(I decided to move this to a separate thread since its a bigger issue
than engine TBO.)

Matt...I read the Avweb article. The author correctly notes that
whether its a car or plane, you should always insist on seeing or
discussing the problems with the mechanic so there are no surprises
later. However, in a car, you can simply tell the mechanic "Thanks but
no thanks" on some recommended repairs and move on. But for a plane,
once the item has been flagged as an airworthiness issue, you have
little choice. You can talk to the A&P all you want and until you are
blue in the face (as I did in the case below on every single item on
the estimate). But if he says "Sorry...in my view, these must be
repaired", you have only two options...suck it up, or close up the
plane, go thru the hassle I describe below, take it someplace else,
and hope the new shop will be a little more lenient.

In the case of our Warrior annual, I was NOT interested in cutting
safety corners. But there were items (like a small dent in one of the
exhaust risers--$300) that had been there for many years but Landmark
decided to take a hard line on what was "airworthy" vs "suggested".
The pilot has little say in this. As a result, our normal annual of ~
$1800 went up to $6000. (Obviously, we won't be using them next
year!)

--Jeff


-------------------------

Jeff B wrote:
> While not directly related to the engine/TBO question, I ran into this
> exact problem on the recent annual for my 79 Warrior. We used a new
> FBO this year (Landmark) and they took a "lets make it new" approach
> on the initial inspection and estimate. The list of issues ran 3
> pages long even though many had been there for many years and signed
> off by 2 other smaller FBOs in previous annuals. The cost estimate
> was 3x what we were used to!!


> THe point being that after I recovered from heart failure over the
> estimate, we considered having Landmark close it up and take it
> somewhere else. But we learned that once a shop flags something as
> unairworthy, its too late to "change your mind", ignore the
> inspection, and start over someplace else. You can go elsewhere, but
> an A&P must now sign off that the plane is safe to fly and ferry to
> another shop, a FSDO has to sign off on a ferry permit, and then the
> new A&P must either the fix the flagged items or note in the logbook
> why he/she didn't agree with the initial diagnosis. This process
> requires permits, signatures, more permits, more signatures. (In the
> end, we decided it was too hard and we let Landmark suck our wallets
> dry.)


Matt Barrow wrote:

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/189710-1.html

The Savvy Aviator #18: Avoid an Annual Calamity


Pay particular attention to the part titeld, "Mismanagement Of The
Annual"

You ABSOLUTELY do have an option...
First you order the mechanic to button up the plane and sign off on
his performed work in the logbook and his list of discrepancies, and
you pay the bill...

**Remember, the Annual Inspection is only that - an inspection... It
is not graven in stone that the first mechanic is the only one who can
correct the discrepancies...**

Then you move your plane out of his shop and secure it...
Then you call the FSDO for your area and ask for a ferry permit for
this plane because of a dispute with the A&I... You read him/her the
list of discrepancies, such as the small dent in the exhaust that has
been there for a decade, etc. and ask for the ferry permit to move the
plane to another shop for a fresh inspection...
The odds are 99 & 44/100% that you will get the ferry permit...
The odds are also good that the FSDO inspector will stop at the new
mechanics shop to have a look so be sure your VOR checks are logged
and your ARROW is straight and shiny... Once the new mechanic and the
inspector agree on what is an actual discrepancy you get the work
done, and your plane is now airworthy again..

denny

On Apr 14, 11:49 am, "Denny" > wrote:
> You ABSOLUTELY do have an option...
> First you order the mechanic to button up the plane and sign off on
> his performed work in the logbook and his list of discrepancies, and
> you pay the bill...
>
> **Remember, the Annual Inspection is only that - an inspection... It
> is not graven in stone that the first mechanic is the only one who can
> correct the discrepancies...**
>
> Then you move your plane out of his shop and secure it...
> Then you call the FSDO for your area and ask for a ferry permit for
> this plane because of a dispute with the A&I... You read him/her the
> list of discrepancies, such as the small dent in the exhaust that has
> been there for a decade, etc. and ask for the ferry permit to move the
> plane to another shop for a fresh inspection...
> The odds are 99 & 44/100% that you will get the ferry permit...
> The odds are also good that the FSDO inspector will stop at the new
> mechanics shop to have a look so be sure your VOR checks are logged
> and your ARROW is straight and shiny... Once the new mechanic and the
> inspector agree on what is an actual discrepancy you get the work
> done, and your plane is now airworthy again..
>
> denny

You didn't read my original carefully. I didn't say you had NO
options, but rather your options are limited. You can either A) "suck
it up" and let the shop do the work, OR B) go thru the process that we
both described with ferry permits, etc. But if you choose B, in
addition to the hassles of permits, signatures, reviews, etc., you
have to ask yourself whether taking it someplace else will really make
enough of a difference to make all those time-consuming hassles
worthwhile? In the end, will you save $50 or 50%?? No way to know
what the 2nd shop will insist on fixing or let pass. In my case,
since my partners and I have normal day jobs with limited time to
spend calling and driving somewhere to sign forms, we decided to go
with option A...especially since the 2nd shop was booked solid for 6
weeks which would have kept us grounded waiting.

My major point is that once items are flagged as unairworthy during an
inspection, the comparison between cars and planes no longer applies
and the hassle-factor goes up considerably. A flagged item cannot be
ignored by the owner (like a recommendation from your car shop to
replace a fan belt.) A logbook entry is required...either after
repair by the original shop, or by an explanation from a 2nd shop why
its not necessary.

--Jeff

In article om>,
"JB" > wrote:

> You didn't read my original carefully. I didn't say you had NO
> options, but rather your options are limited. You can either A) "suck
> it up" and let the shop do the work, OR B) go thru the process that we
> both described with ferry permits, etc. But if you choose B, in
> addition to the hassles of permits, signatures, reviews, etc., you
> have to ask yourself whether taking it someplace else will really make
> enough of a difference to make all those time-consuming hassles
> worthwhile? In the end, will you save $50 or 50%?? No way to know
> what the 2nd shop will insist on fixing or let pass. In my case,
> since my partners and I have normal day jobs with limited time to
> spend calling and driving somewhere to sign forms, we decided to go
> with option A...especially since the 2nd shop was booked solid for 6
> weeks which would have kept us grounded waiting.

Even if it would cost me more to go the ferry route, I wouldn't let the
first shop rip me off.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Denny wrote:

>
> Then you move your plane out of his shop and secure it...
> Then you call the FSDO for your area and ask for a ferry permit for
> this plane because of a dispute with the A&I... You read him/her the
> list of discrepancies, such as the small dent in the exhaust that has
> been there for a decade, etc. and ask for the ferry permit to move the
> plane to another shop for a fresh inspection...
> The odds are 99 & 44/100% that you will get the ferry permit...

>
> denny
>


I got in a dispute at annual once and took this path. ('Annual' might
be an exaggeration since the plane was sitting untouched after I had
been promised repeatedly that getting to it in time wouldn't be a
problem.) Unless things have changed or my memory is playing tricks on
me, the form that the FSDO willingly faxed to me still had to be signed
by either an A&E or an IA. In retrospect, I also wonder what the
insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?

Tom

On Apr 14, 1:26 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> "JB" > wrote:
> > You didn't read my original carefully. I didn't say you had NO
> > options, but rather your options are limited. You can either A) "suck
> > it up" and let the shop do the work, OR B) go thru the process that we
> > both described with ferry permits, etc. But if you choose B, in
> > addition to the hassles of permits, signatures, reviews, etc., you
> > have to ask yourself whether taking it someplace else will really make
> > enough of a difference to make all those time-consuming hassles
> > worthwhile? In the end, will you save $50 or 50%?? No way to know
> > what the 2nd shop will insist on fixing or let pass. In my case,
> > since my partners and I have normal day jobs with limited time to
> > spend calling and driving somewhere to sign forms, we decided to go
> > with option A...especially since the 2nd shop was booked solid for 6
> > weeks which would have kept us grounded waiting.


>
> Even if it would cost me more to go the ferry route, I wouldn't let the
> first shop rip me off.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)

I agree what Denny says with the following exception-

After you get a discrepancy list from the IA, and the IA signs the log
book,the annual inspection is complete. No other inspection is
required.
At this point, the list of discrepancies needs to be attended to and
signed off by any licensed A&P, once this is done, the aircraft is
airworthy.
It's up to the A&P how the repairs are to be made.

> I agree what Denny says with the following exception-
>
> After you get a discrepancy list from the IA, and the IA signs the log
> book,the annual inspection is complete. No other inspection is
> required.
>

Ya know, this is an issue that has been debated... In theory you are
correct per the regs... Most, if not all, IA's will argue that you are
wrong, though... A bit of self serving in their part...

denny

In retrospect, I also wonder what the
> insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?
>
> Tom

We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
inflight risk... Who defines what is/not airworthy - the FAA... The
form you have from the FAA says it IS legally airworthy for the
duration of that listed flight...

denny

Denny wrote:

>
>
> We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
> Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
> inflight risk...

As defined by your state. Many, if not most, states will force an
insurer to pay up if there's an accident and the plane is out of annual
if the cause of the accident had nothing to do with the fact the plane
was/was not in annual.

Denny wrote:
>In retrospect, I also wonder what the
>> insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?
>>
>> Tom
>
>We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
>Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
>inflight risk... Who defines what is/not airworthy - the FAA... The
>form you have from the FAA says it IS legally airworthy for the
>duration of that listed flight...
>
Maybe not. Every policy I've had stated that the airplane must comply with
its standard airworthiness certificate. If it's out of annual, it's out of
compliance. A special airworthiness certificate (represented by the Ferry
Permit) is not the same as the standard airworthiness certificate. At least
according to the aviation insurance policies I've had experience with.

I've made flights under ferry permits and in all cases, the insurance
companies had to approve the flight and fax a waiver.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On 16 Apr 2007 07:59:09 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

> In retrospect, I also wonder what the
>> insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?
>>
>> Tom
>
>We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
>Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
>inflight risk... Who defines what is/not airworthy - the FAA... The
>form you have from the FAA says it IS legally airworthy for the
>duration of that listed flight...

Yup! The form has to be signed off, after inspecting it, by an IA or
A&E stating the aircraft is airworthy for that flight. I've done a
number of ferry flights like that. Just ask your insurrance carrier
if in doubt. I've not had one say no, yet.
>
>denny

On Apr 16, 3:32 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Denny wrote:
> >In retrospect, I also wonder what the
> >> insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?
>
> >> Tom
>
> >We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
> >Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
> >inflight risk... Who defines what is/not airworthy - the FAA... The
> >form you have from the FAA says it IS legally airworthy for the
> >duration of that listed flight...
>
> Maybe not. Every policy I've had stated that the airplane must comply with
> its standard airworthiness certificate. If it's out of annual, it's out of
> compliance. A special airworthiness certificate (represented by the Ferry
> Permit) is not the same as the standard airworthiness certificate. At least
> according to the aviation insurance policies I've had experience with.
>
> I've made flights under ferry permits and in all cases, the insurance
> companies had to approve the flight and fax a waiver.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>


All of you raise very valid issues and there is abit of debate of
exactly how many forms, permits, and signatures are required when
"ferrying" a plane that has airworthy issues flagged. So I go back to
my original post......

You can either A) "suck it up" and let the 1st shop do the work, OR B)
go thru the process that we both described with ferry permits, etc.
But if you choose B, in
addition to the hassles of permits, signatures, reviews, etc., you
have to ask yourself whether taking it someplace else will really make
enough of a difference to make all those time-consuming hassles
worthwhile? In the end, will you save $50 or 50%??

In our case, we figured we save $50 not 50% so it wasn't worth the
hassle.

--Jeff

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:41:07 -0700, JB wrote:

> My major point is that once items are flagged as unairworthy during an
> inspection, the comparison between cars and planes no longer applies and
> the hassle-factor goes up considerably.

This is only true if the previous annual has expired.

It opens up an interesting policy decision. Do you do your annuals
"late" (ie. at the last possible minute, perhaps letting the work flow
into the next month), thereby getting maximum value? Or do you leave
yourself a buffer by doing the annual early in the month?

- Andrew

On Apr 17, 12:13 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:41:07 -0700, JB wrote:
> > My major point is that once items are flagged as unairworthy during an
> > inspection, the comparison between cars and planes no longer applies and
> > the hassle-factor goes up considerably.
>
> This is only true if the previous annual has expired.
>
> It opens up an interesting policy decision. Do you do your annuals
> "late" (ie. at the last possible minute, perhaps letting the work flow
> into the next month), thereby getting maximum value? Or do you leave
> yourself a buffer by doing the annual early in the month?
>
> - Andrew

In my case, we do it late in the cycle. But I'm not sure it matters.
Won't an item(s) flagged as unairworthy during an inspection make the
plane unairworthy regardless of the time?? I can't imagine that you
could legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet
by the calendar.

--Jeff

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:20:57 -0700, JB wrote:

> But I'm not sure it matters.
> Won't an item(s) flagged as unairworthy during an inspection make the
> plane unairworthy regardless of the time??

Not merely by an IA's claim.

I've never seen a discrepancy list. I'm told, though, that the wording
will be something like "the inspection has been performed and that the
aircraft had the follow discrepancies...".

> I can't imagine that you could
> legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet by the
> calendar.

This is actually a very interesting point. If there is a real issue on
the discrepancy list, then I would opine that this wouldn't be legal
because the pilot would know about the item. But if there's no real
issue?

BTW, this is all part 91 flying. I've no idea what additional issues
arise out of 121 etc.

- Andrew

I can't imagine that you
> could legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet
> by the calendar.
>
> --Jeff

That technicality doesn;t really matter because if they want you, they
will get you for flying an airplane with known defects regardless of
the status of the logs...

denny

In article . com>,
JB > wrote:

> In our case, we figured we save $50 not 50% so it wasn't worth the
> hassle.

In that case, that IA wasn't ripping you off.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

>>>>BTW, this is all part 91 flying. I've no idea what additional issues
arise out of 121 etc.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

None of this applies to part 121. part 121 airplanes don't use "annual" inspections, but rather "phase" inspections. Also, most part 121 operators use minimum equipment list.

I was involved in a big donnybrook with a repair station on a
friend's Bonanza annual. Because they were a big time
factory repair station,
they felt a need to comply with all Beech service bulletins.
They were condeming this Bonanza because the wing bolt
replacement service bulletin hadn't been complied with.

This is a Beech mandatory SB; there is no AD or legal requirement
to comply for part 91. There has never been a failure. Conventional
wisdom is to not mess with them if there is no corrosion.

They wouldn't budge.

So finally we had them sign it off as unairworthy with the bolts
as the discrepancy. I went down, visually inspected the bolts
signed it off as airworthy as an A&P and flew it home. As good
as an annual because it WAS an annual!

Your mileage may vary. I would guess that if an issue has
been logged it should be resolved before flight.

Bill Hale A&P


On Apr 17, 12:15 pm, Denny > wrote:
> I can't imagine that you
>
> > could legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet
> > by the calendar.
>
> > --Jeff
>
> That technicality doesn;t really matter because if they want you, they
> will get you for flying an airplane with known defects regardless of
> the status of the logs...
>
> denny

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:59:45 -0700, wrote:

> So finally we had them sign it off as unairworthy with the bolts as the
> discrepancy. I went down, visually inspected the bolts signed it off as
> airworthy as an A&P and flew it home. As good as an annual because it WAS
> an annual!

Oh, right. That's a point about which I forgot and which I've yet to see
in this discussion.

An IA must perform the inspection. But an A&P can resolve any
discrepancies.

- Andrew