Few Observations

[[email protected]]

That was a good post answering Horowitz. I have just done a lot of
painting and agree that orange peel is because of paint not flowing out
for lack of solvent. You have to find a balance --- too much solvent
and you get runs; too little solvent and you get orange peel. When you
get it just right --- serendipity! Especially with a good
polyurethane, like PPG. Usually I add just the slightest bit more
reducer than the directions call for.

Another subject: For an A&P,I have been working on an Alon A-2 that is
a maintenance nightmare. All three tanks are leaking and the seeping
header tank has turned the cockpit into a combustion chamber. I
refuse to fly it or even charge the battery because of the fumes, which
the owner admits gave him a headache the last time he flew it.

I am getting ready to restore an old Supercub --- wonderful old bird.
She has wing tanks and a tiny tubular header tank *behind* the cockpit.
Header tanks in front of the pilot mean fires. What happens is the
pilot has a hard landing and a fire erupts. He is stunned by slamming
into the panel -- because he hasn't installed shoulder belts. He gets
out too late because by the time he comes to, the fire and fumes have
caused fatal injuries. I have seen this several times. Be wary of the
header tank, no shoulder belts, and the moose stall. Everybody ought
to know what the moose stall is.

The A&P/IA who signed off this Alon as airworthy the last annual
pencil-whipped the work by slathering ugly pancakes of JB Weld around
the leaky rivets on the wing tanks. Of course the leaking continued.
Also, he didn't realize that the leakiest rivets were hidden on the
tanks' trailing edges and could be reached only by detaching the tanks
from the aircraft, an operation which consumes a half day and a heap of
energy if you do it by yourself. I can't find the thread but once read
where an Ercoupe went down in flames because the header tank leaked
fuel into the engine compartment, causing an in-flight fire. Two
souls, a father and son, were lost in that tragedy.

Slosh and PRC, or whatever sealant is used, are limited to a few years,
especially when the fuel put in the tanks is mogas.

On the subject of pinholes I have found Bob Reed's tips advising the
use of epoxy resin helpful on the refinish job for fiberglas
wheelpants. So even that scowling old buzzard has a few positives.

On the subject of Aircraft Spruce and in fairness to Spruce and Jim
Irwin, the A&P in our chapter who complained he got the wrong steel now
concedes the steel was 4130, although annealed. He got a number from
another member, dialed ACS, and did not see a current catalog, which
would have put him on notice that the 4130 was soft. In addition, I
owe Irwin and Spruce an apology because the Mitchell CHT gauge I bought
from them now works --- I fixed a broken lead and checked the business
end by putting it in a warm oven and ran the temps up, checking it
against an oven thermometer. And no, Irwin did not sic a lawyer on
me.

Irwin ought not to divulge personal information about his customers in
usenet, however.

There are some real characters who fly in to airports. A helicopter
came in to one of our local airports, wanted to refuel with Jet A while
the engine ran and the rotor turned and have somebody climb into the
cockpit with him to show him how to operate his Garmin 430. A
bystander did indeed get in with him and spent 15 minutes showing him
the rudiments of his 430. He flew away without even so much as a
thankyou, said the man who helped him.

I have an ancient Trimble Flightmate GPS which loses more pixels on the
screen every time I fire it up. However, I've noticed that it does
better after it is used a while and this morning it gave a full readout
except at the very bottom of the screen. Now somebody has traded me
an old Garmin 95, which is 5 years newer than the Trimble. I will fly
into an airport and ask somebody to get in and show me how to use it,
while the prop ticks over in the Taylorcraft.

Now, away from usenet and back to the pinholes, using tips gleaned from
the old buzzards Reed and Riley. And with Riley's advice I ordered
some of that Sterling primer he says is so good.

Work keeps you out of trouble. So back to work. Do you suppose
Mattie W. works?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 11 Jun 2005 09:53:17 -0700, wrote:

>The A&P/IA who signed off this Alon as airworthy the last annual
>pencil-whipped the work by slathering ugly pancakes of JB Weld around
>the leaky rivets on the wing tanks.

A buddy of mine bought a used Cherokee. When he got home with it (2000-mile
trip), he discovered, among other jewels, that the alternator belt said "NAPA
AUTO PARTS," and the landing-light connector pair had been replaced with a bulb
socket and a bulb with the glass smashed away and wires soldered to the
connections. In addition to a bunch of corrosion, he found that all the wing
fuel tank vents had been cut off flush with wing, covered with screws, and
painted over.

The airplane not only had a current annual, but my friend had hired a different
A&P for a pre-buy.....

Ron "Another Case Study" Wanttaja

[John Ammeter]

Ron,

No Names but when I was getting my RV-6 ready for the FAA
inspection I was told by the FAA to have an A&P do the
equilvalent of a 100 hour inspection on the plane.

It rapidly became obvious to me that I knew more than the
A&P at least as far as "systems" went. I had to explain to
him how the ignition switch grounds one of the mags when
turned to the "start" position. There were a few other
"things" he didn't know...

At least I got the signature and the FAA was happy.

John


On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:25:23 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On 11 Jun 2005 09:53:17 -0700, wrote:
>
>>The A&P/IA who signed off this Alon as airworthy the last annual
>>pencil-whipped the work by slathering ugly pancakes of JB Weld around
>>the leaky rivets on the wing tanks.
>
>A buddy of mine bought a used Cherokee. When he got home with it (2000-mile
>trip), he discovered, among other jewels, that the alternator belt said "NAPA
>AUTO PARTS," and the landing-light connector pair had been replaced with a bulb
>socket and a bulb with the glass smashed away and wires soldered to the
>connections. In addition to a bunch of corrosion, he found that all the wing
>fuel tank vents had been cut off flush with wing, covered with screws, and
>painted over.
>
>The airplane not only had a current annual, but my friend had hired a different
>A&P for a pre-buy.....
>
>Ron "Another Case Study" Wanttaja

[Don Hammer]

>
>A buddy of mine bought a used Cherokee. When he got home with it (2000-mile
>trip), he discovered, among other jewels, that the alternator belt said "NAPA
>AUTO PARTS," and the landing-light connector pair had been replaced with a bulb
>socket and a bulb with the glass smashed away and wires soldered to the
>connections. In addition to a bunch of corrosion, he found that all the wing
>fuel tank vents had been cut off flush with wing, covered with screws, and
>painted over.
>
>The airplane not only had a current annual, but my friend had hired a different
>A&P for a pre-buy.....
>

Some observations from an older A&P / IA -

It is a sad commentary on the condition of the field, but I think we
are getting what we have asked for. Over and over on this NG and
others I read owners complaints about the cost of maintenance on their
personal aircraft and the quality of work they get.

In general there is a direct corollary to what a person earns and the
quality of work they provide. As an example let's look at the pilot
side of things and the pecking order on wages and skill level -

Major corporation
Major airline
Smaller airline
Fractional's
Commuter airline
Charter

I can tell you without any hesitation that the best and brightest are
not flying charter Lear Jets for a living. There is no difference
with maintenance personnel. That does not mean there are not any
exceptions, but I have determined, in general, that small aircraft
maintainers are either near retirement, new in the industry, or
has-been's that can't find work elsewhere.

As part of my business, I hire personnel for corporate flight
departments. In order to get the best, I typically set the salaries
of a Gulfstream-type mechanic at $75K to 95K depending on the area of
the country. I recently placed a DOM at $105K. These are not the same
quality of technicians that are working out of the back of their truck
or for Bob's Cessna Shop in Grass Strip, Kansas.

My suggestion -

If I were to buy a light aircraft, I would find the most expensive
factory shop I could find and pay them for a complete Annual
Inspection and supervise them well. There is no FAA definition for a
pre-buy, but there is for an Annual. I would set the ground rules and
make sure they understand my expectations. At a minimum, ask to
review their checklist and make sure you are happy with it. If they
don't have a checklist, go elsewhere as an Annual requires one.

I don't think any of you would take your Lexus to the local gas
station for repairs, so why do owners of $75,000 airplanes insist on
going to Bob's? I don't have a clue, but it's something to think
about.

[W P Dixon]

Don,
I think you make some very valid points. I never even looked at a GA
aircraft until I retired. They just could not pay enough. Who here would
work for 8-15 an hour when if they are good at what they do can make 20-30
an hour? Not I , and as the old contracting saying goes" Have toolbox, will
travel".
So now..retirement! Now I am looking for planes to build or restore for
myself. I sure hope I can help someone down the road,...but unless that
situation comes up I'll be breaking out the rivet guns on my own stuff.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
news:1118517137.02e998fe27851901b8e26c46364fa35d@t eranews...
>
>>
>>A buddy of mine bought a used Cherokee. When he got home with it
>>(2000-mile
>>trip), he discovered, among other jewels, that the alternator belt said
>>"NAPA
>>AUTO PARTS," and the landing-light connector pair had been replaced with a
>>bulb
>>socket and a bulb with the glass smashed away and wires soldered to the
>>connections. In addition to a bunch of corrosion, he found that all the
>>wing
>>fuel tank vents had been cut off flush with wing, covered with screws, and
>>painted over.
>>
>>The airplane not only had a current annual, but my friend had hired a
>>different
>>A&P for a pre-buy.....
>>
>
> Some observations from an older A&P / IA -
>
> It is a sad commentary on the condition of the field, but I think we
> are getting what we have asked for. Over and over on this NG and
> others I read owners complaints about the cost of maintenance on their
> personal aircraft and the quality of work they get.
>
> In general there is a direct corollary to what a person earns and the
> quality of work they provide. As an example let's look at the pilot
> side of things and the pecking order on wages and skill level -
>
> Major corporation
> Major airline
> Smaller airline
> Fractional's
> Commuter airline
> Charter
>
> I can tell you without any hesitation that the best and brightest are
> not flying charter Lear Jets for a living. There is no difference
> with maintenance personnel. That does not mean there are not any
> exceptions, but I have determined, in general, that small aircraft
> maintainers are either near retirement, new in the industry, or
> has-been's that can't find work elsewhere.
>
> As part of my business, I hire personnel for corporate flight
> departments. In order to get the best, I typically set the salaries
> of a Gulfstream-type mechanic at $75K to 95K depending on the area of
> the country. I recently placed a DOM at $105K. These are not the same
> quality of technicians that are working out of the back of their truck
> or for Bob's Cessna Shop in Grass Strip, Kansas.
>
> My suggestion -
>
> If I were to buy a light aircraft, I would find the most expensive
> factory shop I could find and pay them for a complete Annual
> Inspection and supervise them well. There is no FAA definition for a
> pre-buy, but there is for an Annual. I would set the ground rules and
> make sure they understand my expectations. At a minimum, ask to
> review their checklist and make sure you are happy with it. If they
> don't have a checklist, go elsewhere as an Annual requires one.
>
> I don't think any of you would take your Lexus to the local gas
> station for repairs, so why do owners of $75,000 airplanes insist on
> going to Bob's? I don't have a clue, but it's something to think
> about.
>
>

[Rip]

Well Don, for every rule there's an exception. Recently (as in last
week) an acquaintance purchased a low time Baron and had the Raytheon
folks on the west coast do a "complete" pre-buy and annual on it, to the
tune of $55,000. During the flight home here to Connecticut, none of the
radios worked, the co-pilot's side rudder pedal was discovered to be
disconnected, and a persistently reported (by the previous owner) oil
leak turned out to be a 6 inch crack in one of the crankcases. Obscene.

I'll take a conscientious one-man shop over that scenario any day.

Rip

Don Hammer wrote:
>>A buddy of mine bought a used Cherokee. When he got home with it (2000-mile
>>trip), he discovered, among other jewels, that the alternator belt said "NAPA
>>AUTO PARTS," and the landing-light connector pair had been replaced with a bulb
>>socket and a bulb with the glass smashed away and wires soldered to the
>>connections. In addition to a bunch of corrosion, he found that all the wing
>>fuel tank vents had been cut off flush with wing, covered with screws, and
>>painted over.
>>
>>The airplane not only had a current annual, but my friend had hired a different
>>A&P for a pre-buy.....
>>
>
>
> Some observations from an older A&P / IA -
>
> It is a sad commentary on the condition of the field, but I think we
> are getting what we have asked for. Over and over on this NG and
> others I read owners complaints about the cost of maintenance on their
> personal aircraft and the quality of work they get.
>
> In general there is a direct corollary to what a person earns and the
> quality of work they provide. As an example let's look at the pilot
> side of things and the pecking order on wages and skill level -
>
> Major corporation
> Major airline
> Smaller airline
> Fractional's
> Commuter airline
> Charter
>
> I can tell you without any hesitation that the best and brightest are
> not flying charter Lear Jets for a living. There is no difference
> with maintenance personnel. That does not mean there are not any
> exceptions, but I have determined, in general, that small aircraft
> maintainers are either near retirement, new in the industry, or
> has-been's that can't find work elsewhere.
>
> As part of my business, I hire personnel for corporate flight
> departments. In order to get the best, I typically set the salaries
> of a Gulfstream-type mechanic at $75K to 95K depending on the area of
> the country. I recently placed a DOM at $105K. These are not the same
> quality of technicians that are working out of the back of their truck
> or for Bob's Cessna Shop in Grass Strip, Kansas.
>
> My suggestion -
>
> If I were to buy a light aircraft, I would find the most expensive
> factory shop I could find and pay them for a complete Annual
> Inspection and supervise them well. There is no FAA definition for a
> pre-buy, but there is for an Annual. I would set the ground rules and
> make sure they understand my expectations. At a minimum, ask to
> review their checklist and make sure you are happy with it. If they
> don't have a checklist, go elsewhere as an Annual requires one.
>
> I don't think any of you would take your Lexus to the local gas
> station for repairs, so why do owners of $75,000 airplanes insist on
> going to Bob's? I don't have a clue, but it's something to think
> about.
>
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
news:1118517137.02e998fe27851901b8e26c46364fa35d@t eranews...
>
>>

<<<<<snip>>>>
>
> My suggestion -
>
> If I were to buy a light aircraft, I would find the most expensive
> factory shop I could find and pay them for a complete Annual
> Inspection and supervise them well. There is no FAA definition for a
> pre-buy, but there is for an Annual. I would set the ground rules and
> make sure they understand my expectations. At a minimum, ask to
> review their checklist and make sure you are happy with it. If they
> don't have a checklist, go elsewhere as an Annual requires one.
>
> I don't think any of you would take your Lexus to the local gas
> station for repairs, so why do owners of $75,000 airplanes insist on
> going to Bob's? I don't have a clue, but it's something to think
> about.

It's amazing, isn't it? The dealership where I take my Honda charges about
$60/hr, and you pay by "book" time. Generally, a good mechanic can beat the
book by 25% or more, so you're really paying something like $80/hr.

My AI charges $45/hr, and charges for the actual time a job takes. Sure,
his overhead is less than the Honda dealer's, but his exposure to liability
is certainly higher, and he's spent a whole lot more time on his training
than most of the guys turning wrenches for the auto dealer. Beyond that, if
the auto shop messes up a repair or inspection on my car, it isn't likely to
be catastrophic, whereas there the AI or A&P needs to get it right the first
time, or it may cause a seriously bad situation.

Maybe the difference in the shop rates between auto repair and aircraft
repair shops has something to do with the fact that a well maintained,
reliabile automobile is a necessity in today's society, so we can
psycologically justify paying a premium price, as long as the service and
quality of work are good. On the other hand, many GA aircraft are lifestyle
accessories. As such, if they became too expensive, we'll just sell the
airplane and find another hobby. Sad to say, but maybe the AI's are
commanding all the market will bear...

[Smitty]

I wish it were that simple, but I don't think it is. Others have made
the auto mechanic analogy and I'll add my experience to that. My
mechanic works in a filthy poorly lit garage (pronounced "shack") at the
end of a rutted gravel driveway in a seedy part of town. He's the best
damn mechanic in town at any price. You can't find his name in the phone
book, and you can't get his number from information, because he's got
more work than three people could do. If you walk in the door and he
doesn't know you, he'll likely greet you with profanity and send you
away. I've had many many friends who've had their car fixed by him for
less than $100 after the big fancy luxury dealers had charged them $700
or more to NOT fix them. He KNOWS cars.

Then there was the "60 minutes" (IIRC) piece just a few years ago that
secretly filmed major airline maintenance crews napping for hours at a
time in the first class section of the airplanes they were supposed to
be inspecting and maintaining. After the nap, they just get up and check
off all the boxes on the form...NOT an isolated incident.

Attitude, attention to detail, pride in workmanship -- I've never seen
an indication that they're related to how much you pay someone. I've got
$8 / hr. workers who are every damn bit as good in every measure as the
$20 / hr. guys.


In article <1118517137.02e998fe27851901b8e26c46364fa35d@terane ws>,
Don Hammer > wrote:


>
> Some observations from an older A&P / IA -
>
> It is a sad commentary on the condition of the field, but I think we
> are getting what we have asked for. Over and over on this NG and
> others I read owners complaints about the cost of maintenance on their
> personal aircraft and the quality of work they get.
>
> In general there is a direct corollary to what a person earns and the
> quality of work they provide. As an example let's look at the pilot
> side of things and the pecking order on wages and skill level -
>
> Major corporation
> Major airline
> Smaller airline
> Fractional's
> Commuter airline
> Charter
>
>

[OtisWinslow]

My mechanic is good and experienced and it cost me less
to have my Piper worked on than my car or my motorcycle.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> That was a good post answering Horowitz. I have just done a lot of
> painting and agree that orange peel is because of paint not flowing out
> for lack of solvent. You have to find a balance --- too much solvent
> and you get runs; too little solvent and you get orange peel. When you
> get it just right --- serendipity! Especially with a good
> polyurethane, like PPG. Usually I add just the slightest bit more
> reducer than the directions call for.
>
> Another subject: For an A&P,I have been working on an Alon A-2 that is
> a maintenance nightmare. All three tanks are leaking and the seeping
> header tank has turned the cockpit into a combustion chamber. I
> refuse to fly it or even charge the battery because of the fumes, which
> the owner admits gave him a headache the last time he flew it.
>
> I am getting ready to restore an old Supercub --- wonderful old bird.
> She has wing tanks and a tiny tubular header tank *behind* the cockpit.
> Header tanks in front of the pilot mean fires. What happens is the
> pilot has a hard landing and a fire erupts. He is stunned by slamming
> into the panel -- because he hasn't installed shoulder belts. He gets
> out too late because by the time he comes to, the fire and fumes have
> caused fatal injuries. I have seen this several times. Be wary of the
> header tank, no shoulder belts, and the moose stall. Everybody ought
> to know what the moose stall is.
>
> The A&P/IA who signed off this Alon as airworthy the last annual
> pencil-whipped the work by slathering ugly pancakes of JB Weld around
> the leaky rivets on the wing tanks. Of course the leaking continued.
> Also, he didn't realize that the leakiest rivets were hidden on the
> tanks' trailing edges and could be reached only by detaching the tanks
> from the aircraft, an operation which consumes a half day and a heap of
> energy if you do it by yourself. I can't find the thread but once read
> where an Ercoupe went down in flames because the header tank leaked
> fuel into the engine compartment, causing an in-flight fire. Two
> souls, a father and son, were lost in that tragedy.
>
> Slosh and PRC, or whatever sealant is used, are limited to a few years,
> especially when the fuel put in the tanks is mogas.
>
> On the subject of pinholes I have found Bob Reed's tips advising the
> use of epoxy resin helpful on the refinish job for fiberglas
> wheelpants. So even that scowling old buzzard has a few positives.
>
> On the subject of Aircraft Spruce and in fairness to Spruce and Jim
> Irwin, the A&P in our chapter who complained he got the wrong steel now
> concedes the steel was 4130, although annealed. He got a number from
> another member, dialed ACS, and did not see a current catalog, which
> would have put him on notice that the 4130 was soft. In addition, I
> owe Irwin and Spruce an apology because the Mitchell CHT gauge I bought
> from them now works --- I fixed a broken lead and checked the business
> end by putting it in a warm oven and ran the temps up, checking it
> against an oven thermometer. And no, Irwin did not sic a lawyer on
> me.
>
> Irwin ought not to divulge personal information about his customers in
> usenet, however.
>
> There are some real characters who fly in to airports. A helicopter
> came in to one of our local airports, wanted to refuel with Jet A while
> the engine ran and the rotor turned and have somebody climb into the
> cockpit with him to show him how to operate his Garmin 430. A
> bystander did indeed get in with him and spent 15 minutes showing him
> the rudiments of his 430. He flew away without even so much as a
> thankyou, said the man who helped him.
>
> I have an ancient Trimble Flightmate GPS which loses more pixels on the
> screen every time I fire it up. However, I've noticed that it does
> better after it is used a while and this morning it gave a full readout
> except at the very bottom of the screen. Now somebody has traded me
> an old Garmin 95, which is 5 years newer than the Trimble. I will fly
> into an airport and ask somebody to get in and show me how to use it,
> while the prop ticks over in the Taylorcraft.
>
> Now, away from usenet and back to the pinholes, using tips gleaned from
> the old buzzards Reed and Riley. And with Riley's advice I ordered
> some of that Sterling primer he says is so good.
>
> Work keeps you out of trouble. So back to work. Do you suppose
> Mattie W. works?
>

[Don Hammer]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:48:43 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> wrote:

>My mechanic is good and experienced and it cost me less
>to have my Piper worked on than my car or my motorcycle.
>


Like I said in my post "there are exceptions" You are lucky to have a
good guy.

The reality is there are less than half the A&P schools now than there
were 10 years ago. All the WWII trained mechs are either dead or
retired. Very few young people are going in to my chosen profession
and with the current salary's in small aircraft shops, why would they?
The few that get their tickets are either going into the large
aircraft business or more often working on cars or semi's where they
can earn a decent living.

I'm not making this up. I submit to you is we are heading for a
crises in our industry. As the airlines and corporate travel continue
to grow, I know where the few new guys are applying for work. Ask any
service center how easy it is for them to hire quality mechanics.

[Luke Scharf]

Don Hammer wrote:
> The reality is there are less than half the A&P schools now than there
> were 10 years ago. All the WWII trained mechs are either dead or
> retired. Very few young people are going in to my chosen profession
> and with the current salary's in small aircraft shops, why would they?
> The few that get their tickets are either going into the large
> aircraft business or more often working on cars or semi's where they
> can earn a decent living.

There are a several meticulous A&Ps in my area. However, most of them
got their A&P (and IA in one case) so that they could work on their own
airplane. The generally won't work on random people's airplanes,
though, because of the liability. Their day-job pays the bills.

-Luke

[Don Hammer]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:15:32 -0400, Luke Scharf >
wrote:

>There are a several meticulous A&Ps in my area. However, most of them
>got their A&P (and IA in one case) so that they could work on their own
>airplane. The generally won't work on random people's airplanes,
>though, because of the liability. Their day-job pays the bills.
>
>-Luke

I'm sort of in the same boat. I earn a living consulting in aviation
and won't use my A&P/IA on small aircraft with the exception of a
couple of friends gliders I keep annualed. I can't afford to risk my
livelyhood for little money with the way a lawyer will go after you
after an accident.

It's kind of ironic, but I have no problem signing off my work on a
$45M Gulfstream, but the thought of my name in the book of a Cessna
scares me to death, not for the work I have done, but for what has
happened before or after I worked on it. If you follow along with the
Aircraft Owners NG and read what some of them do to their own
aircraft, you can understand what I am talking about. On the witness
stand, the name in the book is the rope they hang you with.

Light aircraft. I'll stick to flying, and not fixing them. There are
thousands of great A&P's out there that think the same way.

Best of luck,

Don

[Matt Whiting]

Don Hammer wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:15:32 -0400, Luke Scharf >
> wrote:
>
>
>>There are a several meticulous A&Ps in my area. However, most of them
>>got their A&P (and IA in one case) so that they could work on their own
>>airplane. The generally won't work on random people's airplanes,
>>though, because of the liability. Their day-job pays the bills.
>>
>>-Luke
>
>
> I'm sort of in the same boat. I earn a living consulting in aviation
> and won't use my A&P/IA on small aircraft with the exception of a
> couple of friends gliders I keep annualed. I can't afford to risk my
> livelyhood for little money with the way a lawyer will go after you
> after an accident.
>
> It's kind of ironic, but I have no problem signing off my work on a
> $45M Gulfstream, but the thought of my name in the book of a Cessna
> scares me to death, not for the work I have done, but for what has
> happened before or after I worked on it. If you follow along with the
> Aircraft Owners NG and read what some of them do to their own
> aircraft, you can understand what I am talking about. On the witness
> stand, the name in the book is the rope they hang you with.

You don't think the owner of a Gulfstream or his or her estate won't sue
you just as fast (and probably faster) then a private owner?


Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>

<<<snip>>>
>
> You don't think the owner of a Gulfstream or his or her estate won't sue
> you just as fast (and probably faster) then a private owner?
>
>
> Matt

I'm sure they would, but the accident rate per flying hour in corporate jets
is a small fraction of the accident rate of piston singles. Beyond that, it
takes a lot of $500 annuals on piston singles (or $5,000 annuals on twins)
to create the same profit one can earn from a single annual on a G-IV or
other turbine bird...

Finally, an individual A&P or AI only has so much money. Lose a big suit on
a C-172 accident or a G-IV accident and it is going to cost the IA or A&P
the same amount of money, regardless of the size of the award, 'cause not
too many AI's and A&P's have a net worth big enough to pay a million dollar
plus payout.

It all comes down to risk/reward. The ratio favors the guy who works on the
big iron.

KB

[Ernest Christley]

Don Hammer wrote:
>
> I'm not making this up. I submit to you is we are heading for a
> crises in our industry. As the airlines and corporate travel continue
> to grow, I know where the few new guys are applying for work. Ask any
> service center how easy it is for them to hire quality mechanics.
>
>
>

Don, consider where you're posting. r.a.HOMEBUILT.

For good or bad, the disaster will be averted by people who build and
maintain there own airplanes.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Corky Scott]

On 11 Jun 2005 09:53:17 -0700, wrote:

>I am getting ready to restore an old Supercub --- wonderful old bird.
>She has wing tanks and a tiny tubular header tank *behind* the cockpit.
> Header tanks in front of the pilot mean fires. What happens is the
>pilot has a hard landing and a fire erupts. He is stunned by slamming
>into the panel -- because he hasn't installed shoulder belts. He gets
>out too late because by the time he comes to, the fire and fumes have
>caused fatal injuries. I have seen this several times. Be wary of the
>header tank, no shoulder belts, and the moose stall. Everybody ought
>to know what the moose stall is.

Fire erupting from a hard landing? From the description I don't think
"hard landing" is applicable, sounds more like **CRASH**.

We don't get to many moose stalls around here, there aren't that many
moose and the terrain is too rugged to get down to seen them.

> I can't find the thread but once read
>where an Ercoupe went down in flames because the header tank leaked
>fuel into the engine compartment, causing an in-flight fire. Two
>souls, a father and son, were lost in that tragedy.

The header tank on Ercoupes are on the engine side of the firewall?
Can anyone confirm that? All the designs I've seen have the header
tank behind the firewall, in front of the instrument panel. But of
course I've not seen every design in my lifetime...

Corky Scott

[Don Hammer]

>
>Don, consider where you're posting. r.a.HOMEBUILT.
>
>For good or bad, the disaster will be averted by people who build and
>maintain there own airplanes.


This is just where the thread started. The few homebuilts I have
examined in detail have been very well done and I wish I had the time
to build my own. That said, there is a reason my insurance man won't
let me fly one. In many cases the components, materials, construction
methods, etc. don't meet industry standards. That is why you have to
put the word EXPERIMENTAL on them in big letters for all to see. It's
flyer beware!

As to the risk of being sued after a Gulfstream crash. That is a risk
I accept because I know the average GV costs about $3M per year to own
and a large percentage of that is spent on maintenance. The
maintainers of those are the best in the field and they don't cut
corners. They are not shopping at the Depot for their wire and fuel
valves so I have confidence on the past and future airworthiness of
the aircraft. If it crashes, chances are it is about 95% pilot
related.

[Jerry Springer]

Don Hammer wrote:

>
> This is just where the thread started. The few homebuilts I have
> examined in detail have been very well done and I wish I had the time
> to build my own. That said, there is a reason my insurance man won't
> let me fly one.

I must have missed part of this tread, why won't your insurance man let
you fly one? Even bigger question is why would you let an insurance
person dictate your life?



> In many cases the components, materials, construction
> methods, etc. don't meet industry standards. That is why you have to
> put the word EXPERIMENTAL on them in big letters for all to see. It's
> flyer beware!

Not really, that is just a category of aircraft. There is Experimental
homebuilt, Experimental Exhibition, and some others. Experimental does
not mean that they do not meet industry standards. Experimental
Exhibition aircraft could very well meet industry standards. While
homebuilt aircraft my not, that is not the reason for the word experimental.

Jerry

[Cy Galley]

When did this come about? When the lettering wears off?


"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Not really, that is just a category of aircraft. There is Experimental
>> homebuilt, Experimental Exhibition, and some others. Experimental does
>> not mean that they do not meet industry standards. Experimental
>> Exhibition aircraft could very well meet industry standards. While
>> homebuilt aircraft my not, that is not the reason for the word
>> experimental.
>
> Moreover, many EXPERIMENTAL homebuilt aircraft are not required to have
> such a placard. Within a very few years, RV-3's and 4's will be in that
> genre.
>
> Rich S.
>

[Morgans]

"Don Hammer" > wrote

> The few homebuilts I have
> examined in detail have been very well done and I wish I had the time
> to build my own. That said, there is a reason my insurance man won't
> let me fly one. In many cases the components, materials, construction
> methods, etc. don't meet industry standards.

And therein lies the rub. Insurance is run off of statistics. As a whole,
insurance says experimental is a bad risk, because some (a few) use
homedepote valves, and that will cause problems, (sometimes) and there goes
the risk up.

On the other hand, the well done experimentals you mentioned are safer (as
an individual case) than a spam can that has been pencil whipped, but
because fewer spam cans are poorly maintained in that manner, they are a
better risk. (as a whole category) The insurance company does not go out
and inspect each individual experimental, or each spam can.

Too bad they do not have the ability to inspect each one. That would be a
great incentive for change, and make insurance a much better bargain for the
safe builder. It would probably make general aviation a much safer "place",
too.
--
Jim in NC

[Don Hammer]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:24:16 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>And therein lies the rub. Insurance is run off of statistics. As a whole,
>insurance says experimental is a bad risk, because some (a few) use
>homedepote valves, and that will cause problems, (sometimes) and there goes
>the risk up.
>
>On the other hand, the well done experimentals you mentioned are safer (as
>an individual case) than a spam can that has been pencil whipped, but
>because fewer spam cans are poorly maintained in that manner, they are a
>better risk. (as a whole category) The insurance company does not go out
>and inspect each individual experimental, or each spam can.
>
>Too bad they do not have the ability to inspect each one. That would be a
>great incentive for change, and make insurance a much better bargain for the
>safe builder. It would probably make general aviation a much safer "place",
>too.

I agree on the statistics thing, but it's no different than your house
or car - you are in a group. A well built RV is in there with the
ultralight with a motorcycle engine, Home Depot cables, and Ace
hardware bolts. I seriously doubt that an insurance company has the
expertise to know how well an aircraft was built even if they could
look at each one. Something to think about is the great Steve Whitman
and his wife died because he used improper materials to cover his
aircraft and used hardware store stuff in the aileron hinges. The
reality is Steve was flying an un-airworthy aircraft because of the
way he built it. If you couldn't trust Steve to build one right, who
can you trust? Do you think an insurance company could tell he used
regular dope on Ceconite instead of what the Ceconite STC calls for?
I'm and A&P and IA and I couldn't. With any aircraft, you have to
trust the builder and maintainer. Those two things are generally
known on certified aircraft.

Someone here asked me why should I let insurance companies run my
life. It's very simple. I die in an RV and the wife gets zip - nada
from the life insurance company. I think that our society is becoming
so self-centered that we forget about all the folks around us and how
our actions effect them. It's a symptom of our feel-good mentality -
do it because it feels good to me. I'm sure, with enough money I could
get the coverage, but we have to balance all the factors and decide
what makes the most sense. I can rent a nice fast Mooney once in a
while for less all-up cost than building something comparable. Of
course, I didn't have the fun of building.

There are times during the interior completion of a new corporate
aircraft that we test fly them prior to the interior STC being issued.
They have EXPERIMENTAL plastered by the door, a ferry permit in the
holder, and my insurance doesn't cover me. During the flight I did
yesterday, the new Gulfstream G-550 I spent six hours flying around in
was in same group to my life insuranc carrier as a homebuilt. I took
the risk because of all the deep pockets involved. At least my wife
had someone other than Bob the first time builder to sue if I would
have become a smoking hole.

Don

[Jerry Springer]

Don Hammer wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:24:16 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>
During the flight I did
> yesterday, the new Gulfstream G-550 I spent six hours flying around in
> was in same group to my life insuranc carrier as a homebuilt. I took
> the risk because of all the deep pockets involved. At least my wife
> had someone other than Bob the first time builder to sue if I would
> have become a smoking hole.
>
> Don

Yes that is the right attitude lets think about sueing someone even if
it is not their fault. Yup thats the way to do it, I just love the fact
that we or our families can sue somone even if it is our own fault that
we created the smoking hole, Yup lets go after those "DEEP POCKETS"
people like you are what causes our insurance to be so high to start
with, you should not even be allowed to be around airplanes IMO.

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder how close the external configuration has to be? I mean, an
> RV-8's external configuration is pretty close to an RV-4's. From 200
> feet away I doubt anyone who hadn't built one could tell them apart.
>
> For that matter, Vari-EZ's are coming up on 30 years. Long's look
> like Vari's. Berkut's look like Longs.....

". . .which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at
least 30 years ago. . ."

If Unca BOb were to answer this, I imagine he'd write, "What part of 'THE
SAME' don't you get???"
:)
SAME adj.
1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

RIch "He wouldn't have added the smiley, though." S.

[Rich S.]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> Not really, that is just a category of aircraft. There is Experimental
> homebuilt, Experimental Exhibition, and some others. Experimental does not
> mean that they do not meet industry standards. Experimental Exhibition
> aircraft could very well meet industry standards. While homebuilt aircraft
> my not, that is not the reason for the word experimental.

Moreover, many EXPERIMENTAL homebuilt aircraft are not required to have such
a placard. Within a very few years, RV-3's and 4's will be in that genre.

Rich S.

[Rich S.]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:ifMre.51056$_o.26541@attbi_s71...
> When did this come about? When the lettering wears off?

It's in the F.A.R.'s, Cy. I carry a copy of the applicable sections in the
Emeraude for the express purpose of showing EAA judges that it is NOT
required on a homebuilt of a certain design date and/or one of the same
external configuration.

Look it up in F.A.R. 45.22 for the full wording. Here are the key sentences
with added emphasis:

45.22 Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules.

(b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-
registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued
under Sec. 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or
as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration
as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated *without* repeat
*without* displaying marks in accordance with Secs. 45.21 and 45.23 through
45.33 if:

(1) It displays in accordance with Sec. 45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches
high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the
Roman capital letter "N" followed by:
(i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or
(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft
("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental)
followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and
(2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter "N" anywhere on
the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.

The following section is included for your reference. Note that it is *not*
applicable under the foregoing section.

45.23 Display of marks; general.
(a) Each operator of an aircraft shall display on that aircraft marks
consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" (denoting United States
registration) followed by the registration number of the aircraft. Each
suffix letter used in the marks displayed must also be a Roman capital
letter.
(b) When marks that include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the
registration number are displayed on limited or restricted category aircraft
or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator shall
also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in
letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches in height, the words
"limited," "restricted," "experimental," or "provisional airworthiness," as
the case may be.
[Doc. No. 8093, Amdt. 45-5, 33 FR 450, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended by Amdt.
45- 9, 42 FR 41102, Aug. 15, 1977]

I seem to remember at Oshkosh '99, they were celebrating the 25th.
anniversary of the first RV. That would make it 31 years ago. I'm sure Unca
BOb knows exactly when the RV-3 was released. The RV-4 can't be far behind.

Rich S.