A & P Shops Turning Away Work On Aircraft Older Than 18 Years

[Larry Dighera]

This is the first I've heard of this practice. Does anyone have
firsthand information?




-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebFlash Volume 13, Number 1b -- January 4, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Aging Aircraft Issues Loom

MORE PILOTS REPORT MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/778-full.html#194147)
AVweb's stories (1
(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/13_1a/leadnews/Facilities_Say_No_To_Old_Airplanes_194113-1.html),
2
(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/13_1a/leadnews/Trend_In_The_Works_194114-1.html))
on Monday about some maintenance and repair shops turning away work on
older airplanes brought in more reports from pilots who have run into
similar situations. Readers in Maryland, Texas and Utah said local
operators have told them they can no longer work on aircraft over 18
years old due to insurance and liability concerns. Brian Finnegan,
president of the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association
(http://www.pama.org/) (PAMA), told AVweb on Wednesday that the
18-year limit on manufacturer liability set by the 1994 General
Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) does raise concerns that the focus
of litigation in the case of an accident involving an older aircraft
could shift to the maintenance shop. But so far no troubling trends
have been noted, he said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/778-full.html#194147

A HINT OF THINGS TO COME?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/778-full.html#194148)
The concern is that if enough lawyers in search of "deep pockets" go
after maintenance shops, the cost of defending against that trend
could put insurers on the defensive. Professional Aviation Maintenance
Association President Brian Finnegan said the FAA's Aging Aircraft
Committee, of which he's a member, has been carefully monitoring
litigation relevant to mechanics and maintenance providers to keep on
top of any changes. "I'm not aware of any maintenance being turned
away at this point" due to such concerns, he said. Peter Tulupman, a
spokesman for aviation insurance company AIG, told AVweb on Wednesday
that the company has no policy restricting shops from working on
aircraft over a certain age.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/778-full.html#194148

AOPA ON THE LOOKOUT
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/778-full.html#194150)
"AOPA has been following this for a number of months now," spokesman
Chris Dancy told AVweb on Wednesday afternoon. "In fact, Phil Boyer
had a brief face-to-face meeting with Bill Cutter last August after
the story first surfaced. Now that another shop has apparently made
the business decision to keep their insurance premiums in check by
declining to work on aircraft 18 years old or more, it raises the
question of whether these are only a couple of isolated incidents or
the beginning of a very disturbing trend." Dancy said AOPA is still
investigating the situation. "Is this truly the beginning of a trend?
If so, what action is appropriate? Will it require legislation? What
type of legislation? All of these questions and others need to be
answered before AOPA can take any action."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/778-full.html#194150

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> This is the first I've heard of this practice. Does anyone have
> firsthand information?

I just heard about this the first time this week on a local pilot board, but
I'm thinking they got their info from the AOPA article. I haven't personally
heard of anybody being turned away and we didn't have any problem finding a
shop to take on our 40-year-old for repair work recently.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Mxsmanic]

The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

> > This is the first I've heard of this practice. Does anyone have
> > firsthand information?
>
> I just heard about this the first time this week on a local pilot board,
but
> I'm thinking they got their info from the AOPA article. I haven't
personally
> heard of anybody being turned away and we didn't have any problem finding
a
> shop to take on our 40-year-old for repair work recently.
>
>
There was an addendum to the story in the January 11th AVwebFlash:

-------- quoted text follows ---------

NEED MAINTENANCE? WHEN ONE DOOR CLOSES, OTHERS OPEN WIDE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/781-full.html#194198)
Whatever you might say about the aviation industry, you can't say it's
not proactive. Over the last week, competitors jumped
(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/13_2b/leadnews/Blue_Mountain_Steps_In_19418
9-1.html)
to the plate to scoop up customers dismayed by the closing of Direct
To Avionics. And now, repair shops are speaking up to welcome owners
of older aircraft who have been turned away elsewhere
(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/13_1b/leadnews/More_Maintenance_Problems_19
4147-1.html).
Lynn Nichols, president of Yingling Aviation
(http://www.yinglingaviation.com) at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport,
told AVweb on Wednesday that airplanes 18 years old and up are welcome
to darken his hangar door anytime. "We believe we can provide them
with what is arguably the best service available," he said. "We have
established maintenance procedures, tooling and expertise working on
Cessna single and twin-engine aircraft, and located across from the
factory, so if we run into an anomaly, Cessna's product support is
minutes away."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/781-full.html#194198

--------end of quoted text---------

Peter

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
>an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
>any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?

A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if the
aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a pilot
crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs could
sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a shop
limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of the cost
of any judgement against them.

It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance company
to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect that.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
>>an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
>>any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?
>
> A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if
> the
> aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a
> pilot
> crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs
> could
> sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a
> shop
> limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
> co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of
> the cost
> of any judgement against them.
>
> It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance
> company
> to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect
> that.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

The law limits the exposure of the manufacturer it does not release them
entirely. Something like 80% of the fleet is more than 18 years old. A
shop that limits itself to servicing the 20% less than 18 years old isn't
going to get much business.

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
>>>an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
>>>any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?
>>
>>A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if
>>the
>>aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a
>>pilot
>>crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs
>>could
>>sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a
>>shop
>>limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
>>co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of
>>the cost
>>of any judgement against them.
>>
>>It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance
>>company
>>to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect
>>that.
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
>
> The law limits the exposure of the manufacturer it does not release them
> entirely. Something like 80% of the fleet is more than 18 years old. A
> shop that limits itself to servicing the 20% less than 18 years old isn't
> going to get much business.

It depends on what they service. If they focus on corporate jets and
larger airplanes and the few new designs such as Cirrus, they might do
quite well.


Matt

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if the
> aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a
> pilot
> crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs
> could
> sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a
> shop
> limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
> co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of the
> cost
> of any judgement against them.

But you are forgetting how the USA's contingency-driven legal system works.
If there are no seriously deep pockets, there will be no lawsuit because there
is not enough incentive for the attorney to take the risk. The small mechanic
might actually be better off to ONLY take planes that are free from
manufacturer's liability to reduce the chance of being a co-defendent. (Might
also be better off without insurance if there are no substantial assets, but
that is another thread.)

Vaughn

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if the
> aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a pilot
> crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs could
> sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane.

But they could do that for a newer aircraft, too. And the existence
of a law that releases manufacturers from liability for older aircraft
would be prima facie evidence that maintenance shops can be released
in the same way. In other words, if an aircraft is so old that the
manufacturer can no longer be held responsible for its safety, then
how can anyone hold a mere maintenance responsible for it?

> It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance company
> to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect that.

I'm not so sure. See above. It might even be advantageous to limit
maintenance to _older_ aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> It depends on what they service. If they focus on corporate jets and
> larger airplanes and the few new designs such as Cirrus, they might do
> quite well.

Except that newer aircraft are less likely to require maintenance than
older aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

> In other words, if an aircraft is so old that the
> manufacturer can no longer be held responsible for its safety, then
> how can anyone hold a mere maintenance responsible for it?

The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> Except that newer aircraft are less likely to require maintenance than
> older aircraft.

In the US, turbine equipment is required to have an approved maintenance
program. Most programs include inspections based on calender time. The
ageing problems my not be there, but there is still plenty of maintenance to
be done.

D. (KingAir 200 & Caravan operator)

D.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
> the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.

Then maybe the maintenance was the problem. But that would be true
for aircraft of any age.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

>>The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
>> the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.
>
> Then maybe the maintenance was the problem. But that would be true
> for aircraft of any age.

Yes. This is why maintanance would not get the same "pass" on liability
that is (now) granted the manufacturer. And an argument can be made
that a new design or manufacturing flaw might be undetected for a while,
but after 18 years, if it hasn't shown up yet, it's not much of a flaw.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> It depends on what they service. If they focus on corporate jets and
>> larger airplanes and the few new designs such as Cirrus, they might
>> do quite well.
>
> Except that newer aircraft are less likely to require maintenance than
> older aircraft.
>
All aircraft require maintenance. If you are flying them, you are
stressing them, and if you are not flying them, some components become
unreliable. See the annual inspection requirements as a starting point.

Neil

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:41:50 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>>The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
>>> the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.
>>
>> Then maybe the maintenance was the problem. But that would be true
>> for aircraft of any age.
>
>Yes. This is why maintanance would not get the same "pass" on liability
>that is (now) granted the manufacturer. And an argument can be made
>that a new design or manufacturing flaw might be undetected for a while,
>but after 18 years, if it hasn't shown up yet, it's not much of a flaw.

As I recall, part of the impetus for the law was several lawsuits
involving failure of critical components... aftermarket components
that were not made by the original aircraft manufacturer, since
original parts were no longer available (for a made up example,
picture an A&P splicing a new section of tubing into a damaged wing
strut, a perfectly legitimate repair if done correctly). Depending on
the situation, the mechanic might well be liable.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-- Albert Einstein

[Ken Finney]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
>>an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
>>any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?
>
> A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if
> the
> aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a
> pilot
> crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs
> could
> sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a
> shop
> limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
> co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of
> the cost
> of any judgement against them.
>
> It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance
> company
> to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect
> that.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Wasn't the "recently-passed law" the general aviation revitalization one
that was passed while Reagan was in office? I understand the new issue is
due to (at least) one insurance company that insures A&P shops specifiying
that the coverage only applied if they worked on newer aircraft, for the
reasons stated.