Two green, no red, one in the mirror....(long)

[Len]

I thought I'd share a story with you. I have posted a few things here, and
really enjoyed the information that people share on these groups.

Some background: I'm currently working on my ME rating, and was out with my
instructor polishing up some maneuvers. I have about 12 to 14 hours in a
Seminole, and have been working on a VFR ME rating (the IFR ME rating will
be later).

So yesterday, my instructor and I headed out on a really nice Pacific NW
day (decent ceilings, great visibility and temps in the 40s at the surface).
We were planning on doing a few maneuvers, a Vmc demo or two, single engine
failure procedures, etc. We also planned on practicing simulated engine
failures in the pattern. All of this was to get ready for my upcoming ME
check ride.

I completed the pre-flight, and we didn't have any issues on run up. All
systems appeared normal, and working great. On our take-off roll, we got an
alternator warning. We aborted the take off, ran through the check lists,
reset the alternator, and the problem seemed to go away. (The alternator
problem was not our problem later on, and is probably not even related to
the problem we encountered).

So we finally got going, headed out to a practice area and began our
maneuvers. Everything was going fairly well, Vmcs looked decent, engine
failure procedures were looking better, etc. We were close to the airport
we were planning on doing pattern work, but we were above 5000AGL, so my
instructor asked me to do an emergency decent. For those unfamiliar with
it, the procedure is to bring the gear down, throttles to idle, props full
forward, and start a 45 deg descending turn while maintaining around 140kts.
I extended the gear (below the required 140), started to see the lights
turning green, and started the procedure. The lights normally all light
within a second of each other. Both the instructor and I notice the right
main light was not lit. We stopped the emergency decent, and reconfigured
to retract the gear. After a couple of attempts to cycle the gear, and swap
gear light bulbs, we determined that indeed, we were not getting a positive
lock indication on the right main gear. We even tried the emergency gear
extension, with the same results.

So at this point, we decided to head back to our home field and get some
help.While heading back we are both trying to figure out what might be
causing the problem. We are both thinking it might be as simple as the gear
lock switch, or as complicated as a gear stuck in transit.

The tower at Boeing Field allowed us to do a fly by, and was able to tell us
that the gear was down. They of course couldn't determine if it was locked
or not, but at least we know that it seems to be extending. We then left
the airport and headed out west to do more troubleshooting, and to call our
FBO mechanics. While I am flying a small circuit over the Olympic Peninsula,
my instructor talked on his cell phone to the FBO's maintenance gang. We
tried a bunch of variables. Extending the gear while in a turn, pulling
circuit breakers to reset the system then extending it, you name it, we
tried it. We spent over an hour trying to sort it out. Finally we arrived
at the point were we've burned off some of our extra fuel (now we only have
around 20 gals/ side) and our daylight is beginning to go. We decide that
the problem can't be fixed from inside the cockpit, and we'll just have to
hope that the issue is just the lock switch.

Remarkably both my instructor an I stayed pretty calm about the whole thing.
We get set up for our upcoming emergency landing by discussing who will do
what if the gear collapses (since he is flying, he would cut the mixtures,
I'd get the fuel shut-offs, mags, alts, and master). We remove our knee
boards, remove the decorative "emergency exit" handle cover, and locate the
fire extinguisher.

We did one more fly by of the tower, and they once again confirmed that the
gear was down. We went around again, declared our emergency, waited for a
767 to land, and went in. The Boeing Field fire department was ready and
waiting, which re-assured us if the worst happened, they would be there in
seconds.

The landing went extremely well. My instructor managed to hold the plane at
stall, and set it down as gently as was possible on the left gear first.
Lucky for us the right gear was locked, or at least held long enough for us
to land, taxi off the runway, and park. (Last time I checked the airplane is
in for determination of the problem).

It was an excellent learning experience, with the best outcome imaginable. I
know more about the Seminole's landing gear than I ever did before. I also
learned that keeping a cool head during a potential emergency will let you
clearly think about problems and most importantly-- keep flying the plane.
It can be distracting troubleshooting, flying and talking on the radio at
once. Keeping things in perspective and working as a team helped keep
everything manageable. The FBO's maintenance guys, the Boeing Fire
department and the Boeing tower also were key in keeping things manageable
and as safe as possible.

I definitely have to say, it was one of my most useful flights.

Len
PPSEL, working on that ME.

[houstondan]

reading stuff like yours is why i do the net groups. thanks for posting
that. would there have been any sense to "bumping" it on the runway??
planning not to put all the weight on it and just kinda bumping it then
pulling up to do another circuit with whatever new info you just
gained??


dan....oh, by the way...sounds like y'all did just right.

[Ron Natalie]

houstondan wrote:
> reading stuff like yours is why i do the net groups. thanks for posting
> that. would there have been any sense to "bumping" it on the runway??
> planning not to put all the weight on it and just kinda bumping it then
> pulling up to do another circuit with whatever new info you just
> gained??
>
>
And what would that tell you. Frankly, unless there's something dangerous
(like something in the way on the runway), it's probably safer to continue
the landing and take the possible collapse. A gingerly executed landing
is going to be better than bumping things and taking off... I've seen
a plane land without the nosegear and I've seen one land without one of the
mains. While the first yielded a bunch of sparks and the second caused the
plane to go off into the dirt, both pilots walked away uninjured and without
too much damange to the plane either.

[Jay Honeck]

> I definitely have to say, it was one of my most useful flights.

This is what I like about pilots. After an experience like this, 97% of the
population would be screaming "Never again!" -- and would probably never set
foot on an airport again.

Pilots, on the other hand, just say "Hmmm...that was a valuable learning
experience..."

Great story -- thanks for sharing it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I definitely have to say, it was one of my most useful flights.
>
>
> This is what I like about pilots. After an experience like this, 97% of the
> population would be screaming "Never again!" -- and would probably never set
> foot on an airport again.
>
> Pilots, on the other hand, just say "Hmmm...that was a valuable learning
> experience..."
>
> Great story -- thanks for sharing it!

Interesting observation, Jay. I think you are correct about that. Pilots have a
different perspective on taking risks, and are more analytical than emotional
about accident reports. Perhaps that's a trait that led us to become pilots, or
perhaps the additional knowledge we share gives us more information to analyze.

So, are pilots also correspondingly analytical and unemotional when faced with
accident reports from outside aviation? Say, a boating accident, or a
farm-tractor accident, or a <fill in the activity> accident? Just musing, when
I'm supposed to be working. :-)

[Len]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Len" > wrote:
>
>
>>The landing went extremely well. My instructor managed to hold the plane at
>>stall, and set it down as gently as was possible on the left gear first.
>>Lucky for us the right gear was locked, or at least held long enough for us
>>to land, taxi off the runway, and park.
>
>
> Assuming the gear light remained red, did you consider
> shutting down without taxiing off the runway? I'd feel
> awfully stupid if the gear collapsed due to the side load as
> I turned off the runway with the engines turning. What
> about shutting down, inspecting/bracing the gear, then
> getting a tow? I don't mean to second guess a successful
> result, but I'm interested in your thought processes.
>
> "It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and skill."
> Wilbur Wright

Just a bit of clarification. We didn't have the red "gear unsafe light".
We only had two green lock lights. Part of the centerline check is the
'Three green lock lights, no red Gear Warning, and look in a mirror for
the nose gear'.

I agree with you, It probably would have been smarter to stop on the
runway or roll off on one of the high speed exit ramps, and then
shutdown to make sure the lock was engaged. I guess at that point we
didn't consider it, or figured if it could handle its share of the
3700lbs load on landing it would be alright.

In retrospect, I've been analyzing the landing gear system. I think the
fact that we didn't get the gear warning horn and the red gear warning
light was actually an indication that the gear was down. According to
the manual (which I'd like to confirm with the maintenance guys), "If
the gear is neither in the full up or full down position, a red WARN
GEAR UNSAFE annunciator at the top of the panel illuminates". If we
didn't have the red light, then the gear was down.

Oddly enough, I saw on the news that a pilot in Florida had the same
problem with his twin engine Cessna, however in his case the gear
collapsed. In the video he did an excellent job in controlling the
airplane, minimizing the damage-- including killing the engine on
touchdown. It even looks like he managed to avoid a prop strike. Check
out http://www.nbc6.net/news/4175769/detail.html

[Icebound]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> houstondan wrote:
>> reading stuff like yours is why i do the net groups. thanks for posting
>> that. would there have been any sense to "bumping" it on the runway??
>> planning not to put all the weight on it and just kinda bumping it then
>> pulling up to do another circuit with whatever new info you just
>> gained??
>>
>>
> And what would that tell you. Frankly, unless there's something
> dangerous
> (like something in the way on the runway), it's probably safer to continue
> the landing and take the possible collapse. A gingerly executed landing
> is going to be better than bumping things and taking off... I've seen
> a plane land without the nosegear and I've seen one land without one of
> the
> mains. While the first yielded a bunch of sparks and the second caused
> the
> plane to go off into the dirt, both pilots walked away uninjured and
> without
> too much damange to the plane either.

Half-way through the post, I thought Len was involved in this (with video):

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=32215

from a day or so ago. Pretty standard 1-main-up landing.

[Dan Girellini]

Len > writes:


> In retrospect, I've been analyzing the landing gear system. I think the fact
> that we didn't get the gear warning horn and the red gear warning light was
> actually an indication that the gear was down. According to the manual
> (which I'd like to confirm with the maintenance guys), "If the gear is
> neither in the full up or full down position, a red WARN GEAR UNSAFE
> annunciator at the top of the panel illuminates". If we didn't have the red
> light, then the gear was down.

Isn't there a difference between 'full down' and locked? I guess I don't
understand the significance of the lack of the red warning light other than
indicating that you _might_ just have a faulty switch.

dan.

--
PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF

[[email protected]]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
> Interesting observation, Jay. I think you are correct about that.
Pilots have a
> different perspective on taking risks, and are more analytical than
emotional
> about accident reports. Perhaps that's a trait that led us to become
pilots, or
> perhaps the additional knowledge we share gives us more information
to analyze.

I think that's applicable to anyone that bothers to analyze the risks
associated with a particular endeavor (for example motorcycling,
skydiving and skiing). That said, Jay has a point. Of the people I've
encountered in those particular activities, there is a large percentage
that do not bother to consider all of the risks and take an "it won't
happen to me" approach. Those are the ones that say, "Never again!"
after a mishap. The rest (a minority, in my opinion) just chalk it up
as a valuable learning experience.

I know several former pilots that hung up their wings after a
particularly frightening experience. They gained a sudden realization
of the risks involved with their activity and weren't prepared to deal
with it.

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

[Jack Allison]

Great post Len. Glad to hear that it worked out the way it did. Sounds
like you guys kept your cool, kept flying the plane, etc. Thanks for
posting.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student-Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-02-09, Len > wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> In retrospect, I've been analyzing the landing gear system. I think the
> fact that we didn't get the gear warning horn and the red gear warning
> light was actually an indication that the gear was down.

Many retracts have multiple independent systems that sense gear position.
You may have to get a maintenance manual and look at the wiring diagrams
to figure it all out.

For example, my Comanche has 3 switches in series to light one bulb.
There is also an independent switch on the nose gear only that is used
as part of the gear warning horn (in conjunction with a mechanical
monstrosity behind the throttle). If the green light doesn't come on,
but the gear horn doesn't sound when you retard the throttle, the gear
is probably down (it's all mechanically interconnected). You can also
see (and feel) the emergency extension handle to know if the gear is
stuck at some point.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Morgans]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> And what would that tell you. Frankly, unless there's something
dangerous
> (like something in the way on the runway), it's probably safer to continue
> the landing and take the possible collapse.

I would have to agree with you on that one. Bumping it may cause an
unlocked gear to become even "less locked", then collapse, the next time you
put the weight on it. On the other hand, a real greaser may not put enough
strain on the gear to cause the same unlocked gear to fold on you.
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

"Icebound" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
>> houstondan wrote:
>>> reading stuff like yours is why i do the net groups. thanks for posting
>>> that. would there have been any sense to "bumping" it on the runway??
>>> planning not to put all the weight on it and just kinda bumping it then
>>> pulling up to do another circuit with whatever new info you just
>>> gained??
>>>
>>>
>> And what would that tell you. Frankly, unless there's something dangerous
>> (like something in the way on the runway), it's probably safer to continue
>> the landing and take the possible collapse. A gingerly executed landing
>> is going to be better than bumping things and taking off... I've seen
>> a plane land without the nosegear and I've seen one land without one of the
>> mains. While the first yielded a bunch of sparks and the second caused the
>> plane to go off into the dirt, both pilots walked away uninjured and without
>> too much damange to the plane either.
>
> Half-way through the post, I thought Len was involved in this (with video):
>
> http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=32215
>
> from a day or so ago. Pretty standard 1-main-up landing.
>
>

Reminds me of the C-310 with the nose wheel unlocked. The guy did a number of flybys that confirmed that it was down but
not locked; it was just dangling there. They went off and tried 60° bank turns and other things to try and flick it
down, but no luck. They finally came in to land, a little hot, shut down the engines in the flair, sorta bounced it, and
the nose wheel flicked out, looked like it might stay, but then folded back. The nose settled down on the runway and
wore off a patch of aluminum maybe one foot long. Very minimal damage to the plane...

[RattyBoy]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:11:52 -0800, "Len"
> wrote:

>I definitely have to say, it was one of my most useful flights.

Apparently it's true that when you have problems like this declaring
an emergency really is a good idea. Nice to hear that the fire dept
was out there ready and waiting to come put out the plane if there was
a problem.

[Michael]

> I know several former pilots that hung up their wings after a
> particularly frightening experience. They gained a sudden
realization
> of the risks involved with their activity and weren't prepared to
deal
> with it.

It's even more common with family of pilots. I know a particularly
egregious example.

A good friend of mine used to own a C-177RG. He geared it up.

Of course it wasn't his fault. My friend bought the plane used. The
plane had hydraulic hoses that were original (25 years old) and he
instructed his A&P/IA to replace them at annual. The guy didn't, and
he also didn't tell my friend that he didn't. A few months later, one
of them burst. In the Cessna system, once a hose bursts you're done.
The manual extension only provides a backup for the pump.

My friend did all the right things. He tried to get the gear down by
the emergency extension procedure, shking the plane, etc. He diverted
to a major airport with emergency services. He made a flyby to confirm
gear state. He flew off most (but not all) of his fuel. He killed the
engine in the flare, over the runway. He made a perfect minimum-energy
landing and kept the wings level far into the roll. The emergency
crews actually applauded, it was so letter-perfect.

My friend's wife wouldn't fly with him after that. She gained a sudden
realization of the risks involved.

My friend sold the Cardinal and bought a Bonanza. He won't let the
same A&P/IA work on it anymore, and has begun to do much of his own
work, having learned that you can't trust a shop. He has had years of
incident-free flying. It's a MAJOR challenge to get his wife into the
airplane.

Michael

[Barry]

> My friend bought the plane used. The
> plane had hydraulic hoses that were original (25 years old) and he
> instructed his A&P/IA to replace them at annual. The guy didn't, and
> he also didn't tell my friend that he didn't.
>
> My friend sold the Cardinal and bought a Bonanza. He won't let the
> same A&P/IA work on it anymore, and has begun to do much of his own
> work, having learned that you can't trust a shop.

I'm curious if the first A&P claimed to have replaced the hoses (and included
it in the maintenance entry).

[W P Dixon]

I was wondering if the mech had told the owner of the plane that the hose
was in fact changed or not. And no matter what the case may have been....it
is always the owner/pilots responsibility to check the maint. logs for work
performed.

Patrick

[Michael]

> I was wondering if the mech had told the owner of the plane that the
hose
> was in fact changed or not.

He said nothing. He didn't log the work as having been done, and he
didn't charge for it. Had my friend gone through the paperwork line by
line, he would have figured out that the hoses were not replaced. Of
course there was no requirement to replace them. It's perfectly legal
to fly around with 25 year old flexible hydraulic lines.

> And no matter what the case may have been....it
> is always the owner/pilots responsibility to check the maint. logs
for work
> performed.

Yeah, sure. No matter what, you can make it the pilot's fault.
Personally, I think that if you instruct the mechanic to do something
at annual, he agrees to do it, and never mentions it again, you should
be able to trust that it got done. That's how one deals with
professionals.

Of course you can pretty reasonably argue that an A&P mechanic is NOT a
professional and should not be treated like one.

Michael

[Barry]

> Personally, I think that if you instruct the mechanic to do something
> at annual, he agrees to do it, and never mentions it again, you should
> be able to trust that it got done.

It would be interesting to hear the mechanic's point of view. It could easily
have just been a misunderstanding, especially if the owner didn't provide a
written list.

[Cockpit Colin]

Another option you might like to consider for "next time" is to get another
aircraft to take a look from underneath (preferably 2 crew; 1 being an
engineer with binoculars).

Also, in many aircraft it can be "deduced" that all 3 are down and locked if
the in-transit light is OFF (after being on whilst the gear really is in
transit). "Insert usual disclaimers here etc" - but it's another clue to
help you make the best decision.

Cheers,

CC

[Michael]

> It would be interesting to hear the mechanic's point of view. It
could easily
> have just been a misunderstanding, especially if the owner didn't
provide a
> written list.

Well, after he gets done settling the current lawsuit against him (like
he had to settle the last one) I'll ask him about his point of view.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:

> My friend sold the Cardinal and bought a Bonanza. He won't let the
> same A&P/IA work on it anymore, and has begun to do much of his own
> work, having learned that you can't trust a shop. He has had years of
> incident-free flying. It's a MAJOR challenge to get his wife into the
> airplane.

I've blacklisted mechanics as well. I've not had to blacklist a plane
(although I almost bought a fixed gear Cardinal once, the school I learned
to fly had two RG's and I knew all about their "sudden loss of hydraulic
fluid" problems. Both had been geared up at least once as a result.).

Oddly enough, the first time I took Margy flying, we hit a bird and punched
a hole in the wing from the leading edge back to the spar. She was acutally
MORE confident about flying in small planes after that.

[Jay Honeck]

> Oddly enough, the first time I took Margy flying, we hit a bird and
> punched
> a hole in the wing from the leading edge back to the spar. She was
> acutally
> MORE confident about flying in small planes after that.

Yeah, well, she married *you* didn't she?

What's that say about her judgment?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 10 Feb 2005 14:41:53 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

snip

>He said nothing. He didn't log the work as having been done, and he
>didn't charge for it. Had my friend gone through the paperwork line by
>line, he would have figured out that the hoses were not replaced. Of
>course there was no requirement to replace them. It's perfectly legal
>to fly around with 25 year old flexible hydraulic lines.
snip
>
>Yeah, sure. No matter what, you can make it the pilot's fault.
>Personally, I think that if you instruct the mechanic to do something
>at annual, he agrees to do it, and never mentions it again, you should
>be able to trust that it got done. That's how one deals with
>professionals.
>
>Of course you can pretty reasonably argue that an A&P mechanic is NOT a
>professional and should not be treated like one.

I've read quite a few of your posts here in the 'groups, and for the
most part have quite a bit of respect for your viewpoint and opinions.
But this one rubs me the wrong way.

"He said nothing" "had my friend gone through the paperwork line by
line" "No matter what, you can make it the pilot's fault." Reminds me
of my kids when they tell me "whatever".

Despite your opinion on the matter, and no sarcasm intended, it IS the
operator/owner's responsibility to go through the paperwork line by
line prior to intended flight, and it is an important responsibility.

Perhaps that's why every customer airplane that I allegedly approved
for return to service after inspection was delivered with a
line-by-line run-through of each and every maintenance record entry
and signature.

Perhaps 1 out of 20 customers would even pretend to pay attention when
this was taking place. Not to mention some of looks I got when I
offered the use of the maintenance hangar for pre-flight before
pulling it outside. "Why do I have to look at it if you just got done
inspecting it?"

There is no need for a "reasonable" argument, in the US an A&P
mechanic (with or without an Inspection Authorization) is not
considered "professional" labor.

"how one deals with professionals" has absolutely no bearing on the
technicalities and legalities of the federally regulated relationship
between a mechanic and an owner/operator.

It positively tickles the living **** out of me to hear owners
carrying on about the average skill level of GA technicians. Sadly,
I'm afraid most of them wouldn't be amused if I started relating my
experiences with the average GA aircraft owner/pilot.

I've got a feeling that you might get a kick out of it though...

TC

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> On 10 Feb 2005 14:41:53 -0800, "Michael"
> > wrote:
>
snip
> . Sadly,
> I'm afraid most of them wouldn't be amused if I started relating my
> experiences with the average GA aircraft owner/pilot.
>
> I've got a feeling that you might get a kick out of it though...
>
> TC
>

Sounds like a great new thread...how about it?

[Michael]

> Perhaps that's why every customer airplane that I allegedly approved
> for return to service after inspection was delivered with a
> line-by-line run-through of each and every maintenance record entry
> and signature.

Well, that would certainly be a professional approach to the issue.
Sure would have been nice if that particular mechanic had done that.
Might have prevented some tense moments, a damaged aircraft, and a
pilot whose wife won't fly with him. I've only had that experience
with ONE A&P. Not coincidentally, he's on my (very short) list of
A&P's to whom I will take my airplane if the repair in question is
beyond my capability or not something I want to mess with.

> Perhaps 1 out of 20 customers would even pretend to pay attention
when
> this was taking place.

Yes. The other 95% trust you to take care of it without bothering them
with the details.

When I have maintenance done on my car, I find that I can take that
attitude. I drop off the car, and then I pick it up and I trust that
everything has been taken care of. If I ask for something to be done,
I assume it has been done. I haven't been burned yet. What's more,
most people I know do the same, with the same results.

I've found that this is not a viable approach with my airplane. So has
my friend who was burned. It's sort of pointless to complain about
this, since that is the way it is. However, part of what I teach my
students (who are always owners or on their way to being owners) is
that you can't do that with an airplane. That doesn't mean I think
that's the way it ought to be.

> "how one deals with professionals" has absolutely no bearing on the
> technicalities and legalities of the federally regulated relationship

> between a mechanic and an owner/operator.

How one deals with professionals should always be relevant when dealing
with professionals. You are correct in stating that in the US, an A&P
is generally not considered a professional. You seem to think that's
the cause of the lack of professionalism, I would argue that it's the
effect.

Your point about the federal regulation involved is, however,
well-taken. The regulations are written in such a way that an
owner-operator, who may know little or nothing about maintenance (and
who has not, as a rule, even been taught how to properly read a
maintenance log entry, service bulletin, or AD note as a prerequisite
for ANY grade of certificate) has little of the authority but most of
the responsibility. Thus it can almost always be pinned on the
owner-operator. IMO the regulatory relationship is wrong-headed in the
way it assigns authority and responsibility, and results in reduced
safety. But then that's par for the course for the FAA.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

>> I'm afraid most of them wouldn't be amused if I started relating my
>> experiences with the average GA aircraft owner/pilot.
>>
>> I've got a feeling that you might get a kick out of it though...
>
> Sounds like a great new thread...how about it?

I'll "Second" that motion. C'mon, TC -- let's hear some "stupid owner
stories"!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
snip
> Well, that would certainly be a professional approach to the issue.
> Sure would have been nice if that particular mechanic had done that.
> Might have prevented some tense moments, a damaged aircraft, and a
> pilot whose wife won't fly with him. I've only had that experience
> with ONE A&P. Not coincidentally, he's on my (very short) list of
> A&P's to whom I will take my airplane if the repair in question is
> beyond my capability or not something I want to mess with.
>
> > Perhaps 1 out of 20 customers would even pretend to pay attention
> when
> > this was taking place.
>
> Yes. The other 95% trust you to take care of it without bothering
them
> with the details.

That would be their choice, and a choice that I would never make as
owner/PIC (probably will never be an owner, but have done the PIC gig).

> When I have maintenance done on my car, I find that I can take that
> attitude. I drop off the car, and then I pick it up and I trust that
> everything has been taken care of. If I ask for something to be
done,
> I assume it has been done. I haven't been burned yet. What's more,
> most people I know do the same, with the same results.

That would depend on a lot of factors. Locally, I have been burned by
"award-winning" service departments, in one case after leaving detailed
written instructions that were completely ignored.

> I've found that this is not a viable approach with my airplane. So
has
> my friend who was burned. It's sort of pointless to complain about
> this, since that is the way it is. However, part of what I teach my
> students (who are always owners or on their way to being owners) is
> that you can't do that with an airplane. That doesn't mean I think
> that's the way it ought to be.

Agreed. I use to be employed by an authorised check airman. Frequently
he would stop in the middle of an oral exam, and send the applicant
back to me for on-the-spot enrichment with regard to aircraft
systems/maintenance record entries/etc. I always thought it made more
sense than flunking them and sending them back to their instructor.

>
> > "how one deals with professionals" has absolutely no bearing on the
> > technicalities and legalities of the federally regulated
relationship
>
> > between a mechanic and an owner/operator.
>
> How one deals with professionals should always be relevant when
dealing
> with professionals. You are correct in stating that in the US, an
A&P
> is generally not considered a professional. You seem to think that's
> the cause of the lack of professionalism, I would argue that it's the
> effect.

"generally not considered" again, is a total non-issue. It would be
difficult, if not impossible to find a definition of
profession/professional that would include the confines of GA
maintenance providers.

In regard to the "cause", it is again irrelevant IMHO, GA maintenance
is for the most part market-driven (admittedly with the FAA in the mix
to make it more complicated). The mechanic "working out of the trunk of
his car"- or the bottom line of a shop invoice-if you prefer, will
always be enough to limit the acceptable market rate for GA shop labor.

This will always be the root cause of the lack of "professionalism" or
the term of your choice when it comes to maintaining your aircraft.

> Your point about the federal regulation involved is, however,
> well-taken. The regulations are written in such a way that an
> owner-operator, who may know little or nothing about maintenance (and
> who has not, as a rule, even been taught how to properly read a
> maintenance log entry, service bulletin, or AD note as a prerequisite
> for ANY grade of certificate) has little of the authority but most of
> the responsibility. Thus it can almost always be pinned on the
> owner-operator. IMO the regulatory relationship is wrong-headed in
the
> way it assigns authority and responsibility, and results in reduced
> safety. But then that's par for the course for the FAA.

I'll have to get back to you later on this one, have got an airplane 12
minutes out...

Regards;

TC

[Michael]

wrote:
> That would be their choice, and a choice that I would never make as
> owner/PIC (probably will never be an owner, but have done the PIC
gig).

But that IS the choice most owners would make, if it were practical.

> Agreed. I use to be employed by an authorised check airman.
Frequently
> he would stop in the middle of an oral exam, and send the applicant
> back to me for on-the-spot enrichment with regard to aircraft
> systems/maintenance record entries/etc. I always thought it made more
> sense than flunking them and sending them back to their instructor.

Well, since flunking them and sending them back to their instructor is
the only official FAA policy, and providing any instruction at all as
part of the checkride is specifically contrary to FAA policy, I find
that I can easily agree with you. It's not that the FAA is always
wrong (that would at least give it the virtue of consistency) but I
find that when in doubt, it's safest to assume it is.

> "generally not considered" again, is a total non-issue. It would be
> difficult, if not impossible to find a definition of
> profession/professional that would include the confines of GA
> maintenance providers.

Depends which one. I know at least one in my local area that operated
quite professionally. What's more, despite being very expensive (a
typical annual on a well-maintained complex high performance single
with normal minor repairs and routine maintenance tended to run about
$5000) the shop was always backlogged. But when the owner (who was NOT
a mechanic and never turned a wrench) died suddenly, the head mechanic
(who inherited the property free and clear) could not make a go of it.

> In regard to the "cause", it is again irrelevant IMHO, GA maintenance
> is for the most part market-driven (admittedly with the FAA in the
mix
> to make it more complicated).

I disagree. I would say it is primarily FAA-driven. I suspect most
A&P's working on owner-flown aircraft would go under without the FAA to
prop them up. Further, the ones that would stay in business would NOT
be the low-cost providers.

> The mechanic "working out of the trunk of
> his car"- or the bottom line of a shop invoice-if you prefer, will
> always be enough to limit the acceptable market rate for GA shop
labor.

The reason the mechanic working out of the trunk of his car is even a
factor for the operator of a full-time professional operation is purely
the result of the FAA. Is the BMW dealer (or even the Honda dealer)
worried about the shade tree mechanic down the road? Is he a factor in
the way the dealer sets his rates? Of course not. But you're worried
about the guy working out of the back of his truck. Why?

It's because the FAA not only mandates an annual inspection, but also
mandates it be performed by someone they bless. Then, instead of
making the skill and knowledge requirements stringent to assure skill
and knowledge, the FAA simply puts up hoops to jump through. Any
honest A&P will tell you that the hardest part of getting the
certificate is either ponying up the bucks for an approved school or
getting some bureaucrat to sign off on your experience. Once that's
done, the written, oral, and practical tests are a total cakewalk. But
the average owner has no clue. He assumes that if the guy has the
certificate, he must know something - so he shops on price alone.

Marketing yourself is never easy, but the FAA makes it a lot harder by
having these supposed 'standards.'

Michael

[[email protected]]

On 14 Feb 2005 12:44:46 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

wrote:
>> That would be their choice, and a choice that I would never make as
>> owner/PIC (probably will never be an owner, but have done the PIC
>gig).
>
>But that IS the choice most owners would make, if it were practical.

And if it were advisable/legal under the CFR-again, no sarcasm
implied-it is clearly the pilot/operator's responsibility.

>> Agreed. I use to be employed by an authorised check airman.
>Frequently
>> he would stop in the middle of an oral exam, and send the applicant
>> back to me for on-the-spot enrichment with regard to aircraft
>> systems/maintenance record entries/etc. I always thought it made more
>> sense than flunking them and sending them back to their instructor.
>
>Well, since flunking them and sending them back to their instructor is
>the only official FAA policy, and providing any instruction at all as
>part of the checkride is specifically contrary to FAA policy, I find
>that I can easily agree with you. It's not that the FAA is always
>wrong (that would at least give it the virtue of consistency) but I
>find that when in doubt, it's safest to assume it is.

I always figured it was a "gray area". He wasn't technically providing
any instruction, I was. Have had a lot of bad habits, but being a CFI,
has never been one of 'em, so was it really even "instruction" at
all...

>> "generally not considered" again, is a total non-issue. It would be
>> difficult, if not impossible to find a definition of
>> profession/professional that would include the confines of GA
>> maintenance providers.
>
>Depends which one. I know at least one in my local area that operated
>quite professionally. What's more, despite being very expensive (a
>typical annual on a well-maintained complex high performance single
>with normal minor repairs and routine maintenance tended to run about
>$5000) the shop was always backlogged. But when the owner (who was NOT
>a mechanic and never turned a wrench) died suddenly, the head mechanic
>(who inherited the property free and clear) could not make a go of it.

Below.

>> In regard to the "cause", it is again irrelevant IMHO, GA maintenance
>> is for the most part market-driven (admittedly with the FAA in the
>mix
>> to make it more complicated).
>
>I disagree. I would say it is primarily FAA-driven. I suspect most
>A&P's working on owner-flown aircraft would go under without the FAA to
>prop them up. Further, the ones that would stay in business would NOT
>be the low-cost providers.

Not sure what your exact viewpoint/experience level is. Pretending for
a moment that I am a licensed mechanic/inspector, instead of an
anonymous Usenet pain-in-the-ass, assume that I also managed a small
maintenance facility affiliated with a PT 135 operation that provided
rental aircraft and flight instruction.

Let's go really out on a limb and assume that I've been ultimately
responsible for well over 1000 mandated periodic GA inspections, not
to mention day-to-day repairs. Pretend that the PT 135 operation was
successful (and profitable) and for the most part subsidized the
day-to-day customer maintenance operations-and vice-versa.

Let me put it another way, it helped justify the purchase of special
tooling, absolutely mandated the proper maintenance
publications/subsriptions/revisions, allowed hiring additional
personnel, the building of additional hangar space, and also
allowed/required an extensive "working" inventory.

As you can imagine, this also helped keep customer prices relatively
low, while still allowing for a profit.

>> The mechanic "working out of the trunk of
>> his car"- or the bottom line of a shop invoice-if you prefer, will
>> always be enough to limit the acceptable market rate for GA shop
>labor.
>
>The reason the mechanic working out of the trunk of his car is even a
>factor for the operator of a full-time professional operation is purely
>the result of the FAA. Is the BMW dealer (or even the Honda dealer)
>worried about the shade tree mechanic down the road? Is he a factor in
>the way the dealer sets his rates? Of course not. But you're worried
>about the guy working out of the back of his truck. Why?

I don't remember being "worried" about anybody. In purportedly just
under 11 years at the last facility, we probably had about 2 1/2
months of what I would consider down-time. The rest of the time I was
working 10-12 hour days, of which if I was lucky 6-7 would be directly
"billable" hours. The remainder was spent putting out fires and
glad-handing customers. Never spent a dime on advertising.

But I did lose (never really "had" them I guess) about 1/3 of the
locally based aircraft, and higher numbers in the surrounding areas.
Bear in mind that I was told specifically on many, many occasions that
we were "just too expensive" and tended to "find too much wrong with
the aircraft".

Had numerous customers that I would see ever 2-3 years, because they
knew I did a better job of inspecting, but felt that they could "get
by" with a pen-and-ink annual in-between.

>It's because the FAA not only mandates an annual inspection, but also
>mandates it be performed by someone they bless. Then, instead of
>making the skill and knowledge requirements stringent to assure skill
>and knowledge, the FAA simply puts up hoops to jump through. Any
>honest A&P will tell you that the hardest part of getting the
>certificate is either ponying up the bucks for an approved school or
>getting some bureaucrat to sign off on your experience. Once that's
>done, the written, oral, and practical tests are a total cakewalk. But
>the average owner has no clue. He assumes that if the guy has the
>certificate, he must know something - so he shops on price alone.

I have no argument with any of this. I know (and respect) that you
want to treat GA maintenance as a "profession", but your preceding
paragraph again makes a very clear statement of why you cannot.

Again, assuming I was in the business, I can assure you that I had no
problems satisfying the requirements of knowledgeable, experienced
aircraft owners that wanted the best bang-for-the-buck
maintenance-wise. But quite frankly, dealing with the majority of
nitwits (quite a few of which were write-me-a-blank-check nitwits)
drove me out of the business.

Let's also imagine that I've never had the pleasure of "repair
station" rules, and have signed my name to more sets of maintenance
records than I care to think about. And also bear in mind that
individual liability insurance is not available-at any price.

>Marketing yourself is never easy, but the FAA makes it a lot harder by
>having these supposed 'standards.'

After leaving GA several years ago, imagine my dismay at being treated
in the same manner that you personally have witnessed in GA
maintenance. Only in my case, now it is at major maintenance
facilities that have been repeatedly nationally ranked in
business/corporate aviation maintenance with regard to customer
satisfaction/service. That's what I call "marketing".

After 15 years of allegedly dealing with Airworthiness & Operations
Inspectors on a quite regular basis, I find myself educating the QA
director in one of these facilites on what I would consider to be
FAR/CFR 101. We won't even talk about billing matters, I come to
Usenet for fun, not to get all ****ed off.

As a matter of fact, this afternoon I removed a 12pt 1/4"/1/4" socket,
a short 1/4" extension, and a stubby straight-blade screwdriver from
the aft maintenance bay of an aircraft fresh out of a six-figure
inspection.

Regards;

TC

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, this afternoon I removed a 12pt 1/4"/1/4" socket,
> a short 1/4" extension, and a stubby straight-blade screwdriver from
> the aft maintenance bay of an aircraft fresh out of a six-figure
> inspection.

I wondered where those got off to .... :-)

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Michael]

wrote:
> I always figured it was a "gray area".

To adopt your form, let's pretend that I have a number of years of
instruction experience, have sent a few students for checkrides, keep
up on the published guidance the FAA provides to examiners, and know
some of them on a first-name, drink-beer-together basis. What I'm
trying to tell you is that if you only read the PTS, it's a gray area.
If you read the supporting guidance, it's black as coal. Not that I
think he was doing the wrong thing - merely contrary to FAA policy.

> I don't remember being "worried" about anybody...
>
> But I did lose (never really "had" them I guess) about 1/3 of the
> locally based aircraft, and higher numbers in the surrounding areas.
> Bear in mind that I was told specifically on many, many occasions
that
> we were "just too expensive" and tended to "find too much wrong with
> the aircraft".

So here's the question - of the aircraft you lost, how many crashed due
to mechanical issues? If the answer is none, then perhaps you WERE too
expensive for the level of safety these owners wanted. The reality is
that only a tiny fraction of accidents are caused by mechanical
problems - the vast majority are pilot error. For the average pilot
who flies around on nice days getting hundred dollar hamburgers, the
maintenance and inspection standards that apply to a corporate piston
twin are serious overkill - yet they still apply.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have an owner who routinely flies
lots of single-pilot night, IFR, overwater, and over hostile terrain
operations. He's going to want a level of maintenance that's probably
better than what the corporate twin gets.

The FAA does not recognize the distinction. Nor does it legally permit
you to. Of course you're going to lose business to the mechanic who
will recognize the difference and act accordingly.

> Had numerous customers that I would see ever 2-3 years, because they
> knew I did a better job of inspecting, but felt that they could "get
> by" with a pen-and-ink annual in-between.

Or couldn't afford your annual every year, because you were not
satisfied to just inspect - you insisted on making the record of that
inspection written thus forcing them to make repairs they didn't feel
were necessary.

Further, it's unfair to call it a pen-and-ink annual just because it
won't cover everything you would. There are real pen-and-ink annuals
out there, where you just bring the logbooks and leave the aircraft at
home. The best maintained aircraft I have ever seen get pen-and-ink
annuals, because their owners are well know to the IA in question, who
knows full well that these owners know far more about that plane than
he does and can be trusted to take care of it.

What you're talking about is the incomplete annual. We won't check the
cables in the belly because it's too damn much trouble to pull out the
floor, and what I can see looks good. The hell with the gear
retraction test - it came down when it flew in, and it will come up
when it flies out. The hell with the oil screen - it's a PITA to pull
the bulb, and if I break the tube it's $200 to overhaul the gauge and
the owner will be ****ED. The hell with timing the mags - the RPM drop
was normal when I ran it up, so why screw with it? That kind of
annual. You get a compression check, an oil change, a squirt of LPS-2
on whichever pulleys he can see, maybe the wheel bearings get packed
(and maybe not - I've seen some come out that clearly hadn't been
touched, days after the plane came out of annual).

But with all that, the planes aren't falling out of the skies.


> I have no argument with any of this. I know (and respect) that you
> want to treat GA maintenance as a "profession", but your preceding
> paragraph again makes a very clear statement of why you cannot.

Right. That's my point - it's not the market that makes it
near-impossible, it's the FAA. Some people manage it anyway - there
was that shop local to me. But it requires a certain skill at
marketing.

> Again, assuming I was in the business, I can assure you that I had no
> problems satisfying the requirements of knowledgeable, experienced
> aircraft owners that wanted the best bang-for-the-buck
> maintenance-wise.

Odds are you never met the most knowledgeable and experienced owners.
The ones I know are doing their own maintenance, having given up on the
idea that it can consistently get done by a shop to their standards at
anything like a reasonable cost.

Michael

[[email protected]]

On 15 Feb 2005 10:01:14 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

wrote:
>> I always figured it was a "gray area".
>
>To adopt your form, let's pretend that I have a number of years of
>instruction experience, have sent a few students for checkrides, keep
>up on the published guidance the FAA provides to examiners, and know
>some of them on a first-name, drink-beer-together basis. What I'm
>trying to tell you is that if you only read the PTS, it's a gray area.
>If you read the supporting guidance, it's black as coal. Not that I
>think he was doing the wrong thing - merely contrary to FAA policy.

My form is pretty simple, for the most part, I let people draw their
own conclusions from the content of my posts. Heck, I could be a 14
year-old with a computer and a "thing" for the maintenance-related
FAR's.

>> I don't remember being "worried" about anybody...
>>
>> But I did lose (never really "had" them I guess) about 1/3 of the
>> locally based aircraft, and higher numbers in the surrounding areas.
>> Bear in mind that I was told specifically on many, many occasions
>that
>> we were "just too expensive" and tended to "find too much wrong with
>> the aircraft".
>
>So here's the question - of the aircraft you lost, how many crashed due
>to mechanical issues? If the answer is none, then perhaps you WERE too
>expensive for the level of safety these owners wanted. The reality is
>that only a tiny fraction of accidents are caused by mechanical
>problems - the vast majority are pilot error. For the average pilot
>who flies around on nice days getting hundred dollar hamburgers, the
>maintenance and inspection standards that apply to a corporate piston
>twin are serious overkill - yet they still apply.
>
>On the other end of the spectrum, you have an owner who routinely flies
>lots of single-pilot night, IFR, overwater, and over hostile terrain
>operations. He's going to want a level of maintenance that's probably
>better than what the corporate twin gets.
>
>The FAA does not recognize the distinction. Nor does it legally permit
>you to. Of course you're going to lose business to the mechanic who
>will recognize the difference and act accordingly.

You've got a couple issues in here, and I will probably wander around
a little bit, I apologize in advance.

Last issue first, "recognize the difference and act accordingly" is
for the most part unacceptable, and clearly in most cases contrary to
the CFR-as you have clearly indicated. You (collective you) want to be
able to pick and choose which maintenance is important to you and the
level of related inspection, probably experimental is the way to go.

Heh-mechanical issues vs. pilot error. That would be a whole new
discussion in and of itself. Have always been amazed by the inventive
ways pilot's screw themselves into the ground (sarcasm implied, I
really don't consider running out of fuel or continued VFR flight into
IFR very inventive).

Concerning the "maintenance and inspection standards that apply to a
corporate piston twin" are exactly the same as the ones that apply to
a weekend VFR flier, it's still Pt 91 ops. In rare cases, with ungodly
per seat $$ coverage, an insurance policy will specifically mandate
inspection/maintenance to PT 135 standards. It's entirely possible
that I have maintained both types.

You really want to discuss "unnecessary" inspection/maintenance? How
about relatively low-time Pt 135 aircraft flown 600-800 hours a year
by what I would consider to be excellent commercial pilots? I have
allegedly worn out, literally worn out portions of aircraft by taking
it apart, inspecting behind/under/inside it. then doing it again 6-8
weeks later.

For a small operator (with just an OK FSDO) unfortunately it's easier
than trying to operate under a AAIP. Going progressive is also a
relatively easy option for some types of aircraft, but then "little"
inspections are due darn near daily.

Then again, on the other hand there are some issues/areas that need
frequent maintenance/inspection-but I'm sure you are aware of that.

>> Had numerous customers that I would see ever 2-3 years, because they
>> knew I did a better job of inspecting, but felt that they could "get
>> by" with a pen-and-ink annual in-between.
>
>Or couldn't afford your annual every year, because you were not
>satisfied to just inspect - you insisted on making the record of that
>inspection written thus forcing them to make repairs they didn't feel
>were necessary.

You've kinda lost me here. I have never been a "if it's not listed
with a specific inspection criteria it's bad" kind of guy. After a few
years, and 10-20,000 hours of operation, it's pretty easy for even a
dumb guy like me to figure out how long it will take something from
worn to worn-out.

Would never consider performing a flat-rate inspection, never felt it
was fair to the customer. For the most part, 10 minutes in the
logbooks and a walk-around in an aircraft type I was familiar with
useta be enuff to for an accurate out-the-door estimate give or take
10%. That would be for an annual/100 hour inspection to the
manufacturer's recommended (opposed to the Pt 43 required) inspection
schedule. Barring any oddball/expensive gripes, of course.

Once-upon-a-time really confused a new Navajo customer when I told him
an oil change/pseudo 50 hour would cost him around $2500. It came in
just over $2000, and addressed what I'm sure you would personally
consider to be "necessary" repairs that had been neglected for a
looong time. Again, as you've indicated, he thought that he had been
getting "good" maintenance, and sure as hell had been paying for it.

>Further, it's unfair to call it a pen-and-ink annual just because it
>won't cover everything you would. There are real pen-and-ink annuals
>out there, where you just bring the logbooks and leave the aircraft at
>home. The best maintained aircraft I have ever seen get pen-and-ink
>annuals, because their owners are well know to the IA in question, who
>knows full well that these owners know far more about that plane than
>he does and can be trusted to take care of it.

Below.

>What you're talking about is the incomplete annual. We won't check the
>cables in the belly because it's too damn much trouble to pull out the
>floor, and what I can see looks good. The hell with the gear
>retraction test - it came down when it flew in, and it will come up
>when it flies out. The hell with the oil screen - it's a PITA to pull
>the bulb, and if I break the tube it's $200 to overhaul the gauge and
>the owner will be ****ED. The hell with timing the mags - the RPM drop
>was normal when I ran it up, so why screw with it? That kind of
>annual. You get a compression check, an oil change, a squirt of LPS-2
>on whichever pulleys he can see, maybe the wheel bearings get packed
>(and maybe not - I've seen some come out that clearly hadn't been
>touched, days after the plane came out of annual).

Now we're definitely on the same page. My all-time favorite is a new
customer annual on this type of aircraft, after it has been through a
"thorough pre-buy" and has been maintained by a "well-known
Mooney/Bonanza (or marque of your choice) facility". Tends to make you
look like a flaming asshole to the new owner. Despite any "marketing"
skills you might possess.

BTDT, used the t-shirt as a shop rag.

>But with all that, the planes aren't falling out of the skies.

Like I wrote earlier, that to me, is a whole 'nother discussion.

>> I have no argument with any of this. I know (and respect) that you
>> want to treat GA maintenance as a "profession", but your preceding
>> paragraph again makes a very clear statement of why you cannot.
>
>Right. That's my point - it's not the market that makes it
>near-impossible, it's the FAA. Some people manage it anyway - there
>was that shop local to me. But it requires a certain skill at
>marketing.

This I get, right up to a point. I could legally maintain a Pt 91
aircraft to the letter of the CFR that I personally would never turn
toward the taxi-way with intention of flight. In most cases, not all,
owners aren't well educated/informed/give a ****/ enuff to make this
same decision. And as I think we both agree, a lot of certificated
maintenance personnel/facilities aren't either.

>> Again, assuming I was in the business, I can assure you that I had no
>> problems satisfying the requirements of knowledgeable, experienced
>> aircraft owners that wanted the best bang-for-the-buck
>> maintenance-wise.
>
>Odds are you never met the most knowledgeable and experienced owners.
>The ones I know are doing their own maintenance, having given up on the
>idea that it can consistently get done by a shop to their standards at
>anything like a reasonable cost.

Odds are, those would have been the guys that worked on their own
aircraft in a spare bay in my alleged employer's shop. Were able to
use the proper equipment, current manuals, and all they had to do was
stick their head around the corner and holler if they wanted me to
look at something or root around in my big red toolbox. There weren't
many, they had to be willing to perform to my standards, if they
wanted my signature.

This would be the final issue for me in this particular post.
"standards". Unless you (again, collective you) are a GA maintenance
idiot savant, realistic standards come from only one source-personal
experience. As an experienced, extremely savvy, relatively
high-utilization owner doing most/all of your own maintenance, you
might see 3-4 examples of like/similiar aircraft inspected/maintained
for 25 years x 300 hrs = 7500 hours of operation-related maintenance,
and 25-75 periodic inspections.

IMHO, if we are talking about being truly "professional" that's
entry-level, with still a lot to learn about what "works" and what
doesn't. The FAA sure doesn't require it, colleges/tech schools
don't/can't teach it. And again, as you've indicated, the name of the
maintenance facility or the price you pay guarantees nothing.

Regards;

TC

[Michael]

wrote:
> Last issue first, "recognize the difference and act accordingly" is
> for the most part unacceptable, and clearly in most cases contrary to
> the CFR-as you have clearly indicated.

I will grant you contrary to CFR, but not unacceptable. It is just as
acceptable as what your DE riend did with pilots who had no clue about
maintenance.

> You (collective you) want to be
> able to pick and choose which maintenance is important to you and the
> level of related inspection, probably experimental is the way to go.

I have a good friend who owns a Baron. Used to own a Twin Comanche,
Decathlon, Champs, a Citabria, three TriPacers, and some other stuff.
ATP, A&P/IA, and trained as an engineer. He's building an experimental
now. He's on his last certified airplane. As soon as the experimental
flies, he is out of the certified airplane game.

I'm also on my last certified airplane. If there were an experimental
version of a Twin Comanche, I would already own it. I'll probably
build one eventually. My professional opinion as a practicing engineer
is that the restrictions placed on me by CFR's in how I may or may not
modify my airplane completely offset and overwhelm any safety advantage
that certified has over experimental.

I think it is ridiculous that you can't take an old airplane off the
certified registry and treat it as an experimental with the same
operating limitations as an experimental gets. In Canada, you can -
and the safety record of the owner-maintained airplanes is no worse
than those still being maintained professionally according to all the
rules. You may find it curious that the FAA will permit the flight of
any Canadian aircraft in the US, including amateur-built and advanced
ultralight, but not owner-maintained. I wonder why...

> Heh-mechanical issues vs. pilot error. That would be a whole new
> discussion in and of itself. Have always been amazed by the inventive
> ways pilot's screw themselves into the ground (sarcasm implied, I
> really don't consider running out of fuel or continued VFR flight
into
> IFR very inventive).

The fact is most accidents are NOT caused by running out of gas or VFR
into IMC. They are mostly caused by mishandling the airplane on
takeoff and landing (check out the Nall Report sometime).

> Concerning the "maintenance and inspection standards that apply to a
> corporate piston twin" are exactly the same as the ones that apply to
> a weekend VFR flier, it's still Pt 91 ops.

And that is ridiculous. I'm looking forward to Sport Pilot, which
recognizes the difference.

BTW - I seem to recall that PAMA fought the maintenance provisions of
sport pilot tooth and nail.

> Would never consider performing a flat-rate inspection, never felt it
> was fair to the customer. For the most part, 10 minutes in the
> logbooks and a walk-around in an aircraft type I was familiar with
> useta be enuff to for an accurate out-the-door estimate give or take
> 10%. That would be for an annual/100 hour inspection to the
> manufacturer's recommended (opposed to the Pt 43 required) inspection
> schedule. Barring any oddball/expensive gripes, of course.

Just remember that in many cases, the manufacturer's recommendations
come from teh lawyers, not the engineers. And the FAA requirements
come from bureaucrats.

Really, though, the major problem isn't labor - it's parts.

When my girlfriend's Starduster II began to leak fuel at the main fuel
valve, I bought a high quality (leaded brass, US made) valve for under
$20. It wasn't identical to what was there, so I had to fabricate a
different bracket. Total time was about 4 hours, because I was a
novice and was treading VERY carefully. Today I could do it in less
than half the time. And then the plane was ready to fly again. Years
later, and with a new owner, the valve is still there.

A friend of mine recently paid $1600 for a fuel valve. He couldn't
find a used one, and the new one from the manufacturer cost that.
Field approval? Not in our FSDO. Get an STC.

I'm sure you CAN tell the difference between worn and worn-out, and can
probably even estimate how long the part can go before it reaches
service limits. But when a fuel valve can cost $1600, owners are
understandably reluctant to replace until it's REALLY unusable, rather
than just worn beyond published service limits. Total money is
limited, and if an owner runs out, the plane will sit and the owner
will become uncurrent. His skills will grow rusty. There's a tradeoff
involved between mechanical risk and pilot risk.

Now let's get back to what causes most accidents. It's mishandling the
airplane, not mechanical issues. And the average private airplane
flies 26 hours a year. Think about it.

> >But with all that, the planes aren't falling out of the skies.
> Like I wrote earlier, that to me, is a whole 'nother discussion.

No, it's the important discussion. Before you enforce a standard, be
sure it's reasonable. If almost everyone else is working to a much
lower maintenance standard than you, but mechanical problems are still
not a significant part of the accident picture, then maybe, just maybe,
those standards are high enough.

Maybe we really don't need to check those control cables under the
floor if what we can see is good enough. Maybe it's really not
necessary to time those mags if the mag drops are OK. Maybe we don't
have to pack those wheel bearings every year - they're only $25 each,
and really, what are the odds that a bearing will seize the one day
this guy lands on a narrow runway with a crosswind and rain? Almost
none, since he's a fair weather pilot.

> >Right. That's my point - it's not the market that makes it
> >near-impossible, it's the FAA. Some people manage it anyway - there
> >was that shop local to me. But it requires a certain skill at
> >marketing.
>
> This I get, right up to a point. I could legally maintain a Pt 91
> aircraft to the letter of the CFR that I personally would never turn
> toward the taxi-way with intention of flight. In most cases, not all,
> owners aren't well educated/informed/give a ****/ enuff to make this
> same decision. And as I think we both agree, a lot of certificated
> maintenance personnel/facilities aren't either.

I think you're missing the point. Some shops manage to sell quality.
Not many, but some. Some also manage to sell the illusion of quality
(which is actually more common).

> This would be the final issue for me in this particular post.
> "standards". Unless you (again, collective you) are a GA maintenance
> idiot savant, realistic standards come from only one source-personal
> experience.

This is where I have a problem.

First, to the extent that actual aircraft experience is necessary, it
need not be personal. That's the whole point of talking to other
people. Sometimes it's formal - the EAA has a tech counselor program,
and I understand that most people use it. Sometimes it's an older
mechanic on the field. No worries about him keeping up with the
technology - it's not like light airplane technology has changed in
decades.

Second, there is more to life than GA maintenance. It does not exist
in a vacuum, and it's not exactly the most demanding of disciplines.
Realistic standards for working on airplane engines can easily come
from having worked on motorcycle engines. Realistic standards on
aircraft electrical/avionics systems can easily come from having
designed oilfield electronic instruments.

And third, it's not a realistic standard if you don't know what it
means operationally. If you don't fly them, then what are you basing
your standards on? That's why I keep harping on the fact that these
planes are not falling out of the skies. That's ultimately what
counts.

You believe your standards are realistic, but they're far more
stringent than average. But the reality is that the average standards
(which you consider inadequate) are already stringent enough that
maintenance isn't really a significant factor in the accident picture.
So really, your standards are obviously NOT realistic. Chances are
they're not very different from mine, but mine are based on a fast
complex airplane that is routinely flown at night, in IMC, and
overwater - and my ass is in the seat. This is highly atypical of the
owner-flown fleet.

Ultimately, when you're talking about an owner-flown airplane, I don't
think ANY externally imposed standard makes sense. After all, the
owner knows that it's his life on the line, and very few are suicidal
or reckless. He has a huge incentive to get it right, and so if he
lacks experience he will find someone who doesn't.

I've been around aviation a long time, and I've seen a lot of
maintenance related incidents, accidents, and even fatalities.
Interestingly, I've NEVER seen a maintenance related accident in an
owner-flown owner-maintained aircraft. Seen a lot of it in jumpships
and flight schools, though. It's all Part 91...

> As an experienced, extremely savvy, relatively
> high-utilization owner doing most/all of your own maintenance, you
> might see 3-4 examples of like/similiar aircraft inspected/maintained
> for 25 years x 300 hrs = 7500 hours of operation-related maintenance,
> and 25-75 periodic inspections.

I managed to accumulate the 4800 documented hours I needed for my A&P
in 6 years. In reality, I have probably acquired those 7500 hours
already, in less than a decade. Of course I'm not typical, but then
neither is my utilization profile. But unlike what happens in a shop,
the vast majority of my hours have been spent working on a very limited
number of planes, and that IS typical for the average owner. I have
well over 2000 hours working on Pacers/TriPacers, and I've done almost
everything that CAN be done to that airframe. Can you say the same?
Can you tell me, for example, which inspection covers won't stay in
place if you install the ring according to the book, and what will and
won't work to solve the problem?

> IMHO, if we are talking about being truly "professional" that's
> entry-level, with still a lot to learn about what "works" and what
> doesn't.

I concur. Despite the piece of paper in my pocket, I don't consider
myself a qualified mechanic. My scope is tremendously limited. In
reality, I am fully qualified on Pacers/TriPacers (even to exercise IA
priveleges), reasonably qualified on Twin Comanches (would need to
discuss any major repair or alteration with someone more
knowledgeable), and very qualified with avionics installations. But
the truth is, it would be VERY difficult to find an A&P these days who
knows more about the Pacers/TriPacers, and what does and doesn't work
with them, than I do. Now, how many years into my ownership do you
think it was before I knew more about the TriPacer (which is what I
used to own) than the AVERAGE mechanic?

So try to look at it from the point of view of the owner. On average,
he is dealing with someone who knows less about his airplane than he
does, whose ass isn't in the seat if something goes wrong, and who
isn't paying the bills - but who has been given the authority to decide
how the maintenance will be done. Hardly seems fair or equitable.

Michael

[Jose]

> I think it is ridiculous that you can't take an old airplane off the
> certified registry and treat it as an experimental with the same
> operating limitations as an experimental gets.

Is this really true? What if you detached the data plate from the
aircraft and built a new aircraft around it (according to the CFRs) -
the result would be a certified airplane - in fact, would be the =same=
certified airplane that you removed the dataplate from originally,
because it contains that dataplate.

The (originally certified) airplane left behind in this schism is now
officially just a pile of parts. Couldn't you tap the nose cone three
times and call it an experimental? (after getting the requisite
inspections?)

Jose

[Michael]

The plane without the dataplate could be experimental - but not amateur
built. For that, you have to prove you built it, and you can't because
you didn't. So you get ex-ex. Also, since it previously had an
airworthiness certificate, all of Part 43 applies. And you get a leash
- 300 miles, or less. Basically, everything is set up so you can't use
the airplane if you do this. I've seen one guy get 25 miles and no
passenger carrying.

Basically, if you could do it, everyone would.

Michael

[[email protected]]

On 16 Feb 2005 08:52:40 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

snip

>> Heh-mechanical issues vs. pilot error. That would be a whole new
>> discussion in and of itself. Have always been amazed by the inventive
>> ways pilot's screw themselves into the ground (sarcasm implied, I
>> really don't consider running out of fuel or continued VFR flight
>into
>> IFR very inventive).
>
>The fact is most accidents are NOT caused by running out of gas or VFR
>into IMC. They are mostly caused by mishandling the airplane on
>takeoff and landing (check out the Nall Report sometime).

Gee, I never would of thought of that. Perhaps I had a customer leave
his King Air parked in the shed and made a zero-zero TO towards the
east coast in his IFR-equipped A36. Decided to take half of his
professional crew along, but threw him in the right seat-instrument
dual maybe? Really too bad that he never made it more than an 1/8 mile
off the airport property. Kinda sucked that I was intimately familiar
with the guy that had done the last by-the-book inspection-made the
visit from the FAA pretty much a non-event though.

>> Concerning the "maintenance and inspection standards that apply to a
>> corporate piston twin" are exactly the same as the ones that apply to
>> a weekend VFR flier, it's still Pt 91 ops.
>
>And that is ridiculous. I'm looking forward to Sport Pilot, which
>recognizes the difference.

So which way are you leaning, Pt 91 maintenance is too stringent for a
weekend flier, or too lax for a corporate twin operator that can go 12
months and as many hours as he desires between periodic inspections?

>BTW - I seem to recall that PAMA fought the maintenance provisions of
>sport pilot tooth and nail.

I don't know PAMA from the man on the moon, so I couldn't say. They
might have sent me a postcard once.

>Just remember that in many cases, the manufacturer's recommendations
>come from teh lawyers, not the engineers. And the FAA requirements
>come from bureaucrats.

Heh.

>Really, though, the major problem isn't labor - it's parts.

Hmm, having purportedly maintained Piper's through the whole chapter
whatever proceedings where parts were not available at any price, I
would conditionally agree.

Why don't you try maintaining a couple Cheyenne's operated Pt 135
sometime. You think getting parts for a TComanche is a kick in the
ass...

Or maybe see an accessory shop do a good business for years repairing
Piper-installed hydraulic components at a very reasonable price, after
writing their own manuals (and getting them duly blessed). Then having
the "new" Piper decide that was illegal, selling the repair "rights"
to another shop that couldn't find their ass in the dark with a
flashlight.

>Now let's get back to what causes most accidents. It's mishandling the
>airplane, not mechanical issues. And the average private airplane
>flies 26 hours a year. Think about it.
>
>> >But with all that, the planes aren't falling out of the skies.
>> Like I wrote earlier, that to me, is a whole 'nother discussion.
>
>No, it's the important discussion. Before you enforce a standard, be
>sure it's reasonable. If almost everyone else is working to a much
>lower maintenance standard than you, but mechanical problems are still
>not a significant part of the accident picture, then maybe, just maybe,
>those standards are high enough.

You are still totally losing me here, I'm sorry. If you want to
pretend that you have a bigger picture of the overall condition of the
GA fleet and general maintenance requirements, that's fine with me,
I'm a nobody.

The guy that works in the dark in his t-hangar and gets his logbooks
signed on the sly can however be the same guy that hauls a propeller
home after a prop strike, changes out enuff parts with corroded-but
not bent-junk so the prop shop won't scrap the hub. Does no engine
inspection, not even the Mark I eyeball.

Odds are his last biennial was sometime back in the 80's, medical is
anybody's guess. Only contact he ever had with anything close to the
Federales was when he took his instrument check-ride-assuming he ever
took one. This guy wouldn't talk to the FAA if his life depended on
it, and unless he/somebody dies in an accident, any
maintenance-related incidents he has will go un-reported.

snip

>> This I get, right up to a point. I could legally maintain a Pt 91
>> aircraft to the letter of the CFR that I personally would never turn
>> toward the taxi-way with intention of flight. In most cases, not all,
>> owners aren't well educated/informed/give a ****/ enuff to make this
>> same decision. And as I think we both agree, a lot of certificated
>> maintenance personnel/facilities aren't either.
>
>I think you're missing the point. Some shops manage to sell quality.
>Not many, but some. Some also manage to sell the illusion of quality
>(which is actually more common).

No, I get the point. I won't fly in junk, don't think you will either,
but a lot of people will.

>> This would be the final issue for me in this particular post.
>> "standards". Unless you (again, collective you) are a GA maintenance
>> idiot savant, realistic standards come from only one source-personal
>> experience.
>
>This is where I have a problem.
>
>First, to the extent that actual aircraft experience is necessary, it
>need not be personal. That's the whole point of talking to other
>people. Sometimes it's formal - the EAA has a tech counselor program,
>and I understand that most people use it. Sometimes it's an older
>mechanic on the field. No worries about him keeping up with the
>technology - it's not like light airplane technology has changed in
>decades.

Bullsquat. You going to tell me that you learned how to work on your
airplane by talking to someone about it? I use to get a big kick out
of the Bonanza Society magazines-the tech tips were laughable, unless
you had limited/no experience and wanted to pretend you knew what you
were doing/talking about.

>Second, there is more to life than GA maintenance. It does not exist
>in a vacuum, and it's not exactly the most demanding of disciplines.
>Realistic standards for working on airplane engines can easily come
>from having worked on motorcycle engines. Realistic standards on
>aircraft electrical/avionics systems can easily come from having
>designed oilfield electronic instruments.

Not sure what you think the "standards" are for GA avionics repair,
for the most part, that's one big gray area with regard to the FAA.

A couple of million miles on a boxer-Bimmer doesn't translate into
2000 hrs on an O-360, sorry. One of the best technicians I know came
from 20 years in the motorcycle industry, has a complete 2-stroke &
4-stroke machine shop behind his garage. All his mechanical experience
transferred, but didn't help a bit in identifying specific problem
areas on aircraft engines, he learned that the only place you can-out
on the hangar floor. Please don't ask me my opinion on ex-military
techs in GA, I'm begging you.

>And third, it's not a realistic standard if you don't know what it
>means operationally. If you don't fly them, then what are you basing
>your standards on? That's why I keep harping on the fact that these
>planes are not falling out of the skies. That's ultimately what
>counts.

Are we talking personal you, or collective you? I allegedly made my
first partial-power single-engine approach in a PA31-350 after
identifying a plugged injector nozzle on climb-out. This was after a
slightly longer than normal TO roll-due to the reduced acceleration
rate on-the-ground. Let's pretend I was sitting in the LH seat, and
was still several years away from receiving any formal flight
instruction.

Let's also pretend that I reduced power drastically, having seen
first-hand what detonation does to the inside of a TIO-540-J2BD.
Would you consider that "falling out of the sky", or doesn't a
precautionary landing count?

What would you think of a technician that made the post-maintenance
hop in better than half of the aircraft he approved for return to
service? Closer to 100% of the aircraft that had engine changes/major
repairs.

About the only in-flight mechanical that this theoretical technician
hasn't experienced sitting in the left seat is an engine fire. But he
gets a little paranoid under the cowl of a turbocharged aircraft
having cleaned up after several of them-I can see where that might
lead to what some would consider un-realistic standards.

>You believe your standards are realistic, but they're far more
>stringent than average. But the reality is that the average standards
>(which you consider inadequate) are already stringent enough that
>maintenance isn't really a significant factor in the accident picture.
>So really, your standards are obviously NOT realistic. Chances are
>they're not very different from mine, but mine are based on a fast
>complex airplane that is routinely flown at night, in IMC, and
>overwater - and my ass is in the seat. This is highly atypical of the
>owner-flown fleet.

Hold the phone, I'm a big fan of thread drift, but you are stretching
it a little. First you want to maintain that as an owner/pilot, you
can do a better job than a professional (your term, not mine)
maintaining your aircraft because your standards are higher/your
knowledge level is higher/etc. Now you want to claim that an anonymous
guy on Usenet's standards are too high?

>Ultimately, when you're talking about an owner-flown airplane, I don't
>think ANY externally imposed standard makes sense. After all, the
>owner knows that it's his life on the line, and very few are suicidal
>or reckless. He has a huge incentive to get it right, and so if he
>lacks experience he will find someone who doesn't.

You are welcome to speak for yourself, and all your acquaintances that
have the same standards you do. I'm sure you know a lot of pilots
that shouldn't be in the air-I do. Do you really think they are as
concerned with ANY aspect of flying as you are?

>I've been around aviation a long time, and I've seen a lot of
>maintenance related incidents, accidents, and even fatalities.
>Interestingly, I've NEVER seen a maintenance related accident in an
>owner-flown owner-maintained aircraft. Seen a lot of it in jumpships
>and flight schools, though. It's all Part 91...

Do you think it had anything to do with the utilization rate? I
wouldn't dare to ask you to look at another perspective, but add up
all the owner-maintained owner-operated flight hours that all your
friends and neighbors have accumulated over the years. And saying that
you take better care of your personal air-chariot than the average
drop zone does isn't anything I'd exactly brag about.

>> As an experienced, extremely savvy, relatively
>> high-utilization owner doing most/all of your own maintenance, you
>> might see 3-4 examples of like/similiar aircraft inspected/maintained
>> for 25 years x 300 hrs = 7500 hours of operation-related maintenance,
>> and 25-75 periodic inspections.
>
>I managed to accumulate the 4800 documented hours I needed for my A&P
>in 6 years. In reality, I have probably acquired those 7500 hours
>already, in less than a decade.

Not talking about hours on the shop floor, I'm talking about flight
hours, and having either performed or observed all the related
maintenance/inspection. If you've gotten in 7500 flying hours in less
than 10 years, you sure ain't average.

Ever pretty much totally take care of one aircraft from 15 hrs (new)
thru 5,000 total? How about from 6,000 thru 10,000? 3 months-old thru
10 years? How about 7 years-old through 15? Or how about a
working-daily supercharged twin from 32 years-old through 38? Or maybe
3 of 'em?

>Of course I'm not typical, but then
>neither is my utilization profile. But unlike what happens in a shop,
>the vast majority of my hours have been spent working on a very limited
>number of planes, and that IS typical for the average owner.

You continue to make my points for me. A "limited number of planes"
doesn't really equate to a reasonable standard. Theoretically
speaking, if you've worked on three, and I've worked on 30, plus a
bunch more that share the same systems and components, do you think
that possibly, just possibly, I may have identified problem areas that
you may have not been exposed to?

>I have
>well over 2000 hours working on Pacers/TriPacers, and I've done almost
>everything that CAN be done to that airframe. Can you say the same?
>Can you tell me, for example, which inspection covers won't stay in
>place if you install the ring according to the book, and what will and
>won't work to solve the problem?

Don't know squat about short-wing Pipers. But let's pretend for the
sake of argument that I've spent 25-30,000 hours working strictly on
PA28 thru PA31T, we won't talk about the Bonanza/Barons or the
Mooneys, or the 100 series Cessnas, or the make-believe 6 bay hangar
that 6-9 other techs/inspectors worked in.

Can you change a dry air pump on a hot Navajo engine in less than an
hour, without any special wrenches? I'll give you a hint, it involves
dropping the oil filter, popping out the magneto for access, and
getting burnt. Filling out the logbooks is the tricky part-the Fed's
take that **** seriously.

>> IMHO, if we are talking about being truly "professional" that's
>> entry-level, with still a lot to learn about what "works" and what
>> doesn't.
>
>I concur. Despite the piece of paper in my pocket, I don't consider
>myself a qualified mechanic. My scope is tremendously limited. In
>reality, I am fully qualified on Pacers/TriPacers (even to exercise IA
>priveleges), reasonably qualified on Twin Comanches (would need to
>discuss any major repair or alteration with someone more
>knowledgeable), and very qualified with avionics installations. But
>the truth is, it would be VERY difficult to find an A&P these days who
>knows more about the Pacers/TriPacers, and what does and doesn't work
>with them, than I do. Now, how many years into my ownership do you
>think it was before I knew more about the TriPacer (which is what I
>used to own) than the AVERAGE mechanic?

You may not believe me, but I kinda had figured out most of the above,
just by reading the your posts for the past couple of years. Do you
really think I'm arguing with you about any of it? That is not/was
never my intention.

>So try to look at it from the point of view of the owner. On average,
>he is dealing with someone who knows less about his airplane than he
>does, whose ass isn't in the seat if something goes wrong, and who
>isn't paying the bills - but who has been given the authority to decide
>how the maintenance will be done. Hardly seems fair or equitable.

Again, I will definitely agree with your idea of the average certified
GA tech, but you ain't the average owner.

Try to look at it from the point of view of someone that has
maintained commercial GA-type aircraft to "stringent" standards,
aircraft that HAD to operate at a profit, preferably without
incident/accident-that stuff is kinda bad for business. Throw in a
couple customer annual's into the mix, that would be a couple every
week.

If you think you could do it cheaper/better, I think they're
hiring-but you might have to take a pay cut. Remember-"it's not
exactly the most demanding of disciplines"...

Been a pleasure;

TC

[Jose]

> The plane without the dataplate could be experimental - but not amateur
> built. For that, you have to prove you built it, and you can't because
> you didn't. So you get ex-ex.

Ok. What's does being amateur built get you?

> Also, since it previously had an
> airworthiness certificate, all of Part 43 applies.
> And you get a leash - 300 miles, or less.

No, it didn't previously have a certificate. Only the data plate did.
This is just a collection of spare parts, which happened to be removed
from the aircraft all at once.

(What if you removed them all one at a time until only the dataplate was
left, and then reassembled the spare parts without the dataplate?)

Jose
(rec.aviation.student trimmed since I don't read that group)

[Michael]

wrote:
> Gee, I never would of thought of that. Perhaps I had a customer leave
> his King Air parked in the shed and made a zero-zero TO towards the
> east coast in his IFR-equipped A36.

This may seem bizarre to you, but I don't think an instrument TO in an
A-36 is that big a deal. I doubt it was really 0-0, that's extremely
rare. Unless you couldn't see the hand in front of your face, it
wasn't 0-0. I bet it was closer to 600 ft forward vis with transition
to instruments immediately upon rotation. Really a non-event if you
know what you're doing and nothing fails. So since you did the
inspection, I bet nothing failed.

See, as long as you can see well enough to either see the centerline in
front of you or the edge of the runway up until you rotate, you have
enough visibility for takeoff. And once off the ground, you simply fly
instruments, keep the plane under control and climbing, and comply with
the appropriate DP.

This is an operation I've performed many times, without a pucker
factor. It's an operation I've taught. It's an operation that is
tested on the ATP ride.

> Decided to take half of his
> professional crew along, but threw him in the right seat-instrument
> dual maybe?

Nothing wrong with that either. I've given lots of instrument dual in
low IFR conditions. Some of it in an A36 and other flavors of Bonanza.
I think that if the owner had doubts about his ability to competently
execute the procedure, than taking along an instructor who could teach
him made all kinds of sense. I really don't see that the owner did
anything wrong.

> Really too bad that he never made it more than an 1/8 mile
> off the airport property.

Yeah, too bad. But it's not VFR-into-IMC, and it's not running out of
fuel, and I'm guessing it wasn't a mechanical either. It was a simple
mishandling of the airplane on takeoff. Too bad that professional
crewmember wasn't up to giving dual in those conditions, but knowing
what I know about the flight instructor community and how people move
into a corporate King Air, I can't say I'm surprised. Bet the owner
didn't know, though.

And this underscores my point. People are not intentially suicidal.
What the owner did made sense. He had an instrument capable airplane,
but he felt that the operation was over his head. So he most likely
asked the crew member if he was an instrument instructor, which I bet
he was. And so the owner assumed that since the FAA had signed off on
this guy being an instrument instructor, and since he just needed help
with an instrument procedure, it would all be OK. Too bad they give
out those instrument instructor ratings like cracker jack prizes - even
less challenge to get one than to get the A&P.

> >And that is ridiculous. I'm looking forward to Sport Pilot, which
> >recognizes the difference.
>
> So which way are you leaning, Pt 91 maintenance is too stringent for
a
> weekend flier, or too lax for a corporate twin operator that can go
12
> months and as many hours as he desires between periodic inspections?

Both. The idea that the weeknd flier and the corporate operator should
be treated the same is ridiculous IMO. From what I've seen, the Sport
Pilot rules on maintenance are pretty sensible for a weekend flier.

> Why don't you try maintaining a couple Cheyenne's operated Pt 135
> sometime. You think getting parts for a TComanche is a kick in the
> ass...

Thanks but no thanks. It took me 3 years to come up to speed on the
TComanche. Fortunately I had good instruction. And believe me - I
know full well that lots of people have it harder. The point is not
that I have the hardest job - it's that I have it unnecesserily hard.

There are components on my TComanche that were pretty much the bee's
knees in 1962. However, four decades have passed. Technology has
moved ahead. But I'm still stuck in the 60's, because the field
approval process is broken, there aren't enough of us to make an STC
financially viable, and Piper would like to pretend the PA-30 never
existed.

> The guy that works in the dark in his t-hangar ...
> unless he/somebody dies in an accident, any
> maintenance-related incidents he has will go un-reported.

First off, you're wrong. If there is an injury, it will get reported.
If it happens at a public airport, it will get reported. If there's
significant damage to something on the ground, it will get reported.
And if none of those things happened, how important is it?

Really, this is one area where I do think your view of events is
skewed. Maintenance just isn't a significant factor in the GA accident
picture. You need to accept that and move on.

> >I think you're missing the point. Some shops manage to sell
quality.
> >Not many, but some. Some also manage to sell the illusion of
quality
> >(which is actually more common).
>
> No, I get the point. I won't fly in junk, don't think you will
either,
> but a lot of people will.

No, I don't think that's true. I don't think anyone will intentionally
fly in junk, with the exception of a few crazies and the kids who think
they're immortal (hint - there's a reason most practicing CFI's at
flight schools are young). The average private owner is a middle-aged
professional. He's not going to fly junk knowingly.

> Bullsquat. You going to tell me that you learned how to work on your
> airplane by talking to someone about it?

To a large extent, yes. Oh, I had him show me a couple of things, and
I had him inspect my work, but mostly yes - he told me what to do and I
did it.

> I use to get a big kick out
> of the Bonanza Society magazines-the tech tips were laughable, unless
> you had limited/no experience and wanted to pretend you knew what you
> were doing/talking about.

The Comanche Flyer is about the same. But see, the guy I learned from
isn't writing for them. He's been turning wrenches since he was 15
(even though he only got his A&P a few years ago) and he has owned
quite a few airplanes. And so when I needed expertise, when I needed
to know what would work and what wouldn't, I simply asked him. No
sense making all the mistakes myself.

And there is a reason why I never considered the TravelAir when I was
shopping for TComanches. He had no TravelAir experience, so who was
going to teach me?

> Not sure what you think the "standards" are for GA avionics repair,
> for the most part, that's one big gray area with regard to the FAA.

I know. But I also know that some Stormsopes throw up dots like crazy,
and some can be kept on for hours on the most sensitive setting and
when the sky is dead, not one dot appears. Guess how MY installations
perform? I know that some old-style analog autopilots 'hunt' for a
heading, and some hold +/- 2 degrees. Guess how mine performs. I
don't do avionics repair, I do installations. It would be illegal for
me to do repairs, since I am not an instrument shop.

> Are we talking personal you, or collective you? I allegedly made my
> first partial-power single-engine approach in a PA31-350 after
> identifying a plugged injector nozzle on climb-out. This was after a
> slightly longer than normal TO roll-due to the reduced acceleration
> rate on-the-ground. Let's pretend I was sitting in the LH seat, and
> was still several years away from receiving any formal flight
> instruction.
>
> Let's also pretend that I reduced power drastically, having seen
> first-hand what detonation does to the inside of a TIO-540-J2BD.
> Would you consider that "falling out of the sky", or doesn't a
> precautionary landing count?

No more than the time when I nursed home my Twin Comanche after the
drain plug on the fuel servo rusted and dumped flakes of rust into the
injectors. Did you know that the Bendix-RSA fuel servo contains
exactly ONE steel component, and it's the drain plug? Which of course
is downstream of the fuel screen. Of course I did not replace it with
a brass plug. That would be an unapproved part.

But no, I don't call that falling out of the sky. It wasn't an
accident. it wasn't even an incident. It might have been expensive
for the owner, but that's his problem.

There are LOTS of maintenance problems out there in the GA fleet. I've
seen some **** you wouldn't believe (or maybe you personally would).
But it's not killing people or getting them hurt in any signifaicnt
numbers, so I don't think it's reasonable to force them to do anything
differently.

> Hold the phone, I'm a big fan of thread drift, but you are stretching
> it a little. First you want to maintain that as an owner/pilot, you
> can do a better job than a professional (your term, not mine)
> maintaining your aircraft because your standards are higher/your
> knowledge level is higher/etc. Now you want to claim that an
anonymous
> guy on Usenet's standards are too high?

Actually, I claim that I can do better than the average professional
because my knoledge level FOR THAT SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT is higher, and my
standards FOR MY SPECIFIC OPERATION are higher. Your standards are
probably not too different from mine, but I think it's unreasonable to
enforce them on the majority of the owner-flown fleet. If I'm flying
for a hundred dollar burger on a clear day over flat land, I'm
satisfied with average standards.

> I'm sure you know a lot of pilots
> that shouldn't be in the air-I do. Do you really think they are as
> concerned with ANY aspect of flying as you are?

I only know TWO pilots who shouldn't be in the air. It takes a lot to
elicit such a judgment from me. It takes multiple accidents. Each has
four crashes to his credit. One of them (an aviation safety counselor
no less) has already given up flying (he hurt himself in the last
crash) and the other continues to fly. NONE of their crashes had
anything to do with maintenance, fuel, or weather - they were all
mishandling the airplane. This is typical, according to the Nall
report.

I'm not worried about them. Nothing can be done about them. The one
still flying was 709'd. He passed.

> Do you think it had anything to do with the utilization rate?

Yeah, some. But when you add up all those hours put on those planes
(not a huge amount I will grant you) you still get more hours than the
average flight school (or drop zone) goes between crashes. Utilization
rate is a factor, but not the only factor.

> And saying that
> you take better care of your personal air-chariot than the average
> drop zone does isn't anything I'd exactly brag about.

Or the average flight school, for that matter. I agree.

> >I managed to accumulate the 4800 documented hours I needed for my
A&P
> >in 6 years. In reality, I have probably acquired those 7500 hours
> >already, in less than a decade.
>
> Not talking about hours on the shop floor, I'm talking about flight
> hours,

Sorry. In that case, your estimate is on the high end. In those 6
years I flew maybe 1500 hours.

> >Of course I'm not typical, but then
> >neither is my utilization profile. But unlike what happens in a
shop,
> >the vast majority of my hours have been spent working on a very
limited
> >number of planes, and that IS typical for the average owner.
>
> You continue to make my points for me. A "limited number of planes"
> doesn't really equate to a reasonable standard.

It does for those airplanes.

> Theoretically
> speaking, if you've worked on three, and I've worked on 30, plus a
> bunch more that share the same systems and components, do you think
> that possibly, just possibly, I may have identified problem areas
that
> you may have not been exposed to?

Sure - but are they relevant to the planes I'm flying?

> Don't know squat about short-wing Pipers.
> Can you change a dry air pump on a hot Navajo engine in less than an
> hour, without any special wrenches? I'll give you a hint, it involves
> dropping the oil filter, popping out the magneto for access, and
> getting burnt. Filling out the logbooks is the tricky part-the Fed's
> take that **** seriously.

Nope. Can you replace an inspection ring on the edge of the prop blast
area on a short wing Piper covered with something other than the
Ceconite process and have it stay on? I'll give you a hint - the
nitrocellulose inspection rings that are sold as standard for all
covering methods are not chemically compatible with anything other than
dope, and if you want proper adhesion you will have to manufacture your
own from a compatible material.

And this is my point - general experience is general, specific
experience is specific. The kinds of things we are talking about are
specific experience. I will stipulate right now that you have more of
it than I do on a greater variety of aircraft - but that does you no
good if you're dealing with an unfamiliar family of aircraft. Short
wing Pipers may look a lot like C-150's and C-172's from a distance,
but their issues are COMPLETELY different, and C-172 experience is
about as relevant to them as Harley experience.

Michael

[[email protected]]

On 17 Feb 2005 09:49:47 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

wrote:
>> Gee, I never would of thought of that. Perhaps I had a customer leave
>> his King Air parked in the shed and made a zero-zero TO towards the
>> east coast in his IFR-equipped A36.
>
>This may seem bizarre to you, but I don't think an instrument TO in an
>A-36 is that big a deal. I doubt it was really 0-0, that's extremely
>rare. Unless you couldn't see the hand in front of your face, it
>wasn't 0-0. I bet it was closer to 600 ft forward vis with transition
>to instruments immediately upon rotation. Really a non-event if you
>know what you're doing and nothing fails. So since you did the
>inspection, I bet nothing failed.
snip

I have no argument that this type of takeoff should be a non-event for
a proficient pilot. The exact vis at the time of the accident was
difficult to determine. I can tell you that at another airport, 18
miles away, the visibility was literally about 60 feet. It was a
Saturday, the drive into work was nasty at 7:00 am, by 8:00 am vis had
dropped big-time.

Ship in question was in excellent shape mechanically, had about 700
hours on a brand spanking new IO-550. I had allegedly previously
installed an Airborne standby air pump, with the combination
annunciator/switch located in the upper 1/3 of the pilot's panel,
centered. As I remember, if you lost instrument air pressure, the
annunciator went from green to amber, mash the button, within 2-3
seconds pressure after proper pressure was restored, the annunciator
turned green again. Was one of my favorite customer airplanes to steal
a "ride" in.

Was sort of a screwy arrangement maintenance-wise. The chief pilot was
also an AP/IA. They had been doing all their own Bonanza maintenance
in-house for a couple of years (not sure exactly how, there wasn't a
set of jacks on the field that could lift a Bonanza/Baron type and
clear the inboard gear doors), I had purportedly maintained it prior.
But that summer, they were "too busy", so as I indicated, we ended up
with it in the shop for the last inspection it ever got.

>> Really too bad that he never made it more than an 1/8 mile
>> off the airport property.
>
>Yeah, too bad. But it's not VFR-into-IMC, and it's not running out of
>fuel, and I'm guessing it wasn't a mechanical either. It was a simple
>mishandling of the airplane on takeoff. Too bad that professional
>crewmember wasn't up to giving dual in those conditions, but knowing
>what I know about the flight instructor community and how people move
>into a corporate King Air, I can't say I'm surprised. Bet the owner
>didn't know, though.

Ended up on a flight path perpendicular to the left of the departing
runway, about 3/4's of the way down it, just outside the airport
proper. Impacted trees flat on its back at about a 30 degree dive
angle and was consumed by post-impact fire. I've been driving within
100 feet of the site on the way to work for the last 5 years. I'm
afraid I'll never totally "get over it". Can't honestly say it had a
major impact on my existing inspection procedures/standards, however.

>There are components on my TComanche that were pretty much the bee's
>knees in 1962. However, four decades have passed. Technology has
>moved ahead. But I'm still stuck in the 60's, because the field
>approval process is broken, there aren't enough of us to make an STC
>financially viable, and Piper would like to pretend the PA-30 never
>existed.

Honestly, have always thought that the Comanche/TComanche were awesome
aircraft. In my experience, you would be hard-pressed to find a more
efficient twin-without really any compromises in performance. Did
however, advise prospective buyers, that being an older waay
out-of-production airplane, parts availability was an issue.

>> The guy that works in the dark in his t-hangar ...
>> unless he/somebody dies in an accident, any
>> maintenance-related incidents he has will go un-reported.
>
>First off, you're wrong. If there is an injury, it will get reported.
>If it happens at a public airport, it will get reported. If there's
>significant damage to something on the ground, it will get reported.
>And if none of those things happened, how important is it?
>
>Really, this is one area where I do think your view of events is
>skewed. Maintenance just isn't a significant factor in the GA accident
>picture. You need to accept that and move on.

Perhaps my view is skewed because I live/work in a primarily rural
area. The aforementioned scenario is one that I personally witnessed
(FWIW, it was a 250 Comanche). You might be surprised how hard a
couple of farmers (I can say that without prejudice, I grew up on a
farm) can/will work to get an aircraft back in its hangar without
anybody finding out.

Also had a Cherokee Six land just off-airport where I allegedly got my
first GA maintenance job. Was three years out of annual, the pilot was
without a current medical, the plane hadn't been off the ground in
over a year and a half. Fuel contamination caused the engine to quit.
Asshole had his two kids in the airplane with him.

snip

>I know. But I also know that some Stormsopes throw up dots like crazy,
>and some can be kept on for hours on the most sensitive setting and
>when the sky is dead, not one dot appears. Guess how MY installations
>perform? I know that some old-style analog autopilots 'hunt' for a
>heading, and some hold +/- 2 degrees. Guess how mine performs. I
>don't do avionics repair, I do installations. It would be illegal for
>me to do repairs, since I am not an instrument shop.

Heh. Quite awhile ago, might have come across a Lake Turbo Renegade
with the factory-installed Stormscope antenna mounted on top of the
fuselage in line with the prop. Didn't work so hot.

>> Hold the phone, I'm a big fan of thread drift, but you are stretching
>> it a little. First you want to maintain that as an owner/pilot, you
>> can do a better job than a professional (your term, not mine)
>> maintaining your aircraft because your standards are higher/your
>> knowledge level is higher/etc. Now you want to claim that an
>anonymous
>> guy on Usenet's standards are too high?
>
>Actually, I claim that I can do better than the average professional
>because my knoledge level FOR THAT SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT is higher, and my
>standards FOR MY SPECIFIC OPERATION are higher. Your standards are
>probably not too different from mine, but I think it's unreasonable to
>enforce them on the majority of the owner-flown fleet. If I'm flying
>for a hundred dollar burger on a clear day over flat land, I'm
>satisfied with average standards.

Pretty much got it, now thanks. Only have ever flown one GA aircraft
that I hadn't allegedly maintained-scared the crap out me at the time.

>> Theoretically
>> speaking, if you've worked on three, and I've worked on 30, plus a
>> bunch more that share the same systems and components, do you think
>> that possibly, just possibly, I may have identified problem areas
>that
>> you may have not been exposed to?
>
>Sure - but are they relevant to the planes I'm flying?

Yup. As an example if every, and I do mean EVERY Aztec (owner-flown or
commercial) that I've allegedly ever worked on has at some point in
it's life ended up with cracked tubular steel spar-to-main gear attach
supports, and the two you've seen (assuming you were an Aztec guy)
haven't, does that mean that your two will never crack?

Or as another example, if one out of every two Aztec's that I've
allegedly worked on have come into the shop for inspection at least
once with one of the center retract arm bolts broken in two, and held
in only by the downlock spring tension, and the three you've seen
haven't, does that make yours less likely to break?

Again, I am by no means saying that you are unfamiliar with your
aircraft, just that your overall exposure has been somewhat limited.
Honestly, my Comanche experience is also rather limited- to 4 T's, and
the handful of 250's and 260's that I've purportedly taken care of
over the years-probably covering less than 3-4000 hours of operation.

Probably the worst issue I've had to face was primary control cable
replacement due to severe corrosion. Not actual cable corrosion, but
the little plated eye-end at the turnbuckle barrels. Of course, I
think we both know what issues I've had to deal with on the landing
gear system.

Once upon a time, one of the T's (old customer, new-to-him aircraft)
came in with a injector contamination problem similiar to yours. The
bronze/brass/whatever fuel screen stack in the primary fuel sump had
totally disintegrated. Always wondered just how long it had been since
anybody had been inside it to take a peek...

>> Don't know squat about short-wing Pipers.
>> Can you change a dry air pump on a hot Navajo engine in less than an
>> hour, without any special wrenches? I'll give you a hint, it involves
>> dropping the oil filter, popping out the magneto for access, and
>> getting burnt. Filling out the logbooks is the tricky part-the Fed's
>> take that **** seriously.
>
>Nope. Can you replace an inspection ring on the edge of the prop blast
>area on a short wing Piper covered with something other than the
>Ceconite process and have it stay on? I'll give you a hint - the
>nitrocellulose inspection rings that are sold as standard for all
>covering methods are not chemically compatible with anything other than
>dope, and if you want proper adhesion you will have to manufacture your
>own from a compatible material.

Nope. Last rag work I did was patching a hole in a Viking flap, and
sewing a new top (Razorback?) into a Reliant that took off a sedan and
landed a roadster. Loooong time ago, and I was the scut labor.

>And this is my point - general experience is general, specific
>experience is specific. The kinds of things we are talking about are
>specific experience. I will stipulate right now that you have more of
>it than I do on a greater variety of aircraft - but that does you no
>good if you're dealing with an unfamiliar family of aircraft. Short
>wing Pipers may look a lot like C-150's and C-172's from a distance,
>but their issues are COMPLETELY different, and C-172 experience is
>about as relevant to them as Harley experience.

Agreed. Aside from the 7AC I officially learned to fly in
(guarantee'd to run on at least three cylinders, just not always the
same three), a couple of Super Cubs, and a handfull of Husky's, the
tube-framed aircraft I've allegedly taken care of have been covered
with aluminum.

Again, I still feel that our general opinions on GA maintenance are
probably a lot closer to identical that most of the people scanning
this thread realize. I also feel that you have been lucky enuff to
spend your time in GA around a more-rounded "average" pilot base than
what I have.

You've made some very good points, and honestly I was totally unaware
of the owner-maintained class of aircraft in Canada until I read up on
it yesterday. Would have to agree that the list of aircraft that I
looked through (App. H maybe?) shouldn't need a rocket scientist to
maintain 'em-and it would take one heckuva mechanical issue to knock
'em out of the sky..

If I've offended you in any way in the course of this discussion I
apologize, that was not my intention.

TC

[Michael]

> Ended up on a flight path perpendicular to the left of the departing

> runway, about 3/4's of the way down it, just outside the airport
> proper.

So he did successfully lift off the runway. In that case, the vis
isn't relevant anyway - once you're in flight, you are totally on
instruments. Now I could now go into a long discussion about how
people put insufficient emphasis on instrument departures relative to
instrument approaches and about how badly instrument departures are
taught (talk about thread drift) but my point stands - the accident you
are talking about had NOTHING to do with the screwy maintenance history
of the airplane, it was all about pilot (and instructor) proficiency.
And that conforms to both the Nall Report and my own observations.

> Can't honestly say it had a
> major impact on my existing inspection procedures/standards, however.


Why would it have any impact? Like the vast majority of accidents, it
had nothing to do with maintenance.

> Perhaps my view is skewed because I live/work in a primarily rural
> area. The aforementioned scenario is one that I personally witnessed
> (FWIW, it was a 250 Comanche). You might be surprised how hard a
> couple of farmers (I can say that without prejudice, I grew up on a
> farm) can/will work to get an aircraft back in its hangar without
> anybody finding out.

No harder than the owners of a flight school. I've seen a few
incidents (the kind where nobody gets hurt but the plane gets dinged up
- what you're describing) where the cause was clearly 100% maintenance
related, and where all the maintenance is being done by rated A&P's.
I've seen more than a few that were pure pilot error. The flight
school took heroic measures to keep the FAA from finding out either
way.

I recall once standing by the side of the runway with a fire
extinguisher as a Cherokee that had the left main gear fall off landed.
Nobody got hurt, and the plane was towed to the maintenance hangar
within MINUTES of touchdown. However, I saw exactly the same reaction
when a student suffered from a case of rectocranial inversion and
stopped flying the airplane when it touched down. The plane wound up
in the ditch. Once again - it was off to the maintenance hangar as
soon as they could get a truck to pull it out.

So what I'm trying to tell you is that the factor of underreporting of
non-fatal, non-injury accidents is no different for maintenance related
than for non-maintenance related, and no different for owner-maintained
than for A&P maintained. No matter how you slice it, maintenance
simply isn't a big factor in the accident picture.

> Heh. Quite awhile ago, might have come across a Lake Turbo Renegade
> with the factory-installed Stormscope antenna mounted on top of the
> fuselage in line with the prop. Didn't work so hot.

You know, there are actually situations where a top mount is proper.
But this is one of those areas where all the aviation experience that
does not deal with sferics devices won't help a bit - I don't care how
many GPS or ADF or autopilot installations you have have done, you
still don't know squat about Stormscopes. On the other hand, if you've
ever had to qualify a device for CE emissions (or done many other sorts
of instrument development work) you know just what to do. My FIRST
Stormscope installation was perfect, and I didn't even need to get
anyone's advice. Just another example of how non-aviation experience
transfers. Good thing I didn't go to the radio shop to get it
installed...

> Yup. As an example if every, and I do mean EVERY Aztec (owner-flown
or
> commercial) that I've allegedly ever worked on has at some point in
> it's life ended up with cracked tubular steel spar-to-main gear
attach
> supports, and the two you've seen (assuming you were an Aztec guy)
> haven't, does that mean that your two will never crack?

No, of course not - but this does me NO good if I don't own an Aztec.
On the other hand, every TComanche I am aware of eventually develops a
lazy green light due to cracking of the structural solder (sic!) in the
down-and-locked switch assembly. How does you knowledge of the Aztec
help here?

When you look at 'professional' versus owner maintenance, you have a
whole gamut of operators.

At the top of the professional scale, there is someone with years of
experience (like you) who brings a breadth of knowledge to the table.
He's going to do a better job than the average owner. But that's not a
fair comparison, because the top of the owner maintenance scale is
someone like me - a long-time owner who does essentially all the
maintenance, actually owns the proper publications, and makes it a
point to stay in touch with those who have type-specific experience
greater than his (or just different). He's not going to have the same
breadth of experience, but he's likely to have just as much (if not
more) depth on the particular make and model he owns. He also brings
something else to the table - related experience. You bettter believe
I didn't learn a damn thing about avionics by working on airplanes - I
learned what I needed to know in my day job.

To some extent this would be a moot point if the FAA wasn't so bad
about allowing owners to become A&P's. When an owner gets to the level
I'm describing, passing the written, oral, and practical tests is a
non-event for him. The hard part is getting the bureaucrat at the FSDO
to sign off.

The average owner doing maintenance probably isn't anything to write
home about, but neither is the average 'professional.'

And as for the bottom of the scale - well, the absolute worst
maintenance I've seen was on the flight line of a local school. This
is literally the "two dozen rotting hulks in the back, I'll fix one
when I need it" variety. They do about as much credit to the
professional community as the guy who hasn't had a medical or an annual
in a week and crashes due to contaminated fuel because the plane hasn't
moved in over a year does for the owner maintenance community.

> Again, I still feel that our general opinions on GA maintenance are
> probably a lot closer to identical that most of the people scanning
> this thread realize.

Maybe. I think our positions are influenced by experience. I've seen
how common it is to bend an airplane (or even hurt the occupants) due
to pilot incompetence, and how rare it is to even bend the airplane due
to maintenance issues. You on the other hand see all these planes with
all these mechanical discrepancies and can't believe they're not
falling out of the sky. Well, I think they would fall out of the sky
eventually - but usually an incompetent pilot brings them down first.

> I also feel that you have been lucky enuff to
> spend your time in GA around a more-rounded "average" pilot base than

> what I have.

Maybe it was luck - and maybe it was a matter of selection bias. I
find that on average, pilots who do their own maintenance are better
pilots than those who just drop the keys and checkbook off. Further, I
think only part of that has to do with doing the actual maintenance. A
huge part of it has to do with hanging around the airport, with other
pilots, where knowledge is shared and issues are discussed - sort of
like they are here.

> If I've offended you in any way in the course of this discussion I
> apologize, that was not my intention.

Nor was it the effect. I think it's been a good discussion.

Michael

[Dylan Smith]

In article . com>, Michael wrote:
<major snippage>

As an anecdotal datapoint in this discussion, we have two types of CofA
for normal GA aircraft here: Private CofA, and Public Transport CofA.
The rental/instruction fleet has to be on public transport. Private
owners generally use the private CofA as it's a lot less onerous.

Most of the planes I've seen, the ones actually *maintained* to the
higher standard have been the ones on the private CofA. Almost all the
junkers I've seen are flying on a public transport CofA.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"