On 14 Feb 2005 12:44:46 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

wrote:
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).

But that IS the choice most owners would make, if it were practical.

And if it were advisable/legal under the CFR-again, no sarcasm
implied-it is clearly the pilot/operator's responsibility.

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.

Well, since flunking them and sending them back to their instructor is
the only official FAA policy, and providing any instruction at all as
part of the checkride is specifically contrary to FAA policy, I find
that I can easily agree with you. It's not that the FAA is always
wrong (that would at least give it the virtue of consistency) but I
find that when in doubt, it's safest to assume it is.

I always figured it was a "gray area". He wasn't technically providing
any instruction, I was. Have had a lot of bad habits, but being a CFI,
has never been one of 'em, so was it really even "instruction" at
all...

"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.

Depends which one. I know at least one in my local area that operated
quite professionally. What's more, despite being very expensive (a
typical annual on a well-maintained complex high performance single
with normal minor repairs and routine maintenance tended to run about
$5000) the shop was always backlogged. But when the owner (who was NOT
a mechanic and never turned a wrench) died suddenly, the head mechanic
(who inherited the property free and clear) could not make a go of it.

Below.

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).

I disagree. I would say it is primarily FAA-driven. I suspect most
A&P's working on owner-flown aircraft would go under without the FAA to
prop them up. Further, the ones that would stay in business would NOT
be the low-cost providers.

Not sure what your exact viewpoint/experience level is. Pretending for
a moment that I am a licensed mechanic/inspector, instead of an
anonymous Usenet pain-in-the-ass, assume that I also managed a small
maintenance facility affiliated with a PT 135 operation that provided
rental aircraft and flight instruction.

Let's go really out on a limb and assume that I've been ultimately
responsible for well over 1000 mandated periodic GA inspections, not
to mention day-to-day repairs. Pretend that the PT 135 operation was
successful (and profitable) and for the most part subsidized the
day-to-day customer maintenance operations-and vice-versa.

Let me put it another way, it helped justify the purchase of special
tooling, absolutely mandated the proper maintenance
publications/subsriptions/revisions, allowed hiring additional
personnel, the building of additional hangar space, and also
allowed/required an extensive "working" inventory.

As you can imagine, this also helped keep customer prices relatively
low, while still allowing for a profit.

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.

The reason the mechanic working out of the trunk of his car is even a
factor for the operator of a full-time professional operation is purely
the result of the FAA. Is the BMW dealer (or even the Honda dealer)
worried about the shade tree mechanic down the road? Is he a factor in
the way the dealer sets his rates? Of course not. But you're worried
about the guy working out of the back of his truck. Why?

I don't remember being "worried" about anybody. In purportedly just
under 11 years at the last facility, we probably had about 2 1/2
months of what I would consider down-time. The rest of the time I was
working 10-12 hour days, of which if I was lucky 6-7 would be directly
"billable" hours. The remainder was spent putting out fires and
glad-handing customers. Never spent a dime on advertising.

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".

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.

It's because the FAA not only mandates an annual inspection, but also
mandates it be performed by someone they bless. Then, instead of
making the skill and knowledge requirements stringent to assure skill
and knowledge, the FAA simply puts up hoops to jump through. Any
honest A&P will tell you that the hardest part of getting the
certificate is either ponying up the bucks for an approved school or
getting some bureaucrat to sign off on your experience. Once that's
done, the written, oral, and practical tests are a total cakewalk. But
the average owner has no clue. He assumes that if the guy has the
certificate, he must know something - so he shops on price alone.

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.

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. But quite frankly, dealing with the majority of
nitwits (quite a few of which were write-me-a-blank-check nitwits)
drove me out of the business.

Let's also imagine that I've never had the pleasure of "repair
station" rules, and have signed my name to more sets of maintenance
records than I care to think about. And also bear in mind that
individual liability insurance is not available-at any price.

Marketing yourself is never easy, but the FAA makes it a lot harder by
having these supposed 'standards.'

After leaving GA several years ago, imagine my dismay at being treated
in the same manner that you personally have witnessed in GA
maintenance. Only in my case, now it is at major maintenance
facilities that have been repeatedly nationally ranked in
business/corporate aviation maintenance with regard to customer
satisfaction/service. That's what I call "marketing".

After 15 years of allegedly dealing with Airworthiness & Operations
Inspectors on a quite regular basis, I find myself educating the QA
director in one of these facilites on what I would consider to be
FAR/CFR 101. We won't even talk about billing matters, I come to
Usenet for fun, not to get all ****ed off.

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.

Regards;

TC