Trouble looming for older aircraft maintainance?
Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:26 am
This is all of us, and may be a trend. Any ideas what percent of the GA fleet is >18 years old?
From AVWeb:
Facilities Won't Work On Airplanes 18 Years Or Older?
Aircraft owners in Kansas and parts of the Southwest are worried about a policy
adopted by one and possibly two aircraft maintenance providers to refuse to work
on aircraft that are 18 years or older. A customer of Kansas City Aviation
Center in Olathe, Kan., who asked not to be identified, told AVweb that
officials of KCAC, a Piper dealer, told him they would no longer lift a wrench
on anything beyond that age, including Piper products. He said he was told by
company officials that its an insurance issue. A phone message and an e-mail
request for an interview left Friday with KCAC's maintenance supervisor were
not returned by our deadline, nor was an e-mail request for comment from Piper
Aircraft. The time span coincides with the liability limit that forms the crux
of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, the legislation credited
with revitalizing GA manufacturing. In a nutshell, the law immunizes aircraft
manufacturers and the makers of parts and subcomponents from product liability
lawsuits after the aircraft reaches the age of 18, or 18 years after the
installation of the part. In an analysis of the law that appeared in AVweb in
2001, lawyer Phillip J. Kolczynski wrote that limiting the liability on one
party (the manufacturer) necessarily shifts it to others, and among those are
mechanics and the shops where they work.
A Trend In The Works?
After word spread on Web forums about the Kansas situation, at least one other
instance of a similar policy was reported in a chain of FBOs that operates in
the Southwest. The firm, said to be Cutter Aviation on the Malibu Mirage Owners
and Pilots Association online message board, hasn't returned telephone or
e-mail message requests for an interview. The Kansas pilot we did speak with
told us his main fear is that the policy will spread and could result in owners
of older aircraft being unable to obtain service or repairs while traveling.
Meanwhile, Kevin Mead, the owner of a shop in Hutchinson, Kan., says he doubts
the insurance industry is driving the issue. Mead's shop specializes in Piper
Malibus, including extensive modifications, and he’s heard nothing from his
insurance company about an 18-year limit. There's been no restriction on
our insurance, he said. Mead said there are only a few insurance companies
that cover aircraft maintenance facilities, so he said it’s likely that if one
had instituted an 18-year limit that others would at least be talking about it.
He also noted that liability still remains a major concern in the industry.
From AVWeb:
Facilities Won't Work On Airplanes 18 Years Or Older?
Aircraft owners in Kansas and parts of the Southwest are worried about a policy
adopted by one and possibly two aircraft maintenance providers to refuse to work
on aircraft that are 18 years or older. A customer of Kansas City Aviation
Center in Olathe, Kan., who asked not to be identified, told AVweb that
officials of KCAC, a Piper dealer, told him they would no longer lift a wrench
on anything beyond that age, including Piper products. He said he was told by
company officials that its an insurance issue. A phone message and an e-mail
request for an interview left Friday with KCAC's maintenance supervisor were
not returned by our deadline, nor was an e-mail request for comment from Piper
Aircraft. The time span coincides with the liability limit that forms the crux
of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, the legislation credited
with revitalizing GA manufacturing. In a nutshell, the law immunizes aircraft
manufacturers and the makers of parts and subcomponents from product liability
lawsuits after the aircraft reaches the age of 18, or 18 years after the
installation of the part. In an analysis of the law that appeared in AVweb in
2001, lawyer Phillip J. Kolczynski wrote that limiting the liability on one
party (the manufacturer) necessarily shifts it to others, and among those are
mechanics and the shops where they work.
A Trend In The Works?
After word spread on Web forums about the Kansas situation, at least one other
instance of a similar policy was reported in a chain of FBOs that operates in
the Southwest. The firm, said to be Cutter Aviation on the Malibu Mirage Owners
and Pilots Association online message board, hasn't returned telephone or
e-mail message requests for an interview. The Kansas pilot we did speak with
told us his main fear is that the policy will spread and could result in owners
of older aircraft being unable to obtain service or repairs while traveling.
Meanwhile, Kevin Mead, the owner of a shop in Hutchinson, Kan., says he doubts
the insurance industry is driving the issue. Mead's shop specializes in Piper
Malibus, including extensive modifications, and he’s heard nothing from his
insurance company about an 18-year limit. There's been no restriction on
our insurance, he said. Mead said there are only a few insurance companies
that cover aircraft maintenance facilities, so he said it’s likely that if one
had instituted an 18-year limit that others would at least be talking about it.
He also noted that liability still remains a major concern in the industry.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:40 am
I don't think it is an insurance issue, but more of a company image issue.
We work primarily on the Cessna Citation 500 series line of aircraft including the early Cessna 500 and 501s.
An example - the worst part of working on these aircraft is having trouble fixing electrical issues during avionics work. These aircraft have been modified with new avionics and related items so many times over the last 30 years that the aircraft electrical schematics do not match the aircraft. We go to install a new Garmin system and have to figure out the wiring on the aircraft which by now is like a big bowl of spaghetti. By the time we re-engineer the wiring on some of these aircraft, get the stuff installed and then trouble-shoot the problems, the aircraft can sometimes be quite late in its return to the owner.
The owner does not understand why his airplane is not finshed and returned because he has a big ski trip to Colorado and now we have screwed everything up for him and his friends. We look bad in his eyes and he tells everyone that we suck.
So the easy thing to do is not work on the older aircraft and cut them out of the loop. Same goes for routine maintenance and inspections. They freak out when we get done with the inspection and they see thier bill.
We work primarily on the Cessna Citation 500 series line of aircraft including the early Cessna 500 and 501s.
An example - the worst part of working on these aircraft is having trouble fixing electrical issues during avionics work. These aircraft have been modified with new avionics and related items so many times over the last 30 years that the aircraft electrical schematics do not match the aircraft. We go to install a new Garmin system and have to figure out the wiring on the aircraft which by now is like a big bowl of spaghetti. By the time we re-engineer the wiring on some of these aircraft, get the stuff installed and then trouble-shoot the problems, the aircraft can sometimes be quite late in its return to the owner.
The owner does not understand why his airplane is not finshed and returned because he has a big ski trip to Colorado and now we have screwed everything up for him and his friends. We look bad in his eyes and he tells everyone that we suck.
So the easy thing to do is not work on the older aircraft and cut them out of the loop. Same goes for routine maintenance and inspections. They freak out when we get done with the inspection and they see thier bill.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:46 am
I am not sure that you can legally do that.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:55 am
A shop can do what ever they want. I also do service and repairs on older Goldwings, because the Honda dealers will not work on a bike over 5yrs old. I left my cards there for them to give to anyone that they refuse to work on thier Goldwings due to age.
On the airplane side, the local airport has tried to keep me from working on GA planes because of the local FBO (Who I worked for 8 yrs ). But they do allow me to work on the Warbirds for the museum, because no one else is qualified.
On the airplane side, the local airport has tried to keep me from working on GA planes because of the local FBO (Who I worked for 8 yrs ). But they do allow me to work on the Warbirds for the museum, because no one else is qualified.
Last edited by Matt Gunsch on Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:56 am
Do what ? Limit what you work on ? Nothing illegal about that.
I used to make a fair living owning and running a Mercury Marine dealership that specialized in repairing Mercury and Mercruiser marine engines.
We picked up a ton of work from other dealers that refused to work on any of the company product over 10 years old. We also stocked parts for them where other dealers didn't.
It's a conscious business decision, we had the guys with knowledge of the older products, the others didn't. King is absolutely right, the customer usually has no idea what it takes to make his older aircraft or boat airworthy or seaworthy. When you have to bill them the additional manhours they gripe because they want to equate their bill with repairing a newer item that has none of the additional problems that you have run into.
I used to make a fair living owning and running a Mercury Marine dealership that specialized in repairing Mercury and Mercruiser marine engines.
We picked up a ton of work from other dealers that refused to work on any of the company product over 10 years old. We also stocked parts for them where other dealers didn't.
It's a conscious business decision, we had the guys with knowledge of the older products, the others didn't. King is absolutely right, the customer usually has no idea what it takes to make his older aircraft or boat airworthy or seaworthy. When you have to bill them the additional manhours they gripe because they want to equate their bill with repairing a newer item that has none of the additional problems that you have run into.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:12 am
RickH wrote:It's a conscious business decision, we had the guys with knowledge of the older products, the others didn't.
Our company also does major repair and rebuilds of Cessna Citation aircraft. Several years ago we had an order in for a new pair of Citation 560 wings, one new S550 wing and a pair of new Cessna 501 wings.
Cessna could supply the 560 and S550 wings but had a problem with the 501 wings. They had drawings and partial tooling, but no one there who could remember all the little stuff in putting a set of these wings together for this older aircraft. They actually invited us up to the factory to help them on certain questions and they made several trips down to our shop to look at wings we had. In the end we purchased two sets of 501 wings and had to do quite a bit of rework just to make them install correctly.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:00 pm
Anything older than 18 years the liability goes away for the manufacturer so the maintenance facility is the likeliest deep pocket. If you only work on 18 year old and newer aircraft they go after the manufacturer first. The maintenance facility has a layer of legal protection that way.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:06 pm
Sounds like my local Harley dealer who refused to work on my '87 sporty cause it was "too old". 
Needless to say, I won't buy so much as a 10¢ Oring from them in the future.
Needless to say, I won't buy so much as a 10¢ Oring from them in the future.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:58 pm
I thought about taking my Bullitbird to the Ford dealer for its 60k checkup a while back. :p
That was when "Fidgiter" worked there.
That was when "Fidgiter" worked there.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:30 pm
Sounds like the Law of Unintended Circumstances via GARA.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:30 pm
Then I should refuse to treat any patients over 18.
It seems I may need to get my A+P/IA.
It seems I may need to get my A+P/IA.
Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:56 pm
More info, and apparently more repair stations.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#194150
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#194150
Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:38 pm
Guess what! The solution for the unintended consequences of the legislation is.... More legislation! Why didn't I think of that!oscardeuce wrote:More info, and apparently more repair stations.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#194150
When will the do-gooders ever learn?