Painting a plane. What are the rules?

J

Jason Little

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 8, 2017
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
Xymox
So been doing a paint restoration on a plane and faa got wind that the paint wasn't done properly. Tried to get me to let them in my hangar, I said sorry not gunna happen (insert 4th amendment use it or lose it rant).

Now I have a letter of investigation certified and sent to me demanding aircraft logs and access to the plane (which techincally isnt even mine) What in your opinion will they try to do to me? I'm probably not gunna answer their letter. Also filed a nasa report regarding (yes I painted a plane, apparently I'm not allowed)

Note: I'm not a certificate holder/pilot or a mechanic. Just a guy who likes to restore things and I'm in the middle of this project and would rather be left alone.
 
Jason Little said:
So been doing a paint restoration on a plane and faa got wind that the paint wasn't done properly. Tried to get me to let them in my hangar, I said sorry not gunna happen (insert 4th amendment use it or lose it rant).

Now I have a letter of investigation certified and sent to me demanding aircraft logs and access to the plane (which techincally isnt even mine) What in your opinion will they try to do to me? I'm probably not gunna answer their letter. Also filed a nasa report regarding (yes I painted a plane, apparently I'm not allowed)

Note: I'm not a certificate holder/pilot or a mechanic. Just a guy who likes to restore things and I'm in the middle of this project and would rather be left alone.
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, but since you're not a pilot or mechanic, I'm pretty sure they can't do anything to you. As far as you know, it's not ever going to fly again. He's having it painted for yard art. If you have the logbooks, give them back to the owner now. There is no reason you should have had them anyway.
 
Who owns the plane? Is it registered? Is it on a public airport? Leased or owned hangar?
 
They could very well revoke the airworthiness certificate.

Ignoring them is not going to make them go away.

This is not a criminal investigation, so the burden of proof is not on the FAA, it's on you.

Until the aircraft is returned to service without the proper log entries / sign off by an A&P there isn't much they can do other than suggest that something be re-done.

You do have an A&P "supervising" the work and willing to sign off when it is done?

If you painted it and flew it (returned to service) without the proper log entries and sign off, you have a problem. You need to get it signed off.

What did you do to **** someone off?
 
Be ready for questions like:
what system are you using?
did you balance the control surfaces (ie why are the elevator bolts painted?)
 
Asi was also threatening a fine for not letting him see the plane. I just shrugged. I guess my opinion is that if they haven't been in my hangar when they wanted to, they must not have the inherent right to do so. Don't know all the laws regarding but I do understand privacy.
 
Anybody can paint an airplane. Did anyone tell you different?

After painting the aircraft can only be returned to service by a certified mechanic.

If the aircraft has an airworthiness certificate then the FAA Administrator or his designated representative has some inspection rights including access to logs.

If you are not the owner of the aircraft then perhaps that should be communicated to the FAA. The owner is responsible for the aircraft and perhaps could be subject to civil penalties for failing to cooperate with the FAA. As someone else noted pulling the airworthiness cert or tagging the aircraft is more likely than any civil penalty.

Unless you are an old rancher in Nevada with lots of friends or a grandma that media will love, don't **** off the Feds. They get paid the same whether they focus their existence on making your life miserable or not.
 
What do you hope to achieve with a NASA form?

Ignoring the Feds rarely causes them to just go away.
 
Anyone can paint an airplane? A properly qualified mechanic must supervise the work if he's going to sign it off as being done correctly.

My first suspicion is that a properly qualified mechanic is who dropped a dime and called the FAA. Guys who "restore" certificated airplanes without the proper qualifications or credentials are a threat to the profession.
 
Jason Little said:
Just in case painting an airplane is yet another illegal activity in the good old us of big brother.
Click to expand...
If you don't have a pilot's or mechanic's certificate, the FAA can't suspend it, which is what the NASA form protects against. The FAA can't take action against a certificate you don't have.
 
ASRS won't protect your checkbook when the fine is assessed
 
Jason Little said:
Just in case painting an airplane is yet another illegal activity in the good old us of big brother.
Click to expand...
The FAA has statutory authority (i.e. members of Congress, people you and I voted for, gave the FAA specific authority) to "reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate..." If that's too big brother, write your Congressman.
 
Cant suspend his cert, but he can sure get his buddy's airplane's airworthiness cert pulled. I think this'll get worse before it gets better. Keep us posted. This should be fun to watch, in a car crash sorta way...
 
You're playing with fire here. While it sounds like you don't have any certificates the FAA can suspend, the FAA CAN fine you. You probably need to hire a lawyer to help guide you at this point.
 
Three options:

1) Tell the FAA that you are a Sovereign Citizen and you don't recognize their authority.

2) Work with them to get the paperwork straightened out.

3) Part out the airplane.

Your choice.
 
bradg33 said:
You're playing with fire here. While it sounds like you don't have any certificates the FAA can suspend, the FAA CAN fine you. You probably need to hire a lawyer to help guide you at this point.
Click to expand...
How can they fine him? He painted a chunk of metal. They might be able to go after the current owner if he intends to fly the plane again, but I can do anything I want to a plane as long as it stays on the ground. I would have my friend get the plane out of there and then refer the FAA to him. It's not my plane, I couldn't stop him from removing it from my hangar, etc.
 
Lowflynjack said:
How can they fine him? He painted a chunk of metal. They might be able to go after the current owner if he intends to fly the plane again, but I can do anything I want to a plane as long as it stays on the ground. I would have my friend get the plane out of there and then refer the FAA to him. It's not my plane, I couldn't stop him from removing it from my hangar, etc.
Click to expand...

At this point, I would make it 100% my buddy's decision. Do you want me to let them look at the plane? You're taking the risk here, I just painted it and I'm not signing any logbooks since I'm not licensed to do so. Your call.
 
bradg33 said:
You're playing with fire here. While it sounds like you don't have any certificates the FAA can suspend, the FAA CAN fine you. You probably need to hire a lawyer to help guide you at this point.
Click to expand...

How can the FAA fine him? It is not illegal to paint a pile of metal. They could pull the airworthiness cert but beyond that I don't see what if anything they could do.
 
Jason Little said:
Now I have a letter of investigation certified and sent to me demanding aircraft logs and access to the plane

Note: I'm not a certificate holder/pilot or a mechanic. Just a guy who likes to restore things and I'm in the middle of this project and would rather be left alone.
Click to expand...

Why fight them? What is there to hide? They can pull the AC on the plane. They can have you removed from the field if the field gets any public money.
 
Lowflynjack said:
How can they fine him? He painted a chunk of metal. They might be able to go after the current owner if he intends to fly the plane again, but I can do anything I want to a plane as long as it stays on the ground. I would have my friend get the plane out of there and then refer the FAA to him. It's not my plane, I couldn't stop him from removing it from my hangar, etc.
Click to expand...

Is he working under the supervision of an A&P? If not, he's violating Part 43. While we all like to pretend like we can do whatever we want to an airplane so long as we don't fly it until a mechanic signs off, that's not what the regs actually say. 14 CFR 43.3 says that only a mechanic, or person working under the supervision of a mechanic, may perform maintenance on an airplane. There's an exception for preventive maintenance, but that only applies to someone holding a pilot certificate. Non-pilots who are not working under the supervision of a mechanic cannot perform maintenance on an airplane. We can, of course, argue about when the collection of parts stops being an airplane and starts being just a pile of junk, but I don't think that's the case here.
 
They can confiscate the airworthiness certificate by sending you a letter of revocation then it will end up on a naughty list that is emailed to everyone they want including designees. That naughty list specifically instructs those who receive it to contact the person who put it on the list if anyone is contacted to do maintenance, inspections, or issue airworthiness certificates {including special airworthiness certificate ie ferry permits}.


Technically the airplane has to be registered and the marks on the airplane match the airworthiness certificate for everything to be valid anyhow.
 
Last edited:
bradg33 said:
We can, of course, argue about when the collection of parts stops being an airplane and starts being just a pile of junk, but I don't think that's the case here.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm arguing. What if I had a car painter come into my hangar and paint my plane (even the thought of painting my plane hurts a little!)? He wouldn't know there were any regulations and probably wouldn't even think about checking. If I didn't tell anyone and just flew my plane, I'd probably get away with it. But, I would think that the regulations would say my plane is no longer airworthy. In that case, could I not do anything I wanted?
 
Lowflynjack said:
That's exactly what I'm arguing. What if I had a car painter come into my hangar and paint my plane (even the thought of painting my plane hurts a little!)? He wouldn't know there were any regulations and probably wouldn't even think about checking. If I didn't tell anyone and just flew my plane, I'd probably get away with it. But, I would think that the regulations would say my plane is no longer airworthy. In that case, could I not do anything I wanted?
Click to expand...

It is the owner's responsibility.

§91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under §91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.
 
bradg33 said:
Is he working under the supervision of an A&P? If not, he's violating Part 43. While we all like to pretend like we can do whatever we want to an airplane so long as we don't fly it until a mechanic signs off, that's not what the regs actually say. 14 CFR 43.3 says that only a mechanic, or person working under the supervision of a mechanic, may perform maintenance on an airplane. There's an exception for preventive maintenance, but that only applies to someone holding a pilot certificate. Non-pilots who are not working under the supervision of a mechanic cannot perform maintenance on an airplane. We can, of course, argue about when the collection of parts stops being an airplane and starts being just a pile of junk, but I don't think that's the case here.
Click to expand...

Again what exactly are they going to do to him he isn't the owner. He isn't certificated. He isn't flying it. I would argue they can do nothing.

ETA: If they want in the hanger get a warrant.
 
DFH65 said:
Again what exactly are they going to do to him he isn't the owner. He isn't certificated. He isn't flying it. I would argue they can do nothing.

ETA: If they want in the hanger get a warrant.
Click to expand...

They can fine him. Civil penalties (fines) are one of the tools at the FAA's disposal.
 
bnt83 said:
It is the owner's responsibility.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's what I'm saying. The FAA needs to be contacting the owner of the plane and demanding that he provide access to the plane, not the guy who painted it. I don't think they can do anything to a painter if the owner asked him to paint the plane. I also think its reasonable for the painter to deny them access while it's in his hangar. The pilot trusted him to care for the plane and didn't give him authorization to let anyone else mess with it. Get a warrant or get the owner's permission.
 
bradg33 said:
They can fine him. Civil penalties (fines) are one of the tools at the FAA's disposal.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong the guy who owns the plane is screwed. The thing will probably never fly again (legally) now that they are on the radar unless they strip it repaint it and get it signed off.

But fining a person for putting paint on an airplane? I can't see this happening. That would be akin to a cop writing a ticket for a taillight out on car up on blocks in your front lawn.
 
Lowflynjack said:
That's exactly what I'm arguing. What if I had a car painter come into my hangar and paint my plane (even the thought of painting my plane hurts a little!)? He wouldn't know there were any regulations and probably wouldn't even think about checking. If I didn't tell anyone and just flew my plane, I'd probably get away with it. But, I would think that the regulations would say my plane is no longer airworthy. In that case, could I not do anything I wanted?
Click to expand...

From the painter's perspective, ignorance of the law isn't a defense. He could still be fined if he's not working under the supervision of an A&P.

Additionally, I think there's a difference between not being "airworthy" and not being an airplane anymore. An airplane can stop being airworthy for a number of technical reasons (physically remove the registration certificate and it's no longer airworthy).
 
Something is missing here. If I were an airplane owner and wanted restoration work done to my plane, I'd make damn sure the individual doing it has the proper certs and submits proper documentation.

Oh wait a minute, I went through that process last year.
 
DFH65 said:
Don't get me wrong the guy who owns the plane is screwed. The thing will probably never fly again (legally) now that they are on the radar unless they strip it repaint it and get it signed off.

But fining a person for putting paint on an airplane? I can't see this happening. That would be akin to a cop writing a ticket for a taillight out on car up on blocks in your front lawn.
Click to expand...

I agree that in most cases, it's very unlikely that the FAA would issue a fine against a non-certificateholder. But in this case, the OP appears to have already poked the hornet's nest and appears inclined to continue to do so. That's how you get stung.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Something is missing here. If I were an airplane owner and wanted restoration work done to my plane, I'd make damn sure the individual doing it has the proper certs and submits proper documentation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you're looking at it like the majority of us as plane owners. There are a lot of guys out there who change parts, radios, paint their planes, and a lot more illegally. Most of them will get away with it. There are a lot of pencil-whipped annuals out there. I personally know I could do a lot of work on my plane an nobody would know, but I don't want it to bite me later. In this case, someone most likely got mad at him and told.

We recently had a guy on our field change a few parts without approval. He told one pilot he did it, that pilot told another, and the next thing you know it was common knowledge on the field.
 
Ya know, all the pilot's bill of rights stuff keeps the FAA off our backs for some things so they may see an unlicensed mechanic as a good subject to work out their frustrations on. :)
 
I don't see what law/FAR you're breaking.

As long as it's don't to spec, nothing illegal about getting a automotive guy to paint a plane.

And on top of that even if it's not being done to spec, I don't see how you're breaking any rules.

Do the feds know the N number of the plane?
 
My take on this..
The ASI who reviews this complaint will remove the AWC.
They will have issues with why the new owner did not register the aircraft.

What they do after that will depend upon the attitude and co-operation of who ever they come into contact with.

My best advice is.
contact the FAA. inform them that you will provide the A/C for their inspection.
Be very co-operative, when they ask for the maintenance records, tell them there are no records. and be certain this is true.

Be advised, do not lie, when they ask questions act dumb. you didn't know that ?? When they ask who was supervising tell them no one, you didn't know you needed one. don't get your A&P in trouble.
 
All this excitement. Fact is, someone got butthurt over this plane (likely another aircraft painter), and made a report.

OP, you need to line up whomever it is that is supervising your work. If there's no one, it ain't looking good.

As LEOs will tell you, "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." The FAA guys can, figuratively speaking, tell you : "I got ALL DAY." Cracking wise and jerking them around will not help you (or the process).
 
James331 said:
I don't see what law/FAR you're breaking.

As long as it's don't to spec, nothing illegal about getting a automotive guy to paint a plane.

And on top of that even if it's not being done to spec, I don't see how you're breaking any rules.

Do the feds know the N number of the plane?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with an automotive guy painting a plane IF there is an A&P supervising and signing-off as required by 43.3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top