Filing a Complaint With Local FSDO?

Checkout_my_Six said:
I can guarantee that any aircraft can be grounded for one thing or another....if examined closely.
Click to expand...

In my experience, most don’t even require a close examination to find something questionable, Especially if it is an aircraft type that the inspector is familiar with. A quick walk around is likely all that is required.
 
kmacht said:
Lots of people on here saying that making a report is going to get you in trouble but I’m also noticing that not one of those people saying that have given any specific examples of actual personal experience from doing the same. Just lots of “it’s a bad idea”. If it were me I I would report it. Yes, this miss wasn’t the end of the world but what if it had been something more major or what if another plane had crashed because of something this guy worked on. You would then hear those same people on here saying that “there were warning signs” and “somebody should have said something”. Not much will likely come out of just you reporting him but if there were other reports before or more reports in the future it would establish a pattern and likely make them start looking into what’s actually going on. If you do report it and they happen to find something else wrong with your plan during a investigation wouldn’t you want to have known there was something wrong anyways? Not every FSDO or FAA employee is a jerk who is out to get you.
Click to expand...

Not exactly the manners way to ask for an example, but here is mine:

Early on in flight school ownership, we had a DG that needed overhaul. The typical shops were all out of state and were a week turnaround. We had a checkride scheduled, so were in a panic. We also had a place just down the street who "mainly did big planes" but offered to do a quick turn for us.

When we got the thing back it was worse than what we had sent in -- and the "AOG" bill presented was more than a new one from spruce (also down the street) -- the instrument shop basically told us to kick rocks, they wouldn't look at it again without an inspection fee -- so, livid, I thought I would get justice from our local feds and complained about this repair station that was actually a disrepair station.

When the inspector came out, his first order of business was logbooks, preflighting the plane, and red-tagging everything he didn't like. Our list:

Chipped paint on the (metal) yoke
Airspeed indicator yellow arc was marked 5mph too low. (nobody had ever noticed that. In a 172.)
A tear in the passenger seat cushion

...Nothing said about the DG that spun like a turntable when vac was applied. He was not interested in it.

That was bad enough. The next thing, though, was he grabbed our IA who had signed the last annual on the thing, and wrote HIM up with a 1 year "sin no more or get your ticket pulled" warning.

That inspector would randomly stop by our hangar and pop his head in on our IA to "check on him". For about 18 months afterward.


We moved the checkride to a different plane. We had to make an appointment with FSDO to get the red-tags cleared. That took 2 weeks.

When we submitted our 141 paperwork for the school, the incident was brought up as a cause for concern. About 3 years later.


So yeah, complain to the FSDO if you like. But it's not the BBB. I admit that it has soured my view of the FAA permanently ever since, but it was a quality education in government fiefdoms.
 
As the owner/operator YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AIRWORTHYNESS OF YOUR AC

I think its curious that 18 months later you think you have any sort of claim at liability.
 
I know an FAA inspector who advised something to the extent of, "Don't wave a red flag in front of a bull. We're the bull and have all of the resources to gouge you to death."
 
Translation, the FAA behaves like organized crime. Copy, at least we're getting somewhere now.

The language noted throughout the thread is extortion language/behavior writ large. As such, don't let the white knights on here off the hook, by condoning with their euphemistic language what the petty functionaries are actually doing.

As to the rest of the argument, lots of beaten wives up in here. Remind me to never share a POW camp with some of you people. :eek::D
 
donjohnston said:
Most likely the plane has two static ports and the test set is connected to the other side. The one pictured is capped off.

If that was the only static port, you would notice it the first time you tried to fly.
Click to expand...

There are two static ports. PS system worked fine, but if the one working port had gotten clogged, then I'd have had a problem.
 
pfarber said:
As the owner/operator YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AIRWORTHYNESS OF YOUR AC

I think its curious that 18 months later you think you have any sort of claim at liability.
Click to expand...

There's a concept under the law that statutes of limitation run when the person knew of the issue, or reasonably should have known. In my situation, I wasn't aware of the problem until the panels were removed for the avionics upgrade a few days ago. I don't think it's reasonable for me, as a non-A&P, to have to start pulling interior panels right after work has been done, and signed-off by a repair station, to determine whether the work was done properly.

As the PIC, it's my job to determine the aircraft's airworthiness...that's correct. I'd think, however, this would mean that I checked the log books to determine (a) the repair was done and signed-off by a repair station, and (b) that the PS system had been certified within the previous 24 calendar months. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I, as the PIC, have to disassemble the interior to confirm that a repair was done properly, and therefore the plane is airworthy, when I've checked the logs and the work has been signed-off.
 
donjohnston said:
And you survived. Congratulations. :D
Click to expand...

The "what if" isn't the issue. They guy charged me $375 to troubleshoot and repair a problem (in addition to $460 for the testing), and the work was not competently or properly done. His response to my email with the picture was, essentially, "go pound sand." If he's doing this kind of work on my plane, he may be doing it on other planes as well.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
As the PIC, it's my job to determine the aircraft's airworthiness...that's correct. [....] Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I, as the PIC, have to disassemble the interior to confirm that a repair was done properly, and therefore the plane is airworthy, when I've checked the logs and the work has been signed-off.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation is correct, as least in so far as that's the same threshold I apply to my own ownership and PIC. I can tell you in my work capacity over on team DoD, that is exactly the verbatim technical order (euphemisms for you're being given an order to follow) spelled-out burden for me as a PIC:

1) check the forms for signed-off compliance of the required items that need to be valid before and after the accumulation of flight time in the sortie I intend to immediately partake in, and
2) a strictly visual inspection (it's spelled out that limited) of the aircraft for: (a) damage (tear or deformation for non-consumable, or within visible allowed threshold for those that are consumable), (b) visible unpressurized fluid leaks (pressurized is on mx, unless I get lucky and the aircraft next to you sees it and communicates it), and (c) nominal powerplant and avionics operation within the ops limits listed in the Tech order (some which we have to have committed to memory, at least in the usaf) before engine start and takeoff, respectively.

That's it. No lookie loo under the panel, no pulling skins or messing with the ejection seat fittings, none of that cost-shifting nonsense. And we do that for a reason. But that requires good faith actors within the command structure, to stamp out moral hazard dynamics.... aaaaand I digress.

What you have here is, again, some people deflecting because they're afraid of the cartel. That doesn't magically impose greater legal burden on you as the owner, in spite of what the beaten wives may intimate.
 
kmacht said:
Why would you not want to know if there are other violations? If they find other things wrong as part of an investigation then why would you not want to know about them so you can get get the fixed or addressed? Do you really want to be flying around in a plane that has things wrong with it that were not caught during an inspection because your mechanic was pencil whipping things?
Click to expand...

We're talking two different points. You're asking
Why would you not want to know if there are other violations?
Click to expand...

Whereas I'm asking (paraphrased)
Why risk getting violated for violations you didn't know about?
Click to expand...


The difference is in the consequences of the found violation. You're presuming the FAA person would just say "Hey, get this fixed at your earliest convenience" in a "no harm, no foul" kind of way.

I have an expectation of something like "About these violations; here's your fines, pay them soon; oh and give me a call after you get these repairs completed so I can personally verify the fixes"

So, in your world, I would have the FAA come out before every annual. It would give me a list of things to make sure the shop takes care of. Why not?
 
guest user said:
.....So, in your world, I would have the FAA come out before every annual. It would give me a list of things to make sure the shop takes care of. Why not?
Click to expand...
Well....the IA is a designee of the FAA....so, it's suppose to be as you say.
 
schmookeeg said:
Not exactly the manners way to ask for an example, but here is mine:

Early on in flight school ownership, we had a DG that needed overhaul. The typical shops were all out of state and were a week turnaround. We had a checkride scheduled, so were in a panic. We also had a place just down the street who "mainly did big planes" but offered to do a quick turn for us.

When we got the thing back it was worse than what we had sent in -- and the "AOG" bill presented was more than a new one from spruce (also down the street) -- the instrument shop basically told us to kick rocks, they wouldn't look at it again without an inspection fee -- so, livid, I thought I would get justice from our local feds and complained about this repair station that was actually a disrepair station.

When the inspector came out, his first order of business was logbooks, preflighting the plane, and red-tagging everything he didn't like. Our list:

Chipped paint on the (metal) yoke
Airspeed indicator yellow arc was marked 5mph too low. (nobody had ever noticed that. In a 172.)
A tear in the passenger seat cushion

...Nothing said about the DG that spun like a turntable when vac was applied. He was not interested in it.

That was bad enough. The next thing, though, was he grabbed our IA who had signed the last annual on the thing, and wrote HIM up with a 1 year "sin no more or get your ticket pulled" warning.

That inspector would randomly stop by our hangar and pop his head in on our IA to "check on him". For about 18 months afterward.


We moved the checkride to a different plane. We had to make an appointment with FSDO to get the red-tags cleared. That took 2 weeks.

When we submitted our 141 paperwork for the school, the incident was brought up as a cause for concern. About 3 years later.


So yeah, complain to the FSDO if you like. But it's not the BBB. I admit that it has soured my view of the FAA permanently ever since, but it was a quality education in government fiefdoms.
Click to expand...

I have worked with a number of FAA representatives. Most are very good people with quite terrible jobs. Generally they are not out to get anyone, they are just doing their jobs.

The problem with reporting it is, once you do you initiate a very specific investigation procedure that is likely written by some attorney in a back room in Oklahoma that may or may not know the difference between a C-130 and C-150.

Most government jobs are about "don't screw up". The way to do that is follow the procedure exactly. And part of the procedure is to have someone else at least periodically check their work. So if the procedure to inspect the aircraft in question, then they will inspect it so that if another inspector inspects it, it is unlikely anything they missed will be found (Like Chipped paint on the control yoke). And of course what ever they find is officially documented, so then needs to be addressed by the aircraft owner.
After the 737 Max headlines the FAA is even more sensitive to the "don't Screw up" process.

Brian
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I, as the PIC, have to disassemble the interior to confirm that a repair was done properly, and therefore the plane is airworthy, when I've checked the logs and the work has been signed-off
Click to expand...

Actually that's EXACTLY what it means. I know you're gonna haw and moan but in Pt 91 world you are the sole responsible person.

As an mx, I perform mx at the owners request, iaw the written procedures, then make a logbook entry of the work done.

And an mx can be held responsible by the FAA for compliance issues, but thats not liability. All the FAA can do is revoke/suspend my certificates. Thats it. The FAA doesn't fine mx's or issue monetary awards.

But FAR 91.3 is still 100% on you. Read it. Learn it, Live it.
 
It may be that the difference between a 172 ( 1 port on left) and a 182 ( port on each side ) is significant? Maybe the test rig rig has actually been there for quite a while? Like years? Possible folks doing the test are not aware of difference. No real way to tell.

This could be the basis of a “ Found Tools” thread.
 
pfarber said:
All the FAA can do is revoke/suspend my certificates. Thats it. The FAA doesn't fine mx's or issue monetary awards
Click to expand...
FYI: you may want to catch up on Order 2150.3. Mechanics can get hit with civil penalties up to $50K by the FAA alone and if they think you need to get hit harder it goes to the DOJ.
 
pfarber said:
All the FAA can do is revoke/suspend my certificates. Thats it. The FAA doesn't fine mx's or issue monetary awards.
Click to expand...

Right up to the point they turn it over to the OIG, and they in turn refer the matter to the US Attorney who will prosecute you under 49USC and several other statutes which will cost you fines and possible jail time.
 
pfarber said:
Actually that's EXACTLY what it means. I know you're gonna haw and moan but in Pt 91 world you are the sole responsible person.

As an mx, I perform mx at the owners request, iaw the written procedures, then make a logbook entry of the work done.

And an mx can be held responsible by the FAA for compliance issues, but thats not liability. All the FAA can do is revoke/suspend my certificates. Thats it. The FAA doesn't fine mx's or issue monetary awards.

But FAR 91.3 is still 100% on you. Read it. Learn it, Live it.
Click to expand...

Here’s 91.3. Please explain to me why, as PIC, after I’ve confirmed logbook sign-off, I have to disassemble the interior to confirm work done by a repair station was done properly.

FAR 91.3
a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
 
The regulation neither expects you to be omniscient as the owner of the aircraft operation in question, nor makes you responsible for being defrauded by FAA sanctioned signatories. Whoever is making statements to the contrary on those two points is merely arguing in bad faith.
 
If I was to be doing a mod to the PS system the FIRST task would be to assure that the systems are not currently leaking. That way I’ll know if I created a leak. Might even leave the plug in there as I’ll have to leak check upon completion.
Then it gets forgotten. Possibly for years.

In a shop the Avionics guy completed (?) his task and the new kid is left to close . Just like on MASH!

A good way to avoid the problem is red Flags on the adapter.

I dealt with folks that would partially complete a project. Tying a shovel at the unsafetied Fuel Drain was effective but made me very unpopular.
 
guest user said:
That is, unfortunately, not how that works.

From experience responding to he said / she said complaints, you get side A's story, you get side B's story and you go from there. Side A does not get a pass just because they reported it. You'd be surprised how many times people report things that are not QUITE the way they are presented. While I am not, read carefully, NOT saying you're making this up, or that you're not justified in wanting to report it, I am saying to not expect your version to be treated as gospel right off the bat. The burden of proof is on the FSDO, and they'll be coming to you to investigate/substantiate your claim. As stated above, sometimes that investigation leads to interesting places.

When it comes to getting the law (in the case the FSDO) involved, be aware of unintended consequences. Kinda like the old (and current) stories of people who report speeding in their neighborhood and then are cited themselves. Just because they reported others for speeding at higher speeds than they were doing doesn't exempt them for being cited for speeding.
Click to expand...

Completely agree this could not go in the way the OP wants it to go. Questions asked could be did you notice any airspeed or altitude anomalies? If you answer yes and then flew it again, you too could be under investigation for flying an unairworthy airplane.


Oops..just saw many said the same thing I did. My bad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fracpilot said:
Completely agree this could not go in the way the OP wants it to go. Questions asked could be did you notice any airspeed or altitude anomalies? If you answer yes and then flew it again, you too could be under investigation for flying an unairworthy airplane.


Oops..just saw many said the same thing I did. My bad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Dual static ports. No flight anomalies. Only became aware of the problem after plane was dropped off for avionics upgrade. It has not been flown since.
 
The only reason to go to the feds would be revenge. They certainly aren't going to help you obtain any other type of satisfaction.
 
Clip4 said:
Yea, much better to just suck it it up and let private business screw you over.
Click to expand...
He can do the guy the required amount of damage by spreading the word among the local pilot crowd. No need to bring the government into it given how weak his case is and the likely consequences for him.
 
Salty said:
The only reason to go to the feds would be revenge. They certainly aren't going to help you obtain any other type of satisfaction.
Click to expand...

If he's that sloppy with me, he's likely that sloppy with others. It's not revenge. It's a safety issue.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
If he's that sloppy with me, he's likely that sloppy with others. It's not revenge. It's a safety issue.
Click to expand...
It's human nature, and I'd likely feel the same way, but it's still revenge. It doesn't make your situation not have happened, doesn't compensate you or make your flying over the last year safer. Best case someone gets punished. Worst case, it's you that gets punished. If you think the next guy is incapable of making that mistake, you give people far more credit than I do.

You didn't even notice his sloppiness for over a year, so how "unsafe" was it really? Enough to put him out of business?
 
Salty said:
You didn't even notice his sloppiness for over a year, so how "unsafe" was it really? Enough to put him out of business?
Click to expand...

The only reason I noticed it was because of the ongoing avionics upgrade. Had that not occurred, and the one functional static port became blocked in flight, I would have noticed it in a hurry. The static port redundancy is there for a reason.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
The only reason I noticed it was because of the ongoing avionics upgrade. Had that not occurred, and the one functional static port became blocked in flight, I would have noticed it in a hurry. The static port redundancy is there for a reason.
Click to expand...
I understand. But you were actually never in any danger. Trust me, I get where you are at. But in the big picture of things, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of bringing in federal government involvement.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
That's the issue on the table...
Click to expand...

Why is it still on the table?

Make a decision and go with it. I can't imagine a white knight FSDO official is going to chime in on this thread with "Send me that no-good mechanic's name, I'll fix his wagon for you safety of others"

In the absence of that, you need to decide to either roll the dice or not.

Good luck.
 
Has the guy's work been satisfactory in other respects? If so, maybe your email to the guy was enough to cause him to be more careful going forward, thus dealing with the safety issue.
 
Palmpilot said:
Has the guy's work been satisfactory in other respects? If so, maybe your email to the guy was enough to cause him to be more careful going forward, thus dealing with the safety issue.
Click to expand...

He's a mobile PS certification guy, and hasn't worked on the plane previously. His response to my email (which included the above picture) was, and I'm quoting here, "That does not belong to me." I'm the owner and sole pilot of the plane. I know for a fact that nobody has touched the PS system since he did the inspection and certification. So, either (a) he's lying, or (b) he's so incompetent that he didn't notice the problem when he "inspected" the system and spent three hours troubleshooting a leak.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Because I want to hear others' opinions, which is why I posted in the first place.
Click to expand...
Here's an opinion: Do nothing. (and you get a bonus that this happens to be the correct opinion)

Having done a few pitot/static checks myself, I can see how it happens. Cap off the copilot side tube, do all the setup tasks, maybe track down a couple leaks, run the checks, then start buttoning up. Something happens to distract you. You ask one of the other guys in the shop to finish closing up and they don't notice that tube is capped. You maybe the original tech returns to close up and didn't remember or notice.

This is how many gear up landings happen.

My Velocity has an airspeed sensor which prevents the gear from being retracted below a certain airspeed. I set mine for 80kts. When doing a gear retract test, you have to put on a jumper to bypass this sensor. There were a couple times that I forgot to remove the jumper after working on the plane. I ended up grabbing two jumpers, one for the sensor and one hanging from the throttle as a reminder.

Point is, we're all human. We make mistakes. I'm sure there are people who have picked up planes from shops and never had an issue during their entire flying life. But I'll bet a lot of people have taxied back to the shop having noticed that something was amiss (or found it at the next annual). I know that I have.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Because I want to hear others' opinions, which is why I posted in the first place.
Click to expand...
Seems like you got other opinions, but are disregarding them. I can list a bunch of things I've found after work was done on my plane. That's why I do a very careful pre-flight after it goes in for work. I usually test my alternate static port after any avionics work to make sure the altimeter moves. Not familiar with your plane, but pretty sure that would have caught it. When I've brought it to the mechanic's attention, they usually apologize and agree to sin no more. In one case they gave me some relief on the bill because I spent an hour undoing the mistake. The only issue you seem to have is your guy not taking ownership of the issue. Not sure that qualifies as FSDO issue.
 
@donjohnston I concur... I don't think this arises to the level of gross incompetence and resultant great risk to safety. If there was a laundry list of items reported completed but determined to not have been performed...ie intentional deception..... I would feel that a report would be appropriate.

We ALL make mistakes. It is how I handle my mistakes that matters most. In my business, when I make an error I admit it and make sure I minimize the impact on those affected. I don't think this thread would have been started if the mechanic would have stated that it was possible that he had made an error and offered a solution satisfactory to both parties. I am assuming that was not done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top