achimha wrote:
CAMOs around here have software systems that determine all applicable ADs at a fingertip and track change intervals of all components. If they are correctly signed off, there is no need to open up the plane and check that the rivet was really replaced. Better computer systems — probably an advantage of the “organization” system in EASA versus the predominant freelance system of FAA.
And any [serious] IA worth working with has a paid subscription for entering & managing AD reports.
Despite these, I find complete BS in these reports, all the time !
Michael wrote:
So now what ? Would you TRUST that the REST of the ADs have been correctly performed ???
What’s the practical difference between “performed” and “not applicable”? In both cases you’re safe. Probably just a small oversight.
Trying to point out mistakes in the work of other shops/IAs is showing who’s got the bigger d*ck. I don’t like that. Show me any GA airplane with a bit of history and I (not being an IA/Part 66) will find discrepancies and it won’t take me long.
Would you TRUST that the REST of the ADs have been correctly performed ???
Legally you must. That is how the system works. Your legal requirement for due diligence stops at checking the maintenance records. It has to work that way, otherwise logbooks would be binned and every Annual would be a “back to birth” inspection (which does happen but as I say probably in dubious circumstances).
In practice you should say to your customer that his maintenance records have been forged (or whatever) and obviously you can support that assertion very easily, and present him with your estimate for putting it right. He can then choose…
What is not right is to do a “fait accompli” – the favourite of British builders 
Show me any GA airplane with a bit of history and I (not being an IA/Part 66) will find discrepancies and it won’t take me long.
You could do the same on any 747, Airbus, whatever.
On most planes you can do it in seconds, just by walking up to them and looking for evidence of lubrication 
Peter wrote:
I suspect that a lot of the time the engineer (or the company, in the EASA system) is not willing to say openly they think there is something dodgy there.
That has not been my experience. In fact, the opposite. I have owned my plane for 11 years. In that time, eleven annuals, and a pre buy, three shops, and one freelance have completed the annuals. Every shop, has dissed the previous maintenance regime. The last shop, one where I was for five years, continually complained, and was shocked, by the maintenance regimes in the UK. I will not get into that realm, that has been discussed before, but it appears that each time you go somewhere new, for whatever reason, the mech will criticise what has been before. Going back the the annual charge, over the five years in my last place, I was charged every annual, the annual fee – circa 2k, then the defects/upgrades, and this guy really knew my plane inside out. I never thought to question that charge, because everyone appears to charge it. It appears to be the core of the annual charge – THE INSPECTION.
BeechBaby wrote:
I was charged every annual, the annual fee – circa 2k, then the defects/upgrades, and this guy really knew my plane inside out. I never thought to question that charge, because everyone appears to charge it. It appears to be the core of the annual charge – THE INSPECTION.
There seems to be some confusion here.
Were you getting charged £ N000 for the Annual Inspection PLUS £2000 for the AD report ?
Michael wrote:
Were you getting charged £ N000 for the Annual Inspection PLUS £2000 for the AD report ?
My experience has been……Can you give me a quote for my annual please. Sure, the Inspection, standard annual fee is 2100.00. On top of that we have the various form filing. We then have a defect list, @ 450.00 per day, £50.00 an hour, whatever, plus parts blah blah blah. My annuals have averaged 6k. Regardless of shop.
I do not know where the supplier hides his AD survey, or his SB check, BUT, every year the cost remains constant, DESPITE me providing a full AD compliance list. This latest guy told me that regardless of Compliance lists supplied by me, he would do his own check, and charge me…It is the old CAMO deal, where in my experience, the charge for an annual remains constant, From memory, were there not one off charges that customers paid to run the CAMO? However, the cost of annual never dropped. Not in my experience anyway.
My annual shop invoice for a complex piston (turbo, retractable, oxygen, 6 cylinder) in a CAMO + Part 145 looks like this:
ARC fee 280 €
100h check 1100 €
Plus 19% VAT.
That involves all work required for the inspection and small parts such as screws, nuts, o-rings. Corrective work and parts are charged on top at 64€/h (+ VAT). Obviously there is always something to do and fix so I end up with a higher amount but all the extra stuff is approved and justified. I do a lot myself and only get charged for what their staff due. I also have an arrangement where I can trade hours for the 100h for hours on other work because I do a great deal of the 100h stuff.
The shop is one of Germany’s largest and certainly not the cheapest.
BeechBaby wrote:
I do not know where the supplier hides his AD survey, or his SB check, BUT, every year the cost remains constant, DESPITE me providing a full AD compliance list. This latest guy told me that regardless of Compliance lists supplied by me, he would do his own check, and charge me
Typically in my experience the AD list and status, when generated by an A&P IA mechanic is printed out on a piece of paper and clipped into the back of the maintenance log. The mechanic typically denotes each as ‘one time’ or repetitive and signs each entry in the first column. This your property, signed by an IA and therefore not to be repeated. At the next annual th IA reviews the data and checks for new ADs. Since he mostly doesn’t find any, in my experience on two aircraft since 2003 it has yet to occur, his work consists of performing any repetitive ADs and signing in the next column for each he performs. That’s it…
I suspect the reason that shops don’t separate out the up-front “record scanning” task is because a lot of new customers would go to a shop which doesn’t do that. So it is a lot easier to quote a price and then exceed it and take the risk of having to justify it. You get this in all trades, here and there. Human nature.
It is usually best to keep a long term relationship going with the same outfit or same engineer (like in other aspects of life :smile) but this isn’t always achievable, for a variety of reasons.
achimha wrote:
ARC fee 280 €
100h check 1100 €
Plus 19% VAT.
Well achimha, never ever leave that shop Rip off Britain, it is everywhere. Now there are a variety of reasons that this is the way, not all the business’s fault, but that is the way it is. In my last place, that is exactly the system I thought I would get, until the standard Inspection fee every year. Now, the engineer was good, and I decided to stick with it. Just wait until we leave Europe……there are a lot of people about to get the fright of their lives.
