Can IA ground plane for airworthiness outside of annual inspection?

AlleyCat67

AlleyCat67

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
365
Display Name
Display name:
AleyCat67
I'm hoping this ends up as a non-issue but I'd like to educate myself just in case.

I brought my plane (AA-5B) in for repainting a month ago, and was informed by their A&P/IA that because of a stop-drilled crack in the fiberglass tail cone the plane was "unairworthy". Mind you this is the same crack that's been there since 2017, and multiple other IA's have not said a word about it. In any case I didn't mind replacing the tail cone, so I gave the go-ahead for the work. Now I've been told that the original manufacturer no longer makes that part, although they have a lead on another vendor. In the meantime the IA refuses to "release" my plane due to the non-airworthy old tail cone. When I asked him directly who determines air worthiness he replied "I do, as Director of Maintenance".

If the new part vendor works out, then no problem. But lurking in the back of my mind is the possibility of these guys holding my plane for months over a non-issue. It was my understanding that I as owner/operator was ultimately in charge of determining airworthiness, and the IA always had the option of not signing off the logs, but couldn't "ground" a plane. Anyone dealt with a similar issue?
 
This sounds like a mess - my condolences. Go dig around on the Savvy MX articles for all the details but the gist is, the IA can squawk it but it is between you and the A&P on how you repair it and return to service. Theoretically, the A&P can examine the stop drill, consult the repair standards references and determine no further work is required and return it to service. Obviously, this should be an A&P not associated with the shop it is currently at.
 
my understanding is that they cannot "ground" the aircraft. he can make note that they have done an inspection and make note of the unairworthy items. its up to you to fix it. Technically you are not supposed to fly an unairworthy plane - which he has made the notation. you can get a ferry permit to move it subsequently, but he cant "ground" the plane. He can only tell you that its unairtworthy based on his estimation and then you arent allowed to fly it - but again, he cant hold it or take it hostage as that becomes a business dispute.
 
Only the FAA can ground a plane. Anyone can call the FSDO and talk with a PMI to start an investigation that could lead to a grounding.
 
Anthem said:
my understanding is that they cannot "ground" the aircraft. he can make note that they have done an inspection and make note of the unairworthy items. its up to you to fix it. Technically you are not supposed to fly an unairworthy plane - which he has made the notation. you can get a ferry permit to move it subsequently, but he cant "ground" the plane. He can only tell you that its unairtworthy based on his estimation and then you arent allowed to fly it - but again, he cant hold it or take it hostage as that becomes a business dispute.
Click to expand...
That’s one reason why you don’t leave the logbooks with a shop. They can print out a sticker with the entry and you prevent unnecessary and irrelevant notations in the book. The book should only have the work done, inspections performed and the results (found to be in airworthy condition, or completed an annual inspection and a list of discrepancies has been provided to the operator).
 
Bringing airplane in for paint and not pre-planning to properly repair or replace all the cracked fiberglass parts - really?
 
Clip4 said:
Bringing airplane in for paint and not pre-planning to properly repair or replace all the cracked fiberglass parts - really?
Click to expand...
Did I miss something? I Thought I read that the OP approved the fix, but they can't find the part.
So I guess I don't understand what you are saying?
 
Seems like there’s a lot to this story that is missing.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
In the meantime the IA refuses to "release" my plane due to the non-airworthy old tail cone.
Click to expand...
Is this shop an FAA Repair Station?
And to confirm they are not performing an annual, 100 hr, or any other inspection for you?
 
It’s possible the DOM has concerns with the shop being the

“ Installing Agency” .

Removal / installation of fairings is permitted as Preventative Maintenance.

The shop could complete assembly with the Tailcone off.

The PPL or higher Owner could then install it.
 
JOhnH said:
Did I miss something? I Thought I read that the OP approved the fix, but they can't find the part.
So I guess I don't understand what you are saying?
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm happy to replace the tailcone, and actually pointed it out to him during the pre-painting walk around. I'm not happy to have my plane held hostage if they can't find a parts supplier. I'm supposing my best option then would be to get a Ferry Permit (as CYA) and then take it to my regular A&P to have a replacement part manufactured (or permanent repair done).
 
Bell206 said:
Is this shop an FAA Repair Station?
And to confirm they are not performing an annual, 100 hr, or any other inspection for you?
Click to expand...
Correct it's not an Annual or 100 hour, and yes they are FAA Certified Repair station.
 
Why would the shop want to hold the aircraft ?

They would be responsible for safe keeping and it takes up space?

Would the shop sign off for a Ferry Permit?

Would they even allow a Tech access to inspect for the Permit?

Is the Bill paid?
 
AlleyCat67 said:
Correct it's not an Annual or 100 hour, and yes they are FAA Certified Repair station.
Click to expand...
Have you discussed this with you’re A&P/IA yet? I would suggest you do in case you need their assistance.

Without knowing the complete story from both sides I can only offer a limited reply.

By rule, a CRS is required to perform a preliminary inspection on all incoming articles. However, there is no requirement they must repair every discrepancy they find. But since you did give the okay to fix this particular fairing crack it takes that initial point off the table.

Regardless, if the shop is on the up and up and they are unable to complete the repair/replacement of the tail cone after the remaining paint work is completed, there should be a process listed in their Repair Station Manual (RSM) that provides a method to release the aircraft with customer deferred work as noted in the examples below.

However, once released you will need your mechanic to clear that discrepancy and approve the aircraft for return to service. This is no different than having an aircraft fail an annual and be given a 43.11 sign-off for worked performed and the owner given a list of discrepancies.

1700591856345.png

1700591877764.png

1700591897536.png
1700591917553.png
AlleyCat67 said:
I'm not happy to have my plane held hostage
Click to expand...
FYI: They can't hold it "hostage" unless you elect not to pay for the maintenance and they go through a local lien process.
 
Bell206 said:
Have you discussed this with you’re A&P/IA yet? I would suggest you do in case you need their assistance.

Without knowing the complete story from both sides I can only offer a limited reply.

By rule, a CRS is required to perform a preliminary inspection on all incoming articles. However, there is no requirement they must repair every discrepancy they find. But since you did give the okay to fix this particular fairing crack it takes that initial point off the table.

Regardless, if the shop is on the up and up and they are unable to complete the repair/replacement of the tail cone after the remaining paint work is completed, there should be a process listed in their Repair Station Manual (RSM) that provides a method to release the aircraft with customer deferred work as noted in the examples below.

However, once released you will need your mechanic to clear that discrepancy and approve the aircraft for return to service. This is no different than having an aircraft fail an annual and be given a 43.11 sign-off for worked performed and the owner given a list of discrepancies.

View attachment 122568

View attachment 122569

View attachment 122570
View attachment 122571

FYI: They can't hold it "hostage" unless you elect not to pay for the maintenance and they go through a local lien process.
Click to expand...
Thank you - this is helpful.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Only the FAA can ground a plane. Anyone can call the FSDO and talk with a PMI to start an investigation that could lead to a grounding.
Click to expand...
Actually there are three entities that can "ground" a plane. The owner, the operator, and the FAA/FSDO. Mechanic or "Director of Maintenence" might ground a plane under the authority of the owner/operator if so enpowered under his term of employment but in general, a mechanic, even one with the impressive title of "Director of Maintenance," can only inform the owner/operator that he has observed an "unairworthy condition." . Pilots can refuse to fly a plane they deem unairworthy but only for their proposed flight if they are not the owner/operator. The FAA can always determine by inspection or investigation that an aircraft is unairworthy and suspend or revoke its airworthiness certificate by red tagging it and officially making it unairworthy. .
 
AlleyCat67 said:
Correct it's not an Annual or 100 hour, and yes they are FAA Certified Repair station.
Click to expand...
Even if it was an annual or 100 hour. The mechanic signs off a list of descrepancies. It doesn't take an IA, or even an A&P to resolve those in all cases.
 
IA can only NOT give an updated Annual. If the previous annual is still valid, YOU, the pilot, determines the airworthiness of the aircraft. And stop drilling cracks is a common way to deal with them.

Maybe YOU want to call the FSDO and point out that this IA is trying to Ground an aircraft.
 
Pinecone said:
IA can only NOT give an updated Annual. If the previous annual is still valid, YOU, the pilot, determines the airworthiness of the aircraft. And stop drilling cracks is a common way to deal with them.

Maybe YOU want to call the FSDO and point out that this IA is trying to Ground an aircraft.
Click to expand...

That generally backfires. The resentment from getting a fed critter out of his chair ends up nuking everyone, including OP.
 
This is ridiculous. Fiberglass fairing repairs are comically easy. Resin, cloth, sandpaper, paint. Shazam.

Ask Mr Director to explain why he cannot repair the crack using the procedure described in AC43.13--1B chapter 3, section 1, para 3.2, "fiberglass laminate repairs".
 
Ed Haywood said:
Ask Mr Director to explain why he cannot repair the crack using the procedure described in AC43.13--1B chapter 3, section 1, para 3.2, "fiberglass laminate repairs".
Click to expand...
FYI: repair stations are required to follow a different regulatory drum beat than most maintenance providers which normally doesn't include AC 43.13-1B as a "primary" approved data source. However, while I don't know that is the reason in the OPs case based on the limited info we have, its always simpler and easier for your basic A&P to fix things when compared to a CRS.
 
Are you certain the tail cone is fiberglass? The tail cone of my Tiger is plastic (ABS). There is a procedure in the AA5B maintenance manual for the repair of cracks in plastic parts. It involves dissolving pieces of ABS in solvent (I don't recall which solvent), coating the back of the cracked plastic with the ABS/solvent solution, doubling the crack area with a piece of ABS or even window screen, and then allowing to dry. If you don't want to go through the trouble of making up the ABS/Solvent solution, the Grumman shop I went to used ABS plumbing pipe cement (cement for black drain/waste/vent piping) that you can get at Home Depot or Lowes (eg., https://www.homedepot.com/p/Oatey-4...zBPBsZ2gbpHBpHL-0QrBG0vhoCj-cQAvD_BwE#overlay). It is an easy repair of a non-structural member not involving complex disassembly (IMO). I've done a handful myself and signed them off as owner preventive maintenance. Neither my local IA or the Grumman shop I use every 5 years has had any problem with either the repairs or the log entries.

I have no experience with fiberglass, but as an earlier poster mentioned, if your tail cone is fiberglass, then repairing a crack in that part should not be a challenging repair for a legitimate paint shop.

If the shop won't do either of those repairs, then how about you get the part from them and have it repaired by a shop more familiar with the methods? They can sign off the repair as airworthy with reference to the approved data as supporting information. At that point I can't see how any honest shop can consider the tail cone unairworthy.

Good luck.
 
One other thing. I replaced the tail cone in my Tiger a few years ago. My guess is that you checked Fletchair for a replacement. I was able to get mine from True Flight in Georgia (the current type certificate owner). https://trueflightaerospace.com/. Worth a call if you haven't already check with them.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: repair stations are required to follow a different regulatory drum beat than most maintenance providers which normally doesn't include AC 43.13-1B as a "primary" approved data source. However, while I don't know that is the reason in the OPs case based on the limited info we have, its always simpler and easier for your basic A&P to fix things when compared to a CRS.
Click to expand...
Good advice. It seems to me that if the DOM were a stand up guy, he would advise the OP of just that, give him his plane back, and send him on his way.

Do CRS have to use approved data for minor repairs, or can they use acceptable data like any other A&P? Seems like a crack in a non-structural fairing is pretty clearly a minor repair.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Do CRS have to use approved data for minor repairs, or can they use acceptable data like any other A&P?
Click to expand...
No and in some cases they can develop their own data. However, with the limited info we have I couldn't tell you if this was simply a personal issue with the DOM or if it was related to the repair station capabilities. But I can say that there were times when working at a CRS that I signed off a specific work task(s) under my A&P vs the CRS workorder because that work didn't fall under the CRS capabilities list or other similar issues. Maybe thats the case here?
 
Daleandee said:
I'm gonna go and hug my experimental airplane again ... ;)
Click to expand...
Although technically, this could still happen since it shouldn't be happening to a certified aircraft either.
 
bkspero said:
There is a procedure in the AA5B maintenance manual for the repair of cracks in plastic parts. It involves dissolving pieces of ABS in solvent (I don't recall which solvent)...
Click to expand...
I think MEK and/or acetone will dissolve ABS so it can be used in repairs.
 
Bell206 said:
No and in some cases they can develop their own data. However, with the limited info we have I couldn't tell you if this was simply a personal issue with the DOM or if it was related to the repair station capabilities. But I can say that there were times when working at a CRS that I signed off a specific work task(s) under my A&P vs the CRS workorder because that work didn't fall under the CRS capabilities list or other similar issues. Maybe thats the case here?
Click to expand...
All good perspective, thanks. Perhaps the DOM is doing his best, and the OP is being unreasonable in ways that he is not including in this account. Or perhaps Hanlon's Razor explains it.

But this whole stop drill thing bugs me. My wheel pants had several cracks "fixed" that way. Just seems like a lazy and self-defensive way to work. Some mechanic had plugged them with silicone, which is less than useless. After consulting with my supervising A&P/IA, I applied my boating repair experience to fix the cracks permanently. Took about 2 hours. Pants look brand new, you would never know the cracks had been there. All logged and legal.

I suppose the flip side is owners losing their minds when the local shop charges them hours of labor for crack repair. But at least offer the option.
 
@AlleyCat67 , what shop is this and where is it located? Other POA members might want to avoid it in the future.

What mechanism is the DOM using to refuse to "release" your plane? Is it locked in a hangar? Chained to a tie-down? Have you paid your bills to the shop?
 
Last edited:
Sure, but someone mentioned the FAA grounding aircraft.. GA & Air carrier are done differently..
 
bkspero said:
Are you certain the tail cone is fiberglass? The tail cone of my Tiger is plastic (ABS). There is a procedure in the AA5B maintenance manual for the repair of cracks in plastic parts. It involves dissolving pieces of ABS in solvent (I don't recall which solvent), coating the back of the cracked plastic with the ABS/solvent solution, doubling the crack area with a piece of ABS or even window screen, and then allowing to dry. If you don't want to go through the trouble of making up the ABS/Solvent solution, the Grumman shop I went to used ABS plumbing pipe cement (cement for black drain/waste/vent piping) that you can get at Home Depot or Lowes (eg., https://www.homedepot.com/p/Oatey-4...zBPBsZ2gbpHBpHL-0QrBG0vhoCj-cQAvD_BwE#overlay). It is an easy repair of a non-structural member not involving complex disassembly (IMO). I've done a handful myself and signed them off as owner preventive maintenance. Neither my local IA or the Grumman shop I use every 5 years has had any problem with either the repairs or the log entries.

I have no experience with fiberglass, but as an earlier poster mentioned, if your tail cone is fiberglass, then repairing a crack in that part should not be a challenging repair for a legitimate paint shop.

If the shop won't do either of those repairs, then how about you get the part from them and have it repaired by a shop more familiar with the methods? They can sign off the repair as airworthy with reference to the approved data as supporting information. At that point I can't see how any honest shop can consider the tail cone unairworthy.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right - it's ABS not fiberglass. I did recommend Fletch Air - I think they may have started with Fletch and then gone directly to the manufacturer. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top