Major Impact On IA's

[Rod]

This may have a very negative impact on many aircraft owners.

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=3 ... dium=email

This is the comment area for the Notice of Proposed Policy FAA-2010-1060

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... -2010-1060

Of course the policy change will not apply to ASI’s employed by the FAA because the FAA intends to create a “carve out” for them. Once again your government and the FAA making things better and safer for everyone.

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Rod -

PAMA has replied already with a good, well thought out comment.

I understand what FAA is trying to do - slowly eliminate the shade tree IA who operates from the bed of a pickup, trunk of a car, etc.

In my law practice, I see the results of some of the work done by some of the shade tree types. Right now I'm involved in a case, defending the estate of a deceased aircraft owner from a suit filed by the estate of the other person on board, after a shade tree annual. The part time IA missed a huge hole in the exhaust system which led to a fire that killed both occupants of the airplane.

Could this have been missed by a full timer working in a normal shop? Sure, anyone can make a mistake.

But I can tell you after 45 years of flying, and 35 years in the aviation law business (defense side) that my airplanes get inspected and fixed by a real shop with full time people.

Also, it's usually the part time shade tree guy who has no insurance to cover the results of a mistake.

[MikeB]

While I can certainly see where the FAA is coming from I often wonder what's so different about the aircraft industry as opposed to others, for example the trucking industry where I came from. I used to hold all the ASE certifications including DOT vehicle inspection and, in fact, taught it for a number of years at the community college. When I retired and long before I reached my present age (71) I decided it wasn't worth it to keep the certifications up. However, I'm quite sure I could still perform a DOT vehicle inspection to specs. It does seem to me that this will knock some competent IA mechanics out of the business. For example, would you rather have Bill Pancake (age 70) or some 22 year old kid, whose training and background is in spam cans inspecting your Aeronca? Seems to me there has to be some common sense. Obviously, as Jerry stated, insurance is an issue.

I'm posting this mostly for the sake of discussion for whatever it's worth.

MikeB

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Mike -

Of course, the obvious answer to your post is that if you screw up a vehicle inspection, odds are that something missed isn't life threatening. Sure, brake failure on an 18 wheeler could cause a horrific crash, but still the same, we all have to admit that aircraft maint. is generally more critical than motor vehicle maint. in terms of the potential for disaster.

Something else I forgot to say in my earlier post - the "bed of the pickup or trunk of the car" part-timers generally, if they operate just by themselves, almost never have up to date libraries. They just can't afford the factory maint. manuals for a couple of dozen or more different airplanes. The guy in the legal case I mentioned had no manuals at all - he depends upon the owner to supply, and if the owner doesn't have a manual, this mechanic just wings it. His self made 13 item annual inspection checklist was the same for a Cessna 150 as for a Malibu - a single engine airplane is a single engine airplane, right?

He also didn't have his torque wrenchs calibrated in about a decade. These are just a couple of things my experience in defending accident cases for 30+ years have shown me.

A good shop won't be turning a 22 year old loose on your airplane by himself - I'm not plugging my FBO, but my chief of maint. is 62 years old, and is also a 20,000 hour ATP and CFII pilot. Sure, we have a 19 year old apprentice, but she (yes, SHE) doesn't even put air in tires without direct, eyes on supervision by someone licensed.

I have no problem with part-time work. Heck, I guess I'm a part-time CFI. But when it comes to maint., I want a guy (or now I should also say gal) who has the facilities, books, tools, and experience working on my airplanes, regardless of how many hours per week he/she works. Those things are all too seldom possessed by the self employed part-timer.

Sorry to go on so long.

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Mike -

More thoughts keep coming to mind.

While it should not be a consideration in legal rule making, from a practical, business point of view, the pickup truck IA undercuts the price of real shops far too much.

In our shop, we spend about $10,000 a year for our manuals, SBs, and AD library.

We spend at least that amount again for insurance.

We spend twice that for health insurance for our employees. I firmly believe in taking care of our people - they are our greatest asset.

So, do you really want to support a real shop? I guess that's the question that every airplane owner has to ask himself. Real shops have to charge a fee that recoups these overhead items that the pickup truck guy doesn't have.

And naturally, there will always be exceptions to any general rule of thumb, and Mr. Pancake is certainly that exception.

[MikeB]

.Jerry,
Understand exactly where you're coming from. As I said, I posted my reply mostly for the purpose of discussion. I'm sure there are lots of opinions on both sides of the issue. My concern is mostly on the basis of older 'tube and fabric' aircraft. I'm pretty sure if I took a Champ/Chief/Taylorcraft up the road to our local full service FBO they wouldn't have a clue on how to perform a proper inspecion on a 60+ year old fabric aircraft with wooden spars and no starter. They'd probably faint when they say the laminated spars .I could be wrong but I think they'd be learning on my dime. Your place sounds like it is the exception.

Mike

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Mike -

Yes, we are the exception. In the shop in the last week was one T-craft for annual, one Cessna 421 for annual, and the typically bevvy of Cherokees and single engine Cessnas.

My maint. chief and I are just kindred spirits - we both love old airplanes - as I said, he owns two T-crafts. He also owns a Dart project and a beautifully restored Rearwin. Just don't get him started talking about how great Beech 18s are, unless you have a couple of hours - he's got over 4500 hours in those. He also has about 1500 hours in Ford Trimotors.

So, yes, we're probably a pretty unique place.

[Paul Agaliotis]

The problem with the clarification is that it puts the responsibility in the hands of the ASI. I don't think this is right, you have a beef with the local FSDO and when it's time to renew you deal with the same guy.
One cute little aspect of the proposal is to exempt the ASI from the renewal process. If there is anyone that is not "actively involved in the maintenance of aircraft" it's the ASI. Perhaps we need to return to the old method and let the FAA handle the Annual inspections. That would really simplify the renewal process.
Annual inspections are just what they imply, they are inspections. They are not maintenance opportunities or any thing else, just a snapshot in time. If an aircraft meets type design it's considered airworthy. If a component fails 1hr later it doesn't mean the the inspection was done improperly. That is for the ambulance chasing lawyers to decide. Even when it's clearly the fault of the pilot(Cessna seat rail) there is still big money in airplane crashes. You run one out of gas and it's the fault of the manufacturer. This is only one of the reasons all of you Aeronca people find it tough to get your plane worked on.
Paul

[bubbagump]

Good thread. I would only add that, fortunately, we have a member that represents the non-ambulance chasing lawyer’s guild

[SFC Hiatt]

Wow, I have read this thread three times and each time I come to the same conclusion. I won't be in aviation long. Reality is, the rate we are going, I simply won't be able to afford to pay the big time mechanics in 5-10 years. I don't mean to lessen the loss of the passengers’ life, but to punish the masses over one horrible event is simply going to push out the little guys like me who fly just for fun.

It sure was fun while it lasted.

Chris

[joea]

Wow, I have read this thread three times and each time I come to the same conclusion. I won't be in aviation long. Reality is, the rate we are going, I simply won't be able to afford to pay the big time mechanics in 5-10 years. I don't mean to lessen the loss of the passengers’ life, but to punish the masses over one horrible event is simply going to push out the little guys like me who fly just for fun.

It sure was fun while it lasted.

Chris

Chris,

Not to worry just yet. The "fat lady" has not sung so far and many of us have not given up...

joe A

[Carl Prather]

This proposal is misguided and will not promote safety. If the FAA had the data regarding safety, they would have presented the information by now. I use an IA for what he knows, not what he owns. As I mentioned in the F-AA list, the old guy in the bib overalls and a can of tobacco in his rear pocket will have forgotten more about fixing airplanes than any ten of us would ever know. I will gladly share a shade tree with such an individual.

We already have a problem with having enough appropriate flight instructors to teach in our old airplanes. This proposal is calling an end to the part time IA and handing the FBO a shared monopoly.

If you think flying is expensive now just do nothing, don't express your concerns and more and more owners will give up flying due to excessive and needless costs that do nothing to enhance safety.

Carl Prather

[Rod]

Depending on how it plays out this could be a calamity in the making.
About 10 years ago I heard third person from a trusted source that the FAA feels there are way too many IA's and that they want to get rid of a lot of them.
I do not believe the FAA can be trusted to not interpret "actively engaged" in the most severe and draconian manner.
Look folks, this has the potential to bring major repairs, major alterations and annuals on your vintage aircraft to a sudden halt.

BTW: World War II was won with maintenance out of “the back of a truck”.

BTW: Follow the money.

[bwmatz]

From an article on the EAA website, according to Murray Huling, FAA’s Manager of Flight Standards Service - General Aviation & Avionics Branch, AFS-350, the eligibility will be determined based on one of 5 criteria from CFR 65.93(a) See the article at http://www.eaa.org/warbirdsbriefing/art ... ection.asp

[Larry]

First let me confess up front....I'm one of the "tailgate mechanics" that has been doing "Owner Assisted" annual inspections for over 20 years. I retired to the northeast corner of Arizona where we have about 250 registered aircraft and only 6 I.A. holders. Of those six, three work for commercial operators, one has his own shop, and two of us travel around the 20,000 square miles to inspect aircraft, some at private strips on ranches.

Most of the aircraft that I annual are "classics", many with fabric covering that were built more than 50 years ago. An "Owner Assisted" annual inspection takes several days, sometimes spread over a few weeks if the owner needs to order parts. The goal is let the owner do as much as possible and buy the parts, to keep the overall cost lower. If the owner was forced to take their airplane to a FBO or big shop, they would probably sell the plane and give up flying.

Here are a couple of "horror stories" about annuals:

A good friend that owns a Cessna 195 had an annual done at a major midwest shop about a decade ago...cost him over $10k for an annual....and he had to fix a bunch of mis-rigging they did when they re-installed his tailwheel that they "didn't like" how it looked....had no data saying what was acceptable wear limits...but just called it unairworthy and he got to pay for their opinion. Also, they declared his oil temp guage "illegal" and made him put in a digital temp guage that was STC'd for the C-195....another $700 to fix something that wasn't broke.

I saw a shop in the Phoenix area charge a Cherokee owner 4 hours of shop time to vacuum the rear seat floor during his $7,000 annual.

Last year I inspected a Cessna 210 that had flown only 3 hours since a $17,000 annual by a small shop in Phoenix. The engine would not start, because the spark plugs were worn out and the ignition harness had broken wires. All the engine shock mounts were cracked and broken and one prop blade had damage that required the prop shop to scrap the blade.

And one Aeronca Chief owner told me that one of the big shops refused to annual his airplane because they did not have a fabric punch tester. He explained that his airplane was covered with Poly-Fiber and that a fabric punch tester is not an FAA approved method to test fabric. They stared at him with that "deer in the headlights" look of disbelief.

Bottom line is this...GA will suffer and many older airplanes will be parked if this FAA proposal is approved. Light Sport will suffer the most with the loss of many Aeronca / Cub / T-craft airplanes that can't afford the big shop rates.

Larry Clark
ATP/A&P/I.A.