Prepare for AMU pain!

[denverpilot]

If it is a maintenance period why call it an annual?

Habit? How about FAA Paperwork Day?

Why call it a BFR? It might be two years and 29 days. LOL.

 

[denverpilot]

+1....... Desser Monsters and Airstops......


Nate, save to old tire for a core to ship to them...

Appreciate the thoughts, all. Seems like a few votes for the Monsters. Next time we know they're wearing out maybe we'll order some and have 'em on hand for the next shop visit. That won't be for quite a while if we don't land with a brake on or do something equally dumb.

Mechanic made "deal you can't refuse" on the Condors, so we'll see how they go. He seems to like them. (He owns or co-owns 12 aircraft at one of the flight schools at KBJC and has been using them on all the "higher-performance" rentals. I'm guessing that's a nice way of saying its not worth putting them on the entry-level trainers because a student is just going to flat-spot them anyway. Grin!)

Forgot to ask if he wanted to have us order tubes from the distributor or not. Discussion on the phone later he said he usually reuses the tubes "on condition" unless there's something wrong with them. Asked if we were losing air. Not really. Maybe put a few pounds in once a year or so.

He hadn't pulled the tires off yet as of yesterday, so hadn't looked, but he has tubes in stock if needed. Didn't think yesterday to ask what kind but he's replaced tubes for us before so I could look through records. Never had any problems with whatever he stocks there at the shop. Probably not the Airstops but no biggie.

As far as the cores go, he said we could have them if we want them. He said about half aren't accepted for credit and we pay the shipping to find out. He also joked that sometimes they're useful as a place to put heavy things like engines down on temporarily. He'd use them if we didn't want them. Ha.

Not sure what the usual process is for returning them somewhere. Don't really care all that much, I guess. One co-owner joked that we could make airplane tire flip-flops out of the old tires. I called him a hippie. Haha.

I forgot to mention that I got to watch his guys swing the gear on a 414 on Friday while I was waiting to talk to him. That was kinda fun. And reminded me why I never want to own a retract without serious cash in the bank.

 

[denverpilot]

A quick phone call today confirmed that everything is done other than the new window. Estimate for that is Tuesday COB.

Interesting little side conversation today, talking to the front office. "Yeah the tires arrived, and I see that the radio is back..."

Radio? Back? Huh? (Blink, blink...)

Asked and found out that the repair of the panel lights was subbed out to the avionics shop next door because, we also had a squawk that we've gotten intermittent reports of being weak but readable on COM 1. That turned into "pull and bench test the radio". Which apparently turned into, "might as well send it next door since they're right here".

Hmm. Ok. We were kinda thinking more along the lines of "just make sure the thing is seated in the tray, and that something hasn't trashed an RF cable" more than "yank that thing and test it", but hey... We said it was intermittent without explicit instructions -- so we left ourselves wide open for that one. Our IA knows we've used the Avionics shop next door before too (plus it's in the logs), which probably "set that up" a little bit.

Plus, it was the right thing to do, No harm, no foul really. The radio was fine, by the way.

Subbing it out to another shop without letting is know... is maybe just a touch "iffy". At this point it's water under the bridge and if I ask here for opinions, there would probably be folks fine with it being subbed, and other folks who'd have a tizzy.

I'll await the final bill to see how much it bugs me. Hahaha. Kidding.

Will be nice to have the bird back soon, all spiffed up to go flying.

 

[denverpilot]

Airplane will be done around 10 AM tomorrow. Tach/Run-up check / possible adjustment and wash.

(They've never washed before so it's a new "feature" of the shop apparently. Not going to complain about that.)

Co-owner is planning to pick up Friday to fly her home to APA.

Little more than two weeks. The squawk list of minor stuff was longer this year than usual and new tires and the photo window installation...

As long as no issues found on the shakedown flight, I'll be launching for Nebraska Sunday, weather-permitting.

Right now that looks good on the long-range forecast...

Joked with co-owner tonight that he can go flat-spot a new tire first. Haha. No no no. Ha.

 

[Ted]

They're supposed to wash planes on annuals, and a good shop should wash the plane anyway just as a matter of professionalism. Unfortunately, I've dealt with a number where you know exactly where they've worked on the plane, and who worked on it - greasy fingerprints everywhere that it's been touched.

 

[steingar]

Not only is my transponder not done, but it won't be in time for the Wings fly-in. I just saw my own posts and realized it's been three weeks and it still isn't fixed.

What really burns my biscuits is the damn thing is 600 hours in service and has been in a hangared airplane it's whole life. This has been the hairiest annual yet for the Free Bird.

 

[Jaybird180]

Proof that hangars are the panacea they've been made out to be

 

[steingar]

Proof that hangars are the panacea they've been made out to be

Never said my hangar was a panacea. I said it was a big empty building with a light and an electrical outlet.

 

[denverpilot]

Never said my hangar was a panacea. I said it was a big empty building with a light and an electrical outlet.

You have an electrical outlet? You lucky bastard!

 

[Ted]

Not only is my transponder not done, but it won't be in time for the Wings fly-in. I just saw my own posts and realized it's been three weeks and it still isn't fixed.

What really burns my biscuits is the damn thing is 600 hours in service and has been in a hangared airplane it's whole life. This has been the hairiest annual yet for the Free Bird.

Unfortunately, I have found this to be a common problem with avionics. There are many things that can be wrong. Sometimes, you luck out and it's a simple fix on the unit. Back in and off you go.

More often, what I've ended up seeing is that you send it out, it gets fixed. You fly it for a bit, and it breaks again (poor repair or something else is broken in the unit). Or you replaced the unit, but it turns out that there are some bad pins in the connector (aircraft side). The avionics shops often won't see this as it can be hard to diagnose. By the time the merry-go-round circles three or four times, you've ended up spending as much money as you'd spend on just replacing the thing with an install of a new and improved unit.

When we were having AI and HSI issues in the 310, we opted to put in a new Aspen. If we'd just opted to send out the AI and HSI for overhaul, it would've ended up perhaps being half the cost. Of course, they also wouldn't have caught the multitude of bad pins that were discovered in the course of the Aspen install (since more things had to be torn apart). In the end, it saved time and money, even though it cost more on the surface.

This doesn't apply to everyone, of course. Just something for airplane owners to consider.

 

[N801BH]

You have an electrical outlet? You lucky bastard!

...

Here in Wyoming we are still waiting for electricity.:wink2::wink2:..

To open the hangar doors we have to hook up 3 bison using a large harness attached to the doors.. Then we have to position a couple of tourists directly in front of the buffalo to bait them into pulling the door open... Tourists get scared and run off, and the buffalo are starting to figure this scam out and are now insisting we use california tourists as they are slower runners and the bison might be able to catch them...

 

[Clark1961]

Unfortunately, I have found this to be a common problem with avionics. There are many things that can be wrong. Sometimes, you luck out and it's a simple fix on the unit. Back in and off you go.

More often, what I've ended up seeing is that you send it out, it gets fixed. You fly it for a bit, and it breaks again (poor repair or something else is broken in the unit). Or you replaced the unit, but it turns out that there are some bad pins in the connector (aircraft side). The avionics shops often won't see this as it can be hard to diagnose. By the time the merry-go-round circles three or four times, you've ended up spending as much money as you'd spend on just replacing the thing with an install of a new and improved unit.

When we were having AI and HSI issues in the 310, we opted to put in a new Aspen. If we'd just opted to send out the AI and HSI for overhaul, it would've ended up perhaps being half the cost. Of course, they also wouldn't have caught the multitude of bad pins that were discovered in the course of the Aspen install (since more things had to be torn apart). In the end, it saved time and money, even though it cost more on the surface.

This doesn't apply to everyone, of course. Just something for airplane owners to consider.

All I can say is similar experience. Example: bought plane. Transponder failed. Called shop on field to fix. They reported fixed. Test flew, no good. Shop reported fixed again. Test flew, no good. Schedule replacement with shop at other field...

 

[Ted]

All I can say is similar experience. Example: bought plane. Transponder failed. Called shop on field to fix. They reported fixed. Test flew, no good. Shop reported fixed again. Test flew, no good. Schedule replacement with shop at other field...

To be fair, I don't think that avionics shops do this intentionally - I think they honestly believe they've fixed it. The issue is they have found a problem and believe that it's the problem. They fix it, and they did, indeed, fix a problem. The issue is that there may be 5 or 10 problems that exist, only one of them is causing the complaint, and that can be very difficult to work with. It's often times not related to shop competence, but there does come a point where it will take more effort and labor to fix a problem than to shotgun the thing and replace the whole item.

Avionics are difficult. Anyone who's diagnosed electrical systems on cars knows how much of a pain it can be. I used to be a Jaguar mechanic, and my two specialties were cooling (AC and engine) and electrical problems. As you might imagine, I was never short of work...

 

[denverpilot]

Picked up the bird. Bill wasn't quite ready yet.

Here's photos of the new toys:

LED lights...

Photo window...

Won't bother with the photo of the new tire. You already know what tires look like. Ha.

 

[Ted]

The LED lights are tres chic. I'm thinking the 310 needs some of those.

 

[Clark1961]

To be fair, I don't think that avionics shops do this intentionally - I think they honestly believe they've fixed it. The issue is they have found a problem and believe that it's the problem. They fix it, and they did, indeed, fix a problem. The issue is that there may be 5 or 10 problems that exist, only one of them is causing the complaint, and that can be very difficult to work with. It's often times not related to shop competence, but there does come a point where it will take more effort and labor to fix a problem than to shotgun the thing and replace the whole item.

Avionics are difficult. Anyone who's diagnosed electrical systems on cars knows how much of a pain it can be. I used to be a Jaguar mechanic, and my two specialties were cooling (AC and engine) and electrical problems. As you might imagine, I was never short of work...

I agree entirely that the shops don't do it intentionally. What they fail to do is test the results of the work. As you say, they fixed a problem or two and assume everything is fine and don't bother to thoroughly test after re-installation in the aircraft.

 

[denverpilot]

The LED lights are tres chic. I'm thinking the 310 needs some of those.

We'll see how they look after the first coating of bugs.

You can clearly see the diffuser in the "taxi" light plastic vs. the "landing" light. Makes 'em look different from each other.

I hope that plastic is tough. I'd hate to put a rock through one of them.

In broad daylight they're not quite as bright as I expected but they're better than nothing for collision avoidance.

Will probably get a chance to see how they perform at night in LNK...

 

[wabower]

Yes they are.

Proof that hangars are the panacea they've been made out to be

 

[wabower]

How do they know if it's fixed if they don't test it in the plane?

I agree entirely that the shops don't do it intentionally. What they fail to do is test the results of the work. As you say, they fixed a problem or two and assume everything is fine and don't bother to thoroughly test after re-installation in the aircraft.

 

[Clark1961]

How do they know if it's fixed if they don't test it in the plane?

Exactly...(way too much confidence in the bench test if they even bother with that)

 

[wabower]

Hard to believe anybody does that, but if so they wouldn't see me again.

The "it was working when we brought it in" complaint isn't new, and in some cases it's because the shop broke something while repairing something else, or maybe they just broke it. Sometimes it's something else totally unrelated.

Most mechanics know what they worked on, and also know whether a likelihood exists that they broke whatever is being complained about. Not long ago I watched the shop perform a flaps test on a T-210. The flaps had worked when the customer last landed the plane, and were retracted when it arrived at the shop. During the ops check, the system worked normally until ~50% extension, at which point the motor died and the flaps wouldn't move. The flap motor was more than 20 years old. Should the owner be plssed because the shop broke his flaps or be happy because they failed at home rather than on his first landing during a trip?

Another airplane was picked up by the customer after an annual that had concluded with a test flight by the shop with all systems normal and operative with the pilot on board.

Pilot returned the next day reporting TXP inop. Shop had not worked on or even touched the TXP or any related systems. Subsequent shop test of TXP on test box (with pilot present) showed normal. Pilot departed and returned within an hour, saying TXP inop. Shop tested again, showed normal.

Shop then traced wiring and found an intermittent failure in antenna wire that had corroded and failed internally over time with no visible evidence (plane manufactured in 1983). The wire would make contact while the plane was sitting still on the ground, but would vibrate loose in flight.

A high percentage of avionics problems stem from the contact of the pins that Ted mentioned. I carry Allen wrenches that allow me to "re-rack" the problem unit (loosen screw, slide unit out a few inches then slide back in until secure and tighten) to be sure the problem isn't dog simple.

Exactly...(way too much confidence in the bench test if they even bother with that)

 

[denverpilot]

I had to go play with the lights.

I don't know how well these will show up, but there's plenty of light.

First a shot showing "dusk" conditions...

The lights from head on... hard to photograph with a phone...

Landing...

Taxi...

Wide angle...

Hangar across the way, lights off...

Taxi only...

Landing only...

Both...

 

[Jaybird180]

I agree entirely that the shops don't do it intentionally. What they fail to do is test the results of the work. As you say, they fixed a problem or two and assume everything is fine and don't bother to thoroughly test after re-installation in the aircraft.

If I bring my car to the shop for an engine noise and they put air in the tire, they can charge me for servicing the tire (maybe poor example, buy u get the point) but not for diagnosing and fixing the original noise.

 

[dhindmanjr]

Hey, I really like the window. That would have come in handy on the way to Osh last year.

 

[Ted]

Most mechanics know what they worked on, and also know whether a likelihood exists that they broke whatever is being complained about. Not long ago I watched the shop perform a flaps test on a T-210. The flaps had worked when the customer last landed the plane, and were retracted when it arrived at the shop. During the ops check, the system worked normally until ~50% extension, at which point the motor died and the flaps wouldn't move. The flap motor was more than 20 years old. Should the owner be plssed because the shop broke his flaps or be happy because they failed at home rather than on his first landing during a trip?

Another airplane was picked up by the customer after an annual that had concluded with a test flight by the shop with all systems normal and operative with the pilot on board.

Pilot returned the next day reporting TXP inop. Shop had not worked on or even touched the TXP or any related systems. Subsequent shop test of TXP on test box (with pilot present) showed normal. Pilot departed and returned within an hour, saying TXP inop. Shop tested again, showed normal.

Shop then traced wiring and found an intermittent failure in antenna wire that had corroded and failed internally over time with no visible evidence (plane manufactured in 1983). The wire would make contact while the plane was sitting still on the ground, but would vibrate loose in flight.

Typically, when my mechanics have found something that's broken with my planes, it's made me happy. I don't like paying extra bills, but I do like my planes to be reliable and not break on me while I'm over the middle of nowhere, be it Canada, Gulf of Mexico, or the good ol' USA.

The problem I have is when mechanics take it upon themselves to find problems (whether or not they exist) and fix them without getting my authorization.

For example, when my Aztec went in for its GPS and Nav/Com upgrade shortly after I bought it, the avionics shop spent an extra $3,000 or so that I hadn't authorized fixing little problems and doing some avionics upgrades. I wasn't happy about this, primarily because it wasn't authorized. The shop hasn't seen me since for that and other reasons. A simple phone call of "Well, there's a lot of stuff in here that really needs attention..." would've gotten a response of "Good, get it done."

The upside to this is that the avionics have been rock solid in the three years and 900 hours of flight time since, which makes me happy.

A high percentage of avionics problems stem from the contact of the pins that Ted mentioned. I carry Allen wrenches that allow me to "re-rack" the problem unit (loosen screw, slide unit out a few inches then slide back in until secure and tighten) to be sure the problem isn't dog simple.

Exactly true. One also does need to make a careful evaluation of these problems, though, and determine the appropriate point where that simple fix is becoming a recurrent simple fix, and probably needs more attention. A good example was a Navajo that I used to fly a good bit that has avionics teetering on the ledge of a cliff, ready to go out at any second. The thing had many hacked fixes that the pilot was expected to perform in flight. No thank you, not for me.

 

[AcroBoy]

Our local avionics shop had a reputation for doing a good job, but finding around $3,000 of stuff that "needed fixing", and would do the job without communication, and then present the bill. This lost a lot of customers and developed a bad reputation. More lately, they have gotten the business sense to be a little more customer friendly, and have since done well.

It too would rather the shop find something, or at least look for known problem items, than nickel and dime that about each little piece of work they do. On the other hand, they encourage owners to help out taking off covers, cleaning plugs, draining oil, changing tires, etc. These are all things that we can do in our own hangars, and the shop is teaching us how to do it.

In fact, every year I try to do at least one big item and have it checked, like a gear or flap motor that hasn't been apart in 20 years. I would rather have it rebuilt early than wait until it breaks somewhere on a trip and leaves me on the ground.

I suppose the decision process depends on your mission needs- if you're flying around VFR locally then deferred maintenance can save a lot of dollars, but if the mission requires long trips over distances or water, then perhaps preventative maintenance might be a better investment.

 

[denverpilot]

So I never followed up on the end-result. All of the items on the squawk list were completed and the plane flew great out in Nebraska. (see other thread). (Still runs a bit rich at lower altitudes.)

Annual ran about $2000 this year plus tires, LED lights (love them! Work great at night!), and photo window.

Co-owner has the invoice which he'll be sharing shortly. (The summary is from a discussion at the hangar when I got home yesterday.)