Annual Costs - Take the Pledge

[Roger Long]

Annual costs are a hot hanger topic. All of us who follow GA maintenance
issues have seen how it goes. Preferred Aviation gives good advice so an
owner spends $5000 on his Skyhawk while it's in for the annual. When his
friends ask why the long face, he tells them he just had a five grand annual
at Preferred. They think, wow, I'd better go to Savemore Aviation for my
annual because, I can't afford a hit like that right now. Preferred then
gets a divot taken out of its market share for doing a proper job.

Every year, at the club meeting after our annual, somebody says that Joe
Pinchface gets his annuals done for $800 up at Savemore and why are we
spending all this money? I ask if he's read the report in the newsletter.
He doesn't have to read it because Joe has a damn fine airplane, he's flown
with him many times, and if he can get it through annual for $800 at
Savemore, there's no reason why we can't.

Last year, I had our shop give me two invoices. The first was for the
inspection and just the rock bottom, minimum necessary to legally sign the
plane off. Everything that could be deferred until after the plane had
flown again was put on a second invoice. We are used to spending $2000 to
$5000 at annual time. I reported to the club that we had a $1200 annual and
elected to do $2500 of other stuff while the plane was down and taken apart.
I was a hero and it was the first year I didn't have to listen to the
Savemore speech.

I used to recommend our late lamented shop to everyone. Several people said,
"Yeah, he's good but I can't afford his annuals." After last year's annual,
I told people who complained about our shop's high annuals that ours was
only $1200 on a Skyhawk and they said they might give him a try. If this
kind of billing was more common, an excellent shop might still be in
business.

So, take the pledge. If you are a shop, keep true annual costs separate so
you don't suffer annual cost inflation that scares away customers. If you
are an owner, ask for two invoices so you can better track expenses and not
scare customers away from the shop that you depend on.

--
Roger Long

[Mike Rapoport]

Great story. It is amazing how many people expect an annual to cost $1000
when the inspection portion alone is $900. They must think that the
airplane is better than new a year after the last annual.

I believe in "efficient" maintenance. It is not efficient to have a part
fail at an inconvienent time, get a hotel, find a mechanic to work on
Sunday, fly the part in ect. When my plane is in for an inspection I want
them to call me with the squawk list before closing it up. If there is a
right side $175 relay that won't pass the test, I want to replace the left
side relay also while it is accessible. It saves money over replacing the
second relay two years later and spending $200 in labor just to access it.
It is generally cheaper to have my parts overhauled than to get an
overhaul/exchange so I try to schedule maitenance so that there is enough
time to have my parts overhauled.

Mike
MU-2

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Annual costs are a hot hanger topic. All of us who follow GA maintenance
> issues have seen how it goes. Preferred Aviation gives good advice so an
> owner spends $5000 on his Skyhawk while it's in for the annual. When his
> friends ask why the long face, he tells them he just had a five grand
annual
> at Preferred. They think, wow, I'd better go to Savemore Aviation for my
> annual because, I can't afford a hit like that right now. Preferred then
> gets a divot taken out of its market share for doing a proper job.
>
> Every year, at the club meeting after our annual, somebody says that Joe
> Pinchface gets his annuals done for $800 up at Savemore and why are we
> spending all this money? I ask if he's read the report in the newsletter.
> He doesn't have to read it because Joe has a damn fine airplane, he's
flown
> with him many times, and if he can get it through annual for $800 at
> Savemore, there's no reason why we can't.
>
> Last year, I had our shop give me two invoices. The first was for the
> inspection and just the rock bottom, minimum necessary to legally sign the
> plane off. Everything that could be deferred until after the plane had
> flown again was put on a second invoice. We are used to spending $2000 to
> $5000 at annual time. I reported to the club that we had a $1200 annual
and
> elected to do $2500 of other stuff while the plane was down and taken
apart.
> I was a hero and it was the first year I didn't have to listen to the
> Savemore speech.
>
> I used to recommend our late lamented shop to everyone. Several people
said,
> "Yeah, he's good but I can't afford his annuals." After last year's
annual,
> I told people who complained about our shop's high annuals that ours was
> only $1200 on a Skyhawk and they said they might give him a try. If this
> kind of billing was more common, an excellent shop might still be in
> business.
>
> So, take the pledge. If you are a shop, keep true annual costs separate
so
> you don't suffer annual cost inflation that scares away customers. If you
> are an owner, ask for two invoices so you can better track expenses and
not
> scare customers away from the shop that you depend on.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message link.net...
> Great story. It is amazing how many people expect an annual to cost $1000
> when the inspection portion alone is $900. They must think that the
> airplane is better than new a year after the last annual.
>
Of course the converse is that shops will quote "$700" annuals when they know
there is no way the plane will leave the shop for that amount.

[Newps]

It also depends where you live. Here in Billings I could bring my 182
to the Cessna dealer on the field. They get about $70 an hour for
labor. I bring in a pristine plane I cannot get out of there for less
than $2000. I have had them do a few things to my plane, but damn few.
I'm not going to pay that labor rate when I can pay $40 per hour for
arguably better work at a field 30 miles SW of here. His flat rate on a
182 annual is $450, which except for the Cessna dealer, is the going
rate around here. I have built up a relationship with this guy over the
last 5 years. My annuals have been between $1000 and $2500. The only
things I defer is the stuff I can do myself, like tires, brakes, etc.
Simply saying a $5000 annual is better than a $500 annual is silly.
There are a few IA's around here that do annuals out of their pickups in
their spare time. They do damn good jobs for very little money,
although I have no interest anymore in opening/closing up the inspection
panels to save a few hundred dollars.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message link.net...
>
>>Great story. It is amazing how many people expect an annual to cost $1000
>>when the inspection portion alone is $900. They must think that the
>>airplane is better than new a year after the last annual.
>>
>
> Of course the converse is that shops will quote "$700" annuals when they know
> there is no way the plane will leave the shop for that amount.
>

[Roger Long]

You completely missed the point. Read it again.

--
Roger Long

Newps > wrote in message
news:iKbRb.125071$nt4.552583@attbi_s51...

> Simply saying a $5000 annual is better than a $500 annual is silly.

[Dude]

A good idea! Seperating the inspection and mandatory work from the repairs
and better to fix it nows is a wise idea.

I have been going to a Savemore (first shop I ever used), and boy was I
PO'd when I got stuck 800 miles from home only 1 week after the annual for
fully broken exhaust.

Other things that they had let go or missed had been hassles in the past,
but this one could have killed me. They lost my business.



"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Annual costs are a hot hanger topic. All of us who follow GA maintenance
> issues have seen how it goes. Preferred Aviation gives good advice so an
> owner spends $5000 on his Skyhawk while it's in for the annual. When his
> friends ask why the long face, he tells them he just had a five grand
annual
> at Preferred. They think, wow, I'd better go to Savemore Aviation for my
> annual because, I can't afford a hit like that right now. Preferred then
> gets a divot taken out of its market share for doing a proper job.
>
> Every year, at the club meeting after our annual, somebody says that Joe
> Pinchface gets his annuals done for $800 up at Savemore and why are we
> spending all this money? I ask if he's read the report in the newsletter.
> He doesn't have to read it because Joe has a damn fine airplane, he's
flown
> with him many times, and if he can get it through annual for $800 at
> Savemore, there's no reason why we can't.
>
> Last year, I had our shop give me two invoices. The first was for the
> inspection and just the rock bottom, minimum necessary to legally sign the
> plane off. Everything that could be deferred until after the plane had
> flown again was put on a second invoice. We are used to spending $2000 to
> $5000 at annual time. I reported to the club that we had a $1200 annual
and
> elected to do $2500 of other stuff while the plane was down and taken
apart.
> I was a hero and it was the first year I didn't have to listen to the
> Savemore speech.
>
> I used to recommend our late lamented shop to everyone. Several people
said,
> "Yeah, he's good but I can't afford his annuals." After last year's
annual,
> I told people who complained about our shop's high annuals that ours was
> only $1200 on a Skyhawk and they said they might give him a try. If this
> kind of billing was more common, an excellent shop might still be in
> business.
>
> So, take the pledge. If you are a shop, keep true annual costs separate
so
> you don't suffer annual cost inflation that scares away customers. If you
> are an owner, ask for two invoices so you can better track expenses and
not
> scare customers away from the shop that you depend on.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Doug Vetter]

Roger Long wrote:
<snip>
> So, take the pledge. If you are a shop, keep true annual costs separate so
> you don't suffer annual cost inflation that scares away customers. If you
> are an owner, ask for two invoices so you can better track expenses and not
> scare customers away from the shop that you depend on.

Good post, Roger. I wish more people understood the distinction between
an annual inspection, the work needed to make the airplane airworthy as
a result of that inspection, and all the extras that make sense to do
while the airplane is in pieces.

For the annual on our 172 that just ended last month, our mechanic
quoted us 18 hours of labor on just the inspection. Turned out he did a
VERY thorough inspection in that time and managed to come up with lots
of little things that others had missed over the last few years...which
brings up another important point.

It doesn't matter what you spend on the inspection portion of an
annual...it's the quality of that inspection that matters. Some guys
can do it in more time, some in less...but what matters is whether the
IA actually does his job. We are fortunate in that respect to have a
good long-time friendship and business relationship with our mechanic.
He knows we are particular about the airplane and takes pride in his
efforts to find all the stuff that others may have overlooked.

The inspection plus parts and labor to fix various things (new brakes,
etc.) totaled about $2000. Quite reasonable, and about average for this
airplane. Of course, if I mentioned outright that the total bill for
our "Annual" reached $7200, my mechanic would likely have no business.
In truth, half that cost was the propeller and governor overhaul that we
(not our mechanic) made the call to do, and the remainder covered lots
of little items that we considered important to do in the interest of
safety or cosmetics and "while the hood was up".

FYI, if you want to read the full story on our annual, I've written a
three part series of articles and posted them on my site. Click through
"Aviation->Articles->Maintenance".

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Paul Sengupta]

The annual on mine last year - no work needed, just the inspection,
cost just over £1700. Includes a radio check and a recurring "use a
mirror to look at the prop flange" AD.

They do a thorough job though, but I'd expected (before I bought
the place) the inspections to be only about £1000.

Crossposting this to uk.rec.aviation. How much are annual inspections
on everyone else's planes in the UK? (just the inspection part)

Paul

"Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
et...>
> For the annual on our 172 that just ended last month, our mechanic
> quoted us 18 hours of labor on just the inspection. Turned out he did a
> VERY thorough inspection in that time
> The inspection plus parts and labor to fix various things (new brakes,
> etc.) totaled about $2000.

[Fly]

I quote hours needed for inspection with no repairs needed.

This ranges from 10 to 50 hours depending on the model of single or twin.

I work free lance. I do not add to price of parts, but I do charge for time
taken to get them.

Kent OK

[Kees Mies]

My plane's annual last november was 1450 euro total.
Only the fuel pressure transducer needed to be replaced, 500 euro.
The avionics test was nearly 200 euro, just VHF, xponder + encoder.

Btw, I fly a Rallye.
Not a very complicated aircraft.

[Wiley]

I learned a lesson recently relating to annual cost vs value. Two
years ago I took on the renovation of a 78 Piper Lance that had sat
outdoors untouched for 3 years. As the service dept. of the flight
school I was teaching at was too busy to fit the plane in, I ended up
having the annual done at another shop on the field. In retrospect I
should have gotten a ferry permit(it was out of annual) and taken the
plane to another airport to have the work done.
IIRC, the total bill was around $1400. This for a plane that sat 3
years without having the engine pickled(!). They replaced the tires
and tubes(only at my insistence) the battery, and ELT batteries (they
used the wrong type) and the wheel bearings on the mains (sprayed a
little Corrosion-X too for good measure) I flew this plane for a year
(about 30 hours) until the next annual. During that time I had a gear
emergency in the pattern (frozen in mid-extension) due to a severely
corroded power pack that was never inspected by the first shop.
My flight school service dept did the 2nd annual. The service mgr.
told me the plane was "scary" there was so much wrong with it. The
second annual cost over 23k, as the squawk list had 130 items on it. A
bunch of these were cosmetic, but mostly airframe related stuff.
Admittedly it was dumb to accept a $1400 annual as a thorough
inspection of a neglected airplane. At least now I know the plane is
safe to fly, and as someone else was paying for the service work I
offer this anecdote to anyone else in a similar position.
In aviation, you really do get what you pay for.

Will

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Wiley) wrote:

> In aviation, you really do get what you pay for.

but it's not always what you thought you were going to get.

:-(

--
Bob Noel

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wiley wrote:
>
> The
> second annual cost over 23k, as the squawk list had 130 items on it.

The whole point of this thread is that your annual didn't cost anything close to
$23,000. An annual is an *inspection*, nothing more. Your *annual* cost perhaps
$1,000 and you spent $22,000 on repairs.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Dan Thompson]

Actually, often you don't get what you pay for either.

What I always say is "you don't get what you don't pay for." That's true
almost 100% of the time.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Wiley) wrote:
>
> > In aviation, you really do get what you pay for.
>
> but it's not always what you thought you were going to get.
>
> :-(
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Roger Long]

You always get less than you pay for so, the less you pay, the less you
aren't getting that you paid for.

--
Roger Long

Dan Thompson > wrote in message
om...
> Actually, often you don't get what you pay for either.
>
> What I always say is "you don't get what you don't pay for." That's true
> almost 100% of the time.
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wiley wrote:
>
> In aviation, you really do get what you pay for.

No, in aviation you pay for what you get; not necessarily the other way 'round.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[[email protected]]

Wiley > wrote:
: outdoors untouched for 3 years. As the service dept. of the flight
<snip>
: inspection of a neglected airplane. At least now I know the plane is

I don't think I'd call 3 years unloved as neglected. While it's certainly not
good for it, there are a lot of people flying planes out there that sit for long periods
of time (or worse yet, run for 5 minutes on the ground when it's cold out). If it was in
good shape beforehand, the camshaft is probably the main concern.

If the plane truly needed $23k worth of maintainance, it should have been fairly
obvious. As your post states, having a conflict of interest is a bad thing... the main
reason why I don't trust any work that's not a *combination* of my personal inspection,
and a mechanic who knows more than me. It's my butt in the plane if it goes TU.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Roger Long" m>
wrote:

> You always get less than you pay for so, the less you pay, the less you
> aren't getting that you paid for.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
> Dan Thompson > wrote in message
> om...
> > Actually, often you don't get what you pay for either.
> >
> > What I always say is "you don't get what you don't pay for." That's true
> > almost 100% of the time.
> >
>
>
>

Very often, you pay for what you get!

[David Lesher]

I'm waiting for Ron Wanttaja to chime in...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Wiley]

Um that's nitpicking but okay, George... The annual plus repairs -
referred to by everyone as "the annual" cost over 23k.



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Wiley wrote:
> >
> > The
> > second annual cost over 23k, as the squawk list had 130 items on it.
>
> The whole point of this thread is that your annual didn't cost anything close to
> $23,000. An annual is an *inspection*, nothing more. Your *annual* cost perhaps
> $1,000 and you spent $22,000 on repairs.
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Wiley" > wrote in message
om...
> Um that's nitpicking but okay, George... The annual plus repairs -
> referred to by everyone as "the annual" cost over 23k.

If proper use of English and proper deriviation of issues based on legal
definitions is "nitpicking", then perhaps our education system is even more
in need of overhaul/replacement than originally thought.

>
>
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
>...
> > Wiley wrote:
> > >
> > > The
> > > second annual cost over 23k, as the squawk list had 130 items on it.
> >
> > The whole point of this thread is that your annual didn't cost anything
close to
> > $23,000. An annual is an *inspection*, nothing more. Your *annual* cost
perhaps
> > $1,000 and you spent $22,000 on repairs.
> >

[Wiley]

Cory, seems we have differing ideas of what constitutes neglect. That
Lance sat outside uncovered at a coastal CT airport for over 3 years
on three flat dry-rotted tires with a collapsed front strut. I swear
the owner forgot he owned an airplane. While there may be lots of
planes that sit for long periods, I think 3 years is a bit excessive.
I was concerned about engine corrosion because the engine was never
pickled, but luckily it has chrome cylinders that were in good shape.
Two of these were recently overhauled, and the internal inspection
showed no corrosion on the cam.
What was "fairly obvious" was that this was going to be an expensive
renovation. So far the panel work cost 14k, and the plane was just
painted for another 7k. Although that last annual cost a bunch (that
IS an expensive shop) the owner has never questioned anything I told
him the plane needed. After all, he hadn't paid for an annual for the
previous 3 years.
I really have no right to be ****ed about the crappy inspection the
first shop did - even considering it was MY butt strapped into the
seat. Several other posters quoted some form of the old adage "You get
what you pay for". I agree - 'nuff said.


wrote in message

> I don't think I'd call 3 years unloved as neglected. While it's certainly not
> good for it, there are a lot of people flying planes out there that sit for long periods

> If the plane truly needed $23k worth of maintainance, it should have been fairly
> obvious.

It's my butt in the plane if it goes TU.
>

[Ricky Robbins]

On 31 Jan 2004 11:53:49 -0800, (Wiley)
wrote:

>Um that's nitpicking but okay, George... The annual plus repairs -
>referred to by everyone as "the annual" cost over 23k.

That nitpicking, though, was kinda the point of the post that started
this thread. 8)

Ricky

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wiley wrote:
>
> Um that's nitpicking but okay, George... The annual plus repairs -
> referred to by everyone as "the annual" cost over 23k.

No, it's NOT nitpicking. Again. The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD is that NOBODY
should refer to that as "the annual cost".

IT ISN'T.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > Um that's nitpicking but okay, George... The annual plus repairs -
> > referred to by everyone as "the annual" cost over 23k.
>
> No, it's NOT nitpicking. Again. The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD is that
> NOBODY
> should refer to that as "the annual cost".
>
> IT ISN'T.

nobody should use geosynchronous when referring to geostationary
orbits, but they do.

nobody should use methodology unless referring to the study
of methods, but they do.

I know the difference between the annual inspection and
the work/repairs performed in conjunction with the annual
inspection, but ...

One of these days people will recognize that pilots/owners mean
something other than just the "annual inspection" when discussing
an "annual." Until then, we need to be aware of the confusion
that can result.

--
Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

Wiley > wrote:
: Cory, seems we have differing ideas of what constitutes neglect. That
: Lance sat outside uncovered at a coastal CT airport for over 3 years
: on three flat dry-rotted tires with a collapsed front strut.

Fair enough.... sounds abused and neglected. I was merely stating that 3 years of
non-flying constitues niether necessary nor sufficient grounds for labeling a plane
neglected and abused.

I would venture a rule of thumb that a "flat-tire special" airplane will probably
cost more to have fixed up than it's worth. If you fix it up and do as much work on it
yourself as possible, it could go either way. On the average, it probably costs a bit
more, but at least you know everything about it on the way.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************