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

It would be interesting to hear the mechanic's point of view. It
could easily
have just been a misunderstanding, especially if the owner didn't
provide a
written list.

Well, after he gets done settling the current lawsuit against him (like
he had to settle the last one) I'll ask him about his point of view.

Michael

Michael wrote:

My friend sold the Cardinal and bought a Bonanza. He won't let the
same A&P/IA work on it anymore, and has begun to do much of his own
work, having learned that you can't trust a shop. He has had years of
incident-free flying. It's a MAJOR challenge to get his wife into the
airplane.

I've blacklisted mechanics as well. I've not had to blacklist a plane
(although I almost bought a fixed gear Cardinal once, the school I learned
to fly had two RG's and I knew all about their "sudden loss of hydraulic
fluid" problems. Both had been geared up at least once as a result.).

Oddly enough, the first time I took Margy flying, we hit a bird and punched
a hole in the wing from the leading edge back to the spar. She was acutally
MORE confident about flying in small planes after that.

Oddly enough, the first time I took Margy flying, we hit a bird and
punched
a hole in the wing from the leading edge back to the spar. She was
acutally
MORE confident about flying in small planes after that.

Yeah, well, she married *you* didn't she?

What's that say about her judgment?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 10 Feb 2005 14:41:53 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

snip

He said nothing. He didn't log the work as having been done, and he
didn't charge for it. Had my friend gone through the paperwork line by
line, he would have figured out that the hoses were not replaced. Of
course there was no requirement to replace them. It's perfectly legal
to fly around with 25 year old flexible hydraulic lines.
snip

Yeah, sure. No matter what, you can make it the pilot's fault.
Personally, I think that if you instruct the mechanic to do something
at annual, he agrees to do it, and never mentions it again, you should
be able to trust that it got done. That's how one deals with
professionals.

Of course you can pretty reasonably argue that an A&P mechanic is NOT a
professional and should not be treated like one.

I've read quite a few of your posts here in the 'groups, and for the
most part have quite a bit of respect for your viewpoint and opinions.
But this one rubs me the wrong way.

"He said nothing" "had my friend gone through the paperwork line by
line" "No matter what, you can make it the pilot's fault." Reminds me
of my kids when they tell me "whatever".

Despite your opinion on the matter, and no sarcasm intended, it IS the
operator/owner's responsibility to go through the paperwork line by
line prior to intended flight, and it is an important responsibility.

Perhaps that's why every customer airplane that I allegedly approved
for return to service after inspection was delivered with a
line-by-line run-through of each and every maintenance record entry
and signature.

Perhaps 1 out of 20 customers would even pretend to pay attention when
this was taking place. Not to mention some of looks I got when I
offered the use of the maintenance hangar for pre-flight before
pulling it outside. "Why do I have to look at it if you just got done
inspecting it?"

There is no need for a "reasonable" argument, in the US an A&P
mechanic (with or without an Inspection Authorization) is not
considered "professional" labor.

"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.

It positively tickles the living **** out of me to hear owners
carrying on about the average skill level of GA technicians. Sadly,
I'm afraid most of them wouldn't be amused if I started relating my
experiences with the average GA aircraft owner/pilot.

I've got a feeling that you might get a kick out of it though...

TC

wrote in message ...
On 10 Feb 2005 14:41:53 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

snip
. Sadly,
I'm afraid most of them wouldn't be amused if I started relating my
experiences with the average GA aircraft owner/pilot.

I've got a feeling that you might get a kick out of it though...

TC


Sounds like a great new thread...how about it?

Perhaps that's why every customer airplane that I allegedly approved
for return to service after inspection was delivered with a
line-by-line run-through of each and every maintenance record entry
and signature.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Michael

I'm afraid most of them wouldn't be amused if I started relating my
experiences with the average GA aircraft owner/pilot.

I've got a feeling that you might get a kick out of it though...

Sounds like a great new thread...how about it?

I'll "Second" that motion. C'mon, TC -- let's hear some "stupid owner
stories"!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Michael

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