Owner qualified?

[Heliian]

As long as you removed the prop using a current manual and proper tools and capped any openings and made an entry stating such and updated the component history, I don't see any problem.

[azimuthaviation]

As long as you removed the prop using a current manual and proper tools and capped any openings and made an entry stating such and updated the component history, I don't see any problem.

Neither do I. If the prop was on your boat.

[photofly]

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.

Right. If anyone has a problem, it's the owner, not the AME. It's the owner's aircraft! Not the AME's!

[azimuthaviation]

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.

Right. If anyone has a problem, it's the owner, not the AME. It's the owner's aircraft! Not the AME's!

Yes, thats what I just said. I was speaking English, no need to translate.

[photofly]

I was - perhaps needlessly - emphasizing the point that you made - for the interest of others, who imagine that as soon as their pen touches paper a horde of litigious widows will appear, lawsuits in hand, and reduce them penury.

[KISS_MY_TCAS]

I have learned to dismiss photofly's posts as another know-nothing-know-it-all. Just another pilot that thinks he is getting screwed over every time someone tries to cover their own hide, his earlier post in this thread proves. I once hangared 2 photo company C152s free of charge because the square footage existed and a stoerm blew in quick and we had the only space available. Didn't inconvenience us, and the little birds didn't interfere with our operation, it was done as a gentlemanly gesture after having done some routine work earlier that day on the fleet. Then the bill was disputed after the hangerage wasn't billed after the storm passed, and I learned my lesson. My structures department could have had a lot more work, and employer more income. Give nobody in aviation an inch, or they will try to take a foot. Especially the picture snappers.

[photofly]

Just for your information, I've never failed to pay a bill on time, and in full, without dispute. Sometimes I manage a smile and a thank you to the AME, too.

Cover your hide all you want; I don't share your insecurities.

Give nobody in aviation an inch, or they will try to take a foot

Or your bitterness, either.

[Posthumane]

Others have pointed out that an owner doing something like removing a prop without an AME's knowledge/permission is not legal as a maintenance release is required for removal, which the owner cannot sign off on.

However, a slightly different situation, what if the owner came to you and told you that his prop needs to come off for overhaul, and asked you if you were okay with him doing it - would you say yes? In that case, is an owner doing the physical work under guidance of an AME any different than an apprentice doing the physical work under the guidance of an AME? Would it make a difference if the owner had been present when you removed the prop last time and you were able to point out any gotchas in the process? This is a genuine question as I'm curious how various AMEs feel about the subject - how do you feel about an aircraft owner learning to do the work by "apprenticing" under you on their own aircraft?

[kamikaze]

"Nobody is forcing them to pay anything... it's just that will be what is required for a release."

That was the point of my post. If someone did something that leaves you with doubts, they you, the AME, should feel free to do whatever work is required to remove said doubt, in order to gain the comfort you need to ensure everything you put back together and sign off on meets either the regulatory standards, or your own (which ever is highest .

Since then, someone has pointed out that according to the CARs, the removal of something is indeed "maintenance", and therefore the removal itself would require a release, which only re-inforces my previous statement that NO, he should not have removed the prop, both as a matter of legality and common sense, and therefore any AME confronted with this situation should do whatever work is necessary to restore full confidence that is well with the system in question.

Another thought: If an AME becomes aware of "illegal" maintenance done on an aircraft, is he/she required by some rule or law, to disclose it somehow? Or more generally, what does one do in that situation? Because that's essentially what happened to the OP ... ooops, illegal work has been done ... do the regs say anything about how to remediate this situation? I bet there might be something along those lines ... a full inspection must be conducted to restore certification, etc. etc. ?

[PilotDAR]

A while back, the wording required by TC for a maintenance release changed from the phrase "the aircraft is airworthy" to "the work described has been done in accordance with [the required instructions/procedures etc.]. This was to correctly address AME concerns that they should not have to declare the entire aircraft airworthy, after they just did work on a part of the plane. If the work was an annual/100 hour inspection, then the reference would be the inspection checklist, which would cover the entire plane.

Yes, there may be procedures for removing parts, and yes, one can certainly do damage, or cause injury doing it wrong. The only time I am aware that a "maintenance release" is required for removal, is then reinstallation of that part on the aircraft from which it was removed, is not intended, and you want to maintain the airworthiness of the part (green tag). You can certainly make a logbook entry saying you removed a part if you like, but I think that anyone is going to figure out that if an AME has made an entry for the installation of a propeller, which itself was accompanied by the appropriate maintenance release for repair/overhaul, that the propeller had been removed from that aircraft.

There is a list of people who may make a maintenance release under certain circumstances. There is a requirement that a maintenance release be made for maintenance accomplished before the aircraft is flown. If a pilot flies an aircraft without a maintenance release for work accomplished, they are in trouble. It is up to the pilot to assure that the aircraft is airworthy, and there are maintenance releases for work accomplished before they fly. If an AME is not satisfied about conduct of work on the aircraft for which they are being asked to sign, they should investigate (inspect) to their satisfaction, or decline to sign.

Would pilots out there sign a journey log entry for a flight they did not fly? I sure would not! Why would a pilot/owner expect that an AME would be willing to sign for maintenance (including removal of something) that they did not preform or witness to their satisfaction?

[SeptRepair]

This is a genuine question as I'm curious how various AMEs feel about the subject - how do you feel about an aircraft owner learning to do the work by "apprenticing" under you on their own aircraft?

To be honest, for me it varies. I think to myself sure come help and I will show you a couple things. But without fail, I am always questioned on my techniques or "why cant we do it this way" or "why can i not use this Robertson screw on the inspection panel, its just a screw". It gets to the point that in reality they dont want to learn, they want to do things their own way and have you sign for it regardless if it goes against your better judgement. So I wouldn't call it an apprenticeship, as an apprentice goes to school and learns the basics and with hands on time eventually learns the trade. These are my observations over the last 25 years and I have yet to ever find that perfect customer who really does want to learn. What they really want is a reduction on labour rates, and hide their motives by saying they want to "learn" about their aircraft. Not saying you Posthumane, but in general this is what I have observed.

[iflyforpie]

Just for your information, I've never failed to pay a bill on time, and in full, without dispute. Sometimes I manage a smile and a thank you to the AME, too.

So in other words... like lots of your posts on here... they are based on what you read and conjecture from lots of other people who probably range from chronic complainers to outright liars... with no real personal experience on your part.

My position comes from one of personal experience. I, personally, have been swindled out of labour and a maintenance release. There is a Mooney on the field at YYF that has an alternator thanks to yours truly... because I went on faith that I was going to get paid for it. Now it is payment before any signature that would release an airworthy aircraft.

I have been on the receiving end of customers who managed to get me to fix a problem I never even caused because I wasn't diligent enough at recording problems before working on the aircraft.... now I personally run up every aircraft I work on, and with detail and even photos document exactly what the plane was doing before I crack even a single screw on it.

My actions have resulted in lawyers going after the company I work for on several occasions... once because of something that was my fault, another time because of another he-said, she-said bill where the work was verbally authorized but not signed by the owner. I have every reason to be leery, cynical, and diligent when dealing with private owners.

I've also had to eat the costs of parts customers ordered but decided they didn't need, and been left to deal with junk that owners simply walked away from because of outstanding bills that were completely honest and even lean in their tallying.

I've been called a thief--by a good Christian man no less--because the job of repairing a Maule in YYF that the owner had ground looped was taking too long, and that it was to our advantage to keep him down because this guy was our competitor... even though he did most of the work on it including a fabric job that a Kindergarten teacher would reject for how messy it was. He is dead now, thankfully because of his own fault and not the aircraft's.

Another example of a pilot who did his own maintenance on his aircraft--another good Christian man too. He, of course, was another cheapskate who thought that 20 hours for a 40 year old retractable single was too much for an annual inspection. Piper Arrow based at CFX2... maybe SSU knows the guy who used to own it. Anyways, I did the inspection the year previously, the trim jack was beyond limits. Wrote in the book.. ''owner advised to replace trim jack". So the smart ass interpreted that as 'he' should replace it, literally. Anyways, he comes up to me proudly and smugly and says he replaced it. I was floored. Because I had written it down in the book as outstanding, and because there was no documentation of it being done, I was going to be on the hook if something went wrong after removing it from my next release. So I told him of all of the federal laws that he violated, undocumented maintenance, no maintenance release, undocumented parts, no dual inspection... and that he had a choice. I could either stop the inspection right now and get Enforcement on the phone... or he could pay me to take the entire system apart and put it back together again. Guess which one he chose? Yeah... there wasn't too much I could find wrong other than he used automotive grease instead of aviation moly grease... but trim jacks are a pretty minor thing--especially on a movable stabilizer....

So I hope that this gives you a little idea of where I and a lot of AMEs come from regarding private maintenance. Working to rule... it could be a lot more expensive than it actually is. If we were working for money... well, me personally I'd be doing M2 contract maintenance work for $10-15K a month cash rather than the wages and bonuses (I was refusing way too much outside work without a bonus... every man has his price I guess) I get working on light tin.


On another note:

However, a slightly different situation, what if the owner came to you and told you that his prop needs to come off for overhaul, and asked you if you were okay with him doing it - would you say yes? In that case, is an owner doing the physical work under guidance of an AME any different than an apprentice doing the physical work under the guidance of an AME? Would it make a difference if the owner had been present when you removed the prop last time and you were able to point out any gotchas in the process? This is a genuine question as I'm curious how various AMEs feel about the subject - how do you feel about an aircraft owner learning to do the work by "apprenticing" under you on their own aircraft?

Yes, you get it! This, I am totally fine with.... provided you aren't all thumbs when I see you work, I can show you the gotchas and even some tips and tricks to make it easier to re-install, I still get some money for the release and the documenting of the component times and tags. Lots of times... we AMEs hate dealing with stuff--particularly if we don't have an apprentice bitch do deal with the niggly stuff like packaging it up or making a prop-box and dealing with freighting it.

Basically, pilots should consider AMEs like the girls they went after in school or college. We have what you want. If you try to force us to do anything, we won't play. If you butter us up, compliment us, treat us nice, spend a little bit of money up front... chances are it's going to be more enjoyable for both of us. If you play it right... it might not cost you anything other than a few beers and good company for minor stuff.

But stay away from the whores.



On yet another note:

There are AMEs who are out to swindle you. I am not defending them or endorsing what they do in any way, nor denying that they exist or saying that pilots and owners don't need to be vigilant in their dealings with them.

Another personal experience... again from YYF (god that was a dysfunctional airport). Turbo Arrow IV. That thing went through jugs faster than they used 88mm shells at Stalingrad. TSIO-360 with fixed wastegates and a private owner.... a lawyer who never complained about his bill and paid on time... a dream customer.

Anyways... a guy I used to work for there set up his own private shop and took this guy in. Did the annual and surprise surprise... it needed a top-overhaul. Great, order the jugs, put them on. Well, this lawyer decides that while the bills aren't too bad, the downtime is... so he goes shopping on Barnstormers for some used jugs he can have on-hand. Guess who was selling a nice set of used, green tagged jugs for his specific engine in the same town he was in?

That makes my blood boil just as much as cheapskate owners, my friends.

[photofly]

Just for your information, I've never failed to pay a bill on time, and in full, without dispute. Sometimes I manage a smile and a thank you to the AME, too.

So in other words... like lots of your posts on here... they are based on what you read and conjecture from lots of other people who probably range from chronic complainers to outright liars... with no real personal experience on your part.

Sorry, can't let that pass.

Everything I've written is 100% based on personal experience of some negligent and overcharging AMEs, as well as some good ones. My point is that even when I've been grossly overcharged I still smile, pay the bill in full, and move on. It's all a learning experience.

Oh, except the time I had to have another AME fix the defective work of another; then I paid the bill in full, took the airplane, and threatened legal action to the value of the remedial work. For which I also paid in full. I received a cheque from the first AME within a week.

The good ones - the ones I revisit, and to whom I refer work- perhaps coincidentally, have been the ones happy to have me in the hangar helping out. The awful ones are the ones who've said they prefer to work at their own pace, to their own agenda, and don't want to see or hear from me until the vast bill is ready. Seems to be a connection in my mind.

I know you don't believe me, but I do stick to posting from my experiences. Throughout.

[Shiny Side Up]

At the end of it all, AMEs are just like any other group of human beings. Some winners, some losers. I know it probably doesn't help anyone's feelings, but one might notice that the forum is equally uncharitable with regards to the abilities of pilots or anyone else involved in this aviation thing.

The good ones - the ones I revisit, and to whom I refer work- perhaps coincidentally, have been the ones happy to have me in the hangar helping out. The awful ones are the ones who've said they prefer to work at their own pace, to their own agenda, and don't want to see or hear from me until the vast bill is ready. Seems to be a connection in my mind.

This has largely been my experience too. There's guys you find you can work with, and guys who you can't. Not all of us people who want maintenance done are bad either, though I know there are some a$$holes who are difficult about the process too.

There's three guys (shops) locally I reccomend people go to. Depending largely on what you might want done, and your timeframe. There's an equal number I would tell people to stay away from. That said though, I also try not to send difficult owners to the maintenance shops I like. There's somewhat of a shortage of guys who work on little airplanes and I don't want those resources to be used up.

[PilotDAR]

Basically, pilots should consider AMEs like the girls they went after in school or college. We have what you want. If you try to force us to do anything, we won't play. If you butter us up, compliment us, treat us nice, spend a little bit of money up front... chances are it's going to be more enjoyable for both of us. If you play it right... it might not cost you anything other than a few beers and good company for minor stuff.

But stay away from the whores.

Awesome!

[DonutHole]

I don't get the adversarial relationship.

I personally have had a few customers I've lost over the years, due to my choice. I've never had a blowout and I've never had to ransom a maint. release. Mostly because I communicate my findings.

Let's face it, so much of this tin bugshmasher bullshit is subjective. You guys pay us to make calls on what is safe and what is not. That is the call we make, if you want to fix it, that is a call you make. I won't sign out anything unsafe, nor will I do favors by hiding snags by not recording them. If an owner wants to fly a plane with outstanding defects, that is his choice.

When you take a prop off it has to be logged, and yes, it does require a signature, at least one, when the maintenance action is taken. The tech log for the prop, the journey and the airframe. There are time issues associated with WHEN those signatures are to be put in the book and which books require that signature. Anybody can transpose the entries in the journey and airframe, if properly noted, but the journey log entry requires a signature by the AME (who will probably want to word the entry)

Bottom line:

An owner might be really knowledgeable, super cool and an excellent wrench. Unfortunately for them, those qualities alone are not what qualifies you to actually work on an aircraft. I'm all three of those things, AND I went to school for two years and put in the work on the floor for two years, why? Because all I wanted to do, every day, forever, is work on your aircraft. I worked my ass off to find the gotchas, and nuances, which, along with the paper make up the bulk of the job, while the information is not proprietary or 'intellectual property' I personally did have to figure a lot of this shit out for myself through EXPERIENCE. That experience, those nuances and workflow tricks are what saves you money, and you want me to give you those tips and tricks so you can go out and do them to gut my bottom line.

I'm kind of weird. I actually like working on small aircraft. I took a lot of heat from my friends in the industry who all work on those strange things with the wings that move on the top of the fuselage, and who all make more money than I do. They love money, I love airplanes... it's a tough position to be in.

There are vast swings in the quality and cost of engineers... for sure, but the bottom line is, we all put in a lot of time to get to where we are, and believe it or not, we might know a few things... that doesn't say that you don't know a few things, but they are just a few things.

Owners have the luxury of becoming familiar with their own single type of aircraft. On the other hand, I have to be prepared and able to work on anything up to m2, I have to have that AMO set up to service commercial aircraft, I have to have a hangar to work in, I have to have a SUBSTANTIAL investment in tools and equipment specifically targeted to service your plane. I have to have an investment of hardware, parts, pieces. I pay for the lights when your aircraft is in the hangar. All of these costs have to be covered.

I have a rule for owners:
I do the work 90 bucks an hour
I do the work while you watch 110 bucks an hour
I do the work while you help 150 bucks an hour.

So, to tack this up,

you want to work with the ame who shoulders most of the liability, you want to work in his shop, under his supervision, which takes his time, and you're going to want to learn a few things from him.. Yes, this sounds like a place I went to when I was starting out in the industry. It is called school... which, I payed for.

You have an investment in the aircraft, admirable, I have my LIFE invested in aviation. I am sorry photofly if you don't get a lot of respect from those who do aviation maintenance for a living. LIke sanders says, chalk and stick my friend, chalk and stick.

[Shiny Side Up]

I don't get the adversarial relationship.

Really? Maybe you're ont one of the ones at fault, but there's a lot of guys in your profession that just ain't doing a good job. Some are outright crooks. If you own and or fly these things, more so for the latter, you'd be foolish not to keep an eye on what goes on in the shop. You don't hand no one nothing, say "fix it" and walk away. That does of course put some of the onus on the owners and pilots to actively know stuff about their airplane. Takes two to tango and all that. Just like all the pilots out there aren't saints, same thing goes for the guys fixing them. That's how the world's always been unfortunately, if someone doesn't completely trust you just because you have apiece of paper, don't act all surprised.

There are vast swings in the quality and cost of engineers... for sure, but the bottom line is, we all put in a lot of time to get to where we are, and believe it or not, we might know a few things... that doesn't say that you don't know a few things, but they are just a few things.

Just because you put in time, doesn't make you an expert either. just like I have to do on a constant basis, you'd better get used to the idea that you're going to have to prove that once in a while. Respect (and customer appreciation) is earned after all. Sorry that hurts your feelings. Yes, some customers can be overly difficult. Welcome to the world. You think I don't have twits who step into my office and tell me how to fly?

[rubberboot]

the part of this scenario that bugs me is this... yes it is a liability/livelyhood concern.

owner removes the prop but asks you to reinstall it. you do that and sign for reinstalling the prop (signing only for the work you have done). alls good.

3 days later, his airplane goes down into a school yard full of children. lots of casualties, due to the resulting fire and explosion. last name in the book was I.P. Freely from ACME Aviation AMO. guess what, you made the newspaper, radio and TV stations. there are all kinds of questions, rumours, stories, avcanada forum posts about the "work" that was carried out. your customers stop using your shop, not due to any facts, but due to press reports and hersay. remember our industry is small, and stuff like this calls into question everything you have done.

well, the TSB report finally comes out a year later and is published to TC's web site. the pilot was tired, and fell asleep at the controls because he adjusted the muff heater and passed out because of carbom monoxide poisoning. the mechanic didn't touch that, so he is exonerated - whew

how many of this AMO/Mechanic's customers actually will comeback? there is no mention of the outcome in the press, there maybe someone who will post a link here in Avcanada, but thats about it.

it doesn't matter anyways, because the horrifying images of dead children and lack of customers shut this company down months ago. the mechanic/shop owner who signed for just the prop install now has the comfort of knowing that he can try to rebuild his life, maybe get a job back in the industry now as the crash wasen't his fault. but i'm guessing the entire event will haunt him the rest of his life.

this is probably a worst case scenario with a low probability of happening, but it is what worries me about the OP's question. "what if" the airplane goes down for an unrelated problem? it might take awhile for the truth to come out...

[photofly]

3 days later, his airplane goes down into a school yard full of children. lots of casualties, due to the resulting fire and explosion. last name in the book was I.P. Freely from ACME Aviation AMO. guess what, you made the newspaper, radio and TV stations. there are all kinds of questions, rumours, stories, avcanada forum posts about the "work" that was carried out. your customers stop using your shop, not due to any facts, but due to press reports and hersay. remember our industry is small, and stuff like this calls into question everything you have done.

Name a single instance when an aircraft made the headlines and anyone gave a stuff about *any* of the AMEs who worked on the aircraft. Go on - just one example, please. You're making this stuff up as you go along. Press reports? about an AME!? You're living in fantasy land.

[AirFrame]

"why can i not use this Robertson screw on the inspection panel, its just a screw"

What's your answer?

Mine is that aviation screws must ether be slotted (to ensure that the paint shops get regular work touching up paint jobs), or phillips (to ensure that AME's get regular work removing stripped screws).

Why they aren't Robertson, Torx, or Hex still amazes me.

[SeptRepair]

Honestly, because there is not a single fastener on an general aviation aircraft that has them. I dont have Robertson screw drivers in my tool box. They are at home for all the other applications I use them on. Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against the design, but when it comes to aircraft I think of the next guy who might look after it. If it happens to go down to the states I don't want to cause some undo grief to a fellow aircraft mechanic who, for a good chance, wont have one of them screwdrivers to remove the "funny Canadian" screws..

To add, its like when I build a shipping crate to go half way around the world. I know Robertson is a local design and the guy on the other end will not have the proper screwdriver or bit to open the crate. If i make it out of common or Phillips then they have a fighting chance on getting the crate open without destroying it out of frustration.

[SeptRepair]

Name a single instance when an aircraft made the headlines and anyone gave a stuff about *any* of the AMEs who worked on the aircraft. Go on - just one example, please. You're making this stuff up as you go along. Press reports? about an AME!? You're living in fantasy land.

There is this one from 2007 where a Seneca plowed into a building in Richmond and the guys who last touched it were labeled as defendants in a lawsuit. I didnt find the TSB report of what he final out come was ( pretty sure it was a medical thing, but not positive), but this is an instance where an accident happened and AME's had to defend themselves even though they had nothing to do with it. There was a thread here on Avcanada where it was discussed.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... 1b84ef98a5

http://kathrynaviationnews.com/?p=6959

[photofly]

I don't see the AME shamed and ridiculed in the press there, do you? Hardly "guess what, you made the newspaper, radio and TV stations".

[AirFrame]

Honestly, because there is not a single fastener on an general aviation aircraft that has them. I dont have Robertson screw drivers in my tool box.

I'll grant you that lack of robertson screws in aviation is why AME's don't have robertson screwdrivers in their toolbox. But it doesn't answer the question why Robertson (or any other designed-not-to-slip-and-destroy-paint screw) can't be used on an aircraft.

To add, its like when I build a shipping crate to go half way around the world. I know Robertson is a local design and the guy on the other end will not have the proper screwdriver or bit to open the crate. If i make it out of common or Phillips then they have a fighting chance on getting the crate open without destroying it out of frustration.

I couldn't care less if my screwdriver slips opening a shipping crate. I don't fly a shipping crate.

[azimuthaviation]

You honestly think screw manufacturers and aircraft painters are in cahoots in some kinda screw head conspiracy to keep each other employed?

Hey maybe the guys who make the paint are the same guys who make the screws?!?