Few Observations

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

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

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

"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

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)."

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, 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.

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

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


"Rich S." wrote in message
news
"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.

"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