annual inspection run-up standard

[davemac]

It is well-established "good shop policy" to have an observer outside the airplane during the first run-up after annual inspection, but where can I find it in writing?

 

[Gatorman]

I do not think it is actually written in any manual, BUT...as in any work that is accomplished, all operational and/or functional checks are required for completion of work and that is in all maintenance manuals.
With an inspection like an annual inspection requiring engine runs, as a matter of policy (i.e. covering thy own's arse) we do an incoming performance run and at the end of the workscope, an out going run.

I do know that there are certain engine manufactures that void their warranty if the engine is borescoped.

funny that.

 

[davemac]

more details

The repair shop called me to say during run-up the oil cooler failed. Unfortunately there was no outside observer, so by the time the technitian doing the run-up recognized a problem, significant internal engine damage was sustained. The shop owner claims they are not responsible for the engine damage. I would like to enlighten them to what seems to be the industry standard, ie., an out of cockpit observer. I figure something must be written somewhere. Thanks to anyone who can help me out.

 

[erj-145mech]

There is no requirement for an outside observer for a pre or post inspection engine runup. Ref: FAR 43 App D. In some installations, this would be too hazardous to an observer, proximity to rotors, props, jet intake/exhausts, etc.

 

[Gatorman]

I am sorry, but I have not been able to find in the maintenance manuals anywhere where it says that an outside observer is required durring an engine run.
I do have these recomendations if the shop that was doing the inspection does not cover the cost of the damage:

1. Was the technition running the engine 'certified' to do so? Not qualified, but certified by the manufacturer. Any A&P is qualified to run an engine, but as a specilest in his field, he should have been certified.

2. Did he have the proper engine run proceedures with him in the cockpit?

3. Is the 'shop' you took it to a certified repair station for those components? Do they have the manuals (current revision) for the work that they have done? If they do not, then they are in violation of the FARs, especially if thet try to had you a log book entry!!!

4. Did the shop have any contact with the oil cooler durring the inspection that would require a leak check? If so, then they are liable.

I could go on and on like like all day long, but basicly it sounds like you took it to some 'mom and pop repair shop' and junior broke it. They probably are not bonded and are trying to get out of it by saying it was you engine's fault.
I would call your manufacturer's rep to come visit and asses the damage and make note of it, then get quotes for the repairs from reptuable companies, then show back up with a lawyer and watch them squirm.....but that is just me. Oh, and don't forget to call the BBB on them.

on the flipside....
If the oil cooler was not disturbed as part of the inspection and the engine run was required, then it was probably a good thing it was in for maintenance at the time of the failure. That is why ground runs are done, so failures do not happen elsewhere, like take off!

As I do not know all the details nor both sides of the story, this is all the information I can help you with.

I hope that all things work out well....good luck.
GATOR

 

[TrafficInSight]

What kind of airplane? Where is the oil cooler mounted? how did it fail?
The technician should have noticed a falling oil pressure indication and shut it down long before "significant engine damage" was done wether there was an outside observer or not. So either he wasn't paying attention to what he should have been, ruined your engine and they're trying to screw you, or there wasn't "significant damage" and they're trying to screw you.

Sounds like you're going to have a trip through court on this one. In the meantime do as someone else suggested, go to the BBB and whoever else you can find and tell everyone you know not to use this shop.

 

[avbug]

No requirement exists for an outside observer as any general practice. Some organizations do require a firegaurd during engine runs or other tests...we never started up in radial engines without that capability nearby...but engine fires aren't nearly so common in other equipment.

You haven't specified the type of damage, or the nature of the failure. You're being very gaurded about your information, and to that end it's difficult to make much of a reply.

If the repair station or organization doing your work was running the engine and ran it improperly, you may have a worthy case against them to handle the repairs. I replaced two engines on an airplane in a shop a few years ago...the shop failed to put oil in the engines. The owner took off and lost one in flight, the other on final, and the aircraft was undamaged other than the engines. The shop owner was lucky enough to get by with replacing both engines, and no law suit followed.

I happened to be there and did the work for him. (Ironically, he didn't fire the person responsible for the damage). In that particular case, the pilot should also have been largely responsible; what kind of idiot doesn't check the oil before he flies (pistons)? Never the less, the shop replaced the engines.

In this case, the shop both did the work, did the inspection, and from your description, did the engine runs. You didn't specify much about the engine run itself, but the fact that the shop had done it, and apparently done it after completing the inspection, may be significant.

There is no "industry standard" regarding posting observers outside an aircraft for engine run. No need to "enlighten" the owner about that. In fact, unless you're a very experienced mechanic, I wouldn't go trying to "enlighten" the owner regarding any aspect of his business. He probably knows it much better than you. Instead, concentrate on seeking some sort of agreement between you, and failing that, an acceptable conclusion with the aid of a competent attorney.

 

[davemac]

It's a long story

I appreciate the time responders have taken to provide backround and advice-- this is an excellent forum. Looks as though I am the one being enlightened as to the lack of any written observer standard I hoped existed. Here are the events that unfolded which ultimately brought me to this forum for help:

1)The airplane is a Grumman Tiger(AA5B) with about 1000hrs SMOH.

2)The repair shop has seemed reputable as it has performed annuals on this aircraft for about 6 years. They provide a lot of flight instruction, run a fuel truck, are insured by Phoenix ($2,500 deductible), and have several mechanics beside their lead A&P Bill.

3)In December Bill called to say they finished the inspection the previous day, towed the plane out onto the ramp, and did the run-up the next morning-- Bill was not forthcoming with details of the run-up stating he had not yet arrived at the shop that morning. When pressed he did report there to be only 1 1/2 quarts of oil left in the engine after shut down subsequent to oil cooler failure. I still do not know who was in the cockpit or their qualifications. He insisted there needed to be an engine teardown inspection to check for internal damage. He also suggested I file a claim with my insurance.

4)My insurance company,ACE, denied the claim, but during the claim process they sent an investigator. After the denial they refused to release the investigators report to me. During the process they agreed by phone to at least pay for the inspection. I had Bill send the engine to Penn Yan. The estimate for repairs and inspection was $13,618. Later ACE informed me their agent made a mistake and they would not cover the cost of the teardown inspection, about $4,500.

5)I called AOPA legal services for guidance. They indicated since the plane was in the shop's "care, control, and custody", and since there appears to be negligence in the cockpit, that I was getting a raw deal. But they only handle pilot certificate issues so could offer no formal legal assistance.

6)When I informed Bill of ACE's denial, I suggested he contact his insurance company. At some point he said for an additional $5000 that Penn Yan could zero out the engine. I told him I was undecided which route to take since I first wanted to determine how the expenses were going to be paid.

7)I hired an independent A&P to check the oil cooler. He could not determine the size of the oil leak from looking at the failed oil cooler. The oil cooler was sent to SouthWest cooler service who reported the cooler leak was not repairable. This A&P gave me the name of an attorney with aviation litigation experience.

8)Bill told me Phoenix was willing to pay half the engine repair bill. I consulted the aforementioned attorney who felt the shop ought to be fully liable since, during a carefully executed run-up, the person in the cockpit should have been regularly monitoring the most critical engine indicator, oil pressure, recognized a problem, and shut down well before any engine damage was sustained. He sent a letter on my behalf to Phoenix charging due care was not exercised and claimed only the amount $13,618, with no claims of diminution of value or loss of use.

9)A private consultant hired by Pheonix replied as follows:

"You have alleged that the repair shop failed to monitor oil pressure during a run-up of your client's aircraft. Oil pressure was indeed monitored during startup and was confirmed to be adequate. Through no negligence of our insured, there was a major malfunction to the oil cooler which resulted in the fairly quick loss of engine oil. The engine ended up with one quart of oil remaining, however, it can still be operated with as little as 1 1/2 quarts of oil remaining. The window of opportunity to react during the loss of the last 1/2 quart of oil would be very slim. Also, while the mechanic was operating the aircraft, he was performing numerous required checks and, of course, would not have his eyes permanently riveted on the oil pressure gauge."

10)You may have noticed the discrepancy between the 1 1/2 quarts Bill reported were left in the engine compared to the 1 quart claimed in the above response. I told my attorney I wanted to do some more research before pursuing the matter any further with Phoenix consultants.

11)I called Penn Yan to try to get specific numbers on the repair versus rebuild options. Unexpectedly I discovered the engine had already been repaired and was ready to ship as soon as paid for!

12)So now that my hopes of an outside observer standard have been dashed, I was wondering if the oil pressure gauge would have indicated a problem sooner than "the loss of the last 1/2 quart", as explained by Phoenix consultants.

13)As my resources are limited, to this point I have been careful to keep my legal expenses minimal. I have not contacted the BBB because I hoped the facts would compell Phoenix to "insure" their clients mistake and pay the bill, and that the repair shop has engaged in carefully conducted run--ups since this incident. So before deciding how aggressively to pursue this issue, I am seeking comments, expertise, and advice from this forum. Thanks again.

 

[avbug]

As you've seen all aspects of the case and have already consulted an attorney, there is nothing anybody can do on this board for you. You have a lot more information, and a lot higher level of consultation than anybody here can provide you.

Your only recourse, from your description, is to rely on the counsel of your attorney to proceed. I would suspect that you will see no satisfaction nor relief until you press legal action. The insurance company is counting on that fact, as they're not going to merely give you the money, and if you don't press action, they come out ahead. Therefore, your only chance at collecting will be legal action.

If the engine was run with only a quart and a half of oil, that would probably be a good starting point. while the oil radiator might hold that quantity of oil, the engine shouldnt' be capable of running on it, and no competent pilot nor mechanic should ever attempt to perform a run on that amount. If the engine was that low on oil to begin with, then whomever elected to attempt to run it should be liable.

You should be aware that as the owner, you're always primarily responsible for the maintenance on your aircraft, and for it's airworthy condition. When you take the aircraft to a shop, you still hold this responsibility, but are entrusting the shop to honor it as they assist you in keeping the aircraft airworthy. Just as a Pilot in Command is always responsible for the safe outcome of a flight and for the aircraft, the owner/operator is always responsible for it's airworthiness.

Typical during an annual inspection is draining the oil, often in conjunction with a spectrometric oil analysis (hopefully you do these at every oil change, all other circumstances not withstanding). If the shop drained the oil, then the lack of oil in the engine at start-up was the fault of the shop, for failing to refill the case. If indeed the shop failed to fill the engine, and then ran the engine, they should be hard pressed to rub the responsibility for their actions off on the condition of the oil cooler, or anyone or anything else.

Finally, if the shop had completed their inspection and was preparing to approve the aircraft for return to service, then why were they putting the aircraft out there with a defective or malfunctioning radiator/cooler? This speaks to the competent actions of the shop.

The response from the shop indicated that the mechanic or operator was too busy performing his checks to notice oil loss or other problems. This is an either-he-was-or-he-wasn't type of deal. If he was so attentive, he most certainly would have noticed a problem, or should have, and if he wasn't that attentive, what was he doing performing the checkin the first place? I can think of plenty of scenarios in which one is performing the check and doesn't see a leak, and doesn't note an oil pressure loss until too late...but if this individual is so wrapped up that he can't look outside the aircraft or scan around him, then chances are he is overloaded, and operating unsafely. To make a true observation of that fact, however, is impossible while viewing only comments on a web board.

Again, the guiding source for your actions here should be your attorney, as only he or she can accurately and legally provide you with the direction and counsel you should take.

 

[USMCmech]

When pressed he did report there to be only 1 1/2 quarts of oil left in the engine after shut down subsequent to oil cooler failure. I still do not know who was in the cockpit or their qualifications. He insisted there needed to be an engine teardown inspection to check for internal damage.

If there were 1.5 qts left after shutdown, you may have missed the bullet. I would need much more info about the runup in question. But a full teardown may have been overkill.

If the engine was shut down pormptly, then the engine may be OK. Oil annylsis on the remaining oil, and careful inspection need to be done to look for bearing failure. The engine needs to be watched closely and flown only over good terrain for several hours.


FYI there is no liscense or certification required by the FAA to run any airplane engine of any type. Nor to taxi any airplane for that matter. It dosen't matter if its a J-3 cub or a 777. The insurance company and the manufactuer's warenty are diffrent matters entirely. The FARs do state that checks such as running an engine "must be done acording to the manufacturers procedures", and they may require a cert.



In your case this is all water under the bridge so to speak.

It sounds like you are the type of owner that just goes along with whatever their mechanic says (at least you did in this case). I feel that this is a dangerous attitude that most owners and pilots have. Don't be overly impressed that someone has their A&P. At my school, we graduated, having never started a piston engine (I wouldn't trust some of these grads to wash my car).

The owner is the one responsible for maintaining his airplane in an airworthy condition. The mechanic is only responsible for the work he performed. You must use your own judgment about what you to have done to keep your airplane airworthy.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187614-1.html

As the owner, you could have decided to have the engine examined by another shop. If they decided that it was OK, then it would have been fine to fly

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189103-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189306-1.html

Read these articles from AVweb.