Owner qualified?

[ruddersup?]

Is the owner of a type certified aircraft allowed (under CAR's) to remove a variable pitch propeller that's due for overhaul? Would this exceed their allowable tasks? Scares the hell out of me, what else does he touch and I'm the bloke who signs the aircraft out. He saved a small fortune taking it off himself, right? Aircraft has a fuel burn of $120/ hr., and it's just a play toy, hmmmm.
Am I over sensitive to the situation? Should I just keep on trucking?

[Colonel Sanders]

Anyone can take a certified airplane apart.

A maintenance release is only required to
put it back together again - and only if you
want to fly it.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[iflyforpie]

Typically when I encounter situations like this where the owner has taken it upon themselves to remove stuff without consulting the AME who will ultimately be signing it out... I charge them for both the removal and installation. You pay me for what I know, not what I do... and I am not assuming liability for something like that without a cushion for an extra careful inspection and the inevitable monkeying around with a prop and spinner that wasn't indexed properly when removed.

I'm not completely unreasonable... but using the logic of simply being able to pull apart and put together an entire aircraft and only requiring a maintenance release at the end of it... AMEs should only be paid for a half hour's work every time they sign out the plane.

[photofly]

You pay me for what I know, not what I do...

As a matter of fact, I'm reasonably certain you want to be paid for what you know or what you do, whichever comes to more money.

Scares the hell out of me, what else does he touch and I'm the bloke who signs the aircraft out.

You don't sign the aircraft "out". You sign a release for the work that you did.

[ruddersup?]

photofly - You do an annual as per CAR 625. Is the aircraft released for flight? Notice I did not say "airworthy".

[Shiny Side Up]

Anyone can take a certified airplane apart.

Some people do this in a more spectacular fashion than others.

[photofly]

There's no "released for flight". An "annual" is just maintenance in order that the requirements of CAR605.86 have been met.

Defects that are discovered but not rectified must be recorded in the journey log. It remains the decision of the operator as to whether the aircraft is airworthy.

The maintenance that you perform or supervise is the maintenance that requires your signature on a release. Nothing more.

I get that you think you're taking the weight of the world on your shoulders by performing "an annual", and that you feel responsible for every aspect of the aircraft. But nobody is asking for that. We want you to inspect the things that need inspecting, give us advice as to what work needs to be done, and then do the work that we ask you to do. We ask that you do those things competently, and sign a release for them once they're done. Then we ask you to charge us appropriately for the work that we asked you to do.

It's not a very complicated relationship.

[iflyforpie]

You pay me for what I know, not what I do...

As a matter of fact, I'm reasonably certain you want to be paid for what you know or what you do, whichever comes to more money.

Yes... that's why the last annual I did... an owner assisted 172 tail dragger... came in at 8 billable hours. The reason it did is because the owner is friendly, not combative; he always pays his bill even though sometimes it is much higher than that; he is proactive about preventative maintenance and often visits my shop several times throughout the year to get things fixed; and he always has his books up to date and his list of ADs figured out.

Like I've said before, private GA ain't about the money. We AMEs need more private maintenance like we need a hole in the head...

Scares the hell out of me, what else does he touch and I'm the bloke who signs the aircraft out.

You don't sign the aircraft "out". You sign a release for the work that you did.

This is correct. If a pilot removes a wing bolt... the release for a prop install does not cover it and the AME has no liability.

In an annual inspection... an AME should be able to detect anything the owner has messed with... like that ugly orange Cardinal out of YYF I worked on years ago where the owner decided to re and re his prop and go flying to 'correct a vibration'.... his lockwire spaghetti was enough to force a confession. He was such a cheapskate... I wonder how much more it cost him to ferry his aircraft to another airport to get maintenance done after we blacklisted him? If anyone was willing to take him?

[DonutHole]

Caught a misrigged cable in a wing. Fixed it. Next annual, cable came back misrigged again...

My fear with private owners is that they will dick with something after I have signed out the M.r.

[photofly]

And what if they do? What exactly are you afraid of?

[Shiny Side Up]

They're worried that they may be blamed for said owner's shoddy work. There's an easy solution these days if you're worried about it: Take pictures. Pixels are cheap.

[SeptRepair]

Of course, but does it really have to come to us photo documenting everything we do just in case an owner fucks with it after the fact? For crying out loud we are all grown men and we are all passionate enough about this industry we shouldn't have to have the cloud of suspicion of each other.

[Colonel Sanders]

Our three weapons are:

Fear
Surprise
Ruthless Efficiency
Fanatical devotion to the Pope

[Shiny Side Up]

That's up to you, I would only advise it if such a thing is keeping you up at night. I know an AME aquaintance of mine does it when something questionable comes into the shop, you might reserve it for special people. That said though, pixels are cheap, I think I paid $5 the other day for a stick that can hold 8 Gigs of space?

Like the cowboys say: trust people, but tie up your own horse. I'm not an AME but I've become aware that my signature, which matters in some cases, has been forged in a number of instances. Now a days to save me some trouble, everytime I sign something, it gets photocopied and kept on file. Makes it a bit easier, since I can't remember everything. A sign of the times.

[CpnCrunch]

I've heard of non-AME owners doing all their own maintenance on their certified planes, and then just getting the AME to check it over and give their signature. Basically the AME is just "supervising" and inspecting the maintenance.

[iflyforpie]

My solution is simple for people who work on their own aircraft and don't record it (which is illegal.... for ANY kind of maintenance including elementary)... I tell them to go to their second favourite AME from now on.

[kamikaze]

So the short answer (in spirit, not in letter) is no, propeller work (of any kind) is NOT elementary maintenance.

An owner should NOT remove it, or re-install it, or anything like that.

Now technically, as others have said, until the plane flies, it doesn't really matter. By the time it flies, someone must have signed for the work and therefore taken responsibility for that work.

That being said, could he have done anything all that terrible that would be undetectable to you?

If you have doubts about the quality of the work from the owner, feel free to turn him away.

Or, maybe decide you're going to have to do some extra work to ensure everything is healthy, on account of him having done it alone ... and charge him for that extra work?

[revr]

I have some aircraft that need to have almost every fastener torque sealed.
others don't need any.
this way I can tell what has been touched.

another issue with owners and pilots tinkering is,
if I have mechanic, ame or apprentice do a job and it gets done correctly, now the owner takes the plane and some time over the summer tinkers with the same part or component that the mechanic did. now it comes back next time and I find that the hardware is installed incorrectly, I look up who did the job last time and they get shit for the incorrectly installed hardware. is that fair?
it would be different if owners and pilots actually put an entry in the log book for stuff they touch but that VERY rarely happens.
I don't care what an owner or pilot does to there aircraft AS LONG AS THEY TAKE THE RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE JOB.
time and time again I have had pilots say "I didn't do that the other pilot re-installed that" yet everyone saw who did it.
removing a prop, that's a little much.

[photofly]

Or, maybe decide you're going to have to do some extra work to ensure everything is healthy, on account of him having done it alone ... and charge him for that extra work?

It's not an AME's role to punish or fine the owner by making up extra work. That's committing a fraud. You are not the guardian of all things airworthy. You do not decide to ensure anything. You do the work you're asked to do by the person paying the bill, and nothing more. No wonder people withhold money.

[iflyforpie]

Nobody is forcing them to pay anything... it's just that will be what is required for a release. That's why I don't put pen to paper until I've got money. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. It isn't fraud if I am doing work that is itemized and required to ensure that my release is for work 'done in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness'. A pilot, who I don't know, who does work that I was not informed about and now wants a maintenance release for said work in order to try and save money isn't going to save anything.


Otherwise... if you aren't going to be legal, why even bother taking it to an AME? Just do your own work... Don't worry, Enforcement is too busy... but just remember your insurance provider probably won't be if it means denying a claim....

[photofly]

Nobody is forcing them to pay anything... it's just that will be what is required for a release. That's why I don't put pen to paper until I've got money.

Hilarious. Talk about holding someone to ransom. But my comments weren't aimed at you. I'm sure you wouldn't "decide" to have to do some extra work. The extra work would either be necessary or not. If it was necessary, you would do it, and charge appropriately. If it wasn't, you wouldn't, and you wouldn't fraudulently load the bill.

A pilot, who I don't know, who does work that I was not informed about and now wants a maintenance release for said work in order to try and save money

That's not the situation. In the OP's case, removing the prop doesn't need a release, and you aren't (he isn't) being asked to provide one for it.

Whether it's to save money, or because the owner has a bolt-loosening fetish, or for any other reason - that's not a proper concern of yours. You're entitled to be paid for the work you do. Not the work you wish the owner would have asked you to do, or the work you feel entitled to be asked to do.

[AirFrame]

AMEs should only be paid for a half hour's work every time they sign out the plane.

That would be awesome! Well, for the owners...

[azimuthaviation]

A maintenance release is only required to
put it back together again - and only if you
want to fly it.

Oh come on, you know better than that.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am with IFP on this one. You want to take off the prop pay the AME to supervise you so you don't screw anything up, and yes it is possible to cause significant damage if you don't know what you are doing.

BTW when a local AMO was audited a few years ago by TC and an entry for a prop change that only referenced installing the prop on an aircraft after it had been overhauled, and not its prior removal was flagged and required a specific CAP. The issue was, I believe that a maintenance action, removal of the prop, was obviously performed as it had to have been removed before it could be overhauled by the prop shop; but had not recorded. This opened up the can of worms of "what other maintenance actions had been performed but not recorded ?"

As an aircraft owner myself I feel the pain when it needs to be fixed, but I also respect the fact that I need to pay for expertise of the AME.

It kind of reminds me of the time a local airplane owner needed an insurance required check out on the Grumman AA1 he had just bought. Since I have 300 hrs on the type he asked if me if I would do it. Like an idiot I never specified what I would charge before I went to him. When I asked for money he said "well you got free flight time ! I did not think I would actually have to pay you !

I replied I am a professional and I don't work for free but since I did not specify an amount prior to the flight I would not press the point. I then went and phoned the insurance company and indicated that I would not accept responsibility for this individual should he chose to use my name to satisfy his requirement for a checkout.

[azimuthaviation]

And just to clarify:

"maintenance" means the overhaul, repair, required inspection or modification of an aeronautical product, or the removal of a component from or its installation on an aeronautical product

So yes, according to CAR's removing a prop constitutes maintenance and requires a maintenance release. Sure anyone can do it, just as anyone can put one back together, but that doesnt mean they can sign it off.

A maintenance release is only required to
put it back together again - and only if you
want to fly it.

A maintenance release is required to maintain the C of A.

A maintenance release is not a flight permit, and is still required if the airplane is not ready to fly. If someone puts a prop on an aircraft before the annual is complete, he still has to sign an MR for installing the prop, even if the aircraft is not yet airworthy. The aircraft doesnt even have to be serviceable. He can put a prop on an aircraft with no tail, he signs that he put the prop on, not that the aircraft is fit and safe for flight, or serviceable, or anything else of the sort.

Look at the maintenance manual on a 737 or a King Air or Super Puma. Theres a procedure for everything, including removing components, installing components, testing components etc. If I remove a component, theres a reference in the MM and an MR required for that job. And a a reference in the MM and an MR required for the installation of that component. That may not be how they do things in Smith Falls, and good for them, they do what works for them, who cares? But the OP asked a question in relation to CAR's, not how hobbyists think it should be done, regardless how many years experience they have.

So for the first question, someone brings you a prop that he removed had overhauled and brings it to you for installation. Ok fine. He takes off the prop, no problem. Prop shop overhauls the prop, makes an MR, records it in the prop manual. His job is done. owner takes it to the AME, AME installs it, signs off that he installed it, puts in the journey log, hes good too. But there is no record or MR of the prop being removed, owner has a problem.