|
I agree with most of what I have read in this thread - on both sides of the "argument." I have seen a lot of crap in the maintenance of private (Part 91) and small commerical (Part 135) aircraft, but I have never worked on airliners (Part 121 and so forth) so I can't comment on their maintenance. Actually, that's not true and I can - the FBO I worked for right out of A&P school had contracts to do line or "outstation" maintenance at DAB and I got trained and helped out on some of those calls, but that's another story for another time, another thread, and probably a different forum entirely.
What I really wanted to comment on was the subject of "training" on a new aircraft. I agree with those here who said that mechanics should train of get up to speed on their own or company's time and not on the "clock" for a particlar customer. A mechnaic's skills, just like any of his other tools, are his own responsiblity. That being said, I do believe that it is not only justifiable, but really also required for any mechanic with any kind of integrity at all to spend some extra time getting up to speed on a specific aircraft that he has never worked on before. He should already have all of the necessary skills and knowledge to work on that particular make and model (or he should be learning about it by working on it with someone who already knows all about it) but until he learns that particular history and quality of the particular aircraft, he can't take anything for granted.
Even the FAA has published personality profiles of pilots and mechanics that differentiate between the two. Mechanics in general, especially compared to pilots, are not trusting by nature and usually prefer to check or see things for themselves. And so they should. They are also more prone to the attitude "if you want something done right, do it yourself."
The very first time I see an aircraft in for inspection, it always does take a lot longer to do both the paperwork research and the actual inspection of the aircraft. One of the biggest trouble spots is Airworthiness Directives compliance. Entries in logbooks like "Checked all AD's through biweekly issue 2011-24" or "complied with all AD's as necessary" are absolute crap and they are totally worthless. Not only does each AD note need to be verified, the method of compliance must be verified as appropriate. Maybe someone previously misinterpreted the AD and accomplished the wrong inspection, option, or paragraph.
The very first time you work on an airplane, even a simple one - and especially an old one with potentially a lot of AD notes against it over a long period of time, it simply takes a lot of time to validate all of the previous "compliance." You cannot take them for granted because when you sign off the current inspection or Annual, you are taking on ALL of the responsibility and liability until the next compliance is required. Only once you have developed your own history with a particular aircraft can you even start to relax a little bit. If it comes back to you again and again AND you are the only mechanic/shop routinely working on it, then you can trust yourself and feel comfortable knowing that you have already thoroughly researched the history and previous AD compliance of that aircraft and not have to spend quite so much time digging through its old records.
That too points out another potential trouble spot that can impact the cost of an inspection - if the maintenance records are really old, lengthy, and/or grossly disorganized, it will take considerably more time to do the very first paperwork research on it for an Annual inspection or whatever. Because of all of that, my preference in regard to quoting a rate for an inspection is different for a first timer than for a repeat customer. The first time, it takes whatever it takes - every aircraft is different. Only after that first research and inspection is done and the customer comes back regularly would I consider quoting a flat rate for an inspection.
On the other hand, I onced worked in one shop in particular with which I had issues. The DOM routinely gave customers a break on the bill and discounted labor hours on the bill because in my opinion he was just a "softy" and didn't want to stand up to aggressive or unhappy customers. I thought that most of our mechanics were actually very skilled and efficient for the most part and in the specific case that I'm thinking of for example, it was not our fault that the bills got big. In that case, a still "student" rated pilot bought himself a very old Cessna 182 (IIRC it was literally just a plain 1956 model "182" and not even a 182A) in which to finish his PPL training. We found a lot of cracks in the tail structure and had to remove the entire empennage (both the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and of course the rudder and elevators) in order to replace the cracked frames and bulkheads. While they were off or as part of the re-installation, we determined that a recent paint job had not bothered to check the balance of the repainted control surfaces - and either the rudder or more likely the elevators were out of limits. And they would not balance within the guidelines in the Cessna service manual. It finally turned out that the skins had once been replaced with factory new spare parts that were mislabelled at the factory - instead of being skins for a 182, based on their thicknesses it was determined that they were literally heavier skins for a Cessna 188 Agwagon! Needless to say that the final bill to fix all of that was huge - at least for a simple Cessna 182. And then the DOM turned around and knocked somthing like 40% off of the customer's bill because "we can't bill him for all of that time for an Annual." I was like WTF? It's not our fault that he bought a POS without a good pre-purchase inspection. We didn't "break" it and we actually worked pretty darn quickly and efficiently considering what it was we had to work with. By discounting the labor bill, that DOM was effectively taking money out of our pockets.
I guess my real point is that no two cases are exactly the same, so it really all depends on what you have to work with in the first place.
_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal
Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"
Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
