Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,689
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
What makes for expensive annuals?
- Thread starter Morne
- Start date
bnt83
Final Approach
No because of:
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or...
To fly out they need approval via:
§ 91.715 Special flight authorizations for foreign civil aircraft.
Now it's time to get an IA second opinion who will return the airplane to service OR agree the discrepancies need to be corrected. So the owner isn't just screwed like Tom implies.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,689
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
What IA is going to make an entry like that and what owner is going to allow him to do that? He may state the aircraft was "found" to be in unairworthy condition but it is unairworthy because of the condition, not because of the logbook entry or the act of inspecting it. Regardless of any IA's determination the owner is free to find another IA.
bnt83
Final Approach
The statement Fearless Tower used is actually SOP for an unairworthy annual inspection log entry.
See page A-9 (47)
http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_guides/media/faa-g-8082-19.pdf
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Ehemm...
And FWIW just cuz I am the first inspector to notice that an unapproved propeller was installed on your plane 25 years ago doesn't mean that it was correct at each of the prior inspections. Same goes for your prop bolts and pushrods.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Oh and if it is really unsafe and I don't think you will bother to fix it a call to the FSDO can have your plane "grounded" in within an hour or two. I haven't had to do it yet but if I felt it was needed to save a life you better believe I would.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
So you're saying you possess the authority to confiscate an airworthiness certificate? Please go on.
That is not what I said,, learn to read what is written.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,689
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
But in the real world it is rarely done this way as the majority of owners do not want an entry of that sort logged. Nor will an IA make such an entry without consulting the owner first. Usually the discrepancies are corrected and the annual signed off normally. The only reason for doing this is if the repairs are to be done at a later date by another A&P, the annual can be signed off as completed. Even so it is not necessary to list the discrepancies in the log, they need only be provided to the owner on a list.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
So, What happens when:
any person sees an obvious safety hazard, do they have an obligation to report it?
can they call FSDO and get a ASI to come look?
What would the FAA ASI do, in that case?
could you take a picture of the hazard and send it to Your PMI? What do you think they will do?
almost any one can get your aircraft downed by FSDO? true or false?
any person sees an obvious safety hazard, do they have an obligation to report it?
can they call FSDO and get a ASI to come look?
What would the FAA ASI do, in that case?
could you take a picture of the hazard and send it to Your PMI? What do you think they will do?
almost any one can get your aircraft downed by FSDO? true or false?
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,689
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Okay but that is you acting as an individual, it is not a function of the A&P certificate. It is not the duty of the A&P to act as a policeman, to make decisions as to what an owner may, or may not do.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I have no problem getting the owner/pilot to sign a statement they have been informed of the safety of flight discrepancy.
Tom Downey A&P-IA has informed me "________" that my aircraft N- has a cracked wing spar, and the engine is making metal as seen in the oil filters.
-------- " _______" the owner/pilot.-------------
After that, and a call to my PMI it is over for me.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Quite a difference between a cracked spar and a unauthorized prop installed 25 years ago in terms of safety. I imagine grounding someone and calling the FSDO over the prop would probably guarantee that customer is gone for life.
bnt83
Final Approach
bnt83
Final Approach
Lets say something more subjective. A small spot of corrosion on a wing attach fitting and the IA wants to pull the bolt and see whats really going on in there. What do you say then? No AD exists, no service bulletin etc.
I enjoy debates BTW, this stuff ends up educating everyone, owner/operators, pilots, mechanics and inspectors.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Anyone that flys junk needs to be gone.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is true....but it does occasionally happen.
That is not entirely true. I have heard of cases where an IA made such an entry during a pre-buy. Seller was pi$$ed, but the entry was made. Not saying I agree with it, but it has happened.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I'd be POed too, he just de-valued the aircraft that is for sale, when no log entry is required.
He could be held responsible for any devalued loss by the seller.
bnt83
Final Approach
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,689
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Understandably.....I seem to recall you felt the same way when someone described such a thing happening on the 170 forum a few years ago.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
bnt83
Final Approach
On the flip side, I've seen operators elect to take a signed copy of the work order for major repairs, I'm pretty certain they convienently "misplaced" it, damage history all but disapeared...
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I act on a case by case bases, IF there is reason to believe a ferry pilot could get hurt by the owners actions of throwing the discrepancy list away, I would have no problems placing the safety of flight discrepancy in the log book and informing FSDO to not issue a ferry permit to that N number.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
If you should find this issue on any aircraft in for annual, how would you fix it.
There is a method of replacing the 170's C-145-A's crank with the crank from a 0-300-D which is approved, but the later crank requires a different prop which is not addressed in the crank paper work. Plus the 172 prop for the 0-300-D is not on the type certificate for the 170.
How do you fix that?
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
The beauty of the medical branch is that all Airman Return to service authorizations bear a Special Issuance date. So I get to write "Returned to service, not valid for any class after 02/28/2014, IAW 67.401 authorization letter dated December 18, 2011".
The authorization is perfectly clear.
Now THAT's an ANNUAL.
The authorization is perfectly clear.
Now THAT's an ANNUAL.
bnt83
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 24,161
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
There is a difference between "annual inspection", a term defined by the FAA and "annual", a term used by owners.
"annual" includes the cost of the annual inspection. Owners also include the cost of maintenance, including maintenance performed annually, and other work performed at the same time as the "annual inspection"
So, the most expensive "annual" I had for my cheroke 140 was north of $23,500 (I stopped counting when the parts exceeded $23,500). A couple of cracked cylinders discovered during the "annual inspection" led to overhauling the engine, with an upgrade to 160hp, with repitching the prop, as well as taking care of a few other things "while I'm at it I ought to..." Don't get me wrong, I had fun doing the work, it was an owner-assisted "annual" with me doing a whole bunch of work.
So, a couple of things that lead to expensive "annuals" is deferred upgrades and getting caught by the while-you-are-at-it.
Something that doesn't help is when you learn that the new IA (new to the airplane) is known in the area as "Dr Death" with a pen that simply won't stop writing (one write up was that the fuel pump sounded "funny" and "more inspection was required", he was also famous for always replacing the fuel cap gaskets every da** year).
Alexb2000
En-Route
I would pull it and deal with it properly, the only pressure the A&P would be under from me is to fix it right. Of course in about 100 other threads people like to say my cost of flying is outrageous so that is always the counter point.
Another good example is the Bonanza wing bolts. They are life limited according to Beech, but MANY owners choose not to replace them. If one fails the wings fall off, of course the counter argument is show me one that has failed, the only thing I would think about was not wanting to be the one that proves they do.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
According to ABS, and BeechTalk, there has never been a wing bolt failure in any model Bonanza, including the 33C acro. I think, maybe there has been a failure recorded in the T-34.
I looked into this too a while back, and the factory has not issued an SDR, but I think they have a 'recommendation' of 20 years(last I checked). If you have other info let us know.
Alexb2000
En-Route
20 years is the number I have as well and not required for part 91, just recommended. I brought it up just because it is a tough maintenance call ($2,000 bolts) and a good example for this thread. I'd do it at 20 years, but I'm sure you already suspected that.
Interestingly I've heard that if you take a bird to HBC they won't sign off on it unless the bolts are replaced on the 20 year schedule.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
The price of the bolts is only part of the equation. You've got the issue of the bolt provenance, and the ability of the guy doing the work to get it right, retorque, and the possibility of goofing something else up.
I go with a good visual insp of the bathtub, clean the drain holes, and use LPS for corrosion avoidance. I feel pretty good about the stuff that is in there.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Do you have them retorqued to make sure they haven't stretched?
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Mine, or newly installed? I am not messing with mine at all. If new ones are installed, retorque after 100 hours.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I must have mis-understood. I thought you were inspecting the existing bolts and reusing them.
ABS did an article on wing bolt inspections that I thought was interesting. Page 9990:
http://www.bonanza.org/MagazinePDF/2006/11/112006.pdf
bnt83
Final Approach
I don't see how they can hold you hostage like that since there is NO regulatory weight behind the OEM's ruling.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Well, technically they are the OEM, such that it is. Also, they are a private company, and can do whatever they want to do vis-a-vis inspection requirements. Either comply with their schedule or GTFO.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I agree, but as we see here everyday regulations are subject to interpretation, lots of interpretation.
There are A&P-IA's that will say TBO means TBO, prop overhauls on time, etc. part 91 or not. Rather than have a bird held hostage I would think this is better discussed prior to bringing it in for work. Even in this thread there was mention by an IA of grounding an aircraft and calling the FSDO.
bnt83
Final Approach
I agree, but as we see here everyday regulations are subject to interpretation, lots of interpretation.
There are A&P-IA's that will say TBO means TBO, prop overhauls on time, etc. part 91 or not. Rather than have a bird held hostage I would think this is better discussed prior to bringing it in for work. Even in this thread there was mention by an IA of grounding an aircraft and calling the FSDO.
That same IA recommended running a first run O-300 continental (never been apart in 46 years) about a 1,000 past TBO in a different thread.
The OEM cannot make up the regulatory rules, only the FAA can.
If an aircraft was unairworthy due to being past TBO, either hours of operation or the 12 year calander limit, nealy the whole fleet of single engine piston birds would be unairworthy.
There is a huge difference between OEM required life limits and FAA approved life limits.
No different than the wing bolt issue with beech products.
Last edited:
Goofy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 755
- Display Name
Display name:
Goofy
Have not read all 100+ answers but if the OP is still paying attention to this thread, and this has not yet been mentioned..... take a look at Mike Busch's webinars about engine care and you'll find the exact answer to your original question.
Most A&Ps are still operating in the last century compared to the modern airlines and military approach to maintenance.
Simple answers that are probably more useful than 100+ forum posts and the silly battle going on below this one.......
I'd trust Mike before ANY of the trolls here including me!
Here is a good place to start for some seriously good advice on annuals:
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1268563560001
Here is the link to more:
https://www.savvymx.com/index.php/resources/webinar
But, as usual, I guess this gave a lot of people something to argue about rather than flying (see below...)........
Most A&Ps are still operating in the last century compared to the modern airlines and military approach to maintenance.
Simple answers that are probably more useful than 100+ forum posts and the silly battle going on below this one.......
I'd trust Mike before ANY of the trolls here including me!
Here is a good place to start for some seriously good advice on annuals:
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1268563560001
Here is the link to more:
https://www.savvymx.com/index.php/resources/webinar
But, as usual, I guess this gave a lot of people something to argue about rather than flying (see below...)........
Last edited: