Filing a Complaint With Local FSDO?

Half Fast said:
Hard to subpoena something you don’t have and weren’t required to keep.
Click to expand...
But in order to not have it, you have to not keep it. Other than ripping most of the pages out of a logbook, most would have trouble not having records that go back a long way.
 
Palmpilot said:
Wouldn't disposing of those records reduce the resale value of the aircraft?
Click to expand...
Yeah, for two reasons:

1. The logs are incomplete.
2. There's a reason they were removed.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
As an owner, you do have the right to rely on the A&P/IA/Repair Station to properly perform their work. That being said, flying in inherently dangerous, and if you want to control your risks, you'd do well as a pilot (not just an owner) to educate yourself on a variety of elements of aircraft maintenance. For example, the Cessna Pilots Association offers both in-person and online Systems and Procedures classes for several models. I took that class for the 182 shortly after I bought our plane. It was absolutely worth the time and money. Since then, I have taken many opportunities to continue to learn, and after 18 years of ownership, I think I've become pretty knowledgeable about 182s, particularly to know when "something doesn't look right or feel right" and it's time call the A&P.
Click to expand...
Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m a HUGE system knowledge advocate.

That said, I’m not sure how pilot system knowledge blends with mtc system knowledge.

Im an Airbus pilot, and know my systems fairly well from a pilot standpoint. That said, the maintenance folks have an entirely different language than I do when it comes to discrepancies.
 
Most folks here are telling you that calling in the FSDO is not a good idea. Calling them in will do nothing to solve your issue. Calling them in won't correct the A&P. Calling them in could very well have negative repercussions for you. Yet after 7 pages of arguments and name calling this is no longer a "spirited debate " as you put it, it's a pointless argument.

Go ahead, call in the FAA. Then report back on what happened. That would be far more interesting for the participants here to hear the conclusion rather than the "plan". My money is on your efforts resulting in a can of worms for you. Some things you just have to accept as unfavorable and walk away. I am sure you have better things to spend time on.
 
Joe_B1 said:
Most folks here are telling you that calling in the FSDO is not a good idea. Calling them in will do nothing to solve your issue. Calling them in won't correct the A&P. Calling them in could very well have negative repercussions for you. Yet after 7 pages of arguments and name calling this is no longer a "spirited debate " as you put it, it's a pointless argument.

Go ahead, call in the FAA. Then report back on what happened. That would be far more interesting for the participants here to hear the conclusion rather than the "plan". My money is on your efforts resulting in a can of worms for you. Some things you just have to accept as unfavorable and walk away. I am sure you have better things to spend time on.
Click to expand...
Oh the drama…. File and ASRS then… whatever. Personally I would not file a report, but I also would not be afraid to do so if the situation warranted.
 
But the notion that an owner should follow up all actions by the AP/IA, is plain stupid. That’s why we hire APs to do our annuals. (Well, not me. I don’t own an airplane).
 
I built and fly my experimental so I have no monkey in this circus. If I did I would likely have done the repair myself and went flying ... :dunno:
 
Kritchlow said:
Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m a HUGE system knowledge advocate.

That said, I’m not sure how pilot system knowledge blends with mtc system knowledge.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the CPA course is run in the same way as when I took it 15+ years ago. Despite the course name, a lot of time was spent looking at an actual plane, or at a minimum pictures of a plane, showing you what to look for, not just how to operate the plane and how stuff worked. Maybe I was particularly fortunate, because the example plane they had in the hangar at the time had A LOT of problems. It was two rather intensive days of knowledge conveyance.
 
donjohnston said:
So did I.

But I can't do the biennial altimeter and transponder check.
Click to expand...

I have my transponder check coming up on Tuesday. Seems a bit strange that they require a transponder check (always have) but now that ADS-B is here there is not requirement (that I'm aware of) that it be checked. I do know that if ADS-B is not correct that you will get a nastygram from the powers that be so they are watching ...
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Well, if you’re going to make records disappear for a review, what’s stopping you from making them reappear afterward?
Click to expand...

I guess some can make them disappear, or make them reappear, or make them up as they go along ... :D
 
If OP, were a jet engine, we could turn off the whining whiner,
 
And there are those that treat post- dated log entries with a Heat Gun.

Allegedly FBI cannot determine how old ink is!
 
Daleandee said:
I have my transponder check coming up on Tuesday. Seems a bit strange that they require a transponder check (always have) but now that ADS-B is here there is not requirement (that I'm aware of) that it be checked. I do know that if ADS-B is not correct that you will get a nastygram from the powers that be so they are watching ...
Click to expand...
My transponder checks since around 2018 have included ADSB checks.
 
donjohnston said:
That'd be you.

While you didn't say the word "lie", it was pretty obvious what you meant. You can play word games, but the end result would be the same.
Click to expand...
Give me your logs. Here are my logs for the last year.

where is the lie?.
 
Salty said:
Give me your logs. Here are my logs for the last year.

where is the lie?.
Click to expand...
That's quite a bit different than "making records disappear".

And I can guarantee that the response to you will be "Are these all of the logs that you are aware of?" or "Where are the preceding years of logbooks?" Is that where you tell the feds that they disappeared?
 
donjohnston said:
That's quite a bit different than "making records disappear".

And I can guarantee that the response to you will be "Are these all of the logs that you are aware of?" or "Where are the preceding years of logbooks?" Is that where you tell the feds that they disappeared?
Click to expand...
I’m only required to produce the logs for the previous year.
 
I disagree. But I wouldn’t likely do this anyway, I’m just saying it would not be lying to do so.

In reality, in my case, they asked for 2 or 3 relevant log entries and I sent them digitally.
 
Palmpilot said:
Then why did you suggest making the previous one disappear and later reappear?
Click to expand...
If you look at my post again, you’ll see that’s not what I did at all. The first two words actually mean something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top