Michael wrote:
snip
Well, that would certainly be a professional approach to the issue.
Sure would have been nice if that particular mechanic had done that.
Might have prevented some tense moments, a damaged aircraft, and a
pilot whose wife won't fly with him. I've only had that experience
with ONE A&P. Not coincidentally, he's on my (very short) list of
A&P's to whom I will take my airplane if the repair in question is
beyond my capability or not something I want to mess with.

Perhaps 1 out of 20 customers would even pretend to pay attention
when
this was taking place.

Yes. The other 95% trust you to take care of it without bothering
them
with the details.

That would be their choice, and a choice that I would never make as
owner/PIC (probably will never be an owner, but have done the PIC gig).

When I have maintenance done on my car, I find that I can take that
attitude. I drop off the car, and then I pick it up and I trust that
everything has been taken care of. If I ask for something to be
done,
I assume it has been done. I haven't been burned yet. What's more,
most people I know do the same, with the same results.

That would depend on a lot of factors. Locally, I have been burned by
"award-winning" service departments, in one case after leaving detailed
written instructions that were completely ignored.

I've found that this is not a viable approach with my airplane. So
has
my friend who was burned. It's sort of pointless to complain about
this, since that is the way it is. However, part of what I teach my
students (who are always owners or on their way to being owners) is
that you can't do that with an airplane. That doesn't mean I think
that's the way it ought to be.

Agreed. I use to be employed by an authorised check airman. Frequently
he would stop in the middle of an oral exam, and send the applicant
back to me for on-the-spot enrichment with regard to aircraft
systems/maintenance record entries/etc. I always thought it made more
sense than flunking them and sending them back to their instructor.


"how one deals with professionals" has absolutely no bearing on the
technicalities and legalities of the federally regulated
relationship

between a mechanic and an owner/operator.

How one deals with professionals should always be relevant when
dealing
with professionals. You are correct in stating that in the US, an
A&P
is generally not considered a professional. You seem to think that's
the cause of the lack of professionalism, I would argue that it's the
effect.

"generally not considered" again, is a total non-issue. It would be
difficult, if not impossible to find a definition of
profession/professional that would include the confines of GA
maintenance providers.

In regard to the "cause", it is again irrelevant IMHO, GA maintenance
is for the most part market-driven (admittedly with the FAA in the mix
to make it more complicated). The mechanic "working out of the trunk of
his car"- or the bottom line of a shop invoice-if you prefer, will
always be enough to limit the acceptable market rate for GA shop labor.

This will always be the root cause of the lack of "professionalism" or
the term of your choice when it comes to maintaining your aircraft.

Your point about the federal regulation involved is, however,
well-taken. The regulations are written in such a way that an
owner-operator, who may know little or nothing about maintenance (and
who has not, as a rule, even been taught how to properly read a
maintenance log entry, service bulletin, or AD note as a prerequisite
for ANY grade of certificate) has little of the authority but most of
the responsibility. Thus it can almost always be pinned on the
owner-operator. IMO the regulatory relationship is wrong-headed in
the
way it assigns authority and responsibility, and results in reduced
safety. But then that's par for the course for the FAA.

I'll have to get back to you later on this one, have got an airplane 12
minutes out...

Regards;

TC