It says total 3 years, not past consecutive 3 years. Do you have a reference for your interpretation being used in enforcement action?
Big Screw Up get the Faa involved or not?
- Thread starter skyflea
- Start date
It says total 3 years, not past consecutive 3 years. Do you have a reference for your interpretation being used in enforcement action?
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
What is so difficult to understand.
(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 the FAA took the A&P for 90 days it wasn't in effect, breaking the 3 year requirement.
And yes it is a common practice for the FAA to do just that.
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
Did you TALK to the AP about this issue, how did you leave it??
I would try to work this out with the AP, he did a chit pre-buy and you got burnt due to his F'up, I would try to split the difference with him!
If he decides to be difficult I would go from there, you could deal with him personally or go to lil' claims court.
I dont think any of my opinions would involve taddle tailing to the feds.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Tony_Scarpelli
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,645
- Location
- Wichita, Kansas
- Display Name
Display name:
Tony_Scarpelli
Tom, even with your interpretation he would still get his A&P back in 90 days so no reason his kids would be thrown out on the streets.
He is an employee not an owner obviously. If his boss keeps him he still can do mechanic work with supervision until he gets his A&P back and then do that work until he re qualifies for his IA.
Although, sounds like he could get fired for being a thief anyway.
I have had employees want to offer services to my customers. It is stealing plain and simple.
He is an employee not an owner obviously. If his boss keeps him he still can do mechanic work with supervision until he gets his A&P back and then do that work until he re qualifies for his IA.
Although, sounds like he could get fired for being a thief anyway.
I have had employees want to offer services to my customers. It is stealing plain and simple.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
Awwww right guys... No kicking, biting, or eye gouging.
Tom... You are still missing the point.
IF.....If the Faa licensed A&P had been straight forward and upfront with the aircraft purchaser and rectified his MISTAKE from the start, this thread would not have even happened. The fact he did try to hide it from the OP and apparantly his boss too , that alone leads me to feel he is NOT trustworthy and someone in his position should go out of their way to uphold the profession and its quality ethics... This guy makes ALL A&P's look bad, why you continue to make excuses for him is beyond belief.
With that said, I think skyflea is being made whole by the owner of the FBO this "less then honest" A&P works at.... You can bet the FAA has looked at this thread and will investigate this issue further. If they do, it puts you in a bad light. IMHO....
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Where did you get the idea I was making excuses for this guy? Just because I don't like any one being railroaded doesn't mean I am defending him.
You don't have all the story, you don't even know if he kept his job.
All I have said is when this is proven at FSDO the A&P-IA will loose his A&P for 90 days, and that will break the 3 year period of activity for the IA.
And then asked the OP if that was what he really wanted to do.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
I have followed this thread since the beginning. I am real glad the situation seems to have had an amicable solution. However, I feel there is probably a lot more to the story than we know, and certainly there are three sides to every story, theirs, mine, and the truth. I think we all appreciate the OP's predicament, but also I think he made some mistakes as has been pointed out. Based on his description of the events the mechanic made some mistakes as well as did the previous owner of the plane. The owner of the shop has come to bat, but it is unclear to me if he is completely innocent or playing good cop to his mechanic's bad cop routine, and this is not just normal practice for this shop, and this is what they do when they get caught, or whether his mechanic truly screwed up and he is making good, or whether he does not feel his mechanic screwed up, and is just trying to make a customer happy.
Doug
Doug
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Would you summarize the mistakes the buyer made so I can avoid them?
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Among other posts including at least one where the OP says he erred in trusting the AP see my post #74. In short I think the biggest mistake he made was he used the same mechanic that has been doing all of the work on the plane he purchased to do the prebujt inspection. One of the first things I was told by everyone who I spoke to about buying a plane was to have the prebuy done by a mechanic you know and trust, and who has not worked on the plane you are buying, but is familiar with the model. I would propose that if he had done this then the issue with the AD would have been found in the prebuy, and the problems he had could have been avoided.
Doug
Last edited:
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
As I have repeatedly pointed out there are some big gaping holes in this story.
For one thing, how on Earth did the previous owner not know about this AD? He was after all the first person to receive a written copy of it when it was issued in 2005.
What's the story with the "missing" logbook?
What possible benefit would this A&P enjoy by deliberately concealing this AD? He would have gotten his pre-buy fee either way.
The bottom line is that the previous owner sold an airplane with a bad prop and took the money for it.
So before we throw the rope over the tree limb I'd like to see those questions answered.
For one thing, how on Earth did the previous owner not know about this AD? He was after all the first person to receive a written copy of it when it was issued in 2005.
What's the story with the "missing" logbook?
What possible benefit would this A&P enjoy by deliberately concealing this AD? He would have gotten his pre-buy fee either way.
The bottom line is that the previous owner sold an airplane with a bad prop and took the money for it.
So before we throw the rope over the tree limb I'd like to see those questions answered.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
I agree that we do not have the entire story, but I still think I have learned a number of things from the thread, which for me is good.
Doug
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
OK, pay to fly an A&P in for the PPI who was not the regular mech on the plane.
Not knowing enough about the aircraft he was buying is a big one and not taking it to a mechanic who had a clue either. Frankly as soon as I see an older plane with a Hartzell variable pitch propeller I would start asking questions: Does it have one of the dual shoulder hubs, if so when was the last 95-11-08 inspection done. Even then I'd be saving my pennies for an upgrade to an MV. Then I would start asking about the other AD and the overhaul time.
Even if "all AD's were complied with" at the moment the pre-buy was done, he could be looking at a substantial amount of work ten hours after it if the overhaul was due and the 95-11-08 hours were coming up.
At $3000, I suspect he'd be back in business, but the prop shop isn't saying the right words. He needs either an overhaul and the 95-11-08 inspection done. If the prop shop in question are the scoundrels in Piqua, he better budget for new blades as well At that point he'd have been better of to buy a new prop (and if such is an option, ONE THAT ISN'T HARTZELL).
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
That is one option and is done all the time. Believe it usually will set you back about $500 though am not sure. When I bought my plane I looked at two planes, both were flown to my home port and inspected by my chosen mechanic. If I am going to spend tens of thousands or more of my hard earned cash on a used plane and trust that plane to fly me safely, you can be certain, I want someone I trust inspecting that plane to advise me.
Doug
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Thanks, I am not sure I could have said it better.
Tony_Scarpelli
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,645
- Location
- Wichita, Kansas
- Display Name
Display name:
Tony_Scarpelli
What good is a IA certification/license or an A&P for that matter if you cannot depend on his abilities, research and findings?
He doesn't have to be a crook nor to have materially benefited personally to be responsible. He is responsible because he is certified and paid for his professional knowledge.
For all the blathering that some do about not signing off high time engines that are in perfectly good shape for the reason that if something happens it comes back on me, it looks like they feel nothing really ever should come back on the IA or A&P. Ever.
Turn it over to liability insurance or errors and omitions and be done with it. True the seller benefited in this case as additional negotiating might have lowered his net price but since the hired professional did not bring that to light it is his fault for that.
He doesn't have to be a crook nor to have materially benefited personally to be responsible. He is responsible because he is certified and paid for his professional knowledge.
For all the blathering that some do about not signing off high time engines that are in perfectly good shape for the reason that if something happens it comes back on me, it looks like they feel nothing really ever should come back on the IA or A&P. Ever.
Turn it over to liability insurance or errors and omitions and be done with it. True the seller benefited in this case as additional negotiating might have lowered his net price but since the hired professional did not bring that to light it is his fault for that.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
It ain't like ADs are a freaking secret.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage
buying any aircraft with outstanding ADs is directly on the buyer.
Yesteryear, you needed a subscription, and the buyer was dependent upon the A&P-IA for assistance, not so any more.
It is a buyer beware market, do your freaking home work or get what the seller can push on you. It isn't like the A&P was under any kind of federal FAR to find anything during the Pre-Buy. When the buyer wants a list of ADs that are or are not complied with they should ask for it.
Any body here really know what the work order on this aircraft really said?
Well. in post 106 ,the OP said the A&P disclosed another AD for that aircraft, so he was obviously looking for AD's for that plane.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
We do know that the A&P made an error but that in itself does not make him a cretin POS that should be hung out to dry. Punishment of that sort should be reserved for those who purposely and intentionally deceive another for personal gain. The only way I can see this mechanic being guilty of that would be in collusion with the previous owner and possibly the FBO as well, because the mechanic himself stood to gain absolutely nothing from it. Now we're talking conspiracy and I'd gladly join in the witch hunt with the rest of you but we have no proof of any of it.
I'll tell you one thing - if the FAA were brought in on this it would implicate and cause discomfort to more people than just the mechanic. Because something here simply does not pass the smell test. This particular aircraft, based on the information we've been given here, has been operated illegally and in violation for at least the past five years. We're talking about a big can of worms here.
Furthermore, don't even get me started on this AD 2005-18-12. It's very similar to the Lycoming crankshaft AD - which in it's latest iteration is 2012-19-01. In it they say that you "may" have a defective crankshaft in your engine that could cause catastrophic failure but it's perfectly okay to use it until next overhaul or until the case is split for any reason or until it is 12 years old at which time it must be discarded - no ifs, ands or buts.
The Hartzell AD is the same - you have a dangerous propeller but it's okay to use it for ten years, regardless of where you park your airplane or how many flight hours you put on it.
These AD's that have calendar time limits are traps waiting to be sprung on unsuspecting owner/operators because obviously logbooks keep track of things using tach time.
I had the unfortunate job of telling the owner of a Piper Arrow that, although it had passed annual inspection with flying colors, his engine and, for all intents and purposes, his aircraft would be junk in three months time because the crankshaft was about to hit the 12 year mark. For some reason, prior to my coming along, no one had ever told him about it and he was not an actively engaged or educated owner. He had a copy of the original AD that had been mailed to the previous owner back in 2006 but apparently had never bothered to read it and the previous owner never bothered to inform him when he sold the airplane to him that he was going to need a new engine in 3 years.
But nothing illegal was done.
I'll tell you one thing - if the FAA were brought in on this it would implicate and cause discomfort to more people than just the mechanic. Because something here simply does not pass the smell test. This particular aircraft, based on the information we've been given here, has been operated illegally and in violation for at least the past five years. We're talking about a big can of worms here.
Furthermore, don't even get me started on this AD 2005-18-12. It's very similar to the Lycoming crankshaft AD - which in it's latest iteration is 2012-19-01. In it they say that you "may" have a defective crankshaft in your engine that could cause catastrophic failure but it's perfectly okay to use it until next overhaul or until the case is split for any reason or until it is 12 years old at which time it must be discarded - no ifs, ands or buts.
The Hartzell AD is the same - you have a dangerous propeller but it's okay to use it for ten years, regardless of where you park your airplane or how many flight hours you put on it.
These AD's that have calendar time limits are traps waiting to be sprung on unsuspecting owner/operators because obviously logbooks keep track of things using tach time.
I had the unfortunate job of telling the owner of a Piper Arrow that, although it had passed annual inspection with flying colors, his engine and, for all intents and purposes, his aircraft would be junk in three months time because the crankshaft was about to hit the 12 year mark. For some reason, prior to my coming along, no one had ever told him about it and he was not an actively engaged or educated owner. He had a copy of the original AD that had been mailed to the previous owner back in 2006 but apparently had never bothered to read it and the previous owner never bothered to inform him when he sold the airplane to him that he was going to need a new engine in 3 years.
But nothing illegal was done.
Actually it remains to be seen if 95-11-08 was ever done or it's just late (it's either every 250 or 500 hours). While there have only been a few blade separations that this is supposed to stave off, Hartzell was able to convince the FAA that it was significant enough to make a costly repetitive AD or have people buy new propellers. It couldn't possibly be the fact that they would make a lot of money by forcing the entire fleet down that path. It couldn't possibly be their own liability because they hadn't been supporting those props worth crap (blade clamps for the longest time were like gold if you could find servicable ones). Yeah, it's all a matter of SAFETY.
Don't get me started on how corruptable the FAA is on these matters. Don't get me started about Navion fuel valves.
Don't get me started on how corruptable the FAA is on these matters. Don't get me started about Navion fuel valves.
Where does it say consecutive? "Total of at least 3 years," where does it say consecutive? There is no such requirement.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Why does it have to say consecutive?
It's pretty point blank the way it is written.
If your certificate has not been in effect for the past 3 years you can not reapply for the IA. and it would not be if your privileges were suspended for 90 days.
Why worry? you don't have one anyway.
Tony_Scarpelli
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,645
- Location
- Wichita, Kansas
- Display Name
Display name:
Tony_Scarpelli
It seems only two people in the world believes an IA A&P doing a prebuy should be held accountable.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Being held accountable and being drawn and quartered are not the same thing, especially when it's based on spotty, incomplete information from a single source. There is much missing from this story as we've read it - it just doesn't add up. I hope it works out for skyflea but he really ought to go over that airplane with a fine toothed comb based solely on what he already knows about it's flawed maintenance history.
Last edited:
I've gone back and reread this situation. A "prebuy" has no FAA meaning and I can't see why any certificate action or FAA sanction is even on the table here. Had this been an annual, there might be a claim, but it appears the "annual" when it actually got done caught the missing AD.
So frankly, there's no FAA issue to get involved and hopefully any FAA person getting the complaint should chuck it.
As for a civil action against the mechanic for missing things, you'd have to show that there was some contractual obligation to find ALL the ADs and that there were damages caused by the act. Frankly, I doubt highly that such an arrangement existed. If you wanted a full scope of an annual, you should have done an annual.
So frankly, there's no FAA issue to get involved and hopefully any FAA person getting the complaint should chuck it.
As for a civil action against the mechanic for missing things, you'd have to show that there was some contractual obligation to find ALL the ADs and that there were damages caused by the act. Frankly, I doubt highly that such an arrangement existed. If you wanted a full scope of an annual, you should have done an annual.
flyingmoose
Pattern Altitude
I think FAR65.91 C (2) is what Tom is talking about.
-(2) Have been actively engaged, for at least the 2-year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter;
You have to have it for three years, but you need to be actively engaged for at least the 2 years prior. Im guessing that is the consecutive part he is talking about.
As far as the OP goes, I would be mad also if you feel like you are being hosed. But I won't comment on the rest, because I feel like there is stuff missing from the story.
Last edited:
If someone is in possesion of logbooks for an aircraft, and those logbooks contain the signature of an A&P, and those logbooks show a AD was missed on several annuals on that plane then.....
You can bet your a$$ the FAA ain't gonna "chuck" the complaint..
If it's not consecutive how does his 90 day rip negate his past experience for the requirement? Even with a revocation they still leave you with your experience. If he had 3 years total before, he's still got 3 years total.
Why do you read consecutive into that, it's not written there. Why do people always try to read more into rules than is written? Rules are semantically specicific. He can be actively engaged without a license during the suspension, he just cannot provide a signature.
Last edited:
VanDy
Cleared for Takeoff
That's two years, not three, but I don't care either way really. I don't think it applies as you think but I'll concede. I'm pro pulling his IA for a few years for botching his job.
VanDy
Cleared for Takeoff
To clarify a bit: the key words are actively engaged. You can't be actively engaged if you aren't exercising the privileges of a certificated mechanic. (Due to it being suspended) and woukd require reapplying for the IA. The two years is where the 'consecutive' is read into it.
(2) Have been actively engaged, for at least the 2-year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter;
At least the two year period I read as meaning all inclusive of the period.
Guess it doesn't matter to me either as long as I understand what my fsdo requires.
Agree to disagree
-VanDy
To clarify a bit: the key words are actively engaged. You can't be actively engaged if you aren't exercising the privileges of a certificated mechanic. (Due to it being suspended) and woukd require reapplying for the IA. The two years is where the 'consecutive' is read into it.
(2) Have been actively engaged, for at least the 2-year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter;
At least the two year period I read as meaning all inclusive of the period.
Guess it doesn't matter to me either as long as I understand what my fsdo requires.
Agree to disagree
-VanDy
I disagree, one can still be actively engaged as an unlicensed mechanic, same way as building time for the A&P. The only thing he cannot do is provide signatures. Depending on his attitude he may only lose his IA and still be able to work on his A&P.
That is the key to how this plays out too.. IMHO.
The only guys I have seen the FAA go after to put out of work were basically long term offenders and crooks.
VanDy
Cleared for Takeoff
not according to the FAA :
you can work and have a rated mechanic sign the work off, but you aren't exercising the privleges.
Last edited:
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Because that is the way the FAA interprets it. and that is the way it plays out at FSDO when you retest.
Yeah, but he never loses his A&P, he only loses his IA; those are the only privileges he violated. Any lawyer will see to that.