FAA shut down my 3M aircraft graphic film.

I've read this thread a few times, just to make sure I'm not missing something. If I understand correctly, the hangar-neighbor IA in question was NOT asked to sign off on the stickers, nor was a sign-off required by him nor any other IA. Yet, this neighborly IA happened to observe the work being done and took it upon himself to insert himself into the OP's business, making inquiries to the FSDO, and creating problems where there aren't any?

Doesn't sound very neighborly. It is MORE than fair to "allow owners to do whatever they want" as long as what they want to do is within the regs. Pretending it isn't or not knowing it is (not sure which is worse) and then possibly billing for an unneeded signature seems to be the height of unethicality ... if that's a word.
I am the OP. My IA was in the midst of an annual on my plane, so installing the stickers would have disabled him from signing off on airworthiness. So, I’ll wait until he’s finished with annual, signed off on it, then install the stickers anyway.
 
I am the OP. My IA was in the midst of an annual on my plane, so installing the stickers would have disabled him from signing off on airworthiness. So, I’ll wait until he’s finished with annual, signed off on it, then install the stickers anyway.
Thanks for the clarification, although I confess I still don't see how the stickers would have disabled him from signing off. He misrepresented the product and application to the FSDO, and is operating under incorrect assumptions. However, your reply did clear up my incorrect thinking that he had just butted his head in .. somehow I missed the fact that he was in the midst of doing an annual on your plane. My apologies for that... to you and to him.
 
If he chooses to change his own oil and then chooses to have me certify the work, I take on the full responsibility of the work. In this case, I do expect to be compensated for my time and (more importantly) the liability I am taking on.

Agreed.

In my case most of my work is helping a friend and I don't sign anything off in the logbooks. Can't count the number of planes I have helped the owner go from floats to wheels or wheels to floats.

I hold an A&P, not currently employed as one. The only plane that gets my signature in the logbooks is my own.
 
I am the OP. My IA was in the midst of an annual on my plane, so installing the stickers would have disabled him from signing off on airworthiness. So, I’ll wait until he’s finished with annual, signed off on it, then install the stickers anyway.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
Understood. I guess I'd like to think that the way an ethical, kind IA would approach such a request would be to inform the owner that the IA's signature was not required in that instance, but that he"d be happy to inspect and sign off on it for a fee if the owner insists. Anything else would seem to be preying off the ignorance of the owner. Virtually all of the A&P/IA folks I've used and befriended have operated like that, most going so far as to NOT wanting to do and charge me for work that they knew I could do or that they could teach me to do. In return, I always pay them more than they bill me. If one of them had ever knowingly charged me for an unneeded service or signoff, I would have been justifiably miffed. The situation the original poster described, assuming we have the full description, does not put his IA neighbor in a very pleasing light.

It's largely about relationships. I do the same for those that don't take advantage. And kudos for paying them well. :)
 
Agreed.

In my case most of my work is helping a friend and I don't sign anything off in the logbooks. Can't count the number of planes I have helped the owner go from floats to wheels or wheels to floats.

I hold an A&P, not currently employed as one. The only plane that gets my signature in the logbooks is my own.

Thanks for seeing my POV.
 
I tried to use 3M aircraft graphic film on my certificated airplane to replace the stripes on the fuselage. The FAA shut me down and referred me to a memorandum from 2012 which prohibits field approval of “Vinyl Shrink Wrap”, and requires an STC. (Easy to find via Google search)

Has anyone else had this experience?
As an IA I would have had no problem with 3m graphics in lettering, wrap, or strips. So not sure of the confusion on an STC but Im sure theres someone on here that would love to argue for the sake of argument. STC or a supplemental Type certificate is a letter authorizing a product for use on an aircraft. A guarantee that its not going to become dislodged while in flight and wrap itself in a rudder ailerons or where ever. Every product involved in aviation comes with something to approve it for aircraft use or is pretty easy to find some type of approval from a manufacture. Personally Ive seen some pretty stupid stuff owners do with aircraft but lucky for me I dont have to recertify those ships. Its now between the owner and the FAA. To answer your question to try and obtain an engineering feild approval you have modify your aircraft in such a way that it no longer conforms to manufactures specification.
 
FWIW: No field approval needed. Only a simple logbook entry. But it's his certificate, his decision. However, just for reference, provided you don't need to disassemble any items on your aircraft to install these stripes and the total weight of these striping decals is less than 1lb, you could actually install them yourself as a pilot/owner per Part 43 Appendix A(c)(9) as preventative maintenance. And legally sign it off in the logbook. Unfortunately, if this is the IA who also performs your annuals then he may not be willing to sign your next annual.
Very true and well written. As an IA when I signe off an annual I am stating the aircraft conforms to a) manufactures recomendations 2) has not been modified or altered to an unsafe condition and that all parts and equipment conform to some type of FAA approved standard. This is actually the first time Ive heard of any debate about 3m graphics decals for steipping and lettering. There has been some debate about full wraps as far as being able to inspect the exterior of the aircraft for loose or working rivits and corrosion. I dont work on larger transport aircraft but do know they are stripped down every so often and inspected or x-rayed and full wraps dont make much of a differance.
 
So the guy who signs my logbooks is known as an Inspection Authorization? :rolleyes:

I would say he’s an A&P who has an IA. He could also be called an AI, but calling him an IA would be grammatically incorrect.
ifferance.No it means I have an Inspection Authorization endorsemnet that can be taken away by the FAA along with my A&P if I knowingly or inadvertantly sign off an aircraft that is unsafe.
 
irst time Ive heard of any debate about 3m graphics decals for steipping and lettering.
FYI: 10 years or so ago there was a lot discussion about this topic and all "3M" decals got grouped together. Enough so the Feds came out with the pg 67 memo in the link referenced in Post 19. Afterwards it was clear to most but there were/are still some outliers on both sides. However, in this particular thread I think there's a bit more to the whole story.
 
So the guy who signs my logbooks is known as an Inspection Authorization? :rolleyes:

I would say he’s an A&P who has an IA. He could also be called an AI, but calling him an IA would be grammatically incorrect.
If you're going to nit pick like that then calling him an A&P is grammatically incorrect.
 
I've re-read as well. With no knowledge, which never stops anyone on POA, could it be that some moron in the past covered a fabric covered aircraft with shrink-wrap? I Cub would not fly well with that material as a primary covering on the wings.
What the OP is applying is a graphic film. It doesn't shrink, nor does it wrap. It's an adhesive backed film designed to be applied to painted metal surfaces.
 
Hey, it's no stupider than PIN number or HIV virus. There really is no term for A&Ps with inspection authorization, but they've been called "IA" for the decades that I've been flying.

The little yellow card that the FSDO signs for me every other year has "INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION" in great big letters at the top of it. IA is the recognized abrvtn for it.
 
could it be that some moron in the past covered a fabric covered aircraft with shrink-wrap? I Cub would not fly well with that material as a primary covering on the wings.
Duct tape.
And it worked.

Lotsa airplanes are plastered over with globs of vinyl graphics - the airshow guys like it because it makes it easy when they change sponsors.
 
Authorized Inspector.
That's what I always thought, the person is an Authorized Inspector, he/she holds an Inspection Authorization.
It takes the holding of both the A and P license, loose either and the IA goes away at the same time, so it is redundant to say A&P and IA, IA says it all.
 
I second the motion that you need a new IA. In my 30 years of aircraft ownership, I've encountered two distinct types of mechanics. One has a common-sense attitude, and understands that more paperwork doesn't necessarily make airplanes any safer. He's constantly busy, has a long line of customers waiting, and therefore is focused on getting airplanes in and out of his shop as quickly as possible in a safe an legal manner. He doesn't go looking for problems that aren't there and only has contact with the FAA when absolutely necessary. The other kind seems to have a lot more time on his hands. He's got the FSDO on speed dial, loves to nit-pick and argue minutia. His default response is always 'no' and it's up to the owner to provide basis for approval - and even then he probably won't sign off on it. He'd make a better lawyer than a mechanic, but I guess A&P school was cheaper.

I personally look for the first type, even if it means I have to book my annual months in advance.

C.
 
Totally agree @camorton - I've met both kinds. I much prefer the common sense approach and even better if he'll let me R&R the spark plugs, oil & air filters, and remove the inspection panels and interior for him. He too has a line out the door waiting to get into his shop and I fear the day he retires.
 
I guess that I'm reading this differently than almost everyone else. I'm reading this as the IA has been doing the maintenance and annuals of this airplane. I'm guessing that there's an agreement or history that when the owner does maintenance, the IA will signoff said work after inspecting it (I had this arrangement with my old IA).

The IA sees what's going on but has no idea about the rules of this and figures it would be best to find out before the owner has spent time and money on the work. Finds out that it's not okay (whether it's accurate or not) and lets the owner know so they can stop before putting any more time into a project that the IA will not sign off.

Now the way I did with my old IA is BEFORE doing anything, I would talk to him about it. He would then advise me on any common pitfalls of the task, offer a special tool if one was necessary, and tell me to let him know when I was done so he could inspect and sign off the logbooks. One time I wanted to do something and he told me that I couldn't. Actually, he said I could, but he wouldn't signoff on it because it wasn't approved or legal.

But without hearing from the IA in this case, we'll never know for sure about the events or motivation. But that never stopped POA speculation, right? :D
 
I guess that I'm reading this differently than almost everyone else. I'm reading this as the IA has been doing the maintenance and annuals of this airplane. I'm guessing that there's an agreement or history that when the owner does maintenance, the IA will signoff said work after inspecting it (I had this arrangement with my old IA).

The IA sees what's going on but has no idea about the rules of this and figures it would be best to find out before the owner has spent time and money on the work. Finds out that it's not okay (whether it's accurate or not) and lets the owner know so they can stop before putting any more time into a project that the IA will not sign off.

Now the way I did with my old IA is BEFORE doing anything, I would talk to him about it. He would then advise me on any common pitfalls of the task, offer a special tool if one was necessary, and tell me to let him know when I was done so he could inspect and sign off the logbooks. One time I wanted to do something and he told me that I couldn't. Actually, he said I could, but he wouldn't signoff on it because it wasn't approved or legal.

But without hearing from the IA in this case, we'll never know for sure about the events or motivation. But that never stopped POA speculation, right? :D

finish the story: ....and then you went EAB.

At least that's my lesson learned from your anecdote. Certified mx is a unicorn-chasing racket, and a gratuitous one at that.
 
Certified mx is a unicorn-chasing racket, and a gratuitous one at that.
Only to those who can see unicorns.;) For someone who is so anti-TC aircraft why do you torture yourself every day and not move into E/AB? Even if the FAA develops an "Owner-Maintained" category you'll still have to follow all those nasty regulations. Difference being your name will be in the log vs one those "gratuitous" mechanics. Perhaps cut your losses now and go experimental before you start to see unicorns everywhere.:)
 
Only to those who can see unicorns.;) For someone who is so anti-TC aircraft why do you torture yourself every day and not move into E/AB? Even if the FAA develops an "Owner-Maintained" category you'll still have to follow all those nasty regulations. Difference being your name will be in the log vs one those "gratuitous" mechanics. Perhaps cut your losses now and go experimental before you start to see unicorns everywhere.:)

yeah I'm working on it (RV-6A). Appreciate your concern :rolleyes:;).
 
finish the story: ....and then you went EAB.

At least that's my lesson learned from your anecdote. Certified mx is a unicorn-chasing racket, and a gratuitous one at that.
That may be your story but it ain't mine.

My decision to build an airplane has nothing to do with maintenance by A&P's or IA's. I simply wanted something that simply didn't exist in the TC world that I could afford.
 
So the guy who signs my logbooks is known as an Inspection Authorization? :rolleyes:

I would say he’s an A&P who has an IA. He could also be called an AI, but calling him an IA would be grammatically incorrect.
 
I have an A&P license and an IA certificate. Does my A&P make me a Airframe and Powerplant? No but you would still refer to me as an A&P.
 
A&P license and an IA certificate
FYI: Technically we have a Mechanics Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings and an Inspection Authorization. The term "license" went out years ago. But I firmly believe we are still mechanics in name vs aircraft maintenance technicians as most of us don't where white lab coats.:)
 
Last edited:
could be worse......engineer.
FWIW: The funny part to the mechanic, technician, engineer titles goes back to when they were looking to split out maintenance from Part 65 to a new Part 66 with new certificates, type ratings, etc. Since most international aviation mechanics are called engineers they originally pushed for that classification. But if I recall correctly certain US professional engineer associations got involved and things didn't work out as planned so the powers to be thought "technician" was be more dignified than mechanic and pushed the AMT concept. That's where the "white lab coat" thing came out. Well in the end Part 66 was dropped for various reasons however you'll still see the AMT references used. Since most original aviation terms came from nautical terms, rumor was that the reason the US stuck to "mechanic" was that Charles Taylor (1st aviation mechanic) stated he didn't fix boats and the nautical "engineer" title didn't carry through. It was all quite comical at the time as some people really took this issue to the extreme.
 
FYI: Technically we have a Mechanics Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings and an Inspection Authorization. The term "license" went out years ago. But I firmly believe we are still mechanics in name vs aircraft maintenance technicians as most of us don't where white lab coats.:)
FYI: Technically we have a Mechanics Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings and an Inspection Authorization. The term "license" went out years ago. But I firmly believe we are still mechanics in name vs aircraft maintenance technicians as most of us don't where white lab coats.:)
 
Now the way I did with my old IA is BEFORE doing anything, I would talk to him about it. He would then advise me on any common pitfalls of the task, offer a special tool if one was necessary, and tell me to let him know when I was done so he could inspect and sign off the logbooks. One time I wanted to do something and he told me that I couldn't. Actually, he said I could, but he wouldn't signoff on it because it wasn't approved or legal.
If I could be sure (and ONLY if I could be sure) that I could find an IA who would be willing to form this kind of relationship with me, I would immediately begin the search for a decent certified 4-cylinder retract and live happily ever after. I'd still want to build something because the experience of doing a build is a goal. But if could be sure I could find an IA like that, I'd be in the market and searching for a good plane to buy tomorrow.
 
Since this thread is out there.

Does anyone have any good products for vinyl leading edge material besides regular plotter vinyl? Looking for something that’s white that would go well on the leading edges of a fabric covered plane. I was thinking of car wrap vinyl as well but haven’t had time to experiment.
 
Back
Top