Hi Linda,

I have never seen a flat rate annual although I have seen a posted minimum
rate  (ie minimum you pay just for bringing it in).  All mechanics I have
worked with on my planes or balloons treat the annual as bringing the plane
to a condition that approaches factory spec (ie an evergreen approach to
keeping the plane in top airworthy condition).  That is what I expect from
an annual... who would want to cut corners?  I also see to it that any
squawks I discover between annual condition inspection are immediately
addressed.

Best,
John


On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Linda Abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   I've received many helpful replies to my "legitimate charges?" query,
> both on-list and off-list -- thank you all! Most helpfully, some
> explained enough about magneto problems happening &/or being
> detectable (or not) to give me some clues on how my 'Coupe's
> immediate-post-annual mag problems could have come about.
>
> There was enough variation in one area of the replies that I'd like
> to invite more comment on it: some seem to feel that an Annual is
> just a "safety check," mainly reviewing ADs and for corrosion, some
> that it is a"safety check" of all systems and parts and anything that
> could break/leak/fail/etc., and some seemed to consider it in
> addition also a maintenance marathon , including *servicing*
> everything like a 100-hr. check-up & tune-up & fluids/lubes &
> preventative maintenance. Is there a consensus within the industry
> on the scope of what it means to "Annual" the plane? This is very
> interesting since many mechanics seem to offer a flat-fee "Annual" or
> have a set # of hours that it takes them to "do an Annual," and there
> seems to be is a wide range of what that is.
>
> I am not asking folks to address the absolute $-cost (it's clear
> there's a wide variation among even those of us on the list), but
> rather the scope and "philosophy" of the Annual: "safety check,"
> "safety+maintenance," or ______?
>
> Thank you all for sharing the benefit of your experience and for the
> education you're giving me!
>
> Linda
>  
>

Reply via email to