Actual Cost Rotax 5 Year Rubber

[Jim Meade]

Roger,

 

You and are are still in disagreement. You are still saying that if in doubt in your own opinion, you want to perform some maintenance. I am saying that there really is not much place for doubt. A maintenance item has to be done by time or by condition and it's pretty easy to tell in either case. The idea that a mechanic should "safe-side" over and above time and condition has the mechanic taking over the owners responsibility for maintenance and that isn't right.

 

As a farmer and previously long haul trucker, I see how other farmers and mechanics view working on very expensive machinery such as combines, semi-tractors and farm tractors. The situation that you find in aviation, where the mechanic ends up using a stick to persuade the owner to do maintenance, is not seen very often at all. Granted the combine will not fall out of the sky when it breaks, it can still cost you critical days and tens of thousands of dollars and the idea that this is not important to an owner is of course silly. So, farmers do care about maintenance. But, they in nearly all cases make the final decisions on questionable repairs. A mechanic who gets the reputation of pushing services not really needed doesn't stay in business long.

 

Most farmers will look at the clutch if one has to pull the engine, as it is easy and cost effective to do so, even if the clutch is performing properly. No farmer will pull an engine just to check a clutch based on XXX hours of operation or years since new.

 

To reiterate, what I like to see in these discussions is a clear statement of what is required by FAA or other regulatory authority as to time of condition and then we can have a discussion of whether or not some persons feel the standards should be exceeded and in what circumstances. As I read these posts, you feel your determination should override the regs in the sense that you want people to perform maintenance either the FAA way your way, whichever is more stringent. As an old, stubborn farmer, I know I can not duck the FAA responsibility for the condition of my aircraft, so I'm not willing to cede it to anyone else.

 

 

[Roger Lee]

Hi Jim,

 

Quote: "You are still saying that if in doubt in your own opinion, you want to perform some maintenance."

I'm saying I will do what's right and what's safe. Yes at times there is some wiggle room and yes at times it can be okay to do it later. Maintenance on any thing is not always clear cut or black and white.

 

The problem is sometimes there is no clear cut answer between the engine , airframe Mfg's and the FAA. Some times one says to do one thing and the other Mfg to do something else. It's up to the owner to know which takes legal precedence. Then there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There is what the Mfg wrote and what they really meant to say. There is translation issues from one language to another. Then there are just interpretations when the wording is a little ambiguous. Now you know why I spend hours (2-6) every single day on the internet researching, talking the Mfg's and participating in the more legal format type forums.

 

I hear what you are saying, that you want a decisive clear cut non disputable answer. There isn't one at times and that goes for the GA sector at times too. That's why the FAA and the Mfgs have lawyers. Is it confusing at times, you bet. The newest LSA category is going through it's growth and with it brings change, interpretation, changes from the Mfg.s and from the FAA every year.

 

So the bottom line is we just do our best day by day and do the right thing for our friends and clients. I won't let my friends (clients) down. I have their back I feel if need be they will have mine one day.

It's not always an easy decision.

[Roger Lee]

One last item from the legal and mechanic's side. The mechanic at the annual condition inspection is supposed to sign off on everything as to whether it will last one year to the next annual. If he sees a tire that will last maybe 50 hrs. and the client is flying 100+ hrs a year technically the mechanic is not supposed to sign that off and should replace the tire so it will last until the next annual condition inspection. That adds another dilemma for the client and mechanic, but technically it is perfectly clear. The mechanic should make the client change the tire whether he wants to or not or not sign off on the annual. This can cause a client / mechanic tug of war. Even when things are clear cut decisions can be hard.

[Tad Olmsted]

I, as an A&P see first hand at what Jim is getting at.

 

It is a slippery slope trying to decipher what is required to be changed and what is not. I want my customers coming back because they got the best service at the best price. However, and most importantly, this is my livelihood. I don't have a farm or another source of income to fall back on in case something happens.

 

If I miss something, and God forbid something happens, I will be found NEGLIGENT !!! And I just don't look good in government stripes.

 

Here is the bottom line guys:

 

Get your work done by a reparable mechanic that won't spend all week doing what guys like Roger and I can do in a day or two. We can R&R an engine and get a superior job done a lot faster than some mechanics who have only done one or two. We can R&R an engine and do a 5 yr rubber replacement faster than if we leave the engine on. Seriously, 6 bolts and the wire harness along with the carb cables, fuel line to the gascolator and the cabin heat tube and that baby is swinging on the hoist. I don't even have to remove the prop or drain the oil or coolant.

 

Finally in closing I will use my super intelligent grammar and leave you with these wise words a farmer told me when I was growing up in rural farm country of southern Illinois....

 

" WHY POKE A SKUNK BOY "

 

Point taken

[Runtoeat]

I have a mechanic who allows me to work with him for my repairs, inspections and adjustments. I am his gopher, phone receptionist, postal carrier and parts chaser, and a 3rd hand when his two hands aren't enough. It amazes me that he earns so little for the years he has spent earning his A&P and for the effort he puts in the jobs each day, many times doing repititious tasks. When the liability he must be held responsible for is included, his charges for his work seem to be very fair. As for the 5 year hose replacement, I didn't feel and my mechanic didn't feel that all of the components requiring change were necessary. Did he fail to do any. No. He followed the written directions from Rotax and FD. He gave me the option to change or not change the engine mounts. It was my call and I elected to change them. Once they were removed, it became apparent this was the correct decision due to their less than optimum condition. I was his 1st customer to do the 5 year. He said that he will consider this when he tallies up the many hours (days!) we spent doing this. I have worked with him before and he will not take advantage of me or overcharge me for his honest work.

 

I have earned my mechanic's respect by spending time with him working thru the ambiguities, mysteries and unknowns involved with the repair and maintenance of my LSA aircraft and he certainly has given me a much broader knowledge of what it takes to be a safe and efficient A&P. As Roger and Tad said, this is not "scripted" work but is an "art". I trust my mechanic, with his years of experience keeping people safely flying, to do what's right. For guys like Jim, I would recommend, if you don't know one already, to find a mechanic who you can work with and jump into the 5 year with him and collaborate with him to get this done. Look at what's being changed, discuss the pros and cons of changing this with the mechanic and get a good understanding of what's being done and why. If you don't agree that a certain part must be changed, you are bound to do this but use your knowledge to come back here to the forum and discuss this with us. We are a large group of LSA owners. It seems to me that LSA aircraft and used GA aircraft are about the only sales being made now days. If it starts to appear that we are being pressed to be parts changers for no other reason than to allow our manufacturer's to sell their products and incur zero liablilty, we need to let the FAA and our manufacturers know that we don't agree with this and work to get changes made in the rules.

[Tom Baker]

One last item from the legal and mechanic's side. The mechanic at the annual condition inspection is supposed to sign off on everything as to whether it will last one year to the next annual. If he sees a tire that will last maybe 50 hrs. and the client is flying 100+ hrs a year technically the mechanic is not supposed to sign that off and should replace the tire so it will last until the next annual condition inspection. That adds another dilemma for the client and mechanic, but technically it is perfectly clear. The mechanic should make the client change the tire whether he wants to or not or not sign off on the annual. This can cause a client / mechanic tug of war. Even when things are clear cut decisions can be hard.

Roger, I don't agree. Tell the customer "your going to need a tire in about 50 hours". With your line of thought if the airplane goes through tires every 50 hours and the customer flies 100 hours a year you can't sign it off because that new tire will not last till the next annual. When you sign off an airplane you are saying it is in a safe condition at this time and date. You have no control over what happens to the airplane in the next week let alone for the next year. Tom

[Tad Olmsted]

I have a mechanic who allows me to work with him for my repairs, inspections and adjustments. I am his gopher, phone receptionist, postal carrier and parts chaser, and a 3rd hand when his two hands aren't enough. It amazes me that he earns so little for the years he has spent earning his A&P and for the effort he puts in the jobs each day, many times doing repititious tasks. When the liability he must be held responsible for is included, his charges for his work seem to be very fair. As for the 5 year hose replacement, I didn't feel and my mechanic didn't feel that all of the components requiring change were necessary. Did he fail to do any. No. He followed the written directions from Rotax and FD. He gave me the option to change or not change the engine mounts. It was my call and I elected to change them. Once they were removed, it became apparent this was the correct decision due to their less than optimum condition. I was his 1st customer to do the 5 year. He said that he will consider this when he tallies up the many hours (days!) we spent doing this. I have worked with him before and he will not take advantage of me or overcharge me for his honest work.

 

I have earned my mechanic's respect by spending time with him working thru the ambiguities, mysteries and unknowns involved with the repair and maintenance of my LSA aircraft and he certainly has given me a much broader knowledge of what it takes to be a safe and efficient A&P. As Roger and Tad said, this is not "scripted" work but is an "art". I trust my mechanic, with his years of experience keeping people safely flying, to do what's right. For guys like Jim, I would recommend, if you don't know one already, to find a mechanic who you can work with and jump into the 5 year with him and collaborate with him to get this done. Look at what's being changed, discuss the pros and cons of changing this with the mechanic and get a good understanding of what's being done and why. If you don't agree that a certain part must be changed, you are bound to do this but use your knowledge to come back here to the forum and discuss this with us. We are a large group of LSA owners. It seems to me that LSA aircraft and used GA aircraft are about the only sales being made now days. If it starts to appear that we are being pressed to be parts changers for no other reason than to allow our manufacturer's to sell their products and incur zero liablilty, we need to let the FAA and our manufacturers know that we don't agree with this and work to get changes made in the rules.

 

As long as the work being done is in direct line of sight and supervised by the mechanic certificated can MX be performed. With the exception of "preventitive MX" spelled out in part 43. Kudos to your mechanic Dick, sounds like a keeper.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Tom,

 

I agree that was a poor example, but the mechanic is signing items off on that annual stating they should be go to go until the next annual and that he found no deficiencies that would keep the owner from getting to the next annual.

The tire issue I used can be a major liability item to the mechanic. Tire wear would be subjective. If the tires are worn there is no way for anyone to say exactly how many hours are left. If you said the owner needed to get new tire at 50 hrs. and he blew a tire in 10 and totaled his plane and the FAA found out and didn't agree with your assessment of the tires you could be in a bad position with them and with the owner if he wanted to take you to task in a suit.

 

If an an airplane goes through tires every 50 hrs then the mechanic didn't do his job to start with because it means the alignment is way out. I have seen this on a few CT's.

 

Quote: "You have no control over what happens to the airplane in the next week let alone for the next year."

Unless you were negligent in your decision at that time in date. A worn tire could fall into that category. Some decisions are subjective and you would have to defend that with the FAA or court. Not a good place to be.

I have spent 30 years in courts and on both sides of the coin. You will be held to a "standard of care" compared to what other mechanics or the factory would have done. If the plaintive brings in a few respected mechanics and they say they would have changed the tire you may have problems.

As a Captain, Paramedic and Hazmat Tech I will always say it's better to error on the side of caution. I have been dealing with and fixing everyone else unsafe practices and problems for those 30 years in the fire department. We wouldn't have all the aircraft incidents each year that are blamed on pilot or mechanic error either if more of them error on the side of caution.

My quote: If you have to think about whether to pass it or fail it you already have your answer.

[Tom Baker]

Hi Tom,

 

I agree that was a poor example, but the mechanic is signing items off on that annual stating they should be go to go until the next annual and that he found no deficiencies that would keep the owner from getting to the next annual.

The tire issue I used can be a major liability item to the mechanic. Tire wear would be subjective. If the tires are worn there is no way for anyone to say exactly how many hours are left. If you said the owner needed to get new tire at 50 hrs. and he blew a tire in 10 and totaled his plane and the FAA found out and didn't agree with your assessment of the tires you could be in a bad position with them and with the owner if he wanted to take you to task in a suit.

 

If an an airplane goes through tires every 50 hrs then the mechanic didn't do his job to start with because it means the alignment is way out. I have seen this on a few CT's.

 

Quote: "You have no control over what happens to the airplane in the next week let alone for the next year."

Unless you were negligent in your decision at that time in date. A worn tire could fall into that category. Some decisions are subjective and you would have to defend that with the FAA or court. Not a good place to be.

I have spent 30 years in courts and on both sides of the coin. You will be held to a "standard of care" compared to what other mechanics or the factory would have done. If the plaintive brings in a few respected mechanics and they say they would have changed the tire you may have problems.

As a Captain, Paramedic and Hazmat Tech I will always say it's better to error on the side of caution. I have been dealing with and fixing everyone else unsafe practices and problems for those 30 years in the fire department. We wouldn't have all the aircraft incidents each year that are blamed on pilot or mechanic error either if more of them error on the side of caution.

My quote: If you have to think about whether to pass it or fail it you already have your answer.

 

Roger, I have no problem with erroring on the side of caution. The point I was trying to make is the airplane has to be airworthy when you sign it off, and not for the next 12 month based on the inspection. The tire was a good choice, because it is not subjective. The MM gives you a minimum tread thickness. If there is more tread than the minimum then it is airworthy. if you have a customer come in with a tire that has only used 25% of its tread, but at the last 2 annuals you replaced the tire. Are you going to replace the tire with 75% of its life left? I don't think I would. Have you ever replaced any nav lights? Would you replace a nav light because you have seen others fail at about the same number of hours? How do you know the nav light will continue to work for the next 12 months? Like I said all you can do is have it airworty when it leaves your shop because you have no control over what happens after that.

[Jim]

My two cents.

 

The FAR's are crystal clear that the owner/operator is primarily responsible for maintaining an aircraft in an airworthy condition. Every pp student is tested on this, usually both on the knowledge test and the oral. The word primarily puts the owner/operator's responsibility above the inspector and this has been borne out by FAA enforcement actions. Must be important to the FAA.

 

The annual inspection certifies that the aircraft is airworthy at the time the inspector signs and dates the logbook. Nothing more. Does the inspector have the ethical responsibility to tell the owner that he will need new tires soon? Of course. Does he have the privilege of withholding his signature because he thinks there's only 6 months of life left in the tires? I don't see any justification in the FARs to do that. Can he put a notation in the log to that effect? Absolutely.

 

I guess that if you are an A&P IA or a LSRM, you have to do what you have to do to sleep nights. I'm ok with that and I think most of your customers are as well. I just think that a glance at the FARs is also useful.

[Tad Olmsted]

My two cents.

 

The FAR's are crystal clear that the owner/operator is primarily responsible for maintaining an aircraft in an airworthy condition. Every pp student is tested on this, usually both on the knowledge test and the oral. The word primarily puts the owner/operator's responsibility above the inspector and this has been borne out by FAA enforcement actions. Must be important to the FAA.

 

The annual inspection certifies that the aircraft is airworthy at the time the inspector signs and dates the logbook. Nothing more. Does the inspector have the ethical responsibility to tell the owner that he will need new tires soon? Of course. Does he have the privilege of withholding his signature because he thinks there's only 6 months of life left in the tires? I don't see any justification in the FARs to do that. Can he put a notation in the log to that effect? Absolutely.

 

I guess that if you are an A&P IA or a LSRM, you have to do what you have to do to sleep nights. I'm ok with that and I think most of your customers are as well. I just think that a glance at the FARs is also useful.

 

Jim,

You are right on the money. If I find something unairworthy it is my duty to inform you. It is written that I found it unairworthy and gave the owner/operator a list of infractions and signed off the logbook as unsatisfactory. A mechanic CANNOT tell you to NOT fly your aircraft, but instead inspect it and report his findings.

I have never had this happen because my customers trust me and when I find something they know I'm not "manufacturing extra work".

[Roger Lee]

Hi Jim,

 

Quote: "I have never had this happen because my customers trust me and when I find something they know I'm not "manufacturing extra work".

I fully agree with this statement, but if I ever found something that made me think it wasn't airworthy and the client didn't want it fixed i wouldn't sign off on the annual. It's my butt on the line too. FAA told me that if something happened and the mechanic failed to fix it regardless of what the owner wants then he better not sign off on the book because if he does and they find out through a report or an incident you are held to a much higher standard than the owner. They told be they would violate the owner because he is ultimately responsible and the mechanic would get touched really hard because he was supposed to know better because of his training.

Quote: "A mechanic CANNOT tell you to NOT fly your aircraft, but instead inspect it and report his findings".

Oh yes he can. He can ground the plane and report the pilot if he flies it either out of annual or out of an airworthy condition. All he has to do is pick up the phone and call the FAA. If he is in the middle of the annual he doesn't have to sign it off and if it's bad enough and the mechanic already has the book the mechanic can enter the problem and that it not be flown until corrected. So the mechanic does have that power, but I would say it is very rarely used.

I had one guy in my life that wanted to negotiate my fee after I did the annual and I had already told him up front beforehand it wasn't negotiable. I had been warned. He didn't want to pay my fee. That really wound my watch! So I took my label back, then he was past due on the annual so he was basically grounded. I told him I would call the FAA if he flew it, plus he was flying on an out dated student license. Something might have finally clicked in his head because he stopped me and pulled out his checkbook. I was at the bank before he ever got home. If the checked had bounced I would have called the FAA on the license and filed a lien on the plane.

[Tad Olmsted]

A mechanic CAN ground an aircraft, but the pilot CAN still fly it. The mechanic does not own the aircraft and he cannot tell the pilot what to do.

I have seen it first hand and the FAA was notified. They were at his place of business the next morning with documents in hand and pulled his ticket.

[Tomasz]

One last item from the legal and mechanic's side. The mechanic at the annual condition inspection is supposed to sign off on everything as to whether it will last one year to the next annual. If he sees a tire that will last maybe 50 hrs. and the client is flying 100+ hrs a year technically the mechanic is not supposed to sign that off and should replace the tire so it will last until the next annual condition inspection. That adds another dilemma for the client and mechanic, but technically it is perfectly clear. The mechanic should make the client change the tire whether he wants to or not or not sign off on the annual. This can cause a client / mechanic tug of war. Even when things are clear cut decisions can be hard.

Sorry to enter discussion like this but this is one of the biggest nonsense I've ever heard. So you are saying that if tire won't last till next annual you won't sign such airplane off? I'm a member of flying club and our airplanes regularly use up to 3 complete sets of tires a year. If my mechanic was following your advise our airplanes would never be airworthy because everybody (including club's BOD, pilots and mechanic) are 100% sure tires won't last till next annual.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Tomasz,

On the second post remember I said that was a poor example. I was typing and not thinking.

[chanik]

For the record, to incriminate Roger further, when he did my annual 2 years ago, he told me the tires would likely not last out another year, but he didn't give me a hard time about signing off the logbook. Sure enough, one blew on landing a few months later. It's really hard to taxi on a flat tire, I would add.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

 

Gee thanks for the help. .

[Jeremy MacGregor]

I get what your saying thou Roger, you want to make sure that a certain Item will make it to the next Inspection, not necessarily the next annual. Obviously if it's an aircraft used for a flight school there going to know how many hours are being put on it a year. Not to mention if they are flying over a 100hrs a year then they should be doing 100hr inspections.

 

If I find any serious issues during an annual inspection I notify the customer, give him a quote on fixing it, at which time if he chooses not to have it fixed I make a note in his logbook and release the plane back to him. The annual may or may not be signed off, if he chooses to fly the aircraft with a known defect that is 100% his responsibility. The FAA only requires mechanics to inspect an aircraft during an annual. You can sign off an annual with defects found but you better make damn sure you list the discrepencys (have the owner sign the list) and clearly state the aircraft is NOT in safe condition for flight and not returned to service.

[Runtoeat]

Roger and Jeremy, just curious, do you loose many customers who are too stupid to listen to you, don't get your log book sign off and go to another A&P who will sign off their books? The next question I have is, have you been involved with any NTSB investigations into crashes that have been caused by improper maintenance?! I have a A&P friend who wouldn't sign off a customer's Bonanza due to a SB on the tail that his customer refused to have done. After a fatal crash involving this aircraft, the NTSB and FAA paid the mechanic a visit. He had good documentation showing that he warned the owner about the aircraft not being airworthy.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Dick,

 

I have never had a client leave, never not signed a logbook, never not been paid, never had an client argument, never lost a client, always give the client the option and they have always chosen the right thing. That in my book makes them all a smart owner. My client base keeps increasing because I'm up front, straight forward, honest about whether it is optional or a requirement, do the extras not on the list and treat their plane like it was my own. I have been ask by Rotax and the NTSB about incidents. The latest one was the CT crash in SC. Even though I posted something about poor clients doesn't mean I have any. For me doing the extra things above what's on the list is what a good mechanic does. I wouldn't trade a single one of my clients / friends and I go out of my way to make sure they are safe.

I don't have a single client that I don't look forward to seeing.

When you have a good mechanic and a good owner they are a team that works towards a final successful and complete means.

[Runtoeat]

Some comments based on my recent 5 year replacement. If a mechanic is doing the job for around $3,000 including parts, this is a good deal. It is ESPECIALLY a good deal if the mechanic has had experience doing this! Based on my particular situation, 4 days @ 8 hrs./day = 32 hours would have been very reasonable. Once into this job, I would almost guarantee that you'll find other things besides the rubber replacement that need some TLC. I found that my airbox flapper pivot needed repair and this was an excellent time to do this. Also had my A&P do some avionics repair while the instrument panel. Better get a duplicate charge card because your old one will be worn out after this!

 

Dick

[opticsguy]

I think I got a pretty decent deal also, but due to a parts shortage (hoses), my plane has been in the shop since before Labor Day, and the prognosis isn't good for next week. It's a good thing I didn't sign up for Page this year, my plane may not be done by then!

[Roger Lee]

What parts do you still need?

[opticsguy]

What parts do you still need?

 

"Carb flanges" Is that like a gasket?

[Roger Lee]

Those are the large rubber sockets that your carbs plug into on the air intake. Try CPS, Leading Edge or Lockwood. If all else fails call Rotec in Canada. I know they will have them.