Aging aircraft

[PilotDAR]

I attended an FAA presentation many years ago in which the issue of aging aircraft was central. I relaxed when the presenter stated that they were not focusing on aircraft lighter than 12,500 pounds - phew, I did not have to worry. That was then, this is now, it's catching up with those of us who own light aircraft. Yes, Cessna has issued their SIDs, as an example, and they're actually pretty realistic in terms of looking for defects which have been found to be problematic over the decades. But, SID compliance is generally not mandatory for most of us.

The aging aircraft issue will still impact us increasingly though, simple age and aircraft condition with use. A quick review of the purchase of manufacturer new parts will show that prices are increasing dramatically. I have first hand experience with a well known GA manufacturer, who's tech rep said to me on the phone (in context with my inquiry): "Sir, that's a 40 year old plane, we haven't seen it in 40 years, and we don't want it in the air any more". Wow, that got my attention! So, it seems that there is less effort than we previously enjoyed in manufacturers trying to keep parts availability and prices optimum for us. Use parts, are... well... used, and off aircraft as old. They may be fine, and probably have been inspected so as to be shown saleable, but there are only so many donor aircraft.

In the last few weeks, I have had a number of unrelated inquiries about the need to repair an aircraft whose XYZ has worn out, and the repair parts are either not available at all, or way expensive. I have, and can innovate repairs for some of these defects, when PMA/PDA parts, or other repair methods are not available. In some cases, the owner, understandably recoils in shock, and just says to the shop, put it back together unrepaired. Well, the defect is not fixed, and if it's an airworthiness issue (as opposed to cosmetic, or non required system), the aircraft has just been reassembled unairworthy - 'you gonna fly it? Indeed, I bought an aircraft (for intended rebuild anyway) with a declared prop strike. The prop had bee repaired, and tagged, but the owner had declined an engine tear down, and crankshaft inspection. I took my chances (after all, the prop had been repairable, how bad could it have been?). I tore the engine down completely. The crank was cracked half way around, and was scrap! 'Lucky I had not flown it home!

The point of all of this is to remind owners that once you take your plane to the shop of your choosing, and an inspection is immanent, it would be wise to familiarize yourself with possible outcomes before you invest in the disassembly for inspection. I would include in this familiarization exercise, understanding what parts will likely be available and price before getting the plane apart. As I write this, I'm thinking that a Piper Cherokee wing inspection requirement may not be too far off - what do you do when it's apart, and there is a need for a new spar?

There will have to be an owner mindset change to accept that there may be an expensive defect found, and simply taking the plane away from the show with an unrepaired defect is not the ultimate solution. It's the owner's duty to understand the possible scope of work and outcomes before getting too far into it, and then making the shop feel badly, because they followed your instructions, conducted an inspection, and found something! You asked them to inspect, what were you thinking they should do if they found the defect?

If you can get suitable airworthy parts (new/used/PMA/PDA/STC) excellent! If not, an approved repair may be possible. To make that more palatable, it would be great if the "type clubs" took more of a role in gathering together their members to collaborate on repair approvals which each could need, and spreading out the cost. I am delighted to say that TC are seeing the increasing need for this, and are cautiously moving to simplify the approval of some such repairs, but baby steps...

In the mean time, get to know the care and feeding of your plane, it is never going to become easier, nor cheaper, and, it's not the maintenance shop's fault that your aircraft had a defect that they found when you asked them to do an inspection....

[photofly]

There is a reason the same SEP airplane can be found for sale between $600k and $45k!

Of course the flip side of this (and there always is one) is shops who unilaterally declare an airworthiness issue when in fact there may not be one, and go ahead with expensive dismantling and/or repairs without consulting the owner.

Pilots having no respect for clear-cut airworthiness issues, and my-way-or-the-highway mechanics who like to play your-plane-in-my-hangar-is-a-blank-cheque sit at two ends of a spectrum.

[PilotDAR]

Pilots having no respect for clear-cut airworthiness issues, and my-way-or-the-highway mechanics who like to play your-plane-in-my-hangar-is-a-blank-cheque sit at two ends of a spectrum.

Very much so! Owners must therefore become their own very well informed Director of Maintenance. 'Doesn't mean their hands have to be greasy about it, but they have to truly understand the decisions they make about maintenance, and the ramifications of declining repairs, or corrective action. An experienced maintenance shop can either quote from knowledge, or produce a fairly accurate quote describing the next step. I've never encountered an aircraft maintenance shop who was unhappy that their client understood what was going on (my experience with car maintainers has been different).

[JasonE]

Having recently sold my airplane, I've been looking at options for replacement. One of the things I am keen to ask sellers is about their maintenance habits and knowledge of the airplane. I am shocked how many owners either do the "minimum" or just let the AME take care of it (i.e. blank cheque). One particular Mooney I looked at had previous annuals ranging from $7000-10,000, and it was still a little rough IMO!

I was quite involved and vigilant about the maintenance of our Cherokee, yet didn't spend a fortune (but enough). We even removed the tanks and did SB1009 although it was not legally required for continuing airworthiness. I think those facts really help in the sale of the airplane. It took less than a week to sell, quicker than I anticipated and we got what we wanted out of it. Now that I've been looking at other airplanes, I somewhat regret selling the Cherokee since I'd already been through everything in the past few years and knew it well. My partner moved, I was looking to upgrade and a proposed A/D adding the wing inspection panels. With the recent spar failure on the Arrow, who knows what they'll cook up now to further the previous proposed A/D. Perhaps back to wing removals (hopefully not!) I can imagine how many "cheap" PA28's there will be out there next year out of inspection.