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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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