What makes for expensive annuals?

docmirror said:
Originally Posted by Silvaire
Okay I'll bite - what the heck can go wrong with a pushrod tube?
Click to expand...
It's metal, it will corrode.
Click to expand...

Having been an A&P for 38 years I have yet to see an instance of a pushrod tube corroding to the point that it would fail an annual inspection in the time between engine overhauls. This one leaves me scratching my head. Perhaps the OP was referring to replacement purely for cosmetic reasons and not to pass the inspection? :dunno:
 
Tom-D said:
Easy,,,, Poorly maintained aircraft.
Click to expand...

That and some shops simply charge outlandish labor rates. I can easily see how an owner with deep pockets could buy a new or newer Baron, take it to the big name/most expensive shop on the field and end up paying $10k or more per year. the same airplane if owned by someone more involved and maintained by a shop with reasonable rates and one that will let the owner order the parts directly, would probably cost half of that to maintain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Fearless Tower said:
That and some shops simply charge outlandish labor rates. I can easily see how an owner with deep pockets could buy a new or newer Baron, take it to the big name/most expensive shop on the field and end up paying $10k or more per year. the same airplane if owned by someone more involved and maintained by a shop with reasonable rates and one that will let the owner order the parts directly, would probably cost half of that to maintain.
Click to expand...

Certainly. FWIW in my case, I've done virtually zero maintenance on the planes myself. That's starting to change, but for the past 4 years it never made sense to - so I basically let them take it in, did minimal research and parts sourcing myself, and let them just do their job.

However, I didn't go to the most expensive place.
 
Tom-D said:
Easy,,,, Poorly maintained aircraft.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :yes:

Tom, rather than the shock of doing the annual all at once and scaring the hell out of plane owners is there a "Rolling Annual" to spread the cost out a little? Most owners don't fly every day, so why not say do the wheels, tires, and axles during the week one week, and say firewall forward in 2 months, air frame & controls in 3 months. As long as the annual is complete within 12 months you are in compliance... I think.

I would say that we do this in the experimental world but that would **** everyone off again. :D
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Thank you. :yes:

Tom, rather than the shock of doing the annual all at once and scaring the hell out of plane owners is there a "Rolling Annual" to spread the cost out a little? Most owners don't fly every day, so why not say do the wheels, tires, and axles during the week one week, and say firewall forward in 2 months, air frame & controls in 3 months. As long as the annual is complete within 12 months you are in compliance... I think.

I would say that we do this in the experimental world but that would **** everyone off again. :D
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, progressive annual inspections aren't legal without prior approval by the FAA. This goes for experimentals as well as certified. That said, I know people in both worlds who do it that way and the A&Ps just sign it off when it's all completed.

What does happen often would be a list of squawks that aren't airworthiness issues yet, but need to be addressed at some point. We routinely did this. Inspection got completed, plane was airworthy. Airworthiness issues were satisfied at the time. Then a list of "Well, we need to do this soon..." came up, and got fixed as time allowed. We just did this with the 310 as well.
 
Tom-D said:
Easy,,,, Poorly maintained aircraft.
Click to expand...
OK, I get that. You don't keep up on maintenance and anything can suffer - a house, a car, a plane - whatever.

But more specifically, is it things like landing gear part replacement, hydraulics, electronics, corrosion, rigging - aside from the engine and prop what are the big dollar items that smack somebody in the face?

I've only owned a plane for about a year and a half. I had a prebuy done and my first annual was quite reasonable - my plane was not rotting away when I got it. That said, I know there were a couple of planes I looked at where we got to the point of reviewing the logbooks prior to a prebuy and things showed up that the owner had denied (trouble with landing gear systems on a retract, for instance). I ran, not walked, away!

I suppose that ultimately my point is that a good prebuy by a knowledgable mechanic should identify the troublesome birds before purchase and thus spare the diligent owner some maintenance sticker shock at first annual. Because it would SUCK OUT LOUD to spend upwards of $100K on a bird and then a year later have to spit up another $100K to keep it in the air.
 
Well, I have an old spam can, and there is some truth to the statements about them being higher in mx. These are not the planes for some people. There is a market for the new Columbia at $180k or so. Or, you could spend $30k or less and pay a bit more in mx for about 3/4 of the performance. Some people can do that.

After my one $7k annual, I should be good for another 5-7 years on the motor brushes depending on cycles, and the paint should last at least 10. The bladder on the prop is every 250 hours, so that's recurring, but the bolts, and the jug, and the pushrod tubes, and plexi should be good for at least 7-10 years, so it was mostly catch-up stuff.

Last year, my annual was owner assist and it was just under $1000. The inspection part was fixed at $700 which is a good price for a retract, and the fixing and stuff was under $300. I'm purely guessing but the new Columbia annual is going to be ~$1000 every year, just for the inspection part.

Older planes are not for everyone. Maint for older planes is somewhat higher. Initial buy-in is much lower.
 
Morne said:
But more specifically, is it things like landing gear part replacement, hydraulics, electronics, corrosion, rigging - aside from the engine and prop what are the big dollar items that smack somebody in the face?
Click to expand...
Totally depends on the airplane and the shop involved. One guys annual could be ridiculous because of the shop's labor rate and another guy's could be ridiculous because the airplane has been neglected for a while.

Different airframes have different areas prone to trouble. Some airplanes are simply designs without alot of expensive parts. Some airplanes have some incredibly expensive recurring ADs that can certainly drive up the cost. For the detailed answers, the indivisible type clubs are probably he best place to start.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Silvaire said:
Having been an A&P for 38 years I have yet to see an instance of a pushrod tube corroding to the point that it would fail an annual inspection in the time between engine overhauls. This one leaves me scratching my head. Perhaps the OP was referring to replacement purely for cosmetic reasons and not to pass the inspection? :dunno:
Click to expand...

3 of twelve were beyond useful limits. One of them I could crush in with my thumbnail. The rest were - meh, usable. Once you get the rocker cover off, and pull the rockers I just did them all with new end seals.

Would the other 9 pass annual a few more times? Prolly. The crack in the nose gear housing had been there since Nixon. It was at least 3 inches long. Does that pass inspection? It had been for a generation. I put a doubler plate in and 7 button-heads.
 
Morne said:
I suppose that ultimately my point is that a good prebuy by a knowledgable mechanic should identify the troublesome birds before purchase and thus spare the diligent owner some maintenance sticker shock at first annual.
Click to expand...
The problem is that many buyers do not do that. Wise folks do a full annual inspection for their pre-buy, while others go for a compression check, take a look at the logs and maybe open an inspection panel or two.

You get what you inspect.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Geico266 said:
Thank you. :yes:

Tom, rather than the shock of doing the annual all at once and scaring the hell out of plane owners is there a "Rolling Annual" to spread the cost out a little? Most owners don't fly every day, so why not say do the wheels, tires, and axles during the week one week, and say firewall forward in 2 months, air frame & controls in 3 months. As long as the annual is complete within 12 months you are in compliance... I think.

I would say that we do this in the experimental world but that would **** everyone off again. :D
Click to expand...

In Part 91 we can set the aircraft on a Progressive inspection, But it usually doesn't work that well because all portions of the progressive inspection must occur with in 12 calendar months, and most owners don't fly enough to get any advantage of doing this.

The other side of this is there is no time limit on how long an annual can take, You could do all the things you speak of, log it as maintenance and return it to service each time and if your A&P-IA is willing sign off the annual as completed when all of Part 43-D has been done. That is up to them, and I see nothing wrong with this method.

But when you are doing every thing necessary to keep your aircraft in good condition the annual should be no big deal.
 
OBTW boys and girls, the most expensive annual inspection I have done in the past 10 years was $350.00.

The maintenance to correct the discrepancies varied from 0 to around a $1000.00

Do I need to tell you my customers don't fly junk?
 
First off, he said he spent $100k on that annual in the 70's. At that point the plane was no doubt allot more valuable at 8 years old than it is today.

Second, today that plane new would be a Million dollar plane.... once it is out of warranty mid time engines you have to expect the maintenance can be $10-20k per year. Neglect that maintenance for a few years, put the plane out of annual and neglect to pickle it up correctly and it is going to cost a bunch to bring it back up to par.

Third, the neglected AD is a hint of the maintenance before this guy bought it so he no doubt knew it and purchased the plane at a repo price so to speak.

Fourth, this is highly a highly unusual % of value repair but then again this plane is in the top of the twin recips with FIKI.... The only complex item it is missing is duel turbos.

Finally, this is a warning! Just because you can buy a hell fast plane does not mean you can live with it.

Buy the plane for 80% of your mission and rent or go commercial the rest of the time.

Here are the steps of performance and expense as I see them:

Trainer 150
Trainer 4 seat 172/Cherokee
Family plane 180 hp 4 seat/ 235 hp 4 seat
Complex 4 cylinder like Arrow/ RG 172/ RG 177
HI Perf 6 seat Cessna 205/Cherokee 6
6 seat Hi Perf Complex A-36/Comanche/Cessna 210
Light twins like Twin Comanche/Travel-air
Turbo Single 4/6 seat complex
Medium Twins like Baron/310
Turbo Medium Twins 320
......on top of each of these categories add FIKI for cost.
......On top of that you can add Pressurization for complexity and cost.


On the bottom third to half of this list the annuals with maintenance can go from a slap in the face to breath taking....possibly even heart stopping.

So I would seldom recommend a first time a/c owner buy much more than half way up the list for a first a/c.
Morne said:
I've seen a couple of aircraft for sale that brag about how well maintained they are because they had to spend $100K on a recent annual. Example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1962...2648&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&forcev4exp=true

This isn't the only example, I saw another bragging about a $45K annual, and that apparently didn't include a major overhaul of the engines.

My question is, "What causes annuals to be so insanely pricy?"

I mean if you need to overhaul an engine then sure, that requires 5 digits right there. But other than that, how can things really get that out of hand? And honestly, why even bother with something like the linked aircraft? If my A&P tells me that my bird is gonna require $100K then it's going to get parted out and I'll be shopping for a new bird.

Restoring classic aircraft is another way, I suppose, but that's more about the love of an old and rare (or at least uncommon) bird than maintaining a utilitarian transportation vehicle.

What makes these annuals so dang pricy?
Click to expand...
 
So I would seldom recommend a first time a/c owner buy much more than half way up the list for a first a/c.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Just getting used to the cost of aviation is its own baptism. I will buy a twin one day, not the one I linked, but only when I am CERTAIN to be able to afford to feed and maintain it.
 
Fun thread. Lots of pushing and shoving and testosterone.

I fly old airplanes because ?
Well for one, I am old. - birds of a feather, and all that
For two, I can buy and fly an old twin for a fraction of the cost of one that is only a few years old.

On the $40K annual for an airplane listed for sale at $30K, it boggles the mind. But then, sitting in a marina here in Florida this morning I see lots of things that boggle the mind. So it is not limited to just airplanes. Most people are not rational.

As far as the $40K annual, or the $100K, it just speaks volumes about an airplane that was rode hard and put away wet, with no maintenance.
It also speaks volumes about them. If you are going to give the airplane away plus throw money after it, the rational person would just scrap the plane out for it's value as parts.

Yes, annuals and maintenance are not synonymous - but may be.
I have an old, clapped out Apache that has had back to back $12K and $15K annuals. These were my choice. I wanted to do engines and props and new hoses and this-n-that and get rid of the AD's as much as possible, but didn't want the plane down for a lengthy period, so I scheduled those upgrades for the two consecutive annuals.
It still looks old and clapped out but it will fly anywhere you want to go without surprises. Just gas and go.

Let me make a technical quibble. The 100 hour and the Annual Condition Inspection are two different inspections. The Annual will satisfy the requirements for a 100 hour - but the reverse does not.
If someone decides to spend the money to make each 100 hour into an Annual, and have it signed off as such resetting the annual clock, that is their choice.

And finally, why would I fly a Brontosaurus in place of the mighty RV?
Well, for one reason the last time we were crossing Lake Erie on a pitch black night with an iced over windshield, we would not have been there in an RV - and gramma would not have been able to celebrate her grandsons birthday and I would have been in hot water.
For each plane there is a mission.

denny-o
old plane/old pilot
 
Annual inspections are not inherently expensive by themselves. They get expensive when you have to start fixing high dollars items and/or it takes a lot of man hours to get certain things fixed, thats it.

If you bring me an airplane that is well taken care of and flown regularly, then chances are good it will be a lot less than the guy/gal who digs there plane out of the weeds for annual time.
 
There is no such thing as an expensive annual inspection.

It's when the inspection uncovers items that require repair and those can get expensive. Two different things.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
There is no such thing as an expensive annual inspection.

It's when the inspection uncovers items that require repair and those can get expensive. Two different things.
Click to expand...

Thank You John, Finally some one understands.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
There is no such thing as an expensive annual inspection.

It's when the inspection uncovers items that require repair and those can get expensive. Two different things.
Click to expand...

To clarify it even further, it is not the Inspection per se that causes these issues. The issues exist in and of themselves and it is the issues that make the aircraft unairworthy - even prior to the inspection. The inspection itself is just a GO/NO GO list and it costs the same regardless of how many NO GO's you get hit for. Even if you do not fix the discrepancies the Annual Inspection is complete and does not need to be done again for another year.

It's the NO GO items that cause the expense and they exist whether or not an annual inspection was conducted.

There, that pretty much clears it up right? :dunno:
 
I have never understood why people get mad at ME when I find problems with their plane.

Thank God I have a nice group of customers who understand that I am not the cause of the issues I found. Granted my boss told the owner of the plane who told me he wished I hadn't looked so hard at his plane to pound bricks. That helps, as does sticking to your guns and NOT approving the unsafe plane for flight. "This aircraft has been inspected IAW an Annual inspection and a list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner"
 
In the past, I have come across an A&P who operated outside the bounds of what the airframe and engine mfgs specified for condition safe for flight. This is often more true on aged aircraft where there is significant wear on items that are not sources of unairworthy squawks. My favorite one from way back was the condition of the right side sun visor and clasp. It wouldn't stay in it's clip real well and that was 'deficient' and part of the aircraft being grounded. I couldn't find anything at all in the aircraft manuals except a note that 'sun visors optional equipment specified at time of production order. Can be retrofitted under option code xxxx.'
 
I know there are mechanics out there who seem to think their license constitutes some sort of enforcement authority and I've had discussions on these forums with owners who seem to believe the same thing. The fact is that an A&P/IA mechanic cannot "ground" an aircraft outside of an aircraft being currently out of annual (already grounded) and the IA refusing to sign it off as airworthy.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
There is no such thing as an expensive annual inspection.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is....and it depends alot on the shop rate. Some shops charge and arm and a leg for just the inspection while others (like Tom D) are pretty cheap.
 
Silvaire said:
I know there are mechanics out there who seem to think their license constitutes some sort of enforcement authority and I've had discussions on these forums with owners who seem to believe the same thing. The fact is that an A&P/IA mechanic cannot "ground" an aircraft outside of an aircraft being currently out of annual (already grounded) and the IA refusing to sign it off as airworthy.
Click to expand...

Correct!

Please lets have a discussion about the definition of what airworthy is...:lol:


All A&P/IA please stand up.
 
Last edited:
Airworthy means in compliance

There, that was easy.
 
My annuals alone are about $650 but become expensive when three little words creep into my head... "might as well". Then the wallet gets light as I think of all the things that I might as well have done while the plane's in the shop.
 
Silvaire said:
Airworthy means in compliance

There, that was easy.
Click to expand...

Don't want to put you on the spot, but given my prev example, about 12 prev inspectors viewed my plane before I got it, and not one of them caught the prop bolts or the pushrod tubes. 12 inspections by 3 different guys decided they were 'in compliance' when clearly they weren't. Maybe the pushrod tubes were ok in the first 2-3 years, but they were worn out when I found the problem.
 
Silvaire said:
I know there are mechanics out there who seem to think their license constitutes some sort of enforcement authority and I've had discussions on these forums with owners who seem to believe the same thing. The fact is that an A&P/IA mechanic cannot "ground" an aircraft outside of an aircraft being currently out of annual (already grounded) and the IA refusing to sign it off as airworthy.
Click to expand...

If the AI I use told me not to fly the plane, I would take that advice seriously and ground it, in or out of annual. Of course he is someone I trust. Apparently, you use professionals that you don't trust. Why, do they work cheap? Sometimes you get what you pay for.
 
Silvaire said:
Airworthy means in compliance

There, that was easy.
Click to expand...

True, but in compliance with what?

Airworthiness - Aircraft conforms to the regs spelled out on the type certificate, Part 91 requirements, inspection requirements set forth in part 43, AD's in Part 39, (and other miscellaneous rules like DOT for pressurized containers aka fire extinguishers) AND must be in a condition for safe operation. Then there is that phrase “properly altered condition” well how do we know if an alteration affects airworthiness? By making sure it does not affect any of the above rules.

OEM builds parts using industry standards + some standard parts manufactured under TSO + AN & MIL specs ----> assembles a prototype airplane---> FAA reviews protoype and tests as required to prove compliance applicable regulations ----> Now FAA approved aircraft available for sale (they also need a production certificate to build the airplane, essentially saying they have the facilities and tools necessary to manufacture for sale. That’s what the P.C. # is on the data plate)

When we start talking about determiniation of minor alteration/repair vs major alteration/repair, or when OEM service bulletins are required, that's when all the wives tales and misconceptions take place.
 
Question…… How long do you think it requires me to call FSDO and get them on the job?
 
bnt83 said:
True, but in compliance with what?

Airworthiness - Aircraft conforms to the regs spelled out on the type certificate, Part 91 requirements, inspection requirements set forth in part 43, AD's in Part 39, (and other miscellaneous rules like DOT for pressurized containers aka fire extinguishers) AND must be in a condition for safe operation. Then there is that phrase “properly altered condition” well how do we know if an alteration affects airworthiness? By making sure it does not affect any of the above rules.

Simple.. If PROPERLY altered the mod is in compliance with the engineering that was approved by the FAA.

OEM builds parts using industry standards + some standard parts manufactured under TSO + AN & MIL specs ----> assembles a prototype airplane---> FAA reviews protoype and tests as required to prove compliance applicable regulations ----> Now FAA approved aircraft available for sale (they also need a production certificate to build the airplane, essentially saying they have the facilities and tools necessary to manufacture for sale. That’s what the P.C. # is on the data plate)

When we start talking about determiniation of minor alteration/repair vs major alteration/repair, or when OEM service bulletins are required, that's when all the wives tales and misconceptions take place.
Click to expand...

Airworthiness is very simple, it is, or it isn't.
 
flyingmoose said:
Probobly not long I would guess, but who cares?

The owner who thinks he has better judgement that the A&P-IA that told him the aircraft is unsafe.

Who is that "Question" for?
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks the A&P-IA can't down their aircraft.

It's just a matter of what tools the IA wants to use.
 
Tom-D said:
Anyone who thinks the A&P-IA can't down their aircraft.

It's just a matter of what tools the IA wants to use.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you possess the authority to confiscate an airworthiness certificate? Please go on. :rofl:
 
Silvaire said:
The fact is that an A&P/IA mechanic cannot "ground" an aircraft outside of an aircraft being currently out of annual (already grounded) and the IA refusing to sign it off as airworthy.
Click to expand...
So what happens when an IA makes an entry in the A/C log that says he performed an inspection and lists the discrepancies found and some of them are clearly airworthiness items??? Are you saying that it is perfectly legal to go fly that airplane?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Fearless Tower said:
So what happens when an IA makes an entry in the A/C log that says he performed an inspection and lists the discrepancies found and some of them are clearly airworthiness items??? Are you saying that it is perfectly legal to go fly that airplane?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


OOOOh Ooooh pick me! I know the answer!

:popcorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top