Why Annual Inspections?

[@donandhisstationair2382]

Mike. It is getting harder and harder to have quality, reliable work done on our airplanes. I have been an airplane owner for the last8 years. My experience has been that annuals have created more problems for me than they have prevented. I wish there were better answers as I think it will only get more problematic

[@stargazer2504]

I remember doing several years of annual inspections on an airplane that the only time put on the tach in 4 years was our test runs.

[@TheReadBaron91]

Then why did you have an annual done if you weren’t going to fly?

[@stargazer2504]

@@TheReadBaron91 It wasn't my airplane. I was just hired to do the inspection. The tach time when we brought it in was the same as it was when I last signed it off a year prior. I guess the owner just wanted it current just in case... or maybe that was a requirement for his insurance? I dunno.

[@christophergagliano2051]

I find this hilarious, I commented 3 years ago back to Mike that an airframe only needs to be inspected every two or three years but the engine and fuel system needs to be inspected every year. At the time Mike disagreed with my assessment and still was recommending an annual inspection, sure looks like he sees the light now😂

[@naps3386]

Based on what? The airplanes I see are not maintained to the highest standards by their owners, I would not want to see 2-3 year intervals on airframes. There are far, far, far too many owners who need an annual kick in the butt just to keep on top of all the little (and not so little) holes in the swiss cheese.

[@christophergagliano2051]

@@naps3386 owner operators are allowed to do preventative maintenance and that includes lubrication the flight controls, wheels, brakes, oil changes, spark plugs, cleaning, corrosion protection all these things the owner operator can take care of. But it's a total waste of my time as a mechanic to pull out seats, trim, carpet, just to inspect items under the floorboard that haven't changed for 30 years, And that's a fact. Now the engine, fuel system, and travel checks should be done maybe every 18 months, but the tear apart an airplane every 12 months is just absolutely ridiculous and does more damage than it does good.

[@iancormie9916]

The FAA should remember that little guys pay taxes and the little guys are not getting their money's worth.

[@christophergagliano2051]

​@@iancormie9916Well the FAA has given us the experimental category, the LSA category, and the ultralight category. All three have contributed to reducing the cost of aviation tremendously.

[@jaimetrevino3177]

Annuals and Progressive inspections have to be signed off by an A&P/IA, but what about the king air or other turbine powered aircraft phase inspections (Manufacturer´s approbed inspection program). Is it necessary an A&P IA or just an A&P to sign it off?. The FAR is not quite clear on this. 91 and 135 operators.

[@one_eighty_two]

I do king air phase inspections and not sure I have ever seen the “ops check” option for aircraft not flown regularly. You are doing at least one phase a year generally 2 phases a year. The phases have a lot of overlapping or repetitive inspections that annuals don’t have. And I think this is assuming most part 91 owners are having their airplanes inspected in accordance with manufacturer’s manuals which in reality most owners are using appendix D scope and detail which is extremely lenient compared to manufacturers manuals. So GA pilots are already getting much more lenient inspection options. As for the mechanics shortage, it’s a hard grind. There is easier money elsewhere. I think less inspections would be less work and less money and attract less mechanics.

[@zachheilman784]

If aviation stack exchange is to be believed, 12,500 pounds was chosen because it’s half the weight of a loaded DC-3.

[@pharmakon6]

Mike, I would love to see you kick around the idea of us certified airplane owners being able to re-categorize our airplanes as experimental to help loosen up the restrictions on parts and maintenance. In my opinion, anything over 30 years old, a legacy ga airplane, should be allowed to swap into the experimental category and run just the same as an rv-10. For part 91 private operations. Why is it on my vintage airplane from the '60s, '70s, or even '80s, I'm required to use all these certified parts and avionics whereas my Hangar neighbor with his rv-10 can fly all the same places, in all the same weather, with all the same passengers, and operate under experimental parts and equipment. I was told Canada has a program like this and it is extremely popular. Once the debacle over the Moss interpretation settles down, it would be great to hear you talk on this point more. Can we get the industry to push for this? Thank you.

[@DENISPLUCHE]

The 12500 Lb limit (5700 kg in metric system) comes from ICAO annex 8. Here in Europe we have the same separation between so called heavy aircraft above 5.7 metric tons and light aircraft.

[@demagescod9657]

Every time I come out of annual, they have messed something up... This last time They left an entire inspection panel off...Other owner accepted it, we both flew it and I didnt catch the missing panel until I was on the road and went under the low wing to tie it down !!! Have had them give it back to me with messed up injectors, had one shop break my airspeed indicator doing a Pitot test and wouldnt take responsibility... IT is a Fing joke. I will be going experimental as soon as I can! The FAA appears to be trying to facilitate the death of the certified GA world. At the very least they are holding a beer and watching it die.

[@JK-rv9tp]

I inspect my own homebuilt and after working for an OEM for decades, it bothered me that airliners get the equivalent of a lightplane's annual only on C-Check, which can be 3000 to 5000 hours and a complete interior strip-out is done at "2C", 6000 to 10000 hours! Same pulleys and cables, really. Lightplane annuals are mostly an inspection for mice and birds for airplanes that sit around. Since nobody is looking over my shoulder and my airplane's structure is fully alodined and primed, I do firewall forward every year, but other areas I alternate every other year.

[@TheReadBaron91]

@@JK-rv9tp @FAA Except those big boys are designed for that.

[@JK-rv9tp]

@@TheReadBaron91 They have the same rod ends, cables and pulleys.

[@bradleyspatz9243]

Would breaking up inspections into different time periods (e.g. firewall forward annually, cabin underfloor etc. every 2 years, for example) result in greater scope of inspection items? It could allow regs that require more inspection... Talk was focused on time intervals and assumed same scope of inspection items. Would like Mike's comments on this.

[@christopherbrooks4978]

Hi As an A/P mechanic for a regional airline for past 11yrs, I think part 91 piston engine aircraft should be inspected annually do to more moving parts as well. Turbine aircraft are safer which utilized bleed air and obviously no pistons . Just my opinion why FAA requires annuals for GA.

[@not_listening2792]

The alternative is skip the annual. It is only a signature in the log book. When I started in aviation in the 80's a customer brought a Mooney into the shop for annual. After the work began the IA had a discussion with the owner. The IA was asking where were the other log books? The last annual entry was 10 years previous. The owner explained he had a friend who was a mechanic who took care of the plane for him. He had recently passed, so he took his plane to the Mooney dealer for service, just like his car. :->

[@TheReadBaron91]

Well, for those who do it right it’s more than just a signature. Plus, many times the owner knows when it’s not 💯 legal, the difference is that they can claim ignorance beyond a certain point. Met owners who came to me “for a good annual”.

[@JohnDoe-ks6is]

annuals also sometimes do catch things that do need to be worked on, Mike had seminars on prebuys that yielded problems that were clearly pencil whipped each annual.

[@billbrasher3437]

Maintenance induced failure. I fly 40 or less a year. I follow Cessna maintenance manual per hours. But opening up every year is increased probably of a maintenance induced failure just like the UK in WWII. You are correct. It’s backwards.

[@daleyingling4868]

👍

[@smurfsky101]

Love listening to you at 2x speed , then it's tolerable

[@smurfsky101]

2.25x even

[@FlyingNDriving]

Why not an alternating airframe and powerplant inspection every 12 months except requiring a powerplant every 100hours since they wear more and that's a reasonable time frame to catch a majority of issues

[@Mikey300]

Going to have to watch this when it's not quite so late . . .

[@pasichnyk]

Seems ripe for an update along side the part 23 rewrite…

[@dvsmotions]

I do it every 2 years. Mainly because it's 20 hours a year.

[@gawebm]

Set plsyback speed to 1.25. A lot easier to listen to.

[@johnalexander2349]

Why would slowing down make it easier to listen to.

[@FlyingNDriving]

Nah, 1.75-2x

[@smacfe]

I blame the AOPA for their massive push for women as pilots only, and their degradation of mechanics. As a result we have thousands of women with, or close to having pilots licenses who have left aviation and moved on, and a dramatic reduction in the number of young men being attracted to an aviation career, especially in maintenance. This is really sad, as I have now seen mechanics being hired for $200,000 plus, which ain’t half bad as a career!

[@TheReadBaron91]

Those 200K gigs are few and far between, I’d say average $50-80K most places.

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

The cost of these annuals is a major barrier to entry for less affluent wanna-be pilots/owners. Anything to reduce the frequency (and thus cost) would be good for GA for the common man.

[@Aviatorpeck1957]

It should be hours only!!!

[@christophergagliano2051]

No that wouldn't work just going off of hours. Because airplane deteriorate due to their environmental exposure. I think I bi-annual inspection would be appropriate

[@PatrickDuffy-u3s]

The reason for these anal (annual) inspections is to make it much harder for the average Joe to get into GA. Imagine if you had to rip your car apart every year before driving it. I had a Datsun pickup truck that had 550,000 miles on it and it NEVER leaked any oil and was NEVER overhauled. The guy I sold it to drove it another 200k. The FAA doesn't require a Boeing 747 to be torn down with the seats removed every year, so why GA planes? It's clearly to antagonize GA pilots. Once every 5 years would be reasonable.

[@JohnDoe-ks6is]

Pickup trucks can simply pull over if there is a problem and their engines don't see the same stresses as aircraft engines, GA part 91 mx standards are also much lower in general than airlines operating that 747. There is a lot of stuff that is optional for part 91 GA that the 747 operator MUST comply with so it makes sense that Joe Pilot's little C152 would probably be not as well taken care of compared to a UPS 747, airline mechanics are encouraged to write stuff up and fix or MEL it as needed. GA mechanics always have to get approval from the owner for problems found which always isn't approved even if it's a legitimate safety of flight defect.

[@bernardc2553]

FAA should allow pilot/owners with life time Mechanical skills more latitude especially thise that have worked on or owned a easier pathway to get some kind of AP Cert. Possibly Model specific. Most in these situations know more about its condition than their A&P's do & take better care overall of their Aircraft.

[@TheReadBaron91]

If I’m good with spatial orientation and moving my arms and legs in a coordinated way, I should get some leeway with a pilots license too.

[@naps3386]

Nope….just because you are an owner, you don’t have the thousands of hours of training and experience required, especially if you carry a passenger. Either you can afford to own an airplane or maybe it’s time you sell to younger generations. FAA doesn’t need to make skies less safe to accommodate owner’s pocketbooks.

[@hahahano2796]

@@naps3386 Boeing, Airbus, etc. would like to have a word with you. It's funny how people conveniently forget that CA is maintained to much worse standards than GA but they get a pass and people like you will invariably bring up 'but muh CA vs. GA safety' forgetting that it rarely a matter of maintenance for GA. Being in the industry it is laughable what people presume is safe but isn't as major airvehicle companies have regulatory captured the FAA and even DoD safety.

[@sledawgpilot]

@@TheReadBaron91😂

[@sledawgpilot]

So owners get to assess their own abilities? I’m sure that will be very objective.