As an mechanic I did ask once to do an testflight together with me , on an aircraft after maintenance , It was refused :(
maybe because the P-51 had only an transponder repair 
My 75 year old Irish engineer is going….
Ive owned my plane since 1986. I can count on my hand how many times I had the mechanic sit next to me after maintenance. Really never gave it a thought. I has just told to fly it and report back. Two shops that did some major work did deliver the plane each time with no squawks upon delivery. I was impressed. Having work done here at EDMS they would always test fly before giving me the keys and bill. Totally new experience. It would be more gratifying if the airport didnt charge me for the shops landing my plane. In any case its a nice change.
I once had a very good mechanic who would never get into any plane even though he had pilots license before or after maint work because he was just afraid of flying.
This discussion is all too common for my liking. All too often little aeroplane misbehaviours are put down to pilot competence, and/or that old chestnut carb icing.
I had a case recently where there was no mag drop at runup on carb heat despite rough running on carb heat in the air and was told that it was OK to fly and ‘quite normal’. Well no amount of googling the subject confirmed that. Neither did it offer up the true explanation to do with a failed muffler. But if I had not persisted, the rough running on carb heat in flight would happily have been put down to icing, even though the aeroplane had never exhibited this before. Whether the muffler would have collapsed entirely and blocked the exhaust flow I don’t know….
A_and_C wrote:
There is an assumption with a certain type of person in the UK that the guy in the overalls that has just carried out the maintenance is some sort of lowlife with very little status or intelligence
Around my parts, it’s rather the mechanics that consider the pilots to be unintelligent lowlives who keep breaking their planes
In an aeroclub I used to be a member of, on the bank of the Seine river, there is an elderly mechanic, 1,60 m tall with a mustache, former military… A great guy once you get to know him, unless you rub him the wrong way. He barks at anyone who dares open his mouth. He stopped barking at me when I pointed out to him an exhaust leak due to a crack in the manifold of a Bonanza. The same guy released a C172 back into service although he knew there was something wrong with the engine. When the climb rate dropped to 200 fpm around 3000 ft AMSL I turned back and was allowed to enter Paris TMA to glide back to my departure airfield. I discovered that the engine issue was well known in the club, but nobody bothered telling me, and there was of course nothing annotated in the journey log until I wrote it up.
In Norway I once took a Mooney to the shop prior to a trip to Finland and Estonia on the grounds that it was sometimes making a funny, muffled, little noise when I throttled back. When I arrived in front of the shop I did some engine tests to convince myself that there was indeed something wrong, and then went inside to talk to the mechanic. I got a rather cold reception and was told that there was nothing wrong with the airplane (they had heard the engine run outside) but that the pilot needed remedial training. When they opened up the cowling the whole exhaust system fell apart. It had been held together by the cowling. The trip was canceled :-(
Such experiences build character. Not being an owner myself, my experience with airplane maintenance is very limited, although when I get the chance I try to spend some time at the shop during the 100 hrs inspection of the plane I fly. That is a good way to pick a thing or two. The mechanics have always been very patient and forthcoming with me, taking their time to answer questions and chit chat.
Nevertheless I am very surprised that anyone in a maintenance shop would push on the outboard portion of a wing, or an a flaps. (as mentioned on another thread)
AF, same one methinks and from the engineering horse’s mouth, I’m told first flight.
Yes, he was a little short on final but that probably added to the excitement! Personally, I don’t think I would have used as much flap and I did mention Tim O’s well-founded philosophy that first flights should always be completed by experienced pilots.
A well known engine overhauler who may also dabble in F1 came and took away the air-throttle metering assembly.
DP – I witnessed a very similar event, although I heard it was the third flight after the engine overhaul/installation. From what we saw, it was pretty slow on the last bit of final with a stiff wind blowing…. I saw it subsequently start up and taxi back under its own steam so it’ll be interesting to hear what the cause was in due course.
Personally, I have carried out many first flights on ‘new’ engines (and other air tests, although these are rarely required or justified, especially since the demise of the CofA renewal air test), if nothing else to ensure the initial break-in procedure is followed. Trying to convince owners to fly their new engine in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations can be hard work as they are a tad psyched up. Sometimes (quite often, actually) owners are less experienced than the engineers when it comes to flying. Indeed, I heard the pilot involved the other day was one of the owner’s sons – perhaps using more experienced (qualified) engineers or instructors etc might be a better idea.
I was responsible for the maintenance on an Archer. When the engine overhauled, I gave the owners a chat (in my own time) about how to look after their ‘new’ engine. In the end they flew it two crew as it was climbing and flying so incredibly fast they were concerned about navigation, infringements etc. In an Archer. Oh, and because I said the first two hours should be at 75% power (plus a bit either side) they said they’d flown around the carb heat on to slow it down…..
Sadly, it is true that many owners/operators/pilots look down on engineers. I think that many would be surprised just how many of us fly.
I wouldn’t have a problem flying any aircraft post maintenance that I myself have performed maintenance on or been responsible for. Whether or not I would get in the aircraft with an owner/operator/pilot at the controls that I didn’t know and trust, is a very different matter….
I noticed an aircraft get airborne the other day on it’s first flight after engine overhaul. It turned downwind, declared a PAN, upgraded to MAYDAY on base leg and conducted a pretty reasonable engine-off landing.
Yesterday we finished several months work on my 65 HP ‘puddle jumper’ and my A&P friend and I flew it for an hour… He taught me how to fly in it 12 years or so ago, after fixing stuff to make that possible, so flying together after maintenance is a well established pattern with us.
I was terribly rusty having been flying a higher powered nose wheel aircraft for a while, so we did some stalls and ‘almost’ spin entries, lazy 8s, and touch and goes. Simple stuff. The plane flew fine except for him noticing that it was spitting a tiny bit of oil on the windscreen. It always does that after the propeller is reinstalled, with the tapered hub newly greased.
Around here it is very common that the mechanics either do the test flight themselves (if they are rated and current on type) or come along. I have never had one who refused to fly on the test flight.
