Filing a Complaint With Local FSDO?

[Salty]

I agree. And if it's a year and a half later, "it wasn't me" is not exactly a surprising response. Even if it was him, it was 20+ jobs ago, no way he'd remember.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

I usually test my alternate static port after any avionics work to make sure the altimeter moves. Not familiar with your plane, but pretty sure that would have caught it.

I don't have an alternate static source. One is being installed with the currently ongoing avionics upgrade, however.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

Seems like you got other opinions, but are disregarding them.

Have I said what I'm going to do? Rhetorical question, because I haven't. Instead, I'm reading everyone's opinions and comments (most of which are very helpful) and will have to make a decision at some point.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

@donjohnston
We ALL make mistakes. It is how I handle my mistakes that matters most. In my business, when I make an error I admit it and make sure I minimize the impact on those affected. I don't think this thread would have been started if the mechanic would have stated that it was possible that he had made an error and offered a solution satisfactory to both parties. I am assuming that was not done.

When I sent the guy the picture, his response was, "That does not belong to me." Well, since he replaced both sump bottles (and his invoice confirms that), and as the owner and sole pilot of the plane I know that no PS work has been done since he did the work in 2021, either (a) he's lying, or (b) he's so incompetent that he didn't notice the problem existed when he "inspected" the system and spent three hours troubleshooting a leak.

If he had just stepped up and said, "my bad. How can I make this right?" we'd be having a different conversation. Instead, he denied it was his handiwork, and blew me off.

 

[donjohnston]

When I sent the guy the picture, his response was, "That does not belong to me." Well, since he replaced both sump bottles (and his invoice confirms that), and as the owner and sole pilot of the plane I know that no PS work has been done since he did the work in 2021, either (a) he's lying, or (b) he's so incompetent that he didn't notice the problem existed when he "inspected" the system and spent three hours troubleshooting a leak.

If he had just stepped up and said, "my bad. How can I make this right?" we'd be having a different conversation. Instead, he denied it was his handiwork, and blew me off.

So? He didn't respond the way you wanted him to (18 months later). Don't use him anymore. End of story.

Just out of curiosity, have you asked the shop that did your annual why they didn't catch it? Maybe you should report them to the FAA as well?

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

Just out of curiosity, have you asked the shop that did your annual why they didn't catch it? Maybe you should report them to the FAA as well?

Is the person doing the annual required to remove interior panels to confirm a repair signed-off by another repair station was done properly?

 

[Magman]

SoCal hasn’t stated how you know it hasn’t been there for years.

My thought is anyone just certifying could put tape over cp port not knowing it was already plugged.

Btw A similar hazard can occur when having your aircraft washed. Taped over pitot and static ports can be missed unless a BIG piece of contrasting tape is used.

I wonder if any of the parties involved filled out a NASA Form?

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

SoCal hasn’t stated how you know it hasn’t been there for years.

Simple - He was troubleshooting a PS leak, and worked his way through the entire system. Further, the work order shows that he charged me for replacing two sump bottles. This means that he replaced the sump bottle in the picture, and left it that way after troubleshooting the leak.

 

[Magman]

Some folks want draconian enforcement by FAA ; until it applies to them.

Overflying ADs seems quite prevalent. Particularly AD 76- 07- 12. Ignition Switch

 

[Magman]

I guess that isolates it.

 

[strangebird]

Because I want to hear others' opinions, which is why I posted in the first place.

You asked!
Here is my opinion, get over it, it got fixed and quit whining, you same the same thing over and over, you have an anger issue that you can not let go of because you think the tech screwed up. maybe he did maybe not, and let me guess you have never made a mistake in your life.

If your game is to hurt the guy, then do it, but remember this, as someone else pointed out, it might come back to bite you in your arse, and I am one of those that never has had a good interaction with an FAA inspector, maybe you would like to find out for your self, so get on with your life and go fly or some thing. Enjoy what you have rather than keep whining about something that happened 18 months ago.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

You asked!
Here is my opinion, get over it, it got fixed and quit whining, you same the same thing over and over, you have an anger issue that you can not let go of because you think the tech screwed up. maybe he did maybe not, and let me guess you have never made a mistake in your life.

If your game is to hurt the guy, then do it, but remember this, as someone else pointed out, it might come back to bite you in your arse, and I am one of those that never has had a good interaction with an FAA inspector, maybe you would like to find out for your self, so get on with your life and go fly or some thing. Enjoy what you have rather than keep whining about something that happened 18 months ago.

OK...I'll play. Assume these facts: In 2021, the PS system was inspected, and was found leaking. For three hours, the tech did some troubleshooting. The work order reflects that he replaced both sump bottles (there are only two in the system, and one is in the picture above), among the other work he did. Further assume that since the inspection and troubleshooting were done, there has been no other work on the PS system, and this is confirmed by the owner and sole pilot of the plane.

Please explain to me how the tech did not screw up. Go...

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Is the person doing the annual required to remove interior panels to confirm a repair signed-off by another repair station was done properly?

No, but removing the front side panels is absolutely something that should be done every annual. I have found broken sump bottles twice (over 18 years) looking there during annual, and you also need to pull those panels to inspect the aileron pulleys and fuel lines.

 

[donjohnston]

Is the person doing the annual required to remove interior panels to confirm a repair signed-off by another repair station was done properly?

Way to twist the question around! I never said that all prior repairs had to be verified during annual.

I had a 182RG for 15 years. Every year at annual the ALL the interior panels were removed. Otherwise, how can you check for corrosion?

As for the sump bottles, at every annual the condition of the sump bottles was checked. I don't know if that's on the inspection checklist, but my plane had annuals at three different shops and every shop checked the static sump bottles.

At this point, I would say that most likely the tech doing the static repair overlooked removing the plug from the copilot side line.

So once again: Have you asked the shop that does the annual how they missed it? Honestly, I would be more concerned that it got missed at annual than I would be at the guy who missed the static line plug. Who knows all the other things that got missed at the last annual.

So okay. I'm with you now. Write a letter to the FSDO. Write a letter to the administrator. Call your senator and congressman. This needs to be dealt with swiftly and severely.

 

[pfarber]

Right up to the point they turn it over to the OIG, and they in turn refer the matter to the US Attorney who will prosecute you under 49USC and several other statutes which will cost you fines and possible jail time.

Thats a lit of words for telling me what the faa cannot do.

I never said you were not going to be in trouble, but there are only 3 enforcement actions the faa can take.

Nice try but wrong answer to a question no one asked.

 

[Bell206]

but there are only 3 enforcement actions the faa can take.

Thats right, 3 actions: certificate action, civil penalties, or jail. Dont know what part you missed but I can post the references if you like.

 

[Magman]

Some FSDO’s also allow Remedial Training. Feds develop a syllabus to address areas the Airman is deficient in. Then a “Trainer “ determines how much time and by what method the training can be accomplished.

The Airman can enter into a Private Contact with the Trainer or move on to Certificate Action.

 

[rotormatic1]

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/cp

 

[Doc Holliday]

Thats a lit of words for telling me what the faa cannot do.

I never said you were not going to be in trouble, but there are only 3 enforcement actions the faa can take.

Nice try but wrong answer to a question no one asked.

Clueless as usual.......

 

[MauleSkinner]

Simple - He was troubleshooting a PS leak, and worked his way through the entire system. Further, the work order shows that he charged me for replacing two sump bottles. This means that he replaced the sump bottle in the picture, and left it that way after troubleshooting the leak.

And how would he know that nobody else touched it in the last 18 months?

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

And how would he know that nobody else touched it in the last 18 months?

Because I told him. And I'd have no reason to lie. If someone else had worked on the system, I would have called that person.

 

[Salty]

Because I told him. And I'd have no reason to lie. If someone else had worked on the system, I would have called that person.

same question. How would he know you have no reason to lie? It was 18 months later for crying out loud.

 

[Salty]

For that matter, how do you know with 100% certainty that it wasn’t your A&P during the annual?

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

same question. How would he know you have no reason to lie? It was 18 months later for crying out loud.

Gimme an effing break. Logically, why would I, after 18 months, call out of the blue and say he screwed up? If somebody else had done the work, he would have gotten that call.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

For that matter, how do you know with 100% certainty that it wasn’t your A&P during the annual?

He'd have no reason to test the PS system. In fact, I don't think he even has PS testing gear.

 

[Salty]

He'd have no reason to test the PS system. In fact, I don't think he even has PS testing gear.

There are other ways it could have happened other than the intent to test with testing gear.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

There are other ways it could have happened other than the intent to test with testing gear.

Why would he disconnect the sump bottle and put a test plug on it? Yeah, I suppose anything is possible, but it's just not likely. Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.

 

[Salty]

Gimme an effing break. Logically, why would I, after 18 months, call out of the blue and say he screwed up? If somebody else had done the work, he would have gotten that call.

You didn’t answer the question. You assert that he should assume that you have no reason to lie. You really believe there are no aircraft owners out there that have gone to a mechanic bitching about work they didn’t do? Do you really think there aren’t people out there that complain for no logical reason?

 

[Salty]

Why would he disconnect the sump bottle and put a test plug on it? Yeah, I suppose anything is possible, but it's just not likely. Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.

I missed that there was a test plug installed.

I still think you are ascribing to malice that which can be ascribed to a simple mistake. The fact that he doesn’t assume you couldnt possibly make a mistake, or lie, isn’t proof he’s being malicious. JMO

 

[dbahn]

Because I told him. And I'd have no reason to lie. If someone else had worked on the system, I would have called that person.

What if you had found out that your mechanic was having an affair with your wife? If that were the case, you DO have a reason to lie. That's how the FAA thinks sometimes. I don't think the FAA gives much credence to someone just because they insist that they're telling the truth.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

I missed that there was a test plug installed.

I still think you are ascribing to malice that which can be ascribed to a simple mistake. The fact that he doesn’t assume you couldnt possibly make a mistake, or lie, isn’t proof he’s being malicious. JMO

Go back and look at the original picture. It shows a test plug.

I have zero malice toward the PS guy. I'm absolutely certain he made a mistake. My issue is that he won't take ownership of it and offer to make it right. All he needed to say was, "my bad. I was in a hurry and screwed up. How can I make this right?" My concern, therefore, is that if he was sloppy with me, he's sloppy with others.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

What if you had found out that your mechanic was having an affair with your wife? If that were the case, you DO have a reason to lie. That's how the FAA thinks sometimes. I don't think the FAA gives much credence to someone just because they insist that they're telling the truth.

If that were the case, don't you think I'd have more important issues to attend to than to call the PS guy from 18 months ago? And wouldn't I report the mechanic to the FAA if I was going to be vindictive?

 

[Dana]

OK. The guy probably did screw up. He may be a jerk for not owning it (though from his perspective anything could have happened in the 18 months since he last saw it). But to circle around to the original question, even if that's true, complaining to the FSDO is probably not going to do any good, and may well cause you more problems. Suck it up and move on.

 

[Salty]

Go back and look at the original picture. It shows a test plug.

I have zero malice toward the PS guy. I'm absolutely certain he made a mistake. My issue is that he won't take ownership of it and offer to make it right. All he needed to say was, "my bad. I was in a hurry and screwed up. How can I make this right?" My concern, therefore, is that if he was sloppy with me, he's sloppy with others.

I feel like you’re missing my point. If not, ignore. He may not be taking ownership simply because people ***** at him all the time about stuff he didn’t do. And this was 18 months ago. I don’t get the feeling that you understand that the guy moved on mentally and emotionally from your job more than a year ago. Wrong, or right, In his mind, it stopped being his problem the minute another mechanic touched your plane. If you’d complained 14 months ago, I’m fairly certain you’d have gotten a different response.

again, I get your feelings. I’d feel the same way. But you have to step back and realize you didn’t get hurt and you didn’t find the problem for 18 months, so you’re going to have trouble getting anyone to care.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

I feel like you’re missing my point. If not, ignore. He may not be taking ownership simply because people ***** at him all the time about stuff he didn’t do. And this was 18 months ago. I don’t get the feeling that you understand that the guy moved on mentally and emotionally from your job more than a year ago. Wrong, or right, In his mind, it stopped being his problem the minute another mechanic touched your plane. If you’d complained 14 months ago, I’m fairly certain you’d have gotten a different response.

And you're missing my point. Moving on.

 

[Albany Tom]

I don't really follow the logic, either. I believe that you are certain that it's the tech's fault. But if the tech screwed up, seems to me that any of the things they did were basically forgetting something. Why would someone either a) remember something now that they forgot a year ago, or b) agree with someone else's information as to why they must have done something wrong, a year ago?

 

[Salty]

If this is so bad that you feel it’s that major a problem, all I can say is that I’m happy for you that you haven’t had any real problems to take your focus.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

I don't really follow the logic, either. I believe that you are certain that it's the tech's fault. But if the tech screwed up, seems to me that any of the things they did were basically forgetting something. Why would someone either a) remember something now that they forgot a year ago, or b) agree with someone else's information as to why they must have done something wrong, a year ago?

I have a day job. I've got better things to do than grind a working guy over something he didn't do. In this case, I'm certain this is his handiwork. A true professional would say, "wow, I'm sorry. How can I make this right." Instead, he basically told me to go pound sand.

 

[Half Fast]

Okay, here's the opinion you've been looking for:

1 - This guy screwed up royally and could have killed you, your passengers, and people on the ground.
2 - You need to report him immediately before he causes a tragedy.
3 - Contact the FSDO, an attorney, and your congressman and give them the whole story. You need to make sure this guy never touches another aircraft.​

Please report regularly regarding your progress. We'll look forward to seeing that this guy gets what's coming to him and we'll laud you as an aviation hero.

Go get him! We're anxiously awaiting your reports.

(Satisfied?)

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

If this is so bad that you feel it’s that major a problem, all I can say is that I’m happy for you that you haven’t had any real problems to take your focus.

I've spent more time here than I have on the actual problem. It's been an interesting discussion.