Mike Busch's "Manifesto" Book

I noticed that if you're on that Kindle plan that lets you read as much as you want for a small monthly fee, this book is included.
 
It is a great idea that should set the "experts" on fire here. I heard him speak at OSH. He is an amazing tech with great ideas on how to avoid maintenance problems by only doing nessesary work. A lot of issues ( and wasted money) are caused doing maintenance on stuff that doesn't need it.

Wheel bearing repack every annual is a perfect example. Not necessary. If you are replacing a worn tire, fine.

Many other examples in the book.

You can google Mike Bush and view many of his EAA videos.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Has anyone read Mike Busch's Manifesto: A Revolutionary Approach to General Aviation Maintenance and provide a review?
Click to expand...
I'm to Chap 11 which is more than 3/4 of the way thru on Kindle.

It's short, it's a manifesto and I think it's great. For some owners and maintainers it's revolutionary.

He does an historical survey of what he calls "Reliability Centered Maintenance" over "Preventative Maintenance" and then makes a case for RCM being a superior approach to aircraft maintenance. The classic case being engine overhaul at TBO versus engine overhaul on condition. But he applies the concept to every aspect of aircraft maintenance.

He also makes a strong case for not just owner involvement in maintenance but the owner's role in overseeing all maintenance and being the primary decision maker in maintenance decisions.

The Chapters I just finished cover the influences and incentives on maintenance shops and mechanics to resist RCM.

Personally I think Mike is on-target and I've been adopting these concepts while maintaining my Maule and my OBAM (Owner Built and Maintained) RV10.

There are some interesting parallels between some of these maintenance concepts and design of reliable and robust aircraft electrical systems and panels. Specifically the idea of operating things until failure and ensuring that failure of a component or systems allows safe completion of the flight.

Anyway, I highly recommend it. It's an easy read that can be put down at anytime without regret. Chock a block full of good commonsense ideas that all owners/operators should be aware of it not fully embracing. Personally, I'm in full embrace.
 
OK so he says don't repack the wheel bearings every year. How about something more $ tangible? Somebody prime the pump a little.
 
Alexb2000 said:
OK so he says don't repack the wheel bearings every year. How about something more $ tangible? Somebody prime the pump a little.
Click to expand...
How about the whole I idea of replacing/overhauling alternators, mags, and vacuum pumps upon failure rather than at recommended intervals.
 
Bill Watson said:
How about the whole I idea of replacing/overhauling alternators, mags, and vacuum pumps upon failure rather than at recommended intervals.
Click to expand...

That's probably not a bad idea, IF

You don't travel often, since a failure away from home will cost several days and a lot of money

You don't fly hard IFR and couldn't easily die in the event of a failure

You don't frequent airports with no support, hangar, mechanics, etc.

Your work schedule allows for unexpected delays

Just the first thoughts that come to mind.
 
Alexb2000 said:
That's probably not a bad idea, IF

You don't travel often, since a failure away from home will cost several days and a lot of money

You don't fly hard IFR and couldn't easily die in the event of a failure

You don't frequent airports with no support, hangar, mechanics, etc.

Your work schedule allows for unexpected delays

Just the first thoughts that come to mind.
Click to expand...
That's the way we all think. But replacing parts with new exposes you to early service life failures. He quotes stats that engines are most likely to fail when new or newly overhauled. Once past the 2 or 3 hundred mark, they are much more reliable and that reliability doesn't go down with time.

He talks about war time experience that shows some preventative maintenance procedures actually decrease reliability. Costs can be reduced and reliability increased by running many components until they are unairworthy on condition or actually fail.

So if you want to increase the chance of losing a mag or an alternator or an engine, take out a working serviceable one and put a new one in.

If you fly 'hard' IFR and lose an alternator, you need to know that you can still keep it right side up and navigate to a safe landing. Replacing them on time in service doesn't prevent failure and may actually increase the chances of failure.

It's definitely worth the read.
 
I haven't read it, but I've heard him speak and read a bunch of his articles.

He has some good points, but remember he makes his money by telling you not to spend money. The OEMs and A&Ps make their money by telling you to spend money. Oh, but I doubt if anyone will sue Mike and get enough to buy a ham sandwich afterwards.

Point is, take it with a grain of salt, as with most advice. I agree with a lot of his ideas but definitely not all. Owner involvement is one. Owners with similar technical knowledge to my mother have little business making technical decisions.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to say that Mike Busch has been very successful at making money by stating the obvious and making it sound like a new idea. Most of what he writes however is based on a fantasy world where A&P mechanics force you to do things you don't need to do. I've been involved in aviation maintenance in both the GA and commercial realms for about twice as long as Mike and honestly I don't know ANYBODY in the General Aviation world who overhauls their engine just because it has reached TBO, nor do I know anyone who replaces alternators or other components based on time. The vast majority of owners do in fact largely ignore mandatory service bulletins unless they are associated with an AD.

I have nothing against Mike Busch outside of his mantra that aviation maintenance folks are out to screw you and that you need his guiding hand to lead you through the minefield. Yes, there are incompetent A&P mechanics and downright crooks but no more so than in any other profession. Certainly less than in the automotive maintenance fields. His followers often exhibit traits of being disciples and can get unreasonably upset anytime you try to be critical of his works. But come on - words like "Manifesto" and "Revolution", are they really necessary?
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
I'll have to say that Mike Busch has been very successful at making money by stating the obvious and making it sound like a new idea. Most of what he writes however is based on a fantasy world where A&P mechanics force you to do things you don't need to do. I've been involved in aviation maintenance in both the GA and commercial realms for about twice as long as Mike and honestly I don't know ANYBODY in the General Aviation world who overhauls their engine just because it has reached TBO, nor do I know anyone who replaces alternators or other components based on time. The vast majority of owners do in fact largely ignore mandatory service bulletins unless they are associated with an AD.

I have nothing against Mike Busch outside of his mantra that aviation maintenance folks are out to screw you and that you need his guiding hand to lead you through the minefield. Yes, there are incompetent A&P mechanics and downright crooks but no more so than in any other profession. Certainly less than in the automotive maintenance fields. His followers often exhibit traits of being disciples and can get unreasonably upset anytime you try to be critical of his works. But come on - words like "Manifesto" and "Revolution", are they really necessary?
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Mike Busch has a narrow perspective of General Aviation. His articles have never applied to my type of flying and his practices and preachings aren't consistent with my own maintenance standards. Y'all need to decide for yourselves whether they make sense for you.
 
Any time aircraft owners can become more involved in the maintenance its a good thing. Becoming aware of work that is done unnecessarily is a good thing, it will save you money and wear and tear on the component.
 
Geico266 said:
Any time aircraft owners can become more involved in the maintenance its a good thing. Becoming aware of work that is done unnecessarily is a good thing, it will save you money and wear and tear on the component.
Click to expand...

I'll probably read it before my next annual condition inspection in March.

Do I understand that a Prime member can "borrow" it for free?
 
Stewartb said:
Mike Busch has a narrow perspective of General Aviation. His articles have never applied to my type of flying and his practices and preachings aren't consistent with my own maintenance standards. Y'all need to decide for yourselves whether they make sense for you.
Click to expand...

How about some examples of how/where you disagree with him?
 
Interesting comments.

Just about every critical point made here on the board is directly addressed in the book in an even handed and logical way. Silvaire could have written the outline for the piece.

Of all areas covered, I thought his discussion of owner involvement and ownership of maintenance decisions was most on point. Paying attention to the findings and advice of your shop and understanding their motivations and incentives for recommending certain actions is good advice. Untrained owners have no business making technical decisions but many of the decisions are not technically driven.

I'm reminded of the 'quality control/continuous improvement/6 sigma' movements back in the 80s/90s when old line manufacturers were confronted by superior high quality products coming out of Japan and other countries. There were many nay sayers standing up to say how and why the way they have been doing things is the way it should be done and all this quality stuff is just hype. Individual cars from the big 3 averaged dozens of defects per car and we tended to keep those cars for only 3-5 years while those little Toyotos and Hondas seemed like perfect little gems in comparison... and they ran and ran and ran. It took a lot of radical rethinking and turning a lot of conventional wisdom on its head before things improved. Now we tend to keep cars 8-10 years and all manufacturers turn out relatively high quality long lasting cars.

There were many quality related manifestos required to help people shine a fresh light on a bunch of early 20th century practices.

But we are not in a dire situation; our aircraft are routinely maintained to a very high standard. It's highly regulated, shops and mechanics are knowledgeable and skilled, and as a result few aircraft are lost to mechanical failures.

It seems to me that the value of Busch's manifesto is in giving owners a basis for taking a more active role in reducing costs while maintaining reliability.
 
Bill Watson said:
How about the whole I idea of replacing/overhauling alternators, mags, and vacuum pumps upon failure rather than at recommended intervals.
Click to expand...

Ummmm... but aren't those things kind of a bummer when they fail in flight? I know that I would rather replace those things on my schedule, at my leisure in the comfort of my own hangar rather than pay some unknown A&P whatever they want to do it at a distant airport in the middle of my vacation. He's right though, I likely have not gotten every last drop of useful life out of those devices that I could have. :rolleyes2:
 
Thanks for the heads-up. Just picked it up for my Kindle library. Of course, as usual, I found two more books to add to my collection, as well! Dang you, Amazon!
 
I deal in cars, here's an example of a guy with an Audi, I tell him his outer tie rods are starting to get loose. About $400 on a special deal to fix, if we do both inners and outers. He says it drives fine, does nothing, because nothing has failed. Further he is convinced someone is trying to take advantage of him to even suggest it. Few months later the tie rod wear causes the front tires to wear out very quickly. So now he wants his tie rods changed. I tell him to do the inners at the same time because they're not far behind, he declines. $300 later the outers are fixed. He goes down to replace the front tires that were almost new. They have to put all four new because the quattro requires a consistent tread depth across all four tires. $600 later he is sitting on new tires. Couple of months pass and he is getting some strange tire wear again, but he comes in quickly because of his recent experience. He needs the inners I told him to replace before, so $300 later he is good to go. So $1200, two trips to the shop, two alignments, and a trip to the tire shop vs. $400 and one visit to the shop.

That's my "manifesto", can someone explain how aircraft are different?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I deal in cars, here's an example of a guy with an Audi, I tell him his outer tie rods are starting to get loose. About $400 on a special deal to fix, if we do both inners and outers. He says it drives fine, does nothing, because nothing has failed. Further he is convinced someone is trying to take advantage of him to even suggest it. Few months later the tie rod wear causes the front tires to wear out very quickly. So now he wants his tie rods changed. I tell him to do the inners at the same time because they're not far behind, he declines. $300 later the outers are fixed. He goes down to replace the front tires that were almost new. They have to put all four new because the quattro requires a consistent tread depth across all four tires. $600 later he is sitting on new tires. Couple of months pass and he is getting some strange tire wear again, but he comes in quickly because of his recent experience. He needs the inners I told him to replace before, so $300 later he is good to go. So $1200, two trips to the shop, two alignments, and a trip to the tire shop vs. $400 and one visit to the shop.

That's my "manifesto", can someone explain how aircraft are different?
Click to expand...

Uhhhh...no one has yet named a plane after a type of belly-button???:goofy:

I'm going to get the book because I like most of what the God Busch preaches (most, no all).

Chris
 
Dav8or said:
Ummmm... but aren't those things kind of a bummer when they fail in flight? I know that I would rather replace those things on my schedule, at my leisure in the comfort of my own hangar rather than pay some unknown A&P whatever they want to do it at a distant airport in the middle of my vacation. He's right though, I likely have not gotten every last drop of useful life out of those devices that I could have. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Yes, failed alternators, mags and vacuum pumps are a bummer.

Here's how I think about it, what I've done and plan to do to minimize the bummer part:
  • I have dual alternators (and batteries) either of which can run the essentials through a full tank of fuel. If one fails, I'll probably wait to get home to replace it.
  • I have dual mags. The plane runs fine on one though I will have it swapped out at the next landing if it fails. I personally inspect and maintain my mags but also have started performing the inflight ignition system checks to help detect problems before failure.
  • I have eliminated the vac pump and have an all electric plane, see dual alt/batt/bus above
I don't intend to retire any of these items until I detect a problem that is best addressed with a new or overhauled replacement.

One of the ideas that Mike pushes is that component failure is not necessarily a catastrophe. Dual mags where only one is needed for satisfactory engine operation. Dual alternators where only one is needed for completion of any flight. Single vacuum pumps for IFR work need a backup no matter how they are maintained so that you get it on the ground safely.
 
NoHeat said:
Silvaire, have you read the book?
Click to expand...

Yes I have and again, I don't want to be overly critical and have the Savvy disciples descend upon me but there's nothing in this book that's new, it's mostly just a recollection of past articles covering the same subjects with the usual plug for his Savvy maintenance consultation and management services.

Much of his advice is valid but assumes you, as an aircraft owner, are largely incapable of dealing with an A&P mechanic and managing the services you get from him. Much of what he says however is just flat out wrong or based on sketchy data. For one thing, he starts off chapter 3 by stating that the vast majority of general aviation aircraft engines get overhauled when they reach TBO. Not in the world I live in. He also has his regular bit about how mechanics "think" and what their priorities are that is just a blanket generalization that can't be considered valid across the entire spectrum of people who make up this profession. Maybe he has run into folks like that but again - it doesn't jive with the world I live in.

His chapters on RCM also seem to be a bit misinformed. I guess he has never heard of HIRF or EWIS which in the commercial aviation world are two rather invasive preventative maintenance inspections that are routinely performed all the time. Rarely, in commercial aviation do they wait for component failures to occur, it's just not done that way at all.

But like I said, he's definitely found a market as people seem to eat this stuff up like candy and I can't fault the guy for making a buck.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
No, not quite... It's not PRIME members that can read it for free, it's KINDLE UNLIMITED members that can do so.

Different subscription, see here.
Click to expand...

I think I got that figured out. Seems to require a physical Kindle, which I don't have. Again, I think.

Anyway, I don't mind sending some money Mike's way.

Saw one presentation by him at a Cirrus Migration, and he seemed well-informed. Also have read many articles by him in the EAA magazine.

I do my own Annual Condition Inspections on my Sky Arrow, by the checklist. Still, some of the items seem awfully invasive given the limited hours I fly each year.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think I got that figured out. Seems to require a physical Kindle, which I don't have. Again, I think.
Click to expand...


Kindle Unlimited doesn't require a physical Kindle.

You don't need to own a Kindle device to enjoy Kindle Unlimited. With our free Kindle reading apps, you can read on any device with the Kindle app installed. And of course, you can always read on your Kindle. With Kindle Unlimited, you can take every word, every sentence, every story, everywhere you go.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm... I can "borrow" Kindle books on just a Prime membership. In fact I did. Once. I know I don't have Kindle Unlimited.
 
Bill Watson said:
Yes, failed alternators, mags and vacuum pumps are a bummer.

Here's how I think about it, what I've done and plan to do to minimize the bummer part:
  • I have dual alternators (and batteries) either of which can run the essentials through a full tank of fuel. If one fails, I'll probably wait to get home to replace it.
  • I have dual mags. The plane runs fine on one though I will have it swapped out at the next landing if it fails. I personally inspect and maintain my mags but also have started performing the inflight ignition system checks to help detect problems before failure.
  • I have eliminated the vac pump and have an all electric plane, see dual alt/batt/bus above
I don't intend to retire any of these items until I detect a problem that is best addressed with a new or overhauled replacement.

One of the ideas that Mike pushes is that component failure is not necessarily a catastrophe. Dual mags where only one is needed for satisfactory engine operation. Dual alternators where only one is needed for completion of any flight. Single vacuum pumps for IFR work need a backup no matter how they are maintained so that you get it on the ground safely.
Click to expand...

I guess the point is to just get every last possible hour out of each appliance, hope your redundant systems get you through and hope that when they do fail, it will be easy and fast to get it fixed where ever you end up. I guess that's one strategy, but I would rather replace things on my schedule, with the people I want doing the work and to never have to test my redundant systems. That's just me.

As to the maintenance induced failures, it seems to me that the same procedures are preformed when you replace something after complete failure as is done during a preemptive replacement, so there is no additional exposure to risk. In addition, sometimes a component can fail and take out perfectly good component that is connected to it, costing you extra.
 
Mike writes the book as an owner who happens to have gotten an A&P over the years. He does not write it as a professional mechanic who is now an aircraft owner. While I agree that his points are ones to consider, the reality lies somewhere in the middle. Like other commentators here, I don't know anyone who hits the magic 2000 hour mark and rips out the perfectly running engine unless they are operating 135 and have no choice. Typically, they run until the engines start to cost money.

I seriously disagree with him about magnetos. A failing mag can cross fire and effectively kill most all thrust until you shut off the defective mag, something you may or may not have had time to do if you are close to the ground when it happens. I won't fly them until they fail.

I think that Mike offers a good service for some owners. However, if I was doing an annual for one of his customers, I would certainly be billing the client for the time I had to spend on the phone talking to Mike about what I see and what he thinks about what I see.
 
Kristin said:
I seriously disagree with him about magnetos. A failing mag can cross fire and effectively kill most all thrust until you shut off the defective mag, something you may or may not have had time to do if you are close to the ground when it happens. I won't fly them until they fail.
Click to expand...

I'd like to find your reference on how a failing mag can "cross fire" and kill all thrust.

Thanks,

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
I'd like to find your reference on how a failing mag can "cross fire" and kill all thrust.

Thanks,

Jim
Click to expand...

You had to be there. I was. Teeth failed in plastic distributor. Mag firing at wrong time. Cylinder doesn't develop much power when the fuel/air mixture is not fired at the correct time. There are other scenarios.
 
Kristin said:
You had to be there. I was. Teeth failed in plastic distributor. Mag firing at wrong time. Cylinder doesn't develop much power when the fuel/air mixture is not fired at the correct time. There are other scenarios.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you for a personal opinion. I asked for an analysis of how a mag failure can contribute to zero thrust.

I've been there before, and can guarantee you that teeth failing will NOT bring about the scenario that you descibe.

There are no such things as plastic distributors. There are plastic gears.

I was the victim of a double mag failure and can describe it a hell of a lot better than this.

Try again.,

Jim
 
Dav8or said:
I guess the point is to just get every last possible hour out of each appliance, hope your redundant systems get you through and hope that when they do fail, it will be easy and fast to get it fixed where ever you end up. I guess that's one strategy, but I would rather replace things on my schedule, with the people I want doing the work and to never have to test my redundant systems. That's just me.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I don't think it's desirable to get the last ounce of juice out of every component by taking it to failure. I think the idea is to maintain on condition (whatever that exactly means per component) with the knowledge that a failure is not necessarily a catastrophe. Mag performance can be monitored and tested, they can be maintained by replacing certain components as they wear or degrade and they can be cost effectively replaced when certain components must be replaced. On the other hand they can simply be swapped out for new or overhauled units at x hours. There is a choice.

I recall getting Parker Hannifin's annual notice about replacing their vac pumps. In any other industry you'd think it was just a revenue generating effort but in this case it was clearly a litigation avoidance strategy (that probably doesn't work very well)and the recognition of the reality that the pumps fail in normal use in a relatively short time. Fact is that there is no way to check the condition of a vac pump except to look at whether it's sucking. When it stops sucking, it fails catastrophically but unfortunately the instruments it powers roll over dead very slowly and dangerously. So time based replacement is the only logical strategy for the IFR flyer along with a backup plan. VFR, maybe not so much.
Dav8or said:
As to the maintenance induced failures, it seems to me that the same procedures are preformed when you replace something after complete failure as is done during a preemptive replacement, so there is no additional exposure to risk. In addition, sometimes a component can fail and take out perfectly good component that is connected to it, costing you extra.
Click to expand...
Doing 3 pre-emptive replacement at x hours instead of a single condition base replacement at 3x hours could clearly increase exposure to maintenance induced failures.

As a OBAM aircraft owner free of the pressures of running a business around the maintenance of my aircraft, applying some critical thinking to the process is fun and I think financially rewarding. It certainly was during the building phase when I designed my electrical system and panel. There are some very lively and enlightening discussions going on around things like battery maintenance, fuses versus circuit breakers, backup strategies and system failures. But most of that stuff can only be applied on the experimental side. Oh well
 
weirdjim said:
I didn't ask you for a personal opinion. I asked for an analysis of how a mag failure can contribute to zero thrust.

I've been there before, and can guarantee you that teeth failing will NOT bring about the scenario that you descibe.

There are no such things as plastic distributors. There are plastic gears.

I was the victim of a double mag failure and can describe it a hell of a lot better than this.

Try again.,

Jim
Click to expand...

You're the A&P, how about educating us and keeping it productive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top