Richard,
 Somethings I forgot.
 That AD on the coupe gascolator. The original AD came out in 1986, 
yet in the 90's I found 6 to 10 aircraft that it was not done on. 
Most were part done(missing a bracket, or wrong fittings), some were 
not done at all.
Getting back to checking on others work. When your doing an 
inspection on a type plane that you know there is a particular AD. 
You just check to see if it's done during the inspection,even on 
planes I've done before. Like you say about people looking at 
different things. Also someone else might have worked on it since you 
last saw it. Examples, the gasco Ad, or the hardware on J-3 elevator 
cable, or the aircleaner AD on PA-28's. 
 As far as ordering the records for airplanes I did it on some, most 
had their paperwork. The ones that didn't my Faa guy would check on 
the 337's for me. I worked very close with him and saw him sometimes 
dayly. I have a file  that is 1.5 to 2 inches thick of 337's that I 
did with him, all on planes that were missing 337's.
 The log book can give you some big hints too. If you find an entry 
in the book for something that was installed. And it's something that 
needs a 337, most of the time the mech will say see 337. If it 
doesn't chances are he didn't do it. If the guy takes the time to do 
one, he'll take the time to write see 337 in the log. One hint here, 
I hi-lite these entry's, so if I need to find them again it's easier, 
or for the next guy. I also do this with AD's and make a note to the 
date on the AD list. Enough soapbox. Mark  




--- In [email protected], "Mark H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>  I have owned my coupe 24 years, and what you are saying is mosty 
> true. And I have worked on mostly old planes so I have seen just 
> about everything. I havn't just worked on coupes. Some of the 
others 
> are swifts, pipers new and old, mooneys, stearmans, T-6's, B-25's, 
> beech, champs, cessna's new and old.   
>  When I worked full time on planes this is how we did it. We had a 
> flat rate for annuals. Price depended on the type. The price was 
for 
> the inspection, and that ment doing the parework too. If I found 
> something wrong then that was time and parts. All the shops I 
worked 
> in we had more than one mech. and after we got done we would look 
at 
> each others work, 4 eyes are better than 2. The last shop I worked 
in 
> we were both IA's. People brought me there planes because I was 
> through and fair. I was even busy in the winter here in Wi.  
>  As far as looking At other mech. sign offs you bet I checked to 
make 
> sure the work was done. A few guys I knew I would trust, but not 
guys 
> I didn't. After all if your name is the last one in the book guess 
> who they will come after first. 
>  I have found many Ad's signed off that weren't done. For example, 
> the AD on a coupe gascolator, it had no brackets. On a PA-28,I 
found 
> 2 AD's signed off that didn't even apply to that airplane. That 
means 
> that the IA didn't even look at the airplane. It was a penciled 
> inspection. I have hundreds more. So do you still want me not to be 
> through? Mark 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], Richard Wilkens <gromit@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> > 
> > Just to carry this point on one step further.  I have owned my 
> Coupe 
> > for 21 years.  Over that period I have had maybe nine or ten APs 
do 
> > annuals for me.  If I understand you, I paid each of those APs 
> three 
> > or four hours to look at the same paperwork at say an average of 
> > $60.00 an hour (9 * 3 * 60 = $1,620 to $2,400), even though each 
> > signed a line in the log book that says it has been checked. The 
> > first AP gave me a very nice computer printout that he signed off 
> on 
> > each AD that was out at that time.  He signed it 20 to 30 times.
> > 
> > I am also very sure that not one (OK one) ordered the aircraft 
> record 
> > from the FAA to see what changes to the aircraft had 337s.    Do 
> you 
> > order the aircraft record for every plane you work on?
> > 
> > Having been an motorcycle than an auto tech in a past life,  I 
know 
> > different mechanics look at different thing when working on a 
> > machine.  We all have pet things we do.  My first AP always 
removes 
> > the prop. He found a cracked  spinner backing plate on mine, be 
he 
> is 
> > the only one who has ever done that.  (He repaired it the first 
> time, 
> > than about ten years latter I took it back to him and this time 
he 
> > made me replace it because it was repaired.  He forget he was the 
> one 
> > who  repaired it. The total of the two were about $400)  I am 
> > personally more conformable changing APs  from time to time 
because 
> > one AP may over look the same thing.
> > 
> > I believe that most older aircraft are missing 337s either 
because 
> > they were never issued or there is an honest difference of 
opinion.
> > 
> > The thing in older aircraft that scares me is the changing of 
data 
> > plates.  You see from time to time people selling log books and 
> data 
> > plates to an old junked or destroyed aircraft.  If somebody 
> installs 
> > that data plate on another aircraft, every thing in the log books 
> is 
> > a lie.  Doing this is the about the worst case of fraud I can 
> imagine.
> > 
> >   At least this got the list talking again.
> > 
> > Richard
> > N99904
> > 
> > 
> > At 09:37 PM 11/21/2008, Mark H. wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >Richard,
> > >No flame from me. Yes you have very good points.
> > >This is what I'm getting at.
> > >Say I'm your IA. I do an annual for you. What you pay for is a
> > >complete inspection. And the airplane to be airworthy. That 
means 
> the
> > >paperwork too. That is what you pay for, and I believe that is 
what
> > >you sould get. why not do the job right and cover all the bases 
and
> > >cover you and the mech. It's the right thing to do right?
> > >FYI,When the Faa does an investigation into something, they will
> > >call IA's that work on that type aircraft for their input. So 
it's
> > >not the insurace company doing the inspection. I have been 
called a
> > >couple times. Mark
> >
>


Reply via email to