337 not in official records?? What to do?

R

RobertGerace

Guest
During my review of the logbooks for my airplane, I found a 337 with no corresponding log entry.

After we closed, I spent a couple of months tracking down the A&P who signed off on the 337 and was successful in getting him to send me a 'replacement log entry' for the work. It basically says, "work performed as documented in 337 on file -- replacement entry."

About the same time, I ordered my airplane's official records from the FAA. It took months and months, but I finally received the CD.

Surprise! The 337 that was in the documents that came with my airplane, but was not logged, is not in the FAA's records of the airplane.

What to do? Does anybody know what the correct protocol is, and what kind of a can of worms I may be opening?
 
RobertGerace said:
During my review of the logbooks for my airplane, I found a 337 with no corresponding log entry.

After we closed, I spent a couple of months tracking down the A&P who signed off on the 337 and was successful in getting him to send me a 'replacement log entry' for the work. It basically says, "work performed as documented in 337 on file -- replacement entry."

About the same time, I ordered my airplane's official records from the FAA. It took months and months, but I finally received the CD.

Surprise! The 337 that was in the documents that came with my airplane, but was not logged, is not in the FAA's records of the airplane.

What to do? Does anybody know what the correct protocol is, and what kind of a can of worms I may be opening?
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a problem that will go away if you ignore it. What was the change, and is that change still in the airplane? EG if the 337 was for a radio that was added and that radio was since removed, I wouldn't worry.

I would think that the shop that did the work would have some incentive to correct the improper filing of paperwork so I'd start there. Is there an STC involved? BTW if the 337 was for an avionics change, it may not even have been required, although the log entry should have been there regardless of whether or not a 337 was needed.
 
lancefisher said:
I don't think this is a problem that will go away if you ignore it. What was the change, and is that change still in the airplane? EG if the 337 was for a radio that was added and that radio was since removed, I wouldn't worry.

I would think that the shop that did the work would have some incentive to correct the improper filing of paperwork so I'd start there. Is there an STC involved? BTW if the 337 was for an avionics change, it may not even have been required, although the log entry should have been there regardless of whether or not a 337 was needed.
Click to expand...

The change was a repair -- and a fairly extensive one. It seems (I'm still trying to get the story straight) that either the nosewheel ran into a snowbank, or the previous owner geared it up when a door popped open on takeoff. The 337 lists quite a few belly-parts (and, what a coincidence, the engines and props were replaced and the airplane was painted at about the same time.)
 
RobertGerace said:
The change was a repair -- and a fairly extensive one. It seems (I'm still trying to get the story straight) that either the nosewheel ran into a snowbank, or the previous owner geared it up when a door popped open on takeoff. The 337 lists quite a few belly-parts (and, what a coincidence, the engines and props were replaced and the airplane was painted at about the same time.)
Click to expand...

Bummer!:( This sounds like a classic gear-up cover-up. I wonder if you have a legitimate claim of fraud against the owner at the time of the damage/repair since they must have deliberately skipped the required filing of paperwork, both in the logs and with the FAA.
 
Lance,

Thanks for your input. I doubt I have a claim, because he (the owner at the time) is the one who helped me find the mechanic who signed it off to get the replacement log entry.

I'm wondering about the steps to take to get it filed, etc. Where are Marty and Ron when I need them?
 
A compound of errors.
First, the A&P-IA was required by FAR to send the 337 into FSDO within 48 hours after the work was completed. Bad on him, bad for you, a real can of worms waiting to be played with.

This sounds like a major repair that never got properly returned to service, the FAA MAY want to inspect for proper repair procedures before they sign off, I can only hope for your sake the work was done IAW the cessna repair manual. and this is only a late entry.

I WOULD, send the 337 into FSDO with a note that the 337 does not appear in history records. and see what happens.

They probably/may just send it to OKC and it's over. They may want to make a big deal of it and hassel the A&P/Owner/repair station. Who knows what kind of day they are having/passing along.
 
Last edited:
Bob:

At our flying club meeting tonight, Gene Bland from Dallas FSDO is my guest speaker. Without relating to him who you are or what plane is involved, I'll ask him what's involved and how it would affect the current owner.

Best,

Dave
A-36TN ADS
 
BTW Robert, was there any flap damage/repair? If the problem were limited to a nosewheel collapse (pretty common in 310's from what I hear), the flaps should have been untouched, but if it was a true gear up, I'd expect some damage there, assuming the flaps were deployed.
 
lancefisher said:
BTW Robert, was there any flap damage/repair? If the problem were limited to a nosewheel collapse (pretty common in 310's from what I hear), the flaps should have been untouched, but if it was a true gear up, I'd expect some damage there, assuming the flaps were deployed.
Click to expand...

Lance...no damage aft of the props. I'm still trying to get in touch with the German owner who has taken up sailing and is somewhere in the Med.

I've been told that:

It overran a runway and nosegear collapsed in the snow.

AND

The owner's wife had the door pop open on takeoff and due to panic, pushed it all the way open instead of closing it. The owner was spring loaded to react to the resulting yaw by chopping and dropping and either didn't have time to get the gear down or forgot to.

It is fun trying to figure it out. At this point, I've got an airplane with (oh my God! The dreaded DH...as opposed to NDH. ) I don't really care. As Mark said, I've replaced everything on it twice -- or will by the time I sell it. Hopefully my maintenance habits will outweigh the DH, but it doesn't really matter. These airplanes are not the smartest financial decision we could make. Sigh. :)
 
Well, as long as the repair was done properly, fixing the paperwork shouldn't be that big of a problem. Good luck.
 
It can be Lance, If FSDO gets its back arched over the late thing, they could want to do a complete review, to see why the IA didn't do what he was required to do.

In reality the aircraft has been flown (how long)? with out a proper return to service entry in the log. That alone could be a bust for every pilot who flew the aircraft after the accident.

If FSDO wants a inspector to review the logs and inspect the aircraft, and they see dust on a rivet head they don't like, this aircraft could set a very long time.

If this were my personal aircraft and I knew the repair was safe, I would throw the 337 and the late sign off away and fly. But the honest thing to do is just send the 337 in with a note attached stating the 337 does not show in history records. More than likely the FSDO will send the 337 on to OKC and not even take a second look.

But if some thing on the form peaks their attention, stand by, you'll know FSDO's phone number by heart before this is over.
 
Given all the other problems Bob has uncovered - including wrong engine parts - I'd be wondering if the work was done right....

(sorry, Bob).... :(
 
NC19143 said:
It can be Lance, If FSDO gets its back arched over the late thing, they could want to do a complete review, to see why the IA didn't do what he was required to do.

...But if some thing on the form peaks their attention, stand by, you'll know FSDO's phone number by heart before this is over.
Click to expand...

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to work through a shop that has a good relationship with the FSDO to resolve this. Getting a casual personal relationship going with an inspector or two by taking them out to lunch a couple times might be a good idea as well.;)
 
;)Another opinion from an IA. Evidently, a lot of these don't make it to Tulsa. Many mechanics keep there records, but this site shows it may not be required.

Dave
========================================================

I would let a sleeping dog lie. There is no legal requirement to maintain a 337 for a Major Repair in the aircraft maintenance records for more than one year, after which it may be discarded.
FAR 43.9 requires an entry into the maintenance records for a major repair.

But even that is controversy, as the 337 placed in the aircraft maintenance records serves that purpose pending on the FSDO one talks to.

The only hang up of not having the 337 in the maintenance records, is the person who signs off the Annual Inspection, takes responsibility for the airworthiness of the Major Repair. But then again, its done all the time, its not a big deal.

My opinion<g>

====================================================
Another long time IA said to just compare the records on the CD (from Tulsa) to your and submit anything else you would like recored. It doesn't seem to be real unusual.

Then again, you could always call FSDO and give them the old "a friend of mine is having a problem and asked for my advise" question ;)

Dave
 
There's some conflicting advice in this thread. Would making use of AOPA's legal plan be any good in a situation like this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top