Why annual inspections by Busch

PeterNSteinmetz

Administrator
Staff member
I do wonder if less invasive means can work here?

 
I do wonder if less invasive means can work here?
Can’t access the article, but if its similar to his other articles on the same topic then no. And that is a professional opinion. His argument of a comparison to the “big boys” is moot on several levels. The most prevalent is on recreational, Part 91 aircraft the annual is the only time the aircraft gets looked at.

And given the many posts and discussions on various aviation forums highlighting the benefits or results of 20-minute annuals, then by his reckon we should never hear about someone having a $10,000 1st annual after buying an aircraft.

Where the argument does hold water is with the “big boys” as they are inspecting their aircraft at a rate 10x more than a recreational aircraft is. And in most cases, especially at the Part 135 level, they will pursue an AAIP vs an OEM inspection program so they can reduce the number of repetitive, invasive inspections and lower the chances of maintenance induced failures.

But this discussion is nothing new and has been going on for a lot longer than I’ve been working in aviation maintenance.
 
I'm in agreement regarding avoiding paper-whipped annuals. Planes DO need to be occasionally inspected.

But shouldn't this be based on hours, not calendar days?

I fly 25-30 hours a year, but each year, I have to disassemble the aircraft and splay it all out so the A&P can look at it. Then I have to re-assemble the aircraft. This essentially means I'm doing an hour of inspection (NOT maintenance, just disassembly/inspect/reassembly) for each five hours of flying.

That ratio seems a bit off.

I'd be more inclined to combine the hours flown and calendar years.... Full inspection every three years or 100 hours, whichever comes first.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Back
Top