Experimental break down away from home

brien23

brien23

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,624
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Brien
Home Airfield
76S
Has anyone been turned away from a FBO due to their insurance would not cover work on a experimental aircraft, or do most shops open their doors to them.
 
A lot of different experimental aircraft with a large variance in build quality and parts. I doubt most insurance policies contain a blanket prohibition against working on experimental aircraft, but many FBOs choose not to service them due to liability, lack of standardized / aviation quality parts, and other factors.

Would also depend on the nature of the repair needed. If you just flew in IFR and your PFD had been intermittently going dead, probably not a chance in hell.
 
Last edited:
In 20 some years I've had cfi's refuse to fly but I can't think of any shops that refused to work on it.
 
Nope. 'Course, I've only asked for assistance once.
 
The bigger problem I've seen is lack of knowledge or experience in type. For example, within the last couple months a shop informed me that a hydraulic gear actuator was leaking and required to be rebuilt but the company that manufactured the actuator was out of business and no seals were available. Being very familiar with the type I knew the actuator and knew where to source a rebuild kit or even brand new complete actuators.
 
Yes, but they did not mention insurance specifically, only that they did not work on experimentals. A freelance AP was hired, but he was a disaster. Had to fly in my local AP for a couple days and ferry plane back home. I think mine was an unusual occurrence however.
 
The one shop I’m familiar with that didn’t generally work on experimentals said that there was too much liability on the mechanics because of the lack of ability to ensure that the repair conformed to the original design.
 
I've known of shops that won't touch anything without a Lycoming or Continental, but that's more familiarity than liability.

It behooves the owner of any experimental to be closely involved with its maintenance so as to be prepared to deal with problems away from home.
 
brien23 said:
Has anyone been turned away from a FBO due to their insurance would not cover work on a experimental aircraft, or do most shops open their doors to them.
Click to expand...
I've found it depends on the structure of the FBO whether any assistance is offered. In a number of cases, have seen where an A&P employed by an FBO provides the assistance under their A&P and not the FBO or CRS, if applicable. However, have seen where some CRSs will not provide any assistance to an E/AB aircraft.
 
I have gradually educated myself and purchased the proper tools so that I now do 90% of the work on my experimental. I carry a 20lb soft tool bag on every flight that can do a surprisingly extensive list of repairs to my particular airframe and power plant. So I have never been turned away per se, but in the three instances I was away from home with issues all I really needed were some tools to borrow to make things easier, and a little advice. They were freely given by the local repair shops (but I tipped cash nonetheless).
 
I just had a guy tell me his insurance would balk at an engine if it didn’t have a 8130 to go with the crankshaft…

Uh, gotta say, never been asked that.

Point is, people regularly say “no” and then blame it on insurance. Which is just stupid. If you wanna float test it, tell them YOUR insurance will cover it.

They will likely tell you they want to see that in writing, you then ask them to show YOU in writing where their insurance won’t.

Of course, I don’t bother to float test these things since I don’t really want ANYTHING to do with someone who operates like that.

That’s the long answer… short answer, yes, I’ve been told that before trying to get an experimental fixed. I became an AP/IA for just that reason.
 
If you go to medium to small outfits you will have no problem. A lot of people who worry about "liability" just really do not understand the subject. If a mechanic changes a flat tire on an experimental and the wing falls off on departure he is in no way liable. He is there to do the limited in scope and specific job as directed by the customer, he is not certifying that the aircraft is airworthy.
 
Dana said:
I've known of shops that won't touch anything without a Lycoming or Continental, but that's more familiarity than liability.
Click to expand...
Part of that is not likely having documentation for Rotaxi or other esoteric stuff. While self-maintenance of an XAB is the wild west, a shop has more constraints to worry about.
 
Dixiebluesky said:
If you go to medium to small outfits you will have no problem. A lot of people who worry about "liability" just really do not understand the subject. If a mechanic changes a flat tire on an experimental and the wing falls off on departure he is in no way liable. He is there to do the limited in scope and specific job as directed by the customer, he is not certifying that the aircraft is airworthy.
Click to expand...
That's not quite accurate. The MX will still be named in the lawsuit and will need a lawyer to convince a judge that he is not part of the 'liability chain'. So figure at least $10k to prove that you shouldn't be sued.

Also civil liability is a numbers game. A 'jury of your peers' (lol a bunch a local mouth breathers) can still assign a certain % of liability to you. May not be six figures ,but even low to mid 5 figures can crush a small outfit. Not to mention the tens of thousands spend on lawyers.

You can EASILY imagine a lawyer saying 'the trained mechanic should have seen X, Y, Z as a problem' and the jury agreeing... they don't understand part 43 and they are in no position to learn it.

My 'juries are idiots' story: sat a jury about a guy taking 'modeling photos' of his underage step daughter for an ad he saw 'recruiting' new actresses. Girl told mom and mom called the police. He couldn't produce the ad, or the contract, or even the agency name. Our first vote was all guilty except for one old woman. She was crying (tears) that she couldn't 'separate a daughter from her father'. Even though it was step dad and he's taking photos of her in her bras and panties for a modeling agency he couldn't prove existed.

Now can you image that same idiot NOT wanting to assign SOME portion of blame to a mechanic?

I would NOT take that risk. A shop (as a sole prop) could quite easily get an umbrella policy... but I can't imagine the cost. Back when I ran my company (late 90s early 2000s) our storefront insurance was just shy of $3k a year. And that was a bare bones policy. And yes, 3 people tried to sue (trip/fall).
 
Tools said:
I just had a guy tell me his insurance would balk at an engine if it didn’t have a 8130 to go with the crankshaft…
Click to expand...
8130s are useless for non-commercial pt 91 AC. Would they also balk at an IRAN? As a 121 line MX I throw 70-80% of them away once I verify the PN/SN.
 
pfarber said:
That's not quite accurate. The MX will still be named in the lawsuit and will need a lawyer to convince a judge that he is not part of the 'liability chain'. So figure at least $10k to prove that you shouldn't be sued.

Also civil liability is a numbers game. A 'jury of your peers' (lol a bunch a local mouth breathers) can still assign a certain % of liability to you. May not be six figures ,but even low to mid 5 figures can crush a small outfit. Not to mention the tens of thousands spend on lawyers.

You can EASILY imagine a lawyer saying 'the trained mechanic should have seen X, Y, Z as a problem' and the jury agreeing... they don't understand part 43 and they are in no position to learn it.

My 'juries are idiots' story: sat a jury about a guy taking 'modeling photos' of his underage step daughter for an ad he saw 'recruiting' new actresses. Girl told mom and mom called the police. He couldn't produce the ad, or the contract, or even the agency name. Our first vote was all guilty except for one old woman. She was crying (tears) that she couldn't 'separate a daughter from her father'. Even though it was step dad and he's taking photos of her in her bras and panties for a modeling agency he couldn't prove existed.

Now can you image that same idiot NOT wanting to assign SOME portion of blame to a mechanic?

I would NOT take that risk. A shop (as a sole prop) could quite easily get an umbrella policy... but I can't imagine the cost. Back when I ran my company (late 90s early 2000s) our storefront insurance was just shy of $3k a year. And that was a bare bones policy. And yes, 3 people tried to sue (trip/fall).
Click to expand...
This is just not accurate. There is no difference between certified and experimental when it comes to liability in this sense. If the aircraft is certified and a mechanic changing a tire of an airplane who has a wing fall off on departure, same thing. There is no statement of airworthiness. If he is that concerned then the owner can do the logbook entry.

You are paying a person to do a specific task or tasks, not certify the whole or any other aspect other than his own work.

Do you have any examples of such lawsuits in general aviation that fit what we are talking about here? Outside of an annual or condition inspection.
 
Dixiebluesky said:
Do you have any examples of such lawsuits in general aviation that fit what we are talking about here? Outside of an annual or condition inspection.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the expense of defending a suit is punishment enough. This is like, people telling me "there's no liability added with a Basic Med". My insuror doesn't agree with that. That guy's pretty darned important.

It's the same deal.
 
Dixiebluesky said:
There is no statement of airworthiness.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, in most liability actions, the focus is on a "standard of care" by the mechanic which tends to go well beyond any "airworthy" or other typical actions.
 
It can happen to certified aircraft owners also. I was based at KDVT for several years and the FBO shop would not work on it, even simple stuff like alternator replacement. There excuse was they did not have the maintenance manuals. Fortunately found a roving mechanic who was wonderful.
 
So what ever happened? Did you get the plane fixed?

And what about reaching out to EAA to find mechanics in the area?
 
M20K said:
And what about reaching out to EAA to find mechanics in the area?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure calling EAA isn't going to help as I'm unaware of any A&P database they maintain. If you happen to look up or know of a local Chapter where you break down, then maybe. Better bet is to get a Savvy account with break-down service, Crewchief Systems (EAA discount but not sure it would help in an AOG situation), or post to a Make/Type-Club Forum. In the RV world, an AOG post on VAF almost always elicits a timely response.
 
Last edited:
tsts4 said:
If you happen to look up or know of a local Chapter where you break down, then maybe.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking. You could try and find other local experimental pilots and they may have leads on mechanics.
 
M20K said:
That's what I was thinking. You could try and find other local experimental pilots and they may have leads on mechanics.
Click to expand...
The tough part is getting in touch with anyone from the Chapter in any kind of a timely manner--at best it would be a crap shoot.
 
brien23 said:
Has anyone been turned away from a FBO due to their insurance would not cover work on a experimental aircraft, or do most shops open their doors to them.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify your question?
I think of FBO as the people that sell me fuel and have restrooms. I don't think they care what kind of plane I fly.
Maintenance shops are different.
 
4RNB said:
Could you clarify your question?
I think of FBO as the people that sell me fuel and have restrooms. I don't think they care what kind of plane I fly.
Maintenance shops are different.
Click to expand...
Well he said “work on” so that’s pretty clear he’s talking maintenance and not servicing or facility use which I think all would agree isn’t an issue. In any event that’s how everyone who has previously posted took it.
 
Last edited:
4RNB said:
Could you clarify your question?
I think of FBO as the people that sell me fuel and have restrooms. I don't think they care what kind of plane I fly.
Maintenance shops are different.
Click to expand...
How you think of it isn’t accurate. Maintenance is simply a service offered by an FBO in most cases. An Operation at the Fixed Base.
 
Dixiebluesky said:
This is just not accurate. There is no difference between certified and experimental when it comes to liability in this sense. If the aircraft is certified and a mechanic changing a tire of an airplane who has a wing fall off on departure, same thing. There is no statement of airworthiness. If he is that concerned then the owner can do the logbook entry.

You are paying a person to do a specific task or tasks, not certify the whole or any other aspect other than his own work.

Do you have any examples of such lawsuits in general aviation that fit what we are talking about here? Outside of an annual or condition inspection.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. I specifically said: "The MX will still be named in the lawsuit and will need a lawyer to convince a judge/jury that he is not part of the 'liability chain'." How much do you think a lawyer and expert witness is gonna cost?

A lawyer is going to name everyone that touched that AC, even though it WAS the wing that fell of and you only changed a flat tire. In CIVIL suits its not about innocence or guilt.. but what portion of the liability are you responsible for.

Remember CIVIL lawsuits are about feelings. Would a jury of 12 average Americans believe that a trained, certificated, professional MECHANIC would have NO LIABILITY if he didn't inform the owner of an airplane that the right wing is unairworthy? Even if MX is only assigned 20%-10% or whatever % of the liability, that's still money coming out of your pocket for 'following the rules'.

I don't have a Lexus-Nexus account so I can't readily search court cases... but as someone who has been named in a few civil lawsuits (I was a corrections officer) for you can be 10000000% named and have to prove you had no part in the liability.
 
good news is there hasn't been a successful law suit against experimentals
 
In LEZ and Defiant, never had a problem I think because most shop guys, and especially sole shop owner operators easily empathize with builder types as kindred souls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top