For all of you "experts" on here, remember, it's your ass in the airplane when something breaks that would have been found with a proper inspection by a qualified AME. It just never ceases to amaze me what a bunch of experts we have out here who have never actually been involved in the maintenance end of aviation. How much experience do you guys/gals have with MRB's? Are you all familiar with all the ICA's for any STC's on your airplane? Do you know that just because CAR625 says you only have to do certain items every 12 months, it does not exclude you from any requirements from any applicable AD's??
Just remember, your insurance company will find any excuse to not pay you out and if there are any questions that can't be answered about your maintenance, you may not be insured.
Please consult your local AMO for more information..
100 hour inspections
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
Re: 100 hour inspections
Gosh. AD's. Who would a thunk of them. Thanks for the heads up.
Tons. The beef teriyaki I hear is especially tasty.How much experience do you guys/gals have with MRB's?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 100 hour inspections
While this sounds believable -and I was convinced this was the case as well-, it is not completely true. I've been, unfortunately, a close witness to multiple insurance claims -not caused by me-. Other than a cursory "send us a copy of the XX hour check", there was no in depth check of the maintenance records, looking for the little typo in the records that would invalidate the claim.
It seems that the insurance companies are not trying to pursue to look for obscure maintenance tasks that have not been completed. Maybe that will change in the future, who knows. The evil "insurance companies are not going to pay out", surprisingly, seems to be incorrect. Although, the claims were claims for damaged small planes only, no multi million dollar pax died kind of things, those might be handled differently, but that's not the scoop of this topic.
Some other thoughts that have been written down on this forum in other topics:
- you can pick any random airplane and find issues with the paperwork if you look hard enough
- to successfully refuse a claim based on maintenance errors, the error would have to been directly related to the cause of the cras, and they'd have to find the error and proof that the actual task was not performed, not just a paper error.
I admit I have no reference for the second part, but it seems to hold up in conversation with more knowledgeable people.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: 100 hour inspections
This has not been my experience with aircraft insurance, for my limited involvement with aviation insurance companies, I have been treated very reasonably. I have found that insurers do their investigation, and look for fault or deficiency, though with decreasing perseverance as it becomes further away from the cause of the claim. That's fair. My experience with auto insurance has left me watching my back against them!Just remember, your insurance company will find any excuse to not pay you out and if there are any questions that can't be answered about your maintenance, you may not be insured.
But, yes, the responsibilities of the aircraft owner and pilot when it comes to maintenance are poorly trained, and apparently mostly learned by expense, and asking questions afterward. I'm not sure that pilots and owners have much need of understanding AMO Material Review Boards, but yes, ICA's and AD's are pretty vital to understand. It is the owner's responsibility to maintain all the ICA's up to date, and provide them with the aircraft when contracting maintenance. A maintenance program document, updated at least annually, is a really good help for this, and AD applicability.
Understanding the condition of your aircraft, and the effects, and side effects of repairs and modification you elect to conduct, is also important. Dortant you realize that the AMO you select will have to evaluate any STC mod you choose, against those already on the aircraft, and account for any conflict which may be possible between them? This can be a much more important that you think, when there is a conflict. The mod you just paid for, is not going to signed off, and the plane is grounded until a further evaluation, and possibly an approval is issued. This could be as simple as two different Flight Manual Supplements, whose contents conflict with each other. Or, two mods which are interdependent, and someone removes one, not realizing that it is required by the one which remains. Float installations, and their associated systems change are an example. I once test flew a 185 as a floatplane, which I had flown on wheels before the changeover. On floats, it was horribly unstable in yaw. I landed it, and grounded it (at a dock in Yellowknife). I asked to see the float installation drawings, suspecting that the absence of any ventral fin was the problem. Nope, no ventral fin specified for that installation. What then? The drawings made reference to a Cessna part number spring kit, without describing it. Sure enough, the parts catalog showed it, the airplane did not! The owner had to source the kit, and have the mechanic fly back up from Calgary to install it. I charged my daily rate to wait those days (or else I would have had to fly home and return). Somewhere between the owner, and the installer, someone should have known what the installation required.
There's a lot to know to be your own Director of Maintenance, and no training program for it. As our fleet ages, the need for maintenance will increase, and the source of repair parts become less certain. It's a good time to get to know what your airplane needs, and will need in the years to come.
