FBO rant

[rcaligan]

FBO rant (long)

Here's another tale of an FBO that can't afford to rent airplanes....

I go out to fly yesterday in a 172. Right side fuel gauge is inop--dead on empty, but the tank is visually almost full. I try rocking the wings, banging (gently) on the gauge...nothing.

So I go back inside and talk to the owner, and I get:

Well, yeah, it's been that way for a while...
It'll come up after the fuel goes down a bit...
Well, it's still safe...

So I explain to him about 91.205 & 213, and he admits:

Well, theoretically, yes, it's unairworthy.

Theoretically???

You don't have to fly it if you don't want to...

I don't want to.

During this time the mechanic walks in and says:

It needs a new sending unit. (Remember, it's been that way for a while.)

IOW, he knew what the problem was and how to fix it. Why the hell is this airplane still on the line??? I don't care if it's expensive to fix...the damn plane is unairworthy.

The more crap like this I see, the more I think MAG has the right idea. The traditional mom & pop FBO is dying. Planes are getting more & more expensive to maintain but they don't have the revenue to afford MX. Someday, the only way a person will learn to fly is by being an owner, going to a training mill or a university.

</rant>

 

[Michael]

Its probably more accurate inop than it is when its fixed. Never go by your fuel gauges. Plan your fuel burn and leave time for reserves. But you knew that already.

 

[rcaligan]

Its probably more accurate inop than it is when its fixed. Never go by your fuel gauges. Plan your fuel burn and leave time for reserves. But you knew that already.

You're right, but you know as well as I do that you can't placard this kind of problem.

 

[Sam D]

I know what you're talking about. Replace "fuel gauge" with "Oil temperature gauge" and you've got exactly my story a few months ago.

 

[tdager]

LOL..."technically" both work in the C172 I rent. However the ONLY time they are even remotely accurate is when it is empty.

 

[ScottM]

Re: FBO rant (long)

The more crap like this I see, the more I think MAG has the right idea. The traditional mom & pop FBO is dying. Planes are getting more & more expensive to maintain but they don't have the revenue to afford MX. Someday, the only way a person will learn to fly is by being an owner, going to a training mill or a university.

</rant>

LSA is supposed to be the Holy Grail and Savior of GA, right??

 

[Eamon]

Re: FBO rant (long)

Here's another tale of an FBO that can't afford to rent airplanes....

I go out to fly yesterday in a 172. Right side fuel gauge is inop--dead on empty, but the tank is visually almost full. I try rocking the wings, banging (gently) on the gauge...nothing.

</rant>

Cessna fuel gauges never work right especially after 6 months or so.

I would bet that if you owned & maintained the plane, it would have a few squalks also.

Kkow the squalks & fly the plane unless the squalks affect safety.

I don't know of anyone that would trust a fuel gauge so for me it would be a non issue.

Give any plane to the "wrong" IA & I am sure that it could be found un-airworthy.

 

[SCCutler]

Re: FBO rant (long)

...The more crap like this I see, the more I think MAG has the right idea. The traditional mom & pop FBO is dying. Planes are getting more & more expensive to maintain but they don't have the revenue to afford MX.
</rant>

Nope, not at all the case. This particular FBO is a problem, but this sort of attitude is not (from what I have seen) the norm.

I have rented from FBOs in three states, and none of them have foisted crap on me. This includes an FBO in Petaluma CA at which I rented a 172 which was old, and in perfect repair, dialed-in, obviously meticulously maintained- a real joy to fly.

Here in Dallas, I rent from a smaller FBO at which the aircraft are always well-maintained, and things work.

If the aircraft are not right, don't rent from them. If they persist in fielding unairworthy aircraft, report 'em. The market will do the rest.

As for the "M_A_G" comment- you gotta be kidding!

 

[tonycondon]

what does LSA have to do with it Scott?

 

[ScottM]

what does LSA have to do with it Scott?

The OP's contention was that GA training is too expensive as AC and maintenance for them are big $$$. Mom and pops cannot keep up so everyone will be forced to a new school format such as MAG My response was to point out that those costs were said to be much less with LSA. Furthermore, that LSA would bring in new blood to the mom and pops and they then could also sell recurrent training. Thus they can continue to keep their houses and send their kids to college.

The truth is of course that LSA will not do this and that GA training is in a world of hurt. But I also do not think that MAG will be the savior as the per person costs are too high and the market segment too small. Business ideas, like MAGs, do have some merit, but this business is already pretty cutthroat and commoditized . So adding a high tier aka costly training program will not attract many people.

 

[KennyFlys]

We have three, 2003 Nav II Skyhawks that came in about the same time. One has a fuel sender that constantly has issues. The sender has been replaced twice. It comes and goes. But, of course we never go by the gage. Tanks are topped off and dipped before every flight.

The G1000 Skyhawk I took on a Christmas XC has a similar issue. The sender comes and goes that it's not available about 10% of the time. Fortunately, in addition to checking level before departure, the avionics package has a fuel totalizer. But, your power settings, fuel burn and clock are still going to be the numbers to pay attention to.

But, in some eyes that's simply "overkill if you know your airplane." Well, I'd heard that from an authoritative source recently.

I don't quite agree!

 

[poadeleted20]

Vote with your wallet.

 

[rcaligan]

The truth is of course that LSA will not do this and that GA training is in a world of hurt. But I also do not think that MAG will be the savior as the per person costs are too high and the market segment too small. Business ideas, like MAGs, do have some merit, but this business is already pretty cutthroat and commoditized . So adding a high tier aka costly training program will not attract many people.

I don't think that GA training is in a world of hurt, but the cost of parts and insurance is too much for a small FBO to bear. LSAs won't be any cheaper to purchase, insure or maintain. It's already a "high tier aka costly training program [that] will not attract many people."

Some FBOs need to accept that and change their way of doing things, or stop renting airplanes.

 

[ScottM]

I don't think that GA training is in a world of hurt, but the cost of parts and insurance is too much for a small FBO to bear. LSAs won't be any cheaper to purchase, insure or maintain. It's already a "high tier aka costly training program [that] will not attract many people."

Some FBOs need to accept that and change their way of doing things, or stop renting airplanes.

You're contention is that people will be willing to pay a lot more for their training. Evidence suggests that is not true. case in point the local airport near where I live. One FBO had brand new Cessna 172 renting at $105/hr, well maintained and not a scratch on them. The other FBO had older Piper Warrior, stuff breaking on them all the time, non-standard between the planes, but always airworthy. FBO #1 had lots of schedule openings for the new Cessnas and little work, FBO#2 with the Pipers one could barely find open time on the sheet. One of the reasons, the Pipers rented for $89/hr

No people will go to where it is cheaper and take their chances. Either knowingly or from ignorance. More likely the later as they will not be educated about what poor maintenance really is for a plane when they are used to seeing or driving poorly maintained cars. I am not saying some people will not mind paying more for cool equipment but that market segment is smaller than the existing training segment now. Places like MAG will be a niche provider.

 

[Henning]

Re: FBO rant (long)

I go out to fly yesterday in a 172. Right side fuel gauge is inop--dead on empty, but the tank is visually almost full. I try rocking the wings, banging (gently) on the gauge...nothing.

So I go back inside and talk to the owner, and I get:

Well, yeah, it's been that way for a while...
It'll come up after the fuel goes down a bit...
Well, it's still safe...

Why the hell is this airplane still on the line??? I don't care if it's expensive to fix...the damn plane is unairworthy.

I'm not sure that's actually correct as long as the gauge is accurate when empty. If a Cessna fuel gauge can ground the plane, then I'd say at least 2/3s of the Cessna (not to mention the rest of GA) fleet needs to be grounded. There is a reason that fuel totalizers sell well. If these issues bother you so greatly (and it is well within your purview to demand a squawk free aircraft), I suggest you buy your own aircraft so you have control over the maintenance, not someone looking at his bottom line.

 

[Nav8tor]

Here's a thought. Suppose the airplane develops a serious fuel leak during the flight. You can be dilligently calculating your fuel burn and theoretical fuel remaining but that's all predicated on the fact that the only fuel leaving the tanks is through the engine. If there is a leak you could end up running out before you even hit your reserve. It seems to me that the only way you'd have any indication of a leak is by watching the fuel quantity gauges. They might not be highly accurate, and I agree they shouldn't be relied on for flight planning, but assuming they showed full at the begining of the flight, if they indicated an abnormally low quantity compared to my calculations it would sure get my attention, and I'd probably land at the nearest suitable airport to check things out. Without a funcitioning fuel gauge there could be no indication of a leak. I'm with the OP. I expect the gauges to work in any airplane I rent.

 

[Henning]

The OP's contention was that GA training is too expensive as AC and maintenance for them are big $$$. Mom and pops cannot keep up so everyone will be forced to a new school format such as MAG My response was to point out that those costs were said to be much less with LSA. Furthermore, that LSA would bring in new blood to the mom and pops and they then could also sell recurrent training. Thus they can continue to keep their houses and send their kids to college.

The truth is of course that LSA will not do this and that GA training is in a world of hurt. But I also do not think that MAG will be the savior as the per person costs are too high and the market segment too small. Business ideas, like MAGs, do have some merit, but this business is already pretty cutthroat and commoditized . So adding a high tier aka costly training program will not attract many people.

It really is funny isn't it. People compain about high price and the same people complain about about poor maint. I think that GA pilots who want to minimalize costs and maximize their maint go experimental. They should go to one of the companies that does a good quick build with a factory assist option so the can build at the factory with all their equipment and expert supervision and get it done quicly (few weeks vacation). This way they still qualify for the Repairmans Cert and can do their own maint using low cost (and often higher quality) parts and have a modern aircraft.

 

[rcaligan]

I agree with everyone's opinion about the quality & accuracy of the fuel gauge. If the owner needed it fixed and it had to be ferried, I'd gladly make the trip. Even with the INOP fuel gauge, the plane was absolutely safe.

But it was also absolutely unairworthy. 91.205 says so. Sure, it was a piddly little thing and I hated canceling the flight, but I wasn't going to risk my tickets for $15 per hour.

Now that I think about it, I forgot to mention something in my original post: This was a dual flight at a 141 school where I was the CFI. I really do apologise for leaving that out, and I hope I didn't mislead anyone. But it brings up another point: I'd be sending the wrong message to my student if I just blew it off and flew anyway.

 

[rcaligan]

It really is funny isn't it. People compain about high price and the same people complain about about poor maint. I think that GA pilots who want to minimalize costs and maximize their maint go experimental. They should go to one of the companies that does a good quick build with a factory assist option so the can build at the factory with all their equipment and expert supervision and get it done quicly (few weeks vacation). This way they still qualify for the Repairmans Cert and can do their own maint using low cost (and often higher quality) parts and have a modern aircraft.

I agree.

 

[ScottM]

But it was also absolutely unairworthy. 91.205 says so. Sure, it was a piddly little thing and I hated canceling the flight, but I wasn't going to risk my tickets for $15 per hour.

I'd be sending the wrong message to my student if I just blew it off and flew anyway.

You are absolutely correct on both issues. No argument from me.

 

[rcaligan]

You're contention is that people will be willing to pay a lot more for their training. Evidence suggests that is not true. case in point the local airport near where I live. One FBO had brand new Cessna 172 renting at $105/hr, well maintained and not a scratch on them. The other FBO had older Piper Warrior, stuff breaking on them all the time, non-standard between the planes, but always airworthy. FBO #1 had lots of schedule openings for the new Cessnas and little work, FBO#2 with the Pipers one could barely find open time on the sheet. One of the reasons, the Pipers rented for $89/hr

No people will go to where it is cheaper and take their chances. Either knowingly or from ignorance. More likely the later as they will not be educated about what poor maintenance really is for a plane when they are used to seeing or driving poorly maintained cars. I am not saying some people will not mind paying more for cool equipment but that market segment is smaller than the existing training segment now. Places like MAG will be a niche provider.

Honestly, I'd be in the Warrior, too. And at least the FBO that rents the Warriors is charging enough to keep the plane airworthy. Sure, some people would say that Warriors or 172s shouldn't rent for $89/hour...it's way too expensive. Well, the price of parts & insurance keeps going up, so you have to charge what is necessary to keep the plane airworthy.

Old, ugly & worn out I can handle, but at least make the plane safe & legal!

 

[gibbons]

Re: FBO rant (long)

I'm not sure that's actually correct as long as the gauge is accurate when empty.

I'm pretty sure that IS correct (at least I'm teaching my students that an inop fuel indicator is a "no go" item):

§ 91.205
"...of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. "

We have similar problems with the fuel quantity indicator on our late model C172. Seems like Cessna could get this one right. I mean, they were able to put 13 fuel sump points in the thing, can't they make a fuel qty indicator that works for more than a few months?

 

[msmspilot]

You're contention is that people will be willing to pay a lot more for their training. Evidence suggests that is not true. case in point the local airport near where I live. One FBO had brand new Cessna 172 renting at $105/hr, well maintained and not a scratch on them. The other FBO had older Piper Warrior, stuff breaking on them all the time, non-standard between the planes, but always airworthy. FBO #1 had lots of schedule openings for the new Cessnas and little work, FBO#2 with the Pipers one could barely find open time on the sheet. One of the reasons, the Pipers rented for $89/hr

No people will go to where it is cheaper and take their chances. Either knowingly or from ignorance. More likely the later as they will not be educated about what poor maintenance really is for a plane when they are used to seeing or driving poorly maintained cars. I am not saying some people will not mind paying more for cool equipment but that market segment is smaller than the existing training segment now. Places like MAG will be a niche provider.

Not every pilot is like that. I had to work a week, take a lesson while I was getting my private, and the instrument wasn't much better, but I paid for good equipment rather than take junk. Then I moved somewhere where the junk was all that was available, and I didn't fly for a while really. I then moved where there were well maintained airplanes that were older, and I returned to flying. I realize in your example that the Warriors were "always airworthy" but you have the hassle of "stuff breaking on them all the time." This of course happens on new planes too, but anyway.

I'm willing to pay for good equipment if it's available, and I'm willing to not fly if only junk is available.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I have a FSDO friend who routinely quips that he has NEVER seen an aircraft that was 100% in compliance with ever reg. The best you can do is the best you can do, whether owning or renting.

I agree that you vote with your wallet. If you don't like the mx, TELL them you won't rent. Eventually it'll sink in.

 

[dparter]

I'd be sending the wrong message to my student if I just blew it off and flew anyway.

Did your student see/hear that?

One of the best lessons my first CFI taught me was the day I did the pre-flight and found a quarter-sized spot on one of the tires where the cords were showing. I doubt I was the first student/renter (or perhaps even CFI) to notice it (my CFI was part-time, he had not seen it before).

Another CFI at the flight school seemed to have a "fly anyway" attitude.

My CFI called maintenance and asked if there was a specific allowance for a certain amount of cord to be visible, tread measurement, etc. Maintenance said no, we filed the squawk and didn't fly.

Lots of lessons in one event about pre-flight inspections, not being a lemming, checking for specifics, and saying "no" to a flight...

--david