Part 43 repair station

Richard

Richard

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
9,076
Location
West Coast Resistance
Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
I read the FAA is making it harder to become an authorized repair station. Is that true? I mean, moreso than the hoops you have to jump through?
 
It must depend on where you are (what FSDO region), I know a CRS that I wouldn't trust to rivet coke cans together, I have no idea how he got it.
 
I can only speak for one FAA Inspector that certifies repair stations. All of us Inspectors are required to follow the guidance in Handbook Order 8300.10 Vol. 2, chapter 161 for certifing repair stations. We as FAA types are required to inspect each and every repair station every year to assure they are following the requirements in part 145 and part 43. If a CRS can not river to coke cans together then they should not be a CFR or an A&P as far as I am concerned. Part 43.13 sets the standard of care all A&P's and CRS are required to follow.

If you beleive a shop is not performing quality work you can complain to the local FSDO manager or contact the FAA Aviation Safety Hotline at (800) 255-1111 and keep it confidential.

Just one Inspector openion.

Stache
 
What do you think of a layer of bondo that makes a line of rivets gradually disappear on only one wing?
 
What do you think of a layer of bondo that makes a line of rivets gradually disappear on only one wing?

I was never a fan of bondo on anything. However, some manufactures allow the use of bondo to flair in certain area's on wing leading edges do to dents. But putting bondo over rivets is not a standard procedure and should be questioned by the owner. I would suggest having your local airworthiness FSDO Inspector take a look at the repair. Or check the work order/log book entry there should be a statement referring to the approve data the mechanic used to spead the bondo or reference to a section in a maintenance manual. If there is no statement referring to data allowing the bondo the person or shop who did the work would be in violation of FAR 43.13. I would certainly have someone else look at the repair as there may be addition damage that was not repaired.

I would tend to think the bondo is hiding something, but this is my personal opinion.

Stache
 
In 1994 I bought my first airplane, a Cessna 182, from a dealer in Ohio. The airplane came from Florida where it was owned and operated by a county sheriff's department. I thought since it was owned by a county police agency it would have been flown by professional pilots and well maintained. Wrong on both counts. The pilots apparently beat the living crap out of the airplane and the maintenance it received could only be described as criminally negligent.

This was my first airplane and I relied on a friend who had been in aviation all his life. I trusted him when he told me he had the right airplane for me but I suspect he may have earned a commission from the dealer and didn't pay much attention to the condition of the airplane. I didn't have a pre-purchase inspection performed, my biggest mistake, but I insisted the airplane be delivered to me with a fresh annual. The annual was apparently a paper only annual with no real inspection.

There was some damage history characterized as minor in the log books and supposedly properly repaired and documented. As it turned out the damage was by no means minor and the repairs where horrible at best. Form 337s indicated a number of Cessna part numbers that had been replaced but what they put in were parts from salvaged aircraft that were not even the same model or year. Rivets holding structural members were not bucked but simply stuck into holes and bent over like a nail sticking through a board. A nose wheel assembly from a 172 was used to replace a broken nose wheel assembly in the 182 and the list goes on and on. It cost me $11,000 to do the initial structural repairs and about another $6,000 over the next couple years on other things.

When I first put the airplane in for the structural repairs we contacted the Detroit FSDO to try to get them to look at the airplane. I figured this was a no brainer since form 337s had been falsified. They were not interested! Since it did not result in an accident and no deaths were involved they said they did not have the time or man power to investigate the matter. They suggested I use the court system if I wanted to pursue the matter. My attorney told me that since it would involve multi state litigation, Michigan Ohio and Florida, it would cost me more to pursue than I could hope to recover. So I swallowed the bitter pill and developed a love hate relationship with the airplane. I later sold the airplane at a substantial loss.

What I learned from that experience is 1) do not trust anyone, 2) pay whatever it takes to do a very thorough pre-purchase inspection by a maintenance shop that has absolutely no affiliation with the seller, 3) be there in person to witness the pre-purchase inspection and ask whatever questions that come up, 4) renegotiate the price with the seller based on anything found during the pre-purchase, 5) then and only then continue with a purchase.

As a result I now have an airplane that I really love.

To this day I still don't understand why the FAA would not follow up with an inquiry into a licensed repair facility that has falsified their work on federally filed forms.

Jeannie
 
Last edited:
What a story, Jean.
I have heard that governmental a/c are not subject to the FARs as far as maintenance and operations, anyone know if this is true? It might explain why they were allowed to let things get so bad.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
What a story, Jean.
I have heard that governmental a/c are not subject to the FARs as far as maintenance and operations, anyone know if this is true? It might explain why they were allowed to let things get so bad.
Click to expand...

If that is true, it still shouldn't allow a licensed repair facility to get away with filing bogus form 337s with the FAA.

Jeannie
 
Maverick said:
If that is true, it still shouldn't allow a licensed repair facility to get away with filing bogus form 337s with the FAA.
Jeannie
Click to expand...
no disagreement here.
 
Yes it is true all aircraft operated by any government are considered Public Use. Being Public Use they DO NOT have to follow part 91, part 43 , or part 21 requirements. However many do because the insurance requires it. We at the FAA do not inspect any Public Use aircraft because they do not have to meet any standards such as military aircraft, police aircraft, search aircraft, fire fighting aircraft and so on.

So if you purchase one be very careful as noted above.

Stache
 
Jeannie

To this day I still don't understand why the FAA would not follow up with an inquiry into a licensed repair facility that has falsified their work on federally filed forms.

As you probly know I work for the FAA in Oakland, CA. I am very suprised the FSDO would not or did not follow up on your claim on a FAA Form 337. Part 43.12 is very clear on this subject. I can only speak for myself as an Inspector, but I would of called in the Office of Inspecgtor GEneral (OIG) as Falsification is a federal offense and will get your 5 years in jail. The FAA can only take a certificate action or fines for falsification, but we are required to asked the Office of Inspecgtor General for assistance in falsification matters. This applies in all 9 FAA regions accorss the country.

Stache
__________________
 
Jeannie did you reveal that it was a law enforcement agency that was suspected of falsifying the 337's? Do you remember if you said anything about 'who' was suspected before you got the brush-off?
 
Stache said:
Yes it is true all aircraft operated by any government are considered Public Use. Being Public Use they DO NOT have to follow part 91, part 43 , or part 21 requirements. However many do because the insurance requires it. We at the FAA do not inspect any Public Use aircraft because they do not have to meet any standards such as military aircraft, police aircraft, search aircraft, fire fighting aircraft and so on.

So if you purchase one be very careful as noted above.

Stache
Click to expand...

When we approached the Detoit FSDO about this issue, I wasn't trying to get compensation from anyone. I was trying to get the FAA to look into what could only be described as deceptive, dishonest and down right dangerous practices by a licensed repair station. It really angered me to find that the FAA had no interest in responding to a complaint. As I recall, the fact that the airplane had previously been owned by a county law enforcement agency never even came up. It seems to me that the fact that they filed bogus 337s should have been looked into. The point is that the guy filed falsified documents with the FAA.

Does the fact that an airplane is owned by a governmental agency give them license to fly aircraft that are improperly maintained to the point of being a menace to public safety and lie about the work that was performed.

The cavalier attitude I ran into really made me angry. Based on the lack of interest I couldn't help wondering why repair stations need to be licensed in the first place. What's the point in licensing them.

I spoke with the owner of the repair facility myself about this issue. What an arrogant ass he was. He must have known very well that no one would bother him about it.

Another lesson I learned was that there is no use trying to file a complaint with the FAA. All it did was upset me more than I already had been.

Jeannie
 
Last edited:
Stache said:
Jeannie

To this day I still don't understand why the FAA would not follow up with an inquiry into a licensed repair facility that has falsified their work on federally filed forms.

As you probly know I work for the FAA in Oakland, CA. I am very suprised the FSDO would not or did not follow up on your claim on a FAA Form 337. Part 43.12 is very clear on this subject. I can only speak for myself as an Inspector, but I would of called in the Office of Inspecgtor GEneral (OIG) as Falsification is a federal offense and will get your 5 years in jail. The FAA can only take a certificate action or fines for falsification, but we are required to asked the Office of Inspecgtor General for assistance in falsification matters. This applies in all 9 FAA regions accorss the country.

Stache
__________________
Click to expand...

I probably should have tried to go higher but I was so upset by then that I thought my best course of action was to forget about it and move on. I was also afraid if I made an issue to a higher authority that it might cause me trouble in the future. I've heard of cases of local officials getting even when someone had gone over there heads and I didn't want that. So I just let it go but it still gets my blood boiling every time I think about it.

Maybe this was just a case of the local guys reacting to budget cuts in an inappropriate manner, I'll never know and it's been far to long ago to resurrect at this point.

Jeannie
 
Maverick said:
The cavalier attitude I ran into really made me angry. Based on the lack of interest I couldn't help wondering why repair stations need to be licensed in the first place. What's the point in licensing them.

I spoke with the owner of the repair facility myself about this issue. What an arrogant ass he was. He must have known very well that no one would bother him about it.

Another lesson I learned was that there is no use trying to file a complaint with the FAA. All it did was upset me more than I already had been.

Jeannie
Click to expand...

IF you have proof of what you claim, e-mail it to

william.o'brian@faa.gov

Don't ring his bell unless you have proof.
 
NC19143 said:
IF you have proof of what you claim, e-mail it to

william.o'brian@faa.gov

Don't ring his bell unless you have proof.
Click to expand...

It happened too long ago 1994 and their is no proof without an inspection of the original substandard repair. The FAA Detroit FSDO was unwilling to look at the airplane. Hence forth there can be no proof. The form 337s are on file but they are BS. Without comparing what was actually done to what they said they did there can be no proof. At this point it's just my word against theirs. The maintenance facility where I had the airplane repaired properly is no long in business either so I have no way of contacting anyone as a witness to the condition on the airplane. The 337s on file show a number of new Cessna part numbers that were replaced, however nothing new or otherwise was purchased from Cessna. Everything that was put into the airplane to effect the repair was scrap from salvaged aircraft of varying models and model years. Rivets holding structural members where stuck into holes and bent over not bucked. On the used parts that were put in, where rivet holes did not match up they just elongated the holes, not exactly a good thing for rivets. Seat rails had rivets missing. It was an overall nightmare of a repair job that should never have left a licensed repair facility. But without the FAA inspectors looking at the airplane before I had my repairs done there can be no proof. I did take pictures but it's not really the same as a visual inspection.

At this point I have no interest in pursuing this with the FAA. I just posted my story as a warning to others. Be very very thorough with a pre-purchase inspection or risk what I went through.

Jeannie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top