Disastrous Annual

In this webinar, maintenance expert Mike Busch A&P/IA tells the sad tale of a highly experienced aircraft owner who took a newly-purchased airplane to a shop he'd never used before for the first annual inspection on his watch. The annual turned into a disaster that resulted in the airplane being unflyable for more than a year and a huge invoice far beyond the shop's estimate. The sad part is that all of this could have been prevented had the owner simply dealt with the shop in a more businesslike manner, something Mike explains in detail. This should be a cautionary tale for every aircraft owner. Savvy Aviation offers Professional Maintenance Services to owners of General Aviation aircraft, such as: SavvyMx (Professional Maintenance Management), SavvyQA (Expert Consulting), SavvyPrebuy, SavvyAnalysis (Engine Data Analysis) and Breakdown Assistance. Savvy also publishes a monthly newsletter with lots of interesting information for the general aviation enthusiast; subscribe to it at www.savvyaviat... or text the word "Savvy" to 33777. This webinar was hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

[@wheelairrentals7132]

Let’s start playing the guess the shop game!

[@Trump985]

I’m truly shocked no one has killed the owner of this shop yet. I certainly wouldn’t have waited anywhere near this long before visiting the shop. If I brought it for an inspection and they did work I didn’t authorize and then demanded money for said work? Well use your imagination.

[@MayhemCanuck]

As a tech in Automotive it was a big surprise that Aviation does not have the protections like we do. We HAVE to have a signature and an estimate and verbal or written permission to add anything to the initial work order that was signed on. If a customer signs for brake servicing on there car and we put brake pads on it because they are very low and the customer did not authorize it, he goes home with new pads for free or we have to take them off and put his old ones back on, no charge.

[@PhilLauter]

I would love to see a written contract that Mike would write for us to use when hiring a maintenance facility prior to commencing our annual inspection. I would call it a “suggested” agreement form.

[@levimohandis4287]

Mike"s presentation is very informed and more educated. Thank u Mike for your experience .I really enjoy your advices for aircraft owners

[@ukrsindicat]

Great work

[@Helibeaver]

I would love to hear what Mike says about the 100 LL issue we just got into

[@Russell_and_co]

This is exactly why experimental aircraft are now so popular

[@paulschannel3046]

I read of a similar case although nothing near the figures like here. A cessna 150 owner took it to an unfamiliar shop for annual. No upfront paperwork/contracts. When he went to pick it up his bill was in the neighbored of $15000!!! If I remember correctly that was about as much as he'd pay for it. This was like 15 years ago. The final outcome was there was nothing he could to but pay it! SAD!

[@richardsmith4715]

Definitely takes more than 24 hours to get a ferry permit. New process implemented during COVID slowed thing way down. Took me nearly a month after submitting the application to get to the top of the queue at the Reno FSDO.

[@tomasnokechtesledger1786]

A terrifying shop, grossing over a money pit! Wich shop was it? Anybody? 96k and the 160k plane was still far from flyable... What a nightmare!

[@Triple_J.1]

Google "Beach 18 Experts" in an area 350NM north of Southern California?

[@anthonydelrosario1718]

This goes the same for your car . Sadly there are more defined laws before mechanics can touch your car . Always define the work to be preformed. 1) Always discrepancy list first in writing for repairs . 2)Always OK for itemized repairs or decline . 3) pay for the inspection and or work that was authorized. This should work for cars & most planes . The department over seeing the auto industry is The Bereau of Automotive Repair . ( for cars only )

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

I was about to compare to cars. I cannot understand how it is legally permitted for the shop to perform and bill whatever he wants without a written approval !

[@cellis5111]

theres a phrase like "give a man a hammer and he will go looking for nails"

[@Helibeaver]

If I can make it Oshkosh. I will make sure I make it to Mike's presentation

[@ronstowell8646]

So what did "Chuck's" pre buy inspection list show prior to purchase?

[@TheReadBaron91]

Or lack there of…

[@ronstowell8646]

@@TheReadBaron91 Exactly, I do not drink the Koolaid from MB and all his BS. This story smells of BS.

[@TheReadBaron91]

@@ronstowell8646 it’s actually a great marketing model when it comes down to it, regardless of whether you agree

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

How the hell does an annual last more than a year !

[@firstielasty1162]

The comments seem to be leaning towards negativity about the shop. I didn't hear any complaints in the presentation about claims that they had created imaginary problems, or done shoddy work, just that the costs were getting high and it was taking a long time. When you intend to use a 65 year old complex antique to haul paying passengers around, and bring it to a shop that has never seen it before, this scenario seems likely to me. Many GA aircraft have had marginal annuals done for years. When one of those arrives at a shop that cares to do a thorough job, this scenario WILL happen. The thorough shop is not at fault, the prior owners and mechanics are. Is this the case here? I don't know. But the absence of a single complaint about the quality of work suggests that to me. The communication doesn't sound very good, but, like most communication, when it doesn't work....there are two parties to blame. If a quick, predictable inspection was needed, a King Air with a good inspection before the sale sure seems like a safer bet than an antique with two radials and a wing spar issue. This isn't a "quick" or "cheap" aircraft. The GA fleet needs more thorough annuals. There is a lot of "turning a blind eye" to problems. Owners love their IA's that give them "reasonable" inspections. Great, until something happens, and you (the IA) are now dealing not with your old customer, but the lawyer representing the family of the deceased. Adding paying passengers to the mix should make you even more aware of this, although all customers deserve that consideration. Without knowing this aircraft, or even Beech 18s in general, hearing $96000 "so far" doesn't sound outrageous to me, especially for the first inspection of an unknown aircraft headed for hauling passengers. The owner should have asked a lot of questions, and frequently. $96000 pays for one person working on that for less than 6 months (@ $100/hr), and no parts. One person. I wouldn't wait a year to check on it.

[@CatarineausArmory]

We have all heard the phrase you can not take it with you when you go. I would agree with that statement but add that there is 1 thing that can not be taken from a man and that is his integrity. His yes is yes and his no is no. Cars, cash, clothes, and coochie can be taken from a man, but not his integrity. You can "claim" a lack of integrity but that lack can be tested, observed, measured, and repeated with a simple question, "Can yo be here tomorrow at 09:00?".

[@anthonydelrosario1718]

Adobe scan should work for your phone to scan documents .

[@libertine5606]

The lesson: Don't be a Chuck! Of course he should have got a better agreement before any work was done. Once ghosted he should have been on alert and took one of his planes and go see what was going on. He should have had them stop work immediately and start negotiations from there. They proved they are not willing to work with you so everything from then on needs to be in writing. You never want to get into ANY argument with attorneys in the middle. You usually though will find attorneys in the field that will give you general advice on how to proceed or services they can do at a lesser price. You don't want to give a attorney a open check anymore than a mechanic! Since they would probably lose in court the mechanic has a lot to lose too in this shit show so it is time to negotiate. I think I would be more hard nose than you though. You always want to look like the "reasonable one" if you do have to go to court. But a shop that ghosts you, does work without your consent, AND is in violation of California law, isn't going to seem reasonable to a judge. So all necessary parts and labor that is "reasonable" for "normal" annual you should start as a baseline. Then negotiate keeping what would seen reasonable to a judge. The courts like the one who tries to settle these disputes before going to court and you want to be that one.

[@StjepanNikolic]

It all starts with "if you have to ask" mixed with humble personalities and greed...

[@christophergagliano2051]

Why did the beach owner take his aircraft to a facility 350 mi away for an inspection The inspection requirements are clearly laid out in the regulations his a&p mechanics that work on his training aircraft could have easily completed the inspection on this Beach 18 it is not a complicated airplane

[@josh885]

Crazy. I'm sorry but how do you conduct ANY business with ANY entity for 5 figures without a signed contract detailing the scope of the work, price, when payment is due, what happens if payment isn't' received by the due date ect. This protects both parties. The only reason for the shop to not want such a contract is to screw their customers since there is zero regulation and no legal recourse for fraudulent business practices in aircraft maintenance apparently. It's shocking that otherwise smart business people would just drop of a plane worth 6 figures for work that will be 5 figures potentially to a shop they have never even worked with before with no contract and not even a signed receipt for the plane proving the shop now has it.

[@blublade56]

Can;t say I have seen a aircraft shop to give an honest deal ,point in fact . I needed a landing light , the local hangar had a used one they would sell me for only 40 bucks , they told me they cost 60 , HMM . I went to a NAPA store and got a new aircraft spot with the same part number for 10 dollars . I was told I could not use it , I showed him the old and new , he could not tell them apart , thieves all as I see it .

[@TheReadBaron91]

Then you must have the worst of luck with shops…that’s like saying all aircraft owners suck.

[@oldschoolcfi3833]

A shop must use a "certified" part, even if said part is identical to an automotive part, it must have some aviation provenance to make it "legal" to install. Often times the only difference in said parts is the price tag. an owner can be cagey, a shop has to obey or accept the risk involved with using such parts, which is unlikely. Change a landing light using an "automotive" part, and then the owner crashes in foul weather, and the shop is left defending itself in court... even if the part in question had nothing to do with the event or outcome.

[@skydoc6578]

First comment