Big Screw Up get the Faa involved or not?

Skyflea,

I'm curious, what is the TSOH of this prop? When did it hit the 10 year mark?

I can see that there was an error made but I'm not seeing outright deceit on the part of the A&P. For one thing, if his intent were to deceive why did he tell you about it? If it was your own mechanic who discovered this why was he looking at the books AFTER you purchased the aircraft rather than before?

It seems you made some errors as well.
 
Silvaire said:
Skyflea,

I'm curious, what is the TSOH of this prop? When did it hit the 10 year mark?

I can see that there was an error made but I'm not seeing outright deceit on the part of the A&P. For one thing, if his intent were to deceive why did he tell you about it? If it was your own mechanic who discovered this why was he looking at the books AFTER you purchased the aircraft rather than before?

It seems you made some errors as well.
Click to expand...

My error was trust this guy :yes:

I buy more than 5 planes x year always trust AP'S on pre-buys
whats the point of paying a 10 hr full blown prebuy if you don't trust the AP?
Be sure, no mistake was made here, he was fully aware of those AD'S when he give me the pre-buy report, he chose and chose poorly.
I was buying the plane no matter what, but my buying price was a reflection of the prebuy report this clown produce.
Now some one will eat that, my Christmas trip is all screw up, i lost the airfare ticket money because of his surprise.

He did have a choice.
I told him i would pay the prop and he will help me out on the ferry end of the deal, his response was i will return any left over money from gas check
( btw after he offer me to ferry the plane. a check was send to him, after receiving the check he told me to do not say anything to his employer about him flying the plane to texas ).

This guys is shady at least.
 
This is what my AP send me after reviewing the logs.

Per your request I have reviewed the recent logs on the xxxxx review of the aircraft maintenance log books on Nxxxxx the question arose in my mind that there was perhaps a log book missing for the constant speed Hartzell Propeller. While a separate propeller log book isn’t absolutely required by federal law, it is a common and customary practice. Propellers and engines after all can be traded independently and it then becomes an imperative that the maintenance history of an engine or propeller be supplied with the engine or propeller so that times of service and airworthiness requirements can be determined.

During the course of this review of the aircraft log books it was apparent to me that;

(1) There was no record of current Airworthiness Directives concerning AD 2005-18-12, concerning the propeller on this aircraft.

(2) None of the other AD’s listed in the log books met the requirement of FAR Part 43 that states that the effective dates of AD’s be listed when AD’s are addressed.

I made a telephone call to xxxx about the possibility of a lost or missing propeller log book.

During this call xxx admitted to me that there were no other log books and he knew that he had indeed “missed” having complied with AD 2005-18-12 on at least two separate occasions which he knew was required by law, but he seemed to think that this was not important and that it was not his fault and cited a lack of current airworthiness data due to some kind if negligence on the part of his employer.

Up to this point it is abundantly clear to me that there are serious competency issue here with; (a) the quality and veracity of the pre purchase inspection and; (b) the quality if the work that should have been performed as part of the Annual Inspections and; (c) the basic competence of xxxxx to hold the level of certificates issued by the FAA.

Sincerely,
xxxxxx
 
The AD you are talking about was issued 7 years ago. It's hard for me to believe that the owner of the aircraft was not aware of it. He was, after all, the first one to get a written copy of the AD when it was issued. He also is the person who benefited from it being concealed. What exactly is the mechanic's incentive to deceive you? What did he get out of this?

The other thing about this AD, it's very similar to the Lycoming crankshaft AD. They are basically saying this propeller is dangerous but it's perfectly okay for you to use it for ten years. I can see how an error could be made because while the logbooks will normally have Total time and Time Since Overhaul tabulated it is very rare to see a running tabulation of calendar time since overhaul.

You might ask why there is a ten year limit irregardless of hours flown. The answer is that it is a Hartzell CYA, plain and simple.
 
Silvaire said:
The AD you are talking about was issued 7 years ago. It's hard for me to believe that the owner of the aircraft was not aware of it. He was, after all, the first one to get a written copy of the AD when it was issued. He also is the person who benefited from it being concealed. What exactly is the mechanic's incentive to deceive you? What did he get out of this?

The other thing about this AD, it's very similar to the Lycoming crankshaft AD. They are basically saying this propeller is dangerous but it's perfectly okay for you to use it for ten years. I can see how an error could be made because while the logbooks will normally have Total time and Time Since Overhaul tabulated it is very rare to see a running tabulation of calendar time since overhaul.

You might ask why there is a ten year limit irregardless of hours flown. The answer is that it is a Hartzell CYA, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

All are good points... BUT.... The FAA licensed A&P missed noting that defect in the prebuy.. There is absolutely NO excuse for that to happen, and that is the main issue here...
 
Silvaire said:
The AD you are talking about was issued 7 years ago. It's hard for me to believe that the owner of the aircraft was not aware of it. He was, after all, the first one to get a written copy of the AD when it was issued. He also is the person who benefited from it being concealed. What exactly is the mechanic's incentive to deceive you? What did he get out of this?

The other thing about this AD, it's very similar to the Lycoming crankshaft AD. They are basically saying this propeller is dangerous but it's perfectly okay for you to use it for ten years. I can see how an error could be made because while the logbooks will normally have Total time and Time Since Overhaul tabulated it is very rare to see a running tabulation of calendar time since overhaul.

You might ask why there is a ten year limit irregardless of hours flown. The answer is that it is a Hartzell CYA, plain and simple.
Click to expand...


prop shop say prop as not been touch in 25 years don't you think he should have disclose that on the prebuy?

let me cut and paste what they send me

xxx
xxx just got off the phone with the prop guys. Not good news I am afraid. They told him that the prop has not been looked at in 25 years. Therefore, it will need to be overhauled for sure, no exceptions. The overhaul price is going to be at least $2895 to $3000. Currently we are at $2615 on the attached shop order. I also see that xxx has an IFR Pitot/Static/Transponder scheduled off the top of my head I think that runs at least $200 to $300?


this is 2 days before delivery date
 
if the PO was aware or not I DON"T REALLY CARE
I pay for a pre-buy inspection he should have pointed this matter.
U guys are missing the point.
He miss the AD couple times and cover it up.
Then forgot to mention it on prebuy.

Come on REALLY??????
 
skyflea said:
if the PO was aware or not I DON"T REALLY CARE
Click to expand...

If this was a deliberate cover-up by the A&P I would think it likely would be in collusion with the PO. Because I don't see the mechanic getting anything out of this. If that is true why don't you care about the PO as well as the mechanic, if it were both of them?

I think Tom is right - this smells like a witch hunt.
 
I don't have an opinion since we haven't heard both sides, but have some random thoughts:

1) The shop that did the pre-buy is not going to whip out their checkbook and buy you a new prop because you called or emailed.

2) In many states, including Texas, this issue would be appropriate for a smalls claims action. I'd seriously consider that route if I were the buyer and had the time to fool with it.

3) A real law suit would exceed the value of the plane almost instantly. There is zero chance of the buyer recovering his legal fees even if , after many months and thousands of dollars, he wins his suit. And even if the buyer wins the suit, he will have to basically file a second lawsuit to collect the damages awarded by the first lawsuit.

4) It's real common in disputes with business entities that the aggrieved person is never allowed to speak to anyone with actual authority to make a decision. 'The owner is in the Caribbean' is very typical.

I agree with a prior poster, paying $100 for a lawyer letter to the shop
will get the owner on the phone for sure. I've done this a number of times for small disputes like this and it always gets the ball rolling.

If the aggravated party doesn't want to pay for a lawyer letter, a properly formed certified demand letter to the agent for service of the shop's corporate entity works almost as well. Some Googling required.


4) If you main post-purchase surprise costs ony ~$3000 count yourself lucky.
 
Silvaire said:
If this was a deliberate cover-up by the A&P I would think it likely would be in collusion with the PO. Because I don't see the mechanic getting anything out of this. If that is true why don't you care about the PO as well as the mechanic, if it were both of them?

I think Tom is right - this smells like a witch hunt.
Click to expand...


what part of i pay for a 10 hr pre buy inspection you don't understand?????:dunno:

This should have been found then.:yes:

if this was disclosed i would have pay 3k less for the plane to comply with this AD and we all be happy.:yes:


you can call it a mistake, a witch hunt or wherever you want. :nono:


For what i'm concern, i want the dam plane ready by next Friday i will pick it up my self and i'm going to the jugular, if PO and AP are together believe me they would regret it.:devil:
Now is not much we can do here, i try to get some body else optic, but i guess is really easy being so generous with some body else money. :rofl:
 
JimNtexas said:
I don't have an opinion since we haven't heard both sides, but have some random thoughts:

1) The shop that did the pre-buy is not going to whip out their checkbook and buy you a new prop because you called or emailed.

2) In many states, including Texas, this issue would be appropriate for a smalls claims action. I'd seriously consider that route if I were the buyer and had the time to fool with it.

3) A real law suit would exceed the value of the plane almost instantly. There is zero chance of the buyer recovering his legal fees even if , after many months and thousands of dollars, he wins his suit. And even if the buyer wins the suit, he will have to basically file a second lawsuit to collect the damages awarded by the first lawsuit.

4) It's real common in disputes with business entities that the aggrieved person is never allowed to speak to anyone with actual authority to make a decision. 'The owner is in the Caribbean' is very typical.

I agree with a prior poster, paying $100 for a lawyer letter to the shop
will get the owner on the phone for sure. I've done this a number of times for small disputes like this and it always gets the ball rolling.

If the aggravated party doesn't want to pay for a lawyer letter, a properly formed certified demand letter to the agent for service of the shop's corporate entity works almost as well. Some Googling required.


4) If you main post-purchase surprise costs ony ~$3000 count yourself lucky.
Click to expand...


I would be fine and dandy if they whipe the 10 hr pre buy inspection fee
 
Tom-D said:
When you prove that at FSDO, the A&P-IA will loose their certificate for 90 days. That will break the chain of 3 year continuity for the IA, then when the 90 days are over, the A&P will be required to wait 3 years before they can reapply for the IA.

Putting them out of work, is this what you really want?
Click to expand...

Your right Tom, If more people would report bad A&P/IA actions instead of just forgetting about it you just might save the next sucker from the same problem.
 
If more mechanics see that they can get held to account they might be careful and do the job right the first time.
 
Tom-D said:
Shouldn't pilots be held to the same standard?
Click to expand...

Yes, and the mechanism is already in place. It's called a 44709 ride. I know some local pilots who have been required to complete them, and have heard that it happens in other places as well.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Yes, and the mechanism is already in place. It's called a 44709 ride. I know some local pilots who have been required to complete them, and have heard that it happens in other places as well.
Click to expand...

Yep, and how would you like to get awarded one every time the landing wasn't perfect?

This A&P made a mistake, no one got hurt, no blood on his hands, yet the pilots here want him hung from the tallest tree.

Yes he should have penalties, but to put him out of work for 3 years? When the FAA pulls his A&P for 90 days he is done in this industry.
 
The prob is that you paid for a pre-buy inspection - what work did you specify be done as part of the prebuy? Did you specify that you wanted a comprehensive AD inspection?

I thought so . . . he has a defense. You'll never win.

You just learned why a prebuy needs to be an annual. IF he did any annual inspection, that you were using as a factual determinative for a purchase and missed it - then you'd have a claim. . . .
 
We hire professionals all the time. The reason is because we cannot be an expert in all fields in this complex society. Take the 'aviation' question and the 'AD' question out of this issue and the facts become quite stark.

A professional uses their skills, training, and certifications to make value judgments about purchases, and processes that materially affect our well being, or our pocketbook. We rely on them to be diligent and we pay them a compensation to find things that we would otherwise miss. I am pretty sure a small claims judge(without specific aviation experience) would see this as a simple matter of unprofessional behavior on the part of the A&P.

I don't care about the FAA part, and for me that would not be an issue. The buyer relied on the professionalism of the inspector to make a purchase. It could be said that the buyer 'went the extra mile' by even having a PPI done rather than just look at a pretty plane and write a check for the sale. Due to either negligence, or simple mistake, the buyer is now harmed financially as a direct result of the actions of the professional. The professional in this case should offer to make the buyer whole, or should offer to mitigate the loss in some other way(free annuals for the next 4 years, etc).

There is good case law on this in TX, as I know because I sued a RE broker over a home purchase at least 12 years ago and won a decent sized judgment. The broker who was representing me exclusively hid some material issues with the property so that the sale would go through, thinking I wouldn't do anything about it after the purchase was completed. They were mistaken.

I think the buyer in this case has been more than reasonable considering he is relying on the professionals skills with his very life in the case of a mandated inspection. If I were to take this in front of a judge, this would be the aspect of the case I would hammer. Mistakes in cases like this cause not just financial loss, but have the potential for injury, death, and serious tort damages on the other side of a failure.
 
When a pilot screws up a landing it's his butt and his money on the line. If he fesses up and says "yep, I screwed the pooch" he takes his ride, takes his licking and moves on to the next project--or so I'm told.

If he screws up and then tries to cover-up and pass the blame to someone else, the game changes and he can expect different consequences. Some of them can include being out of work for a while.

Tom-D said:
Yep, and how would you like to get awarded one every time the landing wasn't perfect?

This A&P made a mistake, no one got hurt, no blood on his hands, yet the pilots here want him hung from the tallest tree.

Yes he should have penalties, but to put him out of work for 3 years? When the FAA pulls his A&P for 90 days he is done in this industry.
Click to expand...
 
If the propeller is 25 years old that would have put it in par 3 of Table 3 at the time the AD became effective. This means it was out of compliance as of October 2007. So something is missing from this story.

The A&P made a mistake and then possibly tried to cover his a$$ but I don't see evidence that he deliberately and intentionally planned and plotted to deceive and cheat the buyer. It also seems likely that the seller was aware of the fact that the propeller was out of compliance and did not disclose that information.

So you have an A&P who most likely made a clerical error as opposed to an owner who may very well have deceived you and everybody here wants that mechanic hung.

I'm curious as to what sort of conversations you have had with the PO concerning this?
 
Silvaire said:
....
The A&P made a mistake and then possibly tried to cover his a$$ but I don't see evidence that he deliberately and intentionally planned and plotted to deceive and cheat the buyer
Click to expand...
.

And you dont see anything wrong with what the A&P did ???..

WOW.............

I can't wait to hear from Skyflea on how today worked out...
 
Point out to me where I said there was nothing wrong with it. Let's be clear here, the propeller requires overhaul not because of anything the mechanic did. He made a clerical mistake. Anyone here who has never made a mistake?
 
Silvaire said:
Point out to me where I said there was nothing wrong with it. Let's be clear here, the propeller requires overhaul not because of anything the mechanic did. He made a clerical mistake. Anyone here who has never made a mistake?
Click to expand...

The plane was annualed by this mechanic a few times before.. He knew the owner.. And he just happened to forget to mention the prop was out of an AD compliance........ Geez..... Ya wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge , I happen to have it for sale this week...

Just don't whine when you find out I don't have ability to transfer clear title to you..:no::):rofl::(
 
Just got off the phone with the owner of the company, he was very apologetic, and got really upset at the fact that the A & P was setting up the ferry flight on the side. Owner apologize for the inconvenience and ask us to please resolve amicably, he offer to pay the prop, i pay the pre-buy and the AD that was disclose on my prebuy.
End of the deal. And now the owner is in charge of overseeing the annual, and AD compliance, and call me wen my plane is done to be flow Home.


What i learn after this is, not all A & P'S are the same and this one was one pretty crocked.
 
skyflea said:
Just got off the phone with the owner of the company, he was very apologetic, and got really upset at the fact that the A & P was setting up the ferry flight on the side. Owner apologize for the inconvenience and ask us to please resolve amicably, he offer to pay the prop, i pay the pre-buy and the AD that was disclose on my prebuy.
End of the deal. And now the owner is in charge of overseeing the annual, and AD compliance, and call me wen my plane is done to be flow Home.


What i learn after this is, not all A & P'S are the same and this one was one pretty crocked.
Click to expand...


Congrats..:cheers:
 
Silvaire said:
If the propeller is 25 years old that would have put it in par 3 of Table 3 at the time the AD became effective. This means it was out of compliance as of October 2007. So something is missing from this story.

The A&P made a mistake and then possibly tried to cover his a$$ but I don't see evidence that he deliberately and intentionally planned and plotted to deceive and cheat the buyer. It also seems likely that the seller was aware of the fact that the propeller was out of compliance and did not disclose that information.

So you have an A&P who most likely made a clerical error as opposed to an owner who may very well have deceived you and everybody here wants that mechanic hung.

I'm curious as to what sort of conversations you have had with the PO concerning this?
Click to expand...


Intent means nothing, he was negligent plain and simple. In our society you are supposed to pay for your mistakes, no? When you are a professional offering services for pay you have a duty to do the job correctly. When you fail to do so you are liable to make good your error, that's why professionals typically carry Errors & Omissions insurance and why it's offered in the first place.

If intent is involved that ups the damages to include punitive.
 
Last edited:
Okay, shouldn't this have been done right from the start? For one thing, the result of this SNAFU was that the PO had an extra two grand in his pocket from the sale. An error was certainly made by the mechanic but it was unintentional. He didn't stand to gain anything from it.
 
Silvaire said:
Okay, shouldn't this have been done right from the start? For one thing, the result of this SNAFU was that the PO had an extra two grand in his pocket from the sale. An error was certainly made by the mechanic but it was unintentional. He didn't stand to gain anything from it.
Click to expand...


???? He gained his professional fee? How is that nothing?
 
Tom-D said:
Yep, and how would you like to get awarded one every time the landing wasn't perfect?

This A&P made a mistake, no one got hurt, no blood on his hands, yet the pilots here want him hung from the tallest tree.

Yes he should have penalties, but to put him out of work for 3 years? When the FAA pulls his A&P for 90 days he is done in this industry.
Click to expand...
AFaIK, the regs don't require perfect landings, even on a checkride.

I agree the penalty for accidentally missing an AD requirement that doesn't lead to an accident or seriously unsafe condition ought to be a lot less than sitting on the bench for 3 years. Unfair punishments almost always lead to spotty enforcement and are generally less effective than fairly assigned impacts.

OTOH, if the transgression was a deliberate attempt to cover something up and/or mislead a potential purchaser I think severe repercussions are justified. I can't tell which is the case for the subject of this thread but it kinda sounds like it was deliberate.
 
gismo said:
AFaIK, the regs don't require perfect landings, even on a checkride.

I agree the penalty for accidentally missing an AD requirement that doesn't lead to an accident or seriously unsafe condition ought to be a lot less than sitting on the bench for 3 years. Unfair punishments almost always lead to spotty enforcement and are generally less effective than fairly assigned impacts.

OTOH, if the transgression was a deliberate attempt to cover something up and/or mislead a potential purchaser I think severe repercussions are justified. I can't tell which is the case for the subject of this thread but it kinda sounds like it was deliberate.
Click to expand...


Dude could have avoided the FAA by just making good on his error.
 
Missing the same AD two years in the rows have nothing to do with a mistake, in the way this guy handle me i know hes a crock, OP was a 82 year old cool guy and i believe he got fk in the last 2 annuals, i would never know the all story about this, but i was diligent, and i am pretty straight, and still do deals on a hand shake, but let my self get fk is another story. Yall defending the AP, is pretty clear that he was breaching his employer rules doing the ferry ( he never told me that till he got my 800 buks check) i don't lye my self to cover my mistakes and this guy ask me to lye about the ferry, ( after i cancel the check = 30 buks on top the 250 buks airfare i lost) i told him i don't lye brother if you are doing something you don't if you don't suppose to do is in you. So yall putting this clown in a pedestal be aware your FAA cert. is not to be taken light, we pilots trust our A & P, and even on a soft economy and GA aviation going down, becoming an AUTOZONE type mechanic would bitte you in the ass.
 
BTW IM DONE POSTING ON THIS THREAD
I GOT WHAT I WAS BUYING AS PER MY PRE-BUY
AND I WOULD PAY THE BILL THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME ON THE INSPECTION REPORT.

IM DONE
NOW YOU ALL HAVE A WOUNDERFULL WEEK :thumbsup:
 
skyflea said:
....So yall putting this clown in a pedestal be aware your FAA cert. is not to be taken light, we pilots trust our A & P, and even on a soft economy and GA aviation going down, becoming an AUTOZONE type mechanic would bitte you in the ass.
Click to expand...

For the record, nobody was putting anyone on a pedestal. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of missing parts to this story. For one thing, this propeller (according the information given here) has been out of compliance for at least 5 years. Secondly there is the missing prop logbook. Although not required, it is rare to see an aircraft with a C/S propeller that does not have a dedicated logbook.

Now this A&P may indeed be a crook and a scum, I have no way of knowing that but regardless it's hard to come up with a legitimate reason why he would deliberately conceal the status of this AD being that it is not even his airplane. What would he care?

So it may boil down to shear negligence and if that's the case I would be wary that a missed AD may be the least of your concerns over the maintenance history and current condition of this aircraft - going back for at least the past five years. If it were me I would do a complete annual with someone you trust before loading the family on board and heading off cross country.

and BTW - the "cool old guy" as owner is ultimately responsible for the condition of the aircraft he sold you and the money you feel you were cheated out of (cost of prop overhaul) is in his pocket.
 
My father in law is a home inspector. He inspected a $55k house that was 50 years old and made his best advice to a single women. After she bought the house she found a drain that didn't take much to backup. The drain was plumbed under a concrete slab so it was something like $5k to tear out and fix.

She took the inspector, who only charged $175 for the inspection, to court and won in small claims court.

Why should it be any different for an A&P or IA?

Why is the aviation field one of the only fields where the professionals feel they have no responsibility nor obligation to their clients?

I applaud the Op's forcing the inspector to take responsibility for his mistake.

If IA's can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Or buy liability insurance like everyone else must.
 
you think if the A & P was in the right, the CEO would offer to pay for the prop?????
I have no more words, i got what i pay for END OF THE STORY
thread can be locked
 
skyflea said:
you think if the A & P was in the right, the CEO would offer to pay for the prop?????
I have no more words, i got what i pay for END OF THE STORY
thread can be locked
Click to expand...

I'm confused here. Isn't he the one who sold you the plane with a bad prop to begin with? Isn't he the one that took the money for it?
 
It sounds like that guy is steeling from his boss setting up a ferry flight.

What did I miss how did a 90 day suspension turn into 3 years?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
It sounds like that guy is steeling from his boss setting up a ferry flight.

What did I miss how did a 90 day suspension turn into 3 years?
Click to expand...

A 90 day suspension of the A&P will break the required 3 years for the IA.

65.91 Inspection authorization.
(a) An application for an inspection authorization is made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator.

(b) An applicant who meets the requirements of this section is entitled to an inspection authorization.

(c) To be eligible for an inspection authorization, an applicant must—

(1) Hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with both an airframe rating and a powerplant rating, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least 3 years;

If he looses the A&P for 90 days, he will not be able to reapply for the IA until he has 3 years = (1)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top