Annuals ... More Harm Than Good?

weirdjim

weirdjim

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
4,171
Location
Grass Valley, CA (KGOO)
Display Name
Display name:
weirdjim
Can you just imagine to keep a car on the road you had to have a full house engine leakdown compression test, ignition timing, and every openable cubbyhole on the body opened up and an inspection inside for rust? Every year?

Yeah, I know. You can't pull an airplane off to the side of the road when the $#1+ hits the fan (or the fanbelt).

BUt for a LONG time now we've been talking about the standard annual in accordance with the regs doing more harm to the airplane than things that it finds wrong. How about a discourse on this subject.

From your resident rabblerouser ...

Jim
 
I think that annuals exact considerable erosion on plane health via the repetitive inspections, opening/closing, and increased exposure to MIF. This is getting worse as our skilled GA-centric A&Ps retire.

I think that annuals rarely (but not never) find issues that, left unchecked, would cause a crash, injury, or death.

I think that annuals often find issues that, left unchecked, would cause an expensive breakage or repair later.

I think that pilots are consistently too cheap/disinterested/fearful to perform routine inspections on critical components, if not held to task by regulation.
 
As someone new to aviation, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Airplanes potentially cause a lot of damage to not just those in the planes, but those on the ground as well. There is a pretty low bar for entering into GA here in the US compared to other nations. I also have spent a lot of time around boats and cars that are still operational but have not been looked after, it's probably best we don't have jalopies like that flying around because more aviation crashes would just lead to tightening restrictions.

I do feel that IAs are a bit exploitative in the fees they charge for an annual inspection though. I had shops quoting $1300-1500 for an annual on a Cessna 150 and they try and tell me that's because they're spending 15-17 hours on it @ $85/hour. Riiiiiiight
 
AmericanVagrant said:
As someone new to aviation, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Airplanes potentially cause a lot of damage to not just those in the planes, but those on the ground as well. There is a pretty low bar for entering into GA here in the US compared to other nations. I also have spent a lot of time around boats and cars that are still operational but have not been looked after, it's probably best we don't have jalopies like that flying around because more aviation crashes would just lead to tightening restrictions.

I do feel that IAs are a bit exploitative in the fees they charge for an annual inspection though. I had shops quoting $1300-1500 for an annual on a Cessna 150 and they try and tell me that's because they're spending 15-17 hours on it @ $85/hour. Riiiiiiight
Click to expand...

How many 100 hour/annuals have you performed?
 
Doc Holliday said:
A good portion of GA airplanes flying haven’t had an actual annual in years. Yep, they have log entries, but no actual inspection, or maintenance.
Click to expand...
sounds like a safe system......less than 20% of all accidents are attributed to a maintenance related item.
 
AmericanVagrant said:
As an IA? I am not one. I was there for the duration of the annual on my plane though.
Click to expand...

On average the quote of 15-17 hours to perform an annual is not out of line.

As for the $85/hour? What do you feel is a fair hourly rate?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Then why do you maintain your Bonanza? Why not just fly it till it breaks?
Click to expand...
Mine get's fixed as it needs it....not at annual. And...my input into MOSAIC is to open up the annual to 2 years and allow more owner maintenance, like LSA.

All of the planes I maintain are hangared and fly less than 100 hrs per year and need nothing to little each year.
 
Doc Holliday said:
On average the quote of 15-17 hours to perform an annual is not out of line.

As for the $85/hour? What do you feel is a fair hourly rate?
Click to expand...

$85/hour seems very fair - coming from boats I was surprised it was so low to be honest. It was the amount of time that I felt was departed from reality. But if you're saying that it can take that long then I believe you, I must not have a complete understanding of what an annual entails.
 
If the annual is performed IAW the manufacturers manual by a capable and competent A&P like it’s meant to be, than it does an airplane good. Different story if it’s done by a hacker.
 
Ryanb said:
If the annual is performed IAW the manufacturers manual by a capable and competent A&P like it’s meant to be, than it does an airplane good. Different story if it’s done by a hacker.
Click to expand...

As a systems engineering brained person, we are generally loathe to disassembling working systems. Which would include messing with plug wires and plugs.

But without an engine monitor... there’s little option for inspection.

It does seem from a purely systems viewpoint that changing anything with good data showing no problems from a monitor, is kinda dumb.

But then again we’ve seen time and time again people with significant engine symptoms loathe to pull off a jug, and the silly things are designed to come off these older engine designs for a reason.

Many manufacturer things that are mandatory in other countries aren’t here, and get neglected to some extent. But chatting with Aussie friends, Cessna prices for the recent stuff have gone into the toilet there unless you’ve dumped big cash to keep it airworthy. Current owners taking big hits. If you take it, value goes up, because others are just parking them. The others become part of the growing junkyard.

Which led to more intertwined stuff that made me chuckle. A used Cirrus is a better deal there than a used Cessna that needed the wing work.
 
An annual/100hr inspection is good. The depth of that inspection is really what I would question, and do since I am the manufacturer of my airplane. FAR 43, Appendix D is very specific some places and vague in others. So what is the right level for the safest operation? I wish I knew the answer, but I've been working toward opening less on my airplane. Certainly engine and controls are where the risks are at. So should I really take a wingtip off to look at some wires that even if they fail won't result in a significant problem?

PS for the 15-17hrs annual . . . maybe someday I'll be efficient enough to do one that fast! I am getting better at it 4 condition inspections in.
 
I think they do more good than harm. If I were to argue against anything it's the requirements to get an A&P or the need for an IA. But then again, I know an IA that I think is completely incompetent. He can't research, or troubleshoot, and his work is shoddy at best. I trust myself over him any day, and I have no credentials, and prefer to have a competent IA supervise anything I do.

On the other hand, I am constantly inspecting my plane, and I fix things immediately if even in doubt, so I've never had anything found on annual that I didn't tell him about before it started, so maybe I don't think they are needed after all... ;)

If nothing else, I think it's good to have a formal review of AD's once a year.
 
AmericanVagrant said:
As someone new to aviation, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Airplanes potentially cause a lot of damage to not just those in the planes, but those on the ground as well.
Click to expand...
Purd near everything you fly over is empty space - farmland, lawns, forest, lakes, etc. etc.
A random airplane going down at a random time / place is not likely to do any damage at all.

Roads, on the other hand, funnel everything into close proximity, other vehicles, houses, people... If something goes wrong, you are much more likely to hit a person, place, or thing.

Then consider the damage potential. A SUV runs a couple thousand pounds. A 172 is about half the weight and at least some of that is spread way out into the wings.

Consider what happens when an airplane crashes into a building - the January 5, 2002 attack for example. Most of the airplane was still hanging outside the building.

Tampa_plane_crash.jpg


Driver "blacked out"
https://www.wisn.com/article/jeep-i...s-into-home-on-milwaukee-s-north-side/9930458
 
I think annual is a little much for the reasons stated maybe expand it to every two years and see if there is an impact on safety.

Better yet create an owner maintained category like Canada.
 
I like this topic. I think ripping apart a plane every year seems like overdoing it. Maybe its time for BasicMech (should I trademark that).

Let me change out more stuff like starters, belts, alternators and more (if not all) avionics. Why can't I do my own interior work or painting? I can find a way to weight it afterwards. Why can't I remove and re-install the front seats? Can't I be taught by a simple online course on how to do the 100hr seat rail inspection? Maybe the engine should have a yearly (or 100hr) compression test and prop inspection by someone official. For example, teach me (through ground courses) on how to do as much inspection as possible so that I can sign it off. Make me have to document it with pictures (we all have cell phones). Obviously I would still want motor, prop and rigging changes done by someone in the know.
 
Sinistar said:
I like this topic. I think ripping apart a plane every year seems like overdoing it. Maybe its time for BasicMech (should I trademark that).

Let me change out more stuff like starters, belts, alternators and more (if not all) avionics. Why can't I do my own interior work or painting? I can find a way to weight it afterwards. Why can't I remove and re-install the front seats? Can't I be taught by a simple online course on how to do the 100hr seat rail inspection? Maybe the engine should have a yearly (or 100hr) compression test and prop inspection by someone official. For example, teach me (through ground courses) on how to do as much inspection as possible so that I can sign it off. Make me have to document it with pictures (we all have cell phones). Obviously I would still want motor, prop and rigging changes done by someone in the know.
Click to expand...
LSA owner maintenance has something similar.....agree, more owner maintenance is a good thing, with training first. ;)
 
Doc Holliday said:
A good portion of GA airplanes flying haven’t had an actual annual in years. Yep, they have log entries, but no actual inspection, or maintenance.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that a good portion, whatever that is, have IA signatures that have been falsified, or IA holders that are breaking the regulations?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
So you're saying that a good portion, whatever that is, have IA signatures that have been falsified, or IA holders that are breaking the regulations?
Click to expand...

I’m saying the selling of signatures took a huge leap when the FAA lowered the requirements and lowered the testing for IA’s.
 
AmericanVagrant said:
As someone new to aviation, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Airplanes potentially cause a lot of damage to not just those in the planes, but those on the ground as well. There is a pretty low bar for entering into GA here in the US compared to other nations. I also have spent a lot of time around boats and cars that are still operational but have not been looked after, it's probably best we don't have jalopies like that flying around because more aviation crashes would just lead to tightening restrictions.

I do feel that IAs are a bit exploitative in the fees they charge for an annual inspection though. I had shops quoting $1300-1500 for an annual on a Cessna 150 and they try and tell me that's because they're spending 15-17 hours on it @ $85/hour. Riiiiiiight
Click to expand...

I spend three long days doing the condition inspection (annual) on my home built. That's assuming i don't have to fix something. The airplane is 3 years old.

People who have never wrenched on a plane have no real concept of how long it takes. Or the painstaking way things need to be done.

15 hours to do an annual is got to be the bare minimum for an experienced mechanic. No way I could do it in that time on my very simple home built.
 
I think cosmetically it doesn’t do the aircraft any good. Every time I get my aircraft back from condition there’s a new scratch, chip, dent, etc.

From a safety perspective, if the mechs are doing an honest to god annual, it’s invaluable. The guys go thru my aircraft with a fine tooth comb and are finding things that I normally wouldn’t find on preflight / post flight. Multiple sets of eyes looking over an aircraft is better than one. The annual is also a good time where some owners combine maint upgrades with it.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think cosmetically it doesn’t do the aircraft any good. Every time I get my aircraft back from condition there’s a new scratch, chip, dent, etc.

From a safety perspective, if the mechs are doing an honest to god annual, it’s invaluable. The guys go thru my aircraft with a fine tooth comb and are finding things that I normally wouldn’t find on preflight / post flight. Multiple sets of eyes looking over an aircraft is better than one. The annual is also a good time where some owners combine maint upgrades with it.
Click to expand...
Every time I got mine back it had an extra scratch in the side windows from a headliner bow.
 
Doc Holliday said:
A good portion of GA airplanes flying haven’t had an actual annual in years. Yep, they have log entries, but no actual inspection, or maintenance.
Click to expand...

I've found that all too often, some even by big name repair stations. I just completed an annual on a PA46 that had never had the floorboards pulled to actually look at the things and systems that reside beneath them. Thankfully everything was ok but I find it hard to say that the airplane was inspected in accordance with anything, when it really wasn't. And that's just one example...

Personally, I think the real problem is cheap owners who don't value and won't pay for good maintenance and inspections. This either drives the good mechanics out or beats them down until they start doing the drive by annuals to survive. I got out of maintaining airplanes for other people because it was a non-stop battle trying to get them to spend ANY money on actually inspecting and maintaining the airplane. (Yet they would spend tens of thousands on new paint, interior, or radios without even thinking about it.)
 
Velocity173 said:
I think cosmetically it doesn’t do the aircraft any good. Every time I get my aircraft back from condition there’s a new scratch, chip, dent, etc.
Click to expand...

One of the problems I've seen with many airplanes is a lack of consideration for serviceability. The act of performing routine inspections has a tendency to damage things when average mechanics are in charge. New aircraft design should really take maintenance into consideration, which is something Diamond is excellent at. But mechanics also need to learn to do better and start treating aircraft the same way people treat exotic cars.
 
AmericanVagrant said:
I must not have a complete understanding of what an annual entails.
Click to expand...
Look at the list of requirements in Part 43 Appendix D and figure out how much of the aircraft needs to be disassembled to inspect, then the time to reassemble the aircraft. Then add the time to review the ADs and other documents as needed to ensure the annual is complete. 15-17 hours on a single is a good time for the inspection only.
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
Can you just imagine to keep a car on the road you had to have a full house engine leakdown compression test, ignition timing, and every openable cubbyhole on the body opened up and an inspection inside for rust? Every year?

Yeah, I know. You can't pull an airplane off to the side of the road when the $#1+ hits the fan (or the fanbelt).

BUt for a LONG time now we've been talking about the standard annual in accordance with the regs doing more harm to the airplane than things that it finds wrong. How about a discourse on this subject.

From your resident rabblerouser ...

Jim
Click to expand...
How about a change in how annuals are done?
Inspect those items likely to fail, or can be easily inspected such as (maybe) control linkages.
Would this vary by aircraft? When would you look for corrosion?
 
FWIW: if there wasn't a mandatory requirement for an annual inspection or a condition check then the majority of aircraft would never be looked at the current level of detail. A majority of owners would simple let things go or fix things only if it prevented them from flying. There's plenty of examples of this by what is found during annual inspections even though there's a requirement to have discrepancies repaired between scheduled inspections and even by various comments on PoA.

As to repetitive annuals doing more harm than good, never saw that on an aircraft that was properly inspected each year other than items that would fall more under normal wear and tear. If talking about mechanic damage while performing an annual, well that's simply a lack of pride in ones work which is also not found in a number of other industries. Now show me an aircraft that had several "quickie" annuals then a proper annual then yes there will be more issues.

Should the annual inspect items be updated? Why? It's merely a minimum requirement that can be used on a wide variety of aircraft from single recip like a Cessna 120 to a twin engine turbine helicopter like an S-76. If an owner chooses they already have the flexibility to make the annual as detailed as they want by following the OEM docs vs Appendix D. Just be thankful the feds don't revert back to the old days when an Annual inspection also required a new AWC to be issued.;)
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with annuals, although I've never owned an airplane. These machines, even the new ones, are using archaic systems excluding avionics for the moment. Magnetos that need service, fuel systems that need service, pulleys, pushrods, cables, hinges, props, plugs exposed to leaded gas, landing gear, the list goes on and on, all should be looked at. Besides, I've seen how a lot of you maintain your cars, I'm not impressed.
 
What I try to teach the owners that I interact with is this: The Annual is merely an inspection of the aircraft's current condition... The number of discrepancies and the follow-on maintenance required will vary depending on the actual condition of that aircraft. I normally start with a detailed review of the logs, as that is a great indicator of the amount of care that the aircraft has actually received.

Flip back and review the logs of any classic aircraft, and you'll see many years where the logbook entries for the annual inspection (with follow-on maintenance accomplished) are comprised of a couple of pages of carefully-written entries. Conversely, you're also likely to see quite a few "rubber stamp" annuals that look like they could fit the entire logbook entry on a single 1" x 3" address label. Neither on their own actually mean that the airplane isn't airworthy, but the latter seems to be the pattern where you find extensive "make-up" maintenance to be needed!

Back on topic: I recently charged a friend/owner 15 hours for the "annual inspection" for his Pa-24-250 Commanche, which IMHO is quite low for the type of aircraft. CAVEAT**-- it was an owner-assisted annual, and he did nearly all of the disassembly/reassembly of the aircraft under my supervision, and this 15 hrs didn't account for ANY follow-on maintenance.

In that 15 hours of inspection time, I found 57 separate discrepancies (not bad for a 1963 Aircraft). 14 of which were possible airworthiness issues that needed to be examined further and/or corrected before flight (including a couple cracks in the underfloor area). I signed off his annual, gave him the signed list of discrepancies and gave him full disclosure that he was in no way obligated to hire me to do the repairs. He did choose to hire me for the repairs, and it took roughly another 15 hours (of my time) to get his bird airworthy again (he additionally logged at least 15 or so more in simple repairs that he did on his own under my supervision). BTW, he probably spent another whole day or more putting the airplane back together!

Does every bird need ~45 hours of maintenance each year to keep it airworthy? Maybe?

Our 1962 Cessna 210 has been in the family now for almost a year. I've considered it airworthy for less than half of that time. During the first annual I accomplished, I found 145 separate maintenance discrepancies (with a percentage of airworthiness issues as well). (I looked at nearly a dozen vintage Centurions, and this was the best one I was actually able to go see.) Side Note: I've done extensive upgrades over the last 12 months too ;-)

Thankfully, my list of items remaining from that inspection is now down to about 8, all of which I have plans to repair in time for the next annual inspection ;-) Our next annual will likely be a "piece of cake" by comparison...

15 hours or so? Pretty standard work, I'd say...
 
Bell206 said:
Look at the list of requirements in Part 43 Appendix D and figure out how much of the aircraft needs to be disassembled to inspect, then the time to reassemble the aircraft. Then add the time to review the ADs and other documents as needed to ensure the annual is complete. 15-17 hours on a single is a good time for the inspection only.
Click to expand...
How much time are is required to complete the requirements?
plus
how much of the servicing is required completed by the IA?
 
Bell206 said:
Look at the list of requirements in Part 43 Appendix D and figure out how much of the aircraft needs to be disassembled to inspect, then the time to reassemble the aircraft. Then add the time to review the ADs and other documents as needed to ensure the annual is complete. 15-17 hours on a single is a good time for the inspection only.
Click to expand...
Appendix D to Part 43—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections
(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall,

Doesn't say anything must be done by the IA
 
Tom-D said:
plus...how much of the servicing is required completed by the IA?
Click to expand...
Curious. Why are you including the "servicing" time with the "inspection" time? It's not an annual requirement.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. Why are you including the "servicing" time with the "inspection" time? It's not an annual requirement.
Click to expand...
true,, poor choice of words.

many times the action is one and the same.
(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine.

Does that say we must do it ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top