100 Hour Inspection Required?

[NC Bill]

I was under the misimpression that the 100 Hour conditional inspection was mandatory, if 100 hours were flown before the annual due date.

 

A local A&P told me that the 100 Hour was due before the annual only if the plane was flown "for hire". Otherwise it was NOT mandatory.

 

That prompted me to call FD who quickly confirmed that the 100 Hour inspection was NOT mandatory for the CT. They said they thought there was a ROTAX requirement that the engine be "looked at" every 100 Hours and that the specifics should be on the ROTAX website.

 

Does all this square with the facts as others know them?

[CT4ME]

I've always been told that both Flight Design and Rotax have a 100 hour inspection requirement. The FD 100-hour inspection checklist is very close to the Annual checklist, so with a few additions, the 100-hour inspection can become an Annual Inspection.

I'm not sure who you talked to at FD, but maybe they were sweeping the floor :blink: ...

Check this out.... http://flightdesignusa.com/support/maintenance/

especially this http://documents.flightdesignusa.com/20090101%20-%20CTSW%20LSA%20-%20MM%20rev.%207%20-%20AU%20010%2002000_7.pdf (<--CTsw)

Search for "100 hour"

Tim

[Doug Hereford]

To All,

The term "Condition Inspection" is a legal term for a specific type of SLSA (and experimental) AIRCRAFT inspection, used to determine whether or not the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. The terms “100 hr. Inspection”, and “Annual Inspection” are also legal terms for specific types of inspections performed on Standard Airworthiness small aircraft. These terms (Annual Inspection and 100 hr. Inspection) have no place in the SLSA world.

 

In accordance with 14 CFR part 91.327 (and Ops Limitations) everybody (SLSA world) must have “Condition Inspections” performed on an annual calendar year interval regardless of hours flown (CAN BE IN EXCESS OF 100 hrs. TIS since last inspection). Additionally, if the aircraft is operated for hire, condition inspections are also due at-or-before each 100 hrs. time-in-service.

 

Summary:

WHEN to perform a SLSA (doesn't matter what model aircraft) “Condition Inspection” is ALWAYS governed by FAR (not Flight Design, Rotax, or any other individual).

1. If you don't fly for hire, have Condition Inspections done annually (each calendar year).

2. If you do fly for hire, have them done every 100 hrs. TIS, or annually (which ever comes first). The interval will reset either way.

3. Any required inspection can be done early and the interval will reset as well.

4. The Condition Inspection interval can also be reset if the aircraft receives an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate (usually new aircraft).

 

Read, and understand 14 CFR part 91.327. Read and understand the operating limitations which are a part of the airworthiness certificate for the SLSA aircraft. DO NOT deviate from either of them.

 

NC Bill,

My response makes the assumption that you are asking for what is legally required. Manufacturer’s can of course create their own requirements as they see fit, but these requirements are not regulatory, unless tied to a specific rule. The Rotax 100 hr. inspection would be an example of this. Simply put, the A&P mechanic’s response to you is correct.

 

Doug Hereford

[NC Bill]

Thanks for your reply Doug.

 

You're referring to the same FAR that my mechanic mentioned, and I'm assuming that FD employee I spoke with also.

 

The next question is what are the practical implications of only doing annual condition inspections on a FD CT that is out of warranty? Insurance?

[FlyingMonkey]

So if an owner flies 300hr in a year, he must have Three inspections performed? That seems, well...silly.

[Jim]

To my mind, the issue of what Rotax and Flight Design can mandate and what they can't was settled when the FAA declined to violate the A&P that worked on a Rotax without Rotax-mandated training.

[Doug Hereford]

NC Bill,

That question is much broader in my opinion. I will tell you that I have performed numerous repairs to aircraft including SLSA that were paid for by insurance. I have never had a single issue. The adjuster of course always wants to see maintenance records, but they have never imposed any additional requirements beyond what the regulations require with respect to maintenance, and insurance coverage.

 

I personally think that the warranty arguement is also over-used, and incorrectly quoted most of the time as well. Bottom line is that if there is loss as a result of poor, or missing maintenance, then generally speaking, warranties should not apply (rules were broken). However, if the rules are followed, and losses occur that are clearly the manufacturer's responsibility, then they should pay. If they don't, and try to cite their internal requirements as a basis, either the rules should be changed, or the manufacturer will naturally "go away" on their own when enough people stop buying their products.

 

An example of what I am talking about: Everyone says that Rotax won't cover their product under warranty, if it is not maintained by a Rotax trained individual. I believe this is a ridiculous notion. If the engine is properly maintained, and a loss occurs that is Rotax's responsibility, they will cover it under warranty. If they don't, sooner or later, they won't be around because smart people will stop buying their product.

 

One more practical implication opinion. I have said before, that I believe that what is legal is safe. Same holds true here. However, my personal experience is that somewhere around 100 hrs. TIS, things need attention on an aircraft (sometimes sooner). If you were my customer flying more than 100 hrs. annually, I would make the strong recommendation that you adjust your inspection program and perform your required Condition Inspection early (before the Annual calendar year required limit). If not, I would urge your to perform very diligent pre-flight inspections in strict accordance with (should be doing this anyway) the manufacturer's recommendations. I would also remind you that while "Condition Inspections" are only required every twelve calendar months when not for hire, airworthiness directives and safety directives have their own individual requirements that most likely do not offer regulatory relief with respect to when they are performed, and as such, these additional requirements must be complied with as directed.

 

Doug Hereford

[FlyingMonkey]

One more practical implication opinion. I have said before, that I believe that what is legal is safe. Same holds true here. However, my personal experience is that somewhere around 100 hrs. TIS, things need attention on an aircraft (sometimes sooner). If you were my customer flying more than 100 hrs. annually, I would make the strong recommendation that you adjust your inspection program and perform your required Condition Inspection early (before the Annual calendar year required limit). If not, I would urge your to perform very diligent pre-flight inspections in strict accordance with (should be doing this anyway) the manufacturer's recommendations. I would also remind you that while "Condition Inspections" are only required every twelve calendar months when not for hire, airworthiness directives and safety directives have their own individual requirements that most likely do not offer regulatory relief with respect to when they are performed, and as such, these additional requirements must be complied with as directed.

 

Doug Hereford

 

Hey Doug...

 

I understand what you are saying here, but that is the entire purpose of a pre-flight inspection, to catch stuff that happens between annuals as well as anything since the last flight. It seems there are lots of noncommercial certified and experimental airplanes buzzing around for 200, 300, 400 hours a year with just pre-flights and annuals, and they are perfectly safe doing so. Why would the S-LSA fleet require additional maintenance and/or inspections to be safe?

 

If this is a regulatory matter, obviously it's required. If it's just a warranty issue, then it seems it's optional, and certainly *very* optional once your warranty has expired. I'm still a bit confused on all this stuff, coming from the experimental world where almost everything is at the builder's discretion.

[Tom Baker]

Hey Doug...

 

I understand what you are saying here, but that is the entire purpose of a pre-flight inspection, to catch stuff that happens between annuals as well as anything since the last flight. It seems there are lots of noncommercial certified and experimental airplanes buzzing around for 200, 300, 400 hours a year with just pre-flights and annuals, and they are perfectly safe doing so. Why would the S-LSA fleet require additional maintenance and/or inspections to be safe?

 

If this is a regulatory matter, obviously it's required. If it's just a warranty issue, then it seems it's optional, and certainly *very* optional once your warranty has expired. I'm still a bit confused on all this stuff, coming from the experimental world where almost everything is at the builder's discretion.

 

I don't know of to many guys flying that many hours who are not doing more than just preflights between inspections. They are taking care of maintenance items as they come up.

[Jim Meade]

So, we have two experienced mechanics, both citing regulations, in direct opposition to each other?

 

I own an E-LSA CTSW and am confident I don't have to legally do a 100 hour. That's just me speaking for myself. A new SLSA owner asked me if he had to perform a 100 hours and I told him I wasn't sure in his case. I said I'd heard differering opinions, which is just what I see here.

 

I'll be in OSH next week, will run down the FAA guys - hopefuly one of their LSA gurus will be there - and I'll ask for their response and for specific citations.

 

I'm also going to ask if a CFIG-SP can legally be a safety pilot or otherwise train a student under the hood. That subject has been tortured to death and needs resolution. In fact, the whole SP safetyt pilot issue kind of reared it's head as if it had not been thought through very clearly.

 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

I don't know of to many guys flying that many hours who are not doing more than just preflights between inspections. They are taking care of maintenance items as they come up.

 

Of course, anybody running an airplane should be doing maintenance as it arises. We're not talking about fixing broken things, we're talking about extensive inspections of an entire engine & airframe, where there is no evidence of a problem. Are annuals a good thing? Yes! Are 100hr inspections on top of all normal maintenance for aircraft not in commercial service a good idea? I'm not convinced of that one...sounds more like an expensive bureaucratic requirement rather than a safety of flight issue.

[Roger Lee]

When you do one inspection, the 100 or the annual just log them both as done and do the paperwork the same. Still just one inspection and covers all the bases whether it is needed or not, no one can place fault with it and no bureaucratic issues. How hard is it to write 3 more words and cover everything that has to do with anyone. You can log an annual condition or 100 hours as often as you want and reset the time or date at will. Inspections most always find things a pre-flight won't. Pre-flights tend to find outwardly visible problems and the pilot usually doesn't have a mechanics training or trained eyed to look for the subtle beginnings of issues. Pilots don't see all the day to day problems from looking at 100 different planes and we tend to be a little complacent on our own craft at times.

[Jim Meade]

The problem with doing inspections that are not indicated or required is that they contribute to Mechanic Induced Failures. Said another way, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Roger Lee]

The problem is you don't know if it's broke or close to it without the inspection. If pre-flights were enough then inspections would never be necessary and I have never had a plane in the shop where I didn't find something that was never seen or caught by an owner. Yes, some are small items, but some were very serious. Here's my point: I just had a CT in my shop before its maint. time. It has been flying and pre-flighted, even had another dealer look at it. That said how many of you know how to check a front end suspension without pulling it apart to see if it's becoming a serious problem? Most likely the answer is darn few if any. When he came in I did my check and found the front end was only held on by 2 threads on the through bolt. That means it was ready to fall off on one of the next few flights and wouldn't be there for landing. How many can tell me how to check the stab pivot pin without re-moving it and tell me if the stab pivot pin is loose? I usually find them around 90-100 in/lbs and not the 200 in/lbs they are supposed to be. Another plane had the AP and other instruments acting up. Who would know that all 6 through the fire wall engine mounts were loose and under 40 in/lbs and not the 200 in/lbs.

If you wait till it breaks and only do minimum maint inspections then you may be headed for one of the NTSB reports for an accident. Detailed maint. inspections is just about your one defense against premature failures. For those who know Rex Johnson, he told me once, "there is something wrong with every plane and it's your job as a mechanic to find it." I took that to heart and it has always been true. Even after an A&P has done an inspection on a CT (an untrained CT or Rotax mechanic) I can usually find things he missed. Not that he's dumb he just doesn't know where or how to look at a Rotax or CT. He probably didn't even charge you that much and I guess that might be a bargain or maybe not.

Pre-flights aren't as detailed as an inspection. The items I have caught many times would have caused an in flight issue if it had been left undiscovered until months went by for an annual.

The one thing I hear some of you saying is why change the hoses at 5 years I can just look at them and see if they are bad.

Of those that say that how many have cut off the band clamps on the fire sleeve, cut off the clamps on the fuel hose fitting and removed the fire sleeve and checked or tested the hose then re-assembled the whole thing? X-ray vision doesn't work so there really is no on condition check because no one pulls the hoses to look. I just changed a set of fuel hoses on a Rotax engine that had 7 years on the fuel hoses. The two long ones had severe cracking on the areas around the fittings and at the hose bends. I knew I should have posted a picture. How many would have cut off all the above obstacles to find this? No one.

If you wait for it to break you have done something seriously wrong and neglectful and possibly put you, family or a friend in harms way.

One reason some Mfg's have time limit parts is there is no way to really tell when a part or hose may fail so they place a safe time limit on it. They must have a reason for that time, the experts just didn't pull the time out of thin air.

 

I'm passionate about good maint,. and so are all the guys that fly with me over the Grand Canyon, Zion & Bryce National Park, low at 200' through Monument Valley or down Lake Powell at 200' over the water. What do all these have in common , no place to land at any altitude. Sure something can stiil fail, but at least you went the extra mile to help ensure your best possible chances.

These guys I guarantee do there maint and want it 100% without cutting corners.

 

 

One reason the 360 CT family members haven't had more in air failures is good maint and staying with 100 hr, annual condition inspections, rubber replacement, chute inspections, ect... Some of those failures have come from uneducated CT and Rotax mechanics. I believe this is why we have such a great intelligent group of CT Flier's.

We all care enough about ourselves and our families and don't want to hurt them or our friends by getting hurt or hurting them when they fly with us.

 

There existence is in our hands and good regular maint. is our only defense. Waiting till things break or allowing it to even get close is a sin.

 

Jim,

While you were flying commercial aircraft did you want the mechanics to do the least possible maint. they could get away with? I think you wanted whatever it took in time and money to make sure you stayed in the air regardless of what the minimum requirement really was. No one wants to fly and be proud that he got the least maint possible to all his passengers and family. We own a plane and it cost money.....

 

Good regular detailed maint is your friend and main defense against injury and loss it isn't your enemy.

[Doug Hereford]

To Jim Meade,

I don't know if you were referring to me as one of the "experienced mechanics citing regs.". I have, and will continue to cite regs. if I'm giving an answer to a question of what is required of someone related to aviation maintenance. I have not seen anyone cite any regulations that oppose any reply that I have given. My answers as to when Condition Inspections are due at 100 hr. intervals are NOT based on my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly that unnecessary/unrequired maintenance can often lead to induced faults, and needless cycling of equipment and or systems.

 

To all,

A pilot is fully qualified to perform a proper pre-flight, and owners should be fixing discrepancies as they occur between scheduled inspections.

 

To Roger,

If you know of issues on the CT or any other aircraft for that matter that aren't being properly discovered on Condition inspections performed annually, then you should be bringing those issues to FD attention so that Safety Directives can be issued to require more frequent inspections and/or repairs to these unsafe conditions. If you really believe that hose changes should be mandatory at five years, convince FD to issue a Safety Directive requiring it.

This is the way the system works. And I will say again, that I am not suggesting that anyone cut any corners, or do minimal maintenance EVER.

 

Doug Hereford

[S3flyer]

If you really believe that hose changes should be mandatory at five years, convince FD to issue a Safety Directive requiring it

I think this is a very good process. For example, Tl-Ultralight felt strongly enough about the 5-year rubber replacement that they made it into an SB. They softened the due date to be within 30 flight hours or 90 days of the date, though. Took interpretation out of play.

Hey Roger, done a 5 year on a Sting?

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm passionate about good maint,. and so are all the guys that fly with me over the Grand Canyon, Zion & Bryce National Park, low at 200' through Monument Valley or down Lake Powell at 200' over the water. What do all these have in common , no place to land at any altitude. Sure something can stiil fail, but at least you went the extra mile to help ensure your best possible chances.

These guys I guarantee do there maint and want it 100% without cutting corners.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing to "cut corners", we all want to fly safely. I think that the issue is some of us think that there is a difference between doing periodic maintenance that improves safety and doing excessive inspections to satisfy bureaucracy. As I brought up in my previous post, certified GA aircraft are not required to do full inspections more than once a year, regardless of hours flown, and they are supposed to be the ones with "more stringent" rules, compared to S-LSA. If S-LSA are less structurally sound or more poorly constructed than other aircraft, then this makes some sense, but I don't think this is the case, do you? (genuinely curious, not being snarky).

 

It would make no difference to me at all if these inspections were free, but we have to pay somebody to do them, so there is a cost involved. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is whether the cost/benefit ratio is worth it, and my gut says not really. The "better safe than sorry" mentality only has benefits that go so far, or else we'd all do an annual before each flight. Or better yet skip that dangerous flying thing altogether and take up knitting.

[Doug Hereford]

MrMorden,

I think your point is well made regarding the practical aspects of what is required. All I will add is that in this case, there really is no bureaucracy (my opinion). Condition inspections every 100 hrs. are not required by law (unless flown for hire).

 

My experience has been that the rules are not blind to the practical side of aviation. That is why we have things like minimum equipment lists, and other deferral options for inoperative instruments and equipment. That is why we have special flight permits, and alternate methods of compliance for Airworthiness Directives. That is why owners have several options to choose from when complying with Safety Directives.

 

Again I will say, what is legal is safe.

 

Roger,

The examples you give about the front-end suspension, stab. pivot pin and the AP/instrument problems are all very good examples of poor maintenance by the previous mechanic, but none of those examples were caused by not doing the Condition inspection at 100 hrs. TIS. Two different issues.

 

Doug Hereford

[Roger Lee]

Hi Dave,

 

Yes, I have done 3. Sport Cruiser this coming Wed.

 

 

MrMorden,

 

You don't need to do excessive, just include them both in the logbook when you do one. It isn't excessive maint on an inspection. An inspection is just a detailed trained eye look. Maint. only comes if you find something wrong.

 

 

 

Hi Doug,

Quote:

"To Roger,If you know of issues on the CT or any other aircraft for that matter that aren't being properly discovered on Condition inspections performed annually, then you should be bringing those issues to FD attention so that Safety Directives can be issued to require more frequent inspections and/or repairs to these unsafe conditions. If you really believe that hose changes should be mandatory at five years, convince FD to issue a Safety Directive requiring it."

 

Unfortunately the system should work that way, but it doesn't. Like the FAA told me this morning, "it's like trying to steer a glacier". It doesn't work this way with the bigger GA guys either. It takes years for things to change or accidents of some type because no Mfg wants to admit on a regular basis that some things need special attention. Put out too many of those documents and people won't buy their plane. I do fill out paperwork, but unless everyone else does too then the system won't work. Most mechanics don't even know there is such a report or where to find it. Hec many A&P's don't even have a full set (if any) of Rotax or FD maint. manuals nor do they know where to get them. So how do you make the system work?

Most of the things to check are in the CT maint. manual. How many pilots take that document and do their pre-flight or have ever had a CT knowledgeable mechanic show them what to look for between inspections? Most CT mechanics that do 2-3 a year don't know themselves.

 

 

Pre-flights are a long way from a detailed inspection for an owner and most aren't trained to see many issues (no offense intended guys). I inspect about 25-30 CT's a year. That gives me a pretty good heads up in seeing and finding issues that most don't even know exist. Rex Jonson also does this many and we talk all the time on things we find that owners never knew were lurking or where to look.

 

If it were a perfect world the system would work, but it's too far from it and there are too many that lack the will for education, don't care, too cheap or too lazy to make it work well. As far as education goes some refuse to go to a Rotax class where they can tear apart an engine and have someone explain the details that make it so different from a Continental or Lycoming, same with a FD sponsored class. So where do these people get their training and knowledge? Just muddling through it would make me run the other way as an owner, but that is what is happening to out there. When I open a cowl I can usually tell you right away if the last person had any training and the owner paid for that service and now he has to pay again to make it right.

 

I have been traveling the last several months training mechanics and owners on the Rotax and CT which is a better option than no training at all. It's all hands on and the school is in the hangar on the plane.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

MrMorden,

 

You don't need to do excessive, just include them both in the logbook when you do one. It isn't excessive maint on an inspection. An inspection is just a detailed trained eye look. Maint. only comes if you find something wrong.

 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. When you take the 100hr Rotax inspection together with the 100hr airframe inspection, isn't that basically an annual condition inspection? That has to be performed by a Rotax tech (to keep warranty) and an A&P or Light Sport Airframe mechanic, correct? Is it visual only, or do you have to take things apart? How many hours do you expect these two inspections to take?

 

I guess I don't really get it yet. I assumed the airframe part was basically an annual, maybe that's not right. Though clearly that would be a convenient time to do the annual unless you fly over 100hrs per year.

 

Thanks!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Morden,

 

The Rotax and FD inspection get done together. You should be using the FD and Rotax check list each time. It isn't just looking, there is a compression test, a carb sync, pull the gascolator, check carb bowls, ect... There is more hands on than you might expect to do it right. The annual condition and the 100 hr are almost the same thing. There are a few differences, but no many. The annual has a few more things to do. Not enough to make much of a difference in time for the overall inspection. When I do a 100 hr or annual I do all the items and list the 100 hr and annual as both being done in the logbook. All bases are covered all the time. One inspection covers everything every time and nothing gets missed or left out. Just one inspection so there shouldn't be two inspections a year like a 100 hr and then the annual a couple of months later. Which ever ones comes first you reset the times or date for both. It may shave a couple of months if you are flying 150-200+ hrs a year, but that isn't the average person, only a select few. The FD manual and the Rotax manual list 100 hr inspections as well as annuals. It isn't a big shake this way. I see my customers once a year. The difference in the two inspections is a few words and about 2-3 hours difference in work.

 

Rotax is very specific on doing a 25 hr. inspection if you want to keep your warranty. The 25 hr. is like the 100 hr inspection. If something happens they will want a copy of your logbook. Within the warranty time of 200 hrs or 18 months there is a 100 hr. also due. The 50 hr for the warranty is optional.

[Doug Hereford]

Roger,

I’m curious, how do you certify the entire aircraft as approved for return to service after performing these slightly different inspections. (100 hr. vs. annual).

I can’t say it enough……… there is no difference between a “Condition” inspection performed on an annual requirement of WHEN vs a “Condition” inspection performed on a 100 hr. requirement of WHEN.

It’s is an AIRCRAFT inspection. Roger, when you perform a "Condition" inspection, you (or any authorized individual/agency) are approving or disapproving the entire aircraft for return to service………. You……………………….not FD or Rotax, or XZY aircraft company.

As for the steering a glacier metaphor, who said this? The system may be like steering a ship (which is difficult but of course possible), but not like steering a glacier.

 

Jim Meade,

You be sure to request those regulatory references when you run down your FAA guy ( Edsel Ford or Kaleb Glick) while at Oshkosh. You seem to be about as cynical as me, so I'm am sure your already know that when it says FAA on their badges it only means that they are paid by us............the tax payers.

To quote Chanik, I will take off points for hearsay.

 

Doug Hereford

[Roger Lee]

Hi Doug,

 

I do the complete check list for both Rotax and FD on every inspection. If you look there are some differences between the 100 hr. (not as many items) and the Annual Condition. Rotax adds a few items at the annual. You see if you only do a Rotax 100 hr. there are some things that aren't done until the annual or at the 200 hr. mark. I do everything every time. I'm covered no matter what and so is my customer as far as any legal or a less chance that something may go too long before being looked at. There is doing things the right way and then there is doing things right. I prefer the latter. I do every thing on both check list. You also can't return an LSA to service. Only certified aircraft can be put "back in service" after an Annual, but not a Condition inspection.

 

The first sentence starts like this:

In accordance with the Flight Design and Rotax maint.manuals this aircraft was inspected for its Annual Condition Inspection and 100hr. inspection.

 

It needs to be worded something like this for the last sentence:

"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected inaccordance within the scope and detail of the Flight Design and Rotax maintenance manuals for the 100 hour and AnnualCondition Inspection and was found to be in acondition for safe operation."

 

 

The inspections for me are always the same. If you only do a 100 hr from the Rotax maint. manual and it doesn't land on the 200 hr inspection then it is different by a few items less.

 

The FD check list is the same for the 100 hr or the Annual Condition, but the Rotax is different between the 100 hr, the 200 hr and the annual condition. If you use the Rotax maint manual check list you'll see the differences.

 

The glacier comment came from one of the top people in the FAA, but no names. I talk to them as often as I can about legal wranglings. It takes years to get things done, committees, over site for the people verses the government, legal, rule writing and so on and with that in mind in years for change, how long has the LSA been around? LSA is still in its infancy. No wonder we are still evolving and there are misunderstandings. Give it as long as the regular GA world has had to figure things out and we'll be set.

No matter how well a plane is taken care of you should be able to find something or you didn't look good enough.

[FlyingMonkey]

Hey Roger...

 

Just so I can get an idea of maintenance costs, what would an annual and/or 100hr for a CT typically cost be at your shop (assuming finding no significant problems)?

 

Thanks again!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Morden,

 

If I have seen you before they tend to be a little cheaper and if I have never seen you the first time tends to be a tad more usually fixing what someone else may have done that wasn't right. That said usually $800 -$1000. I have had some a little cheaper and some much more expensive due to the amount or work that needs to be done. Some guys come in and just did an oil change and plugs 10 hrs ago so I don't automatically just do them like some shops. If they don't do it then it's still in the inspection price and they don't alter it. Some times the aircraft Mfg or Rotax has a specific function due at a specific time, i.e. gearbox inspection or the FD firewall blanket someone may want installed, ect... It is far cheaper in the long run to keep the plane maintained than to let things go because you don't want to do them, than it is to let them go until your forced to do it or it has ruined other parts. Most of the owners that come to see me on a regular basis tend to have less expensive annuals/100 hr inspections than other owners in the US. That's just because when we get things right on the first visit there isn't usually anything to do on the visits after that. The key is do it right the first time then everything else is easy and usually cheaper. Yes there are some visits that require more maint. items to deal with or a worn out parts, but my guys tend to have a lot less worn out parts because we find and keep things tuned up along the way so parts that tend to wear faster on other planes, tend to last longer so maint cost over a few years really is a lot cheaper. I follow the Rotax and FD check list and do all the items and not just the ones for the 100 or just the annual. This gives a much more complete inspection than some give. I give the customer a singed off Rotax and FD check list and a Discrepancy list to put in a 3 ring binder. This helps the next mechanic and tends to keep the value of the aircraft up by $5K-$10K in resale value. It's a far better chronological record of what has transpired in the life of the plane and as a buyer new owners like that and all the people that you may come into contact like that (i.e. FAA, Insurance, other mechanics, buyers, FD, Rotax). It's a win for everyone. Then my life and the owners life becomes less complicated when it's time for that next inspection. All my logbook entries tend to be about a full typed page in small font and no 2-3 line inspection sign offs or something to the affect that you can find all the inspection information in a shop file somewhere. To me that information belongs in the owners hands not in a file that may or may not be there if the business folds or has other issues. You paid for it why didn't they just hit the print button and give it to you. It doesn't help the next mechanic if the info is in some other file and he can't read it when the plane comes in, you can't tell what's been done. You don't even know if the darn carbs were synced.

 

It's the old adage: Pay a little now or pay a lot later. In our case the a lot later cost could be thousands when you could have just paid a hundred up front.

 

For instance on cost of an inspection:

Many mechanics miss the front end problem or don't know how to check or what is acceptable for a front end wobble. There really shouldn't be any, but most let a little wobble go and don't think a lot about it, but by the next inspection it will be more costly to deal with. If I catch it right away it is usually just some tightening. Left alone for a while it may cost $200 -$2000. Once you let that wobble go too long the front end may need replacement. The key is to recognize issues just starting and take care of it before it becomes costly. Since I see so many CT's every year I'm lucky enough to have seen enough things to nip most beginning issues in the bud before they really get a toe hold and cost you more money.

 

 

 

You can do things the right way (tends to be minimal, but meets regs) or do things right (tends to above average and more complete)!

 

I'll take the latter.