What do we mean by properly or well maintained?

cowman

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,267
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name

Display name:
Cowman
This is something I have had kicking around in my head for a while. We're always using that terminology- well/properly maintained in regards to aircraft but what do we mean?

If I get my oil changed on time, see that anything that's broken gets fixed, get the ADs taken care of, and have a competent mechanic do an annual every year do I meet the standard of a "well maintained" aircraft? I sure hope so because that's basically what I've always done.

I've been told(someone else can cite the FAR#) that there's one FAA standard that most mechanics use for an annual but that if I were to take my Piper aircraft into a Piper service center they would have a whole bunch of additional requirements before they'd sign off on an annual. Does one need to do the full blown manufacturer process to have an aircraft that you can call "well maintained"?

Curious what the thoughts of people more knowledgeable than me are on the subject.
 
This is something I have had kicking around in my head for a while. We're always using that terminology- well/properly maintained in regards to aircraft but what do we mean?

If I get my oil changed on time, see that anything that's broken gets fixed, get the ADs taken care of, and have a competent mechanic do an annual every year do I meet the standard of a "well maintained" aircraft? I sure hope so because that's basically what I've always done.

I've been told(someone else can cite the FAR#) that there's one FAA standard that most mechanics use for an annual but that if I were to take my Piper aircraft into a Piper service center they would have a whole bunch of additional requirements before they'd sign off on an annual. Does one need to do the full blown manufacturer process to have an aircraft that you can call "well maintained"?

Curious what the thoughts of people more knowledgeable than me are on the subject.

I doubt I'm more knowledgeable, but I would concur that what you do constitutes "well maintained". It think someone who defers all maintenance as much as possible unless forced to do it would be considered to have an airplane that is not well maintained. But it is kind of a subjective description.
 
well maintained is when things are fixed when not at 100%, not waiting until it gets to un-servicable. case in point, lycoming allows up to 1/2qt per hr oil consumption. I would not consider an engine burning 1qt every 2hrs well maintained, its legal, but certainly not well maintained.
 
Depends on who you ask. Replacing parts at xx hours as recommended by a manufacturer - is that being "well maintained" or not?
Some would say that replacing them is not only good, but necessary. Others would point out that you are increasing the risk of failure due to unnecessary maintenance (and there is a lot of data to back that up) and the parts should be replaced only on condition.
 
"well maintained" to me is when an owner upgrades a part instead of replacing/IRANing. Things I like to see are, for example, LORD shimmy dampers instead of factory oleos, or vertical card compasses instead of some haggard whiskey compass. Avionics is a whole spectrum of this sort of thing. I'm personally not into scheduled overhaul intervals "just because", but I see them a lot, and would file them in the well maintained category.

"properly maintained" is what OP describes -- does things as needed, doesn't scrimp or defer. Won't tear something apart just because a calendar or hour interval appeared if the item is functioning great.

"$xx,000 invested over the past 10 years" seems to be the label on all of the crap for sale out there, where the owner felt every nickel personally as it flew out of his wallet, and his panel is a shower of inop stickers, his annual inspections have taken 3 lines in the log entry for the last decade, etc.

$0.02 invested :)
 
I know in "Section III Inspection" of the Piper Service details exactly the various exams, time limits, scheduled maintenance and "special inspections" at 50 & 100 hrs. Perhaps that's what the Piper shops use?
 
I’m sure there are as many definitions for well maintained as there are pilots. Just another selling statement. I always look for factory maintained.
 
We're always using that terminology- well/properly maintained in regards to aircraft but what do we mean?
From a mx view point, I separate how an aircraft is maintained into 2 levels. One is regulatory per Block 6 on your AWC and the other is toward the prevention/correction of wear and tear on the aircraft. I think when an owner achieves 85-90% success on both levels then I consider the aircraft simply maintained. Whether that’s "properly" or “well” I don’t determine that as I find those terms to be very subjective to the person using them.
there's one FAA standard that most mechanics use for an annual but that if I were to take my Piper aircraft into a Piper service center they would have a whole bunch of additional requirements before they'd sign off on an annual.
FYI: Regardless who performs an Annual, they must all conform to the same FAR standard. The difference in how the Annual is performed comes into play by what checklist is used per 43.15(c). Most IAs will simply use 43 Appx D which all checklists must meet in scope and detail. And depending on the level of a OEM Service Center, some recommend/require the use of the OEM Annual checklist, i.e., 100HR/Annual inspection form, which usually has a number of extra steps beyond Appx D to include SB inspection requirements in some cases.
 
if I were to take my Piper aircraft into a Piper service center they would have a whole bunch of additional requirements before they'd sign off on an annual.
$8k vs $25k annual... (Watch at 1.75 or 2x speed.)
 
Depends on who you ask. Replacing parts at xx hours as recommended by a manufacturer - is that being "well maintained" or not?
Some would say that replacing them is not only good, but necessary. Others would point out that you are increasing the risk of failure due to unnecessary maintenance (and there is a lot of data to back that up) and the parts should be replaced only on condition.
Replacing parts on condition depends on the parts. If all you ever do is pooch around your local area on CAVU days then maybe you might run your vacuum pump and alternator to failure. The guy that does IFR/night flying is foolish to let those go, yet we regularly have members posting tales of such failures.

Even the FAR 43 checklist contains more than it appears to the casual reader. Where it says to "inspect all flight control systems," does that mean that you can sit in the pilot's seat and move the controls, and if they move they've been legally inspected? Nope. It means that all relevant cables and pulleys and pushrods and bellcranks and hinges need inspecting for a variety of possible defects. To do that takes time to remove inspection panels and using a mirror and flashlight and sometimes a magnifier. I was a fussy inspector, and like other fussy guys I've often found stuff that was very obviously not inspected for a long time, stuff that had seized or frayed or corroded or cracked long before and was gradually moving toward total failure. The thread on the elevator failure has classic examples of such stuff.
 
I didn't watch the video in the previous post, but figured I'd comment anyway.... hey, why not? ;)

In my experience, "deferring maintenance" is kind of like taking out a loan at a VERY high interest rate... sure, you have more money now, but it'll cost you more total dollars in the long run. Sure, you may be able to put off replacing something that's currently working but showing signs of wear, but you're also increasing the chances it'll fail and possibly take out something even more expensive in the process. PLUS, the cost and time savings in the long run of at least partially subscribing to the "while I'm in there..." mindset usually pays tremendous dividends. Of course, "mission creep" can become the enemy very quickly too... it's a delicate balance.

I used to have two other partners in my plane. They NEVER wanted to fix anything if we could "squeak" it by an annual and just keep flying. I HATED that... but I was 1/3 of the vote. That's why I bought them out. The annual I'm undergoing now is really ugly, both in terms of the amount of time the plane will be down and the amount of dollars I'LL be down... and I'm doing most of the work. You know what... I am ECSTATIC that all of this stuff is finally getting addressed. I would still say that, from a bare-bones safety standpoint, my plane was "well-maintained..." if that means the powerplant, electrical, and control surfaces all worked well. I mean, they have to get through an annual. Still... there are MUCH higher standards to which one can adhere that greatly increase the enjoyment of (and confidence in) an airplane.
 
Back
Top