, regularly over the past five years would not travel, hence bringing in someone else. Naturally, he was going to find issues, no problem there, but when it comes to ’’here is your 91 defects, the aeroplane is in bits in a remote hanger, and I want XXX to make it fly again, with a shiny new certificate, well, I am up against the wall. It resonated with the Mike Busch webinar, because, I found myself in exactly that situation, A by The Book scenario, the majority of which was not actually required, By the Book or any other way…….Anyway, live and learn, not as if I have not come across the situation before. We as owners eventually become Savvy Owners, because, frankly we have to, with a little help from guys like MB. (And Peter).
