safe vs airworthy

[Henning]

OBTW folks,, at the prices of Goodyear parts today, by the time he makes the goodyear brakes airworthy, he will be pocket change from a new Cleveland upgrade kit.

Here is what I advised him to do, get the proper P/Ns for the Cleveland kits parts, and call the salvage yards with the numbers. Both sides will probably be less than $1000.00

Like I said earlier, it'll probably show up with Clevelands and the concern is for naught. It's one thing to have questionable systems in good condition; if you do a proper pre flight on them, and keep the parts in good condition; the chances of getting caught out by them goes down. If someone maintains a good set and likes them, what right do we have to say autonomously and outside FAA or manufacturer guidelines, that you can't use the plane?

You are basically playing "mommy" telling a grown man he's not allowed to operate his plane because you don't like it. But again, it's moot if the brakes are crap, the only sensible repair is replacement. You don't really need to threaten a signature, normally people see the sense in gaining major upgrade value for little upgrade money, especially when it comes to things that can bite you in the ass.

 

[wanttaja]

I had a wonderful book written by Bowers himself. IIRC, he did flip a FlyBaby but I do not remember if it was on floats or wheels.

Ummmm...at least one time in each configuration.

First off, here's that picture of the Story Special (Fly Baby predecessor) on its back in the snow. They put a turnover structure on the plane as part of the repairs. This is the case where the pilot tunneled out.

Here's the Fly Baby flipped over on floats. The floats had been positioned too far aft. It went down the seaplane ramp, hit the water, and immediately flipped over. They had the engine running again by the end of the day. That's Pete hanging onto the back of the fuselage. The first thing he said when he surfaced was "Get a camera!"

Here's a twofer... apologies for the poor quality, but this is a scan of a mimeographed newsletter from the '60. The top one is (poor ol') N500F again, the second one is an owner-built example.

The top image is actually a cheat, this did NOT happen while a pilot was in the plane. Pete was hand-propping, and the stake he'd tied the plane to pulled out. The plane eventually hit a chuckhole and flipped over.

According to the writeup in the newsletter, the headrest never touched the ground. Damage was limited to the prop, the windshield, and a balsa block on the top of the vertical stabilizer (changed to bandsawed plywood for the production-type aircraft).

The second one did happen with a pilot on board...first flight in a borrowed aircraft, and the brakes were touchy. No injuries, but the seat belt had gotten wrapped around the guy and they had a bit of trouble getting him out.

Pete was at the airport when this happened. As they were trying to get the pilot out, someone asked, "Where's Pete?"

Pete was atop a truck. Taking pictures. He said he knew the pilot was OK, and there were enough folks around, helping....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Tom-D]

Like I said earlier, it'll probably show up with Clevelands and the concern is for naught. It's one thing to have questionable systems in good condition; if you do a proper pre flight on them, and keep the parts in good condition; the chances of getting caught out by them goes down. If someone maintains a good set and likes them, what right do we have to say autonomously and outside FAA or manufacturer guidelines, that you can't use the plane?

You are basically playing "mommy" telling a grown man he's not allowed to operate his plane because you don't like it. But again, it's moot if the brakes are crap, the only sensible repair is replacement. You don't really need to threaten a signature, normally people see the sense in gaining major upgrade value for little upgrade money, especially when it comes to things that can bite you in the ass.

If, If, & If, why take the chance?

I never threaten, I simply told him the the brakes he had were bad. and if he wanted a airworthy sign off from me would up grade.

 

[Tom-D]

You are basically playing "mommy" telling a grown man he's not allowed to operate his plane because you don't like it.

That's all part of being an IA, some times we get to tell owners they must bring their aircraft to minimum safety standards. legal or not. The last thing I want is an accident investigation team questioning me about aircraft I signed off.

 

[weirdjim]

That's all part of being an IA, some times we get to tell owners they must bring their aircraft to minimum safety standards. legal or not. The last thing I want is an accident investigation team questioning me about aircraft I signed off.

Would it not be wonderful if the four or five of us on here who ARE IAs could debate this without the good intentioned folks who don't have a clue what the responsibilities are OR the experience without cobbing up the discussion?

Folks, a great baseball player said it best, "If you ain't on the field, don't tell us how to play the game." I believe it was Satchel Paige. I could be wrong.

Jim

 

[Brad Z]

Would it not be wonderful if the four or five of us on here who ARE IAs could debate this without the good intentioned folks who don't have a clue what the responsibilities are OR the experience without cobbing up the discussion?

I'm sure the domain IAsofamerica.com is available. But Tom asked on a pilot forum, and aircraft owners responded.

Hypothetical: What if Tom wouldn't sign off on my annual because my tires are Condor retreads, but he only uses brand new Goodyears. In fact, he once flew a plane where the retreads blew out on him. Am I grounded unless I swap tires?

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Would it not be wonderful if the four or five of us on here who ARE IAs could debate this without the good intentioned folks who don't have a clue what the responsibilities are OR the experience without cobbing up the discussion?

Jim

I just re-read the original post...it just asked for opinions. You would instead limit the discussion to your more restrctive interpretation of 'correct'? Hmmm

Could a parallel argument be made that only the attorneys on the site should be commenting? Push come to shove, the 'correctness' of the OP's action wouldn't be settled in a hangar, but a courtroom.

I am neither so, with a chuckle, I fade back into my lurkiness.

Jim

 

[Henning]

If, If, & If, why take the chance?

I never threaten, I simply told him the the brakes he had were bad. and if he wanted a airworthy sign off from me would up grade.

I'm fine with that, it's your option, and under the circumstances you use, a perfectly just one. I just don't think that as far as "taking a chance" with your personal liability that you actually have any change in risk from any other signature. If you personally don't want to see anyone fly on those brakes because they may get hurt or get someone else hurt, and you aren't going to take their money to get them flying until they change them, heck, more power to you, I'd completely agree.

 

[Terry L in KY]

Would it not be wonderful if the four or five of us on here who ARE IAs could debate this without the good intentioned folks who don't have a clue what the responsibilities are OR the experience without cobbing up the discussion?

Folks, a great baseball player said it best, "If you ain't on the field, don't tell us how to play the game." I believe it was Satchel Paige. I could be wrong.

Jim

Oh, don't do that! I'm neither an IA nor an attorney....just a lowly owner who finds this a very interesting conversation....one I hadn't thought about previously.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, by "letter of the law" it seems the aircraft would be considered airworthy and would warrant a sign-off (assuming corrosion/failed parts are dealt with) despite the IA's opinion. On the other, the liability/concern of the IA when he truly believes this is an unsafe design....very interesting.....

Can the question be turned around the other way? As in, what if the IA felt the aircraft was airworthy despite a ruling to the contrary? (i.e. an AD that the IA felt was silly and no way impacted safety...perhaps even CAUSING safety issues. Would the IA sign off without complying?)

 

[Henning]

Would it not be wonderful if the four or five of us on here who ARE IAs could debate this without the good intentioned folks who don't have a clue what the responsibilities are OR the experience without cobbing up the discussion?

Folks, a great baseball player said it best, "If you ain't on the field, don't tell us how to play the game." I believe it was Satchel Paige. I could be wrong.

Jim

Sorry, I operate in a position with 1000 times your liability exposure. My liability exposure for making a mistake is prison for manslaughter, and I don't even have to directly make the mistake, I just have to let it occur.

So I think I've got a reasonable grasp on risk management in those regards, and I am not advising any course of action I would not personally take.

 

[Stewartb]

My thoughts. I appreciate my own mechanic's advice and comments about maintenance issues but I expect him to do his job based on airworthiness and allow me to decide whether to exceed that standard. My plane, my check book, my decision. There should be no question about that.

 

[Tom-D]

I'm sure the domain IAsofamerica.com is available. But Tom asked on a pilot forum, and aircraft owners responded.

Hypothetical: What if Tom wouldn't sign off on my annual because my tires are Condor retreads, but he only uses brand new Goodyears. In fact, he once flew a plane where the retreads blew out on him. Am I grounded unless I swap tires?

The GA community is small, as word I did that hit the street I'd be blacklisted.

 

[Henning]

The GA community is small, as word I did that hit the street I'd be blacklisted.

That applies at all levels of the same issue, and it is known, that is why your liability risk is not changed by part application as well.

 

[Tom-D]

My thoughts. I appreciate my own mechanic's advice and comments about maintenance issues but I expect him to do his job based on airworthiness and allow me to decide whether to exceed that standard. My plane, my check book, my decision. There should be no question about that.

When the owner's standards for safety are higher than mine, I'm good with that.

You don't like retreads, and buy new, Great, but when you believe I must sign off on that rusty longeron, just because it has been flying fine for 50 years that way. See ya I'm outa here,

 

[Henning]

When the owner's standards for safety are higher than mine, I'm good with that.

You don't like retreads, and buy new, Great, but when you believe I must sign off on that rusty longeron, just because it has been flying fine for 50 years that way. See ya I'm outa here,

Right, but a rusted longeron is a fail under any standards. The issue at hand is when certification and condition are as required, should the owner be forced an upgrade. I don't think it's safe to fly without full glass SVT and ADS-B, should I be able to ground someone else with a legal Day VFR Nordo panel for that opinion?

 

[weirdjim]

Hypothetical: What if Tom wouldn't sign off on my annual because my tires are Condor retreads, but he only uses brand new Goodyears. In fact, he once flew a plane where the retreads blew out on him. Am I grounded unless I swap tires?

Hypothethical: Of course not. You simply go find another IA whose standards match yours. Second opinions are valid when dealing with any professional.

Jim

 

[Stewartb]

Second opinions are only important when you don't trust the first one. We are talking about simple airplane brakes here, not a lung removal.

 

[Tom-D]

Right, but a rusted longeron is a fail under any standards. The issue at hand is when certification and condition are as required, should the owner be forced an upgrade. I don't think it's safe to fly without full glass SVT and ADS-B, should I be able to ground someone else with a legal Day VFR Nordo panel for that opinion?

Is it legal - No?
Is it Safe - yes?
Is it legal - yes?
Is it safe - No?
Is it safe and legal?

Knowing the FAA and the civil lawyers are looking over your shoulder which would you sign off?

 

[Tom-D]

Right, but a rusted longeron is a fail under any standards.

You forget, some owners don't have standards, they simply do not know what could kill them.

But they think they do.

 

[Brad Z]

At the end of the day, provided he does not violate the FARs, a mechanic is free to set a higher standard. Just as some shops refuse to work on older planes, Tom is free to refuse work on aircraft with certain models of brakes. That said, if he doesn't disclose this detail prior to billing the customer, then I could see the potential for a civil suit based on breach of contract. Whether or not the customer or the mechanic wins is based on the evidence, arguments, and the judge deciding the case. The FAA will never get involved in that sort of dispute.

 

[Henning]

Is it legal - No?
Is it Safe - yes?
Is it legal - yes?
Is it safe - No?
Is it safe and legal?

Knowing the FAA and the civil lawyers are looking over your shoulder which would you sign off?

Safe is a matter of meeting the criteria set forth in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of that product.

Does it meet the proscribed standard? Yes
Is it safe? Yes

Does it meet the proscribed standard? No
Is it safe? No

It is as simple as that in law. If you want to refuse on moral grounds, I'm hip with the way you work, no worries. I just think the legal liability increase concern is a non issue. The law does not grant you the authority to determine if a design is safe of not, that requires a DER and engineering certifications, therefore you cannot be held liable to that standard either. You are authotized to inspect condition compliance, that is all you can be held liable for. Your license is also a protection in this circumstance.

 

[James331]

IMHO If goodyear brakes were brand new they would be unsafe to operate, There have been way too many good aircraft sent to the junk yard because of them.

Legal, yes, Safe no.

What are saying when you sign off an annual? READ the whole definition of "Airworthy" Specially the second sentence. "and in a condition for safe operation"

You have a mortgage payment to make or something Tom?

Tell him your OPINION, and let him make HIS decision.

If the owner wants to keep his good years and they can be fixed, that's that.

Tom is free to refuse work on aircraft with certain models of brakes. That said, if he doesn't disclose this detail prior to billing the customer, then I could see the potential for a civil suit based on breach of contract. .

X1

And I for one would take him to court, try to get compensation for having another AP IA annual the plane, Id also try to get compensation for being without the plane, and Id post a scan of the legal findings on every FBO postit board, type web page, forum, airport manager, etc.

IMO, if you start a annual and refuse to sign a airworthy aircraft off you're a scammer.

As for retreads, better tell the airlines and most turbine operators

 

[Silvaire]

That is true, and if the IA doesn't substitute his definition of airworthy for the legal definition, there is no problem.

Well it's the IA's signature that makes it legal. He is the delegated authority and whether or not he signs it is not decided in a civil court. If Tom doesn't want to sign it the owner is free to find another IA who will.

 

[Silvaire]

...Hypothetical: What if Tom wouldn't sign off on my annual because my tires are Condor retreads, but he only uses brand new Goodyears. In fact, he once flew a plane where the retreads blew out on him. Am I grounded unless I swap tires?

You are grounded if and only if your aircraft is currently out of annual and you can't find another IA to do your inspection. Grounding your aircraft is not among the almighty powers of the IA. We are not policemen.

 

[jesse]

As a flight instructor I sometimes require things from my students that exceed the minimum of the regulations and without it I will not give them what endorsement they're looking for. That is perfectly within my right as a CFI....the same as this is within Tom's right as an IA.

An example of this -- I require students pass their private pilot written test before I will sign them off to do a solo cross country flight. Not required by the regulations and completely within my right to do so.

If a customer doesn't like it they can find another CFI or another IA.

 

[Henning]

You have a mortgage payment to make or something Tom?

Tell him your OPINION, and let him make HIS decision.

If the owner wants to keep his good years and they can be fixed, that's that.




X1

And I for one would take him to court, try to get compensation for having another AP IA annual the plane, Id also try to get compensation for being without the plane, and Id post a scan of the legal findings on every FBO postit board, type web page, forum, airport manager, etc.

IMO, if you start a annual and refuse to sign a airworthy aircraft off you're a scammer.

As for retreads, better tell the airlines and most turbine operators

Yep, but that's not the circumstance in Tom's case, his ethics are solid, he hasn't taken a dime from the guy.

 

[vintage cessna]

As a flight instructor I sometimes require things from my students that exceed the minimum of the regulations and without it I will not give them what endorsement they're looking for. That is perfectly within my right as a CFI....the same as this is within Tom's right as an IA.

An example of this -- I require students pass their private pilot written test before I will sign them off to do a solo cross country flight. Not required by the regulations and completely within my right to do so.

If a customer doesn't like it they can find another CFI or another IA.

I don't think many people would have a problem with that as long as they are told before any time or money has been invested.

 

[Tom-D]

Sorry, I operate in a position with 1000 times your liability exposure.

I don't believe that, you spend way too much time on this page to be that busy.

 

[Tom-D]

You have a mortgage payment to make or something Tom?

If I was, I wouldn't be an A&P

Tell him your OPINION, and let him make HIS decision.

I did just that. I told him my opinion was, that his brakes were unsafe in any condition. he agreed.

If the owner wants to keep his good years and they can be fixed, that's that.

yes they certainly can, but I'm not signing them off as safe to fly.
X1

And I for one would take him to court, try to get compensation for having another AP IA annual the plane, Id also try to get compensation for being without the plane, and Id post a scan of the legal findings on every FBO postit board, type web page, forum, airport manager, etc.

IMO, if you start a annual and refuse to sign a airworthy aircraft off you're a scammer.
Oh great, Now I bet you believe every A&P is out to screw you.

Where did you get the idea I started an annual? Or do you read what you want to see?

And what would you tell the judge, I had a different opinion?
Would you try to show the judge the bill that does not exist. Or would you try to show then the W/O that does not exist?

I walk in and take a look to see if I really want to do the annual. see some discrepancies tell the owner they need to be repaired or upgraded.

and now you want to sue me.

Get real sonny, Please post your name so I can spread the word.

 

[Henning]

I don't believe that, you spend way too much time on this page to be that busy.

Doesn't change the level of responsibility and liability I have operating. Just spent 4 days taking a billionaire, his family, and a billionaire friend out for a holiday 4 day weekend trip on a boat I just walked on. When I take the job, I assume liability, including criminal liability, for everything. I have the responsibility to assure the seaworthiness of the vessel before I leave port, and assure the training and ability of the crew is up to standards, because I also assume responsability for their mistakes as well. When the DA is pointing fingers, they point at me.

As for how much I work, I try to keep it around 90-120 days a year, usually I do a few more here and there. Even at work though, I often post here, I don't work hard, I direct people mostly; I get paid for what I know, but mostly for accepting responsibility for the program. Once I get things rolling, I usually have a fair bit of free time.

 

[weirdjim]

And what would you tell the judge, I had a different opinion?
Would you try to show the judge the bill that does not exist. Or would you try to show then the W/O that does not exist?

I walk in and take a look to see if I really want to do the annual. see some discrepancies tell the owner they need to be repaired or upgraded.

and now you want to sue me.

Get real sonny, Please post your name so I can spread the word.

Tom, I'm sure you are a lot like the rest of us. Just looking the aircraft over and deciding what is needed and what is to do is about 25% of the job. Simply telling the person that there won't be an annual if the brakes aren't replaced and having HIM walk out leaves you 25% of the annual fee in the hole. That's OK, that's what we do. But we sure as hell sleep better at night working it that way.

As for James331, don't get into a mud rasslin' contest with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig likes it.

Jim

 

[James331]

And what would you tell the judge, I had a different opinion?
Would you try to show the judge the bill that does not exist. Or would you try to show then the W/O that does not exist?

I walk in and take a look to see if I really want to do the annual. see some discrepancies tell the owner they need to be repaired or upgraded.

and now you want to sue me.

Get real sonny, Please post your name so I can spread the word.

Tom I know exactly who you are, don't comment on saftey on a tailwheel, especially after you pranged the heck out of a perfectly good plane.

At least you didn't charge the guy anything, frankly you should just follow the specs for what is airworthy.

Airworthy = Safe as far as you are concerned as a IA.

Heck, based on your history you're he biggest point of failure in a tailwheel plane.

I don't think anyone is trying to screw me, unless they prove to me that they are.

 

[Silvaire]

Tom I know exactly who you are, don't comment on saftey on a tailwheel, especially after you pranged the heck out of a perfectly good plane....

... Heck, based on your history you're he biggest point of failure in a tailwheel plane...

You apparently never read Jimmy Doolittle's book. He "pranged the heck" out way more perfectly good airplanes than anybody on this board.

You gonna tell us he was a oaf or a bad pilot?

 

[Tom-D]

Tom I know exactly who you are, don't comment on saftey on a tailwheel, especially after you pranged the heck out of a perfectly good plane.

At least you didn't charge the guy anything, frankly you should just follow the specs for what is airworthy.

Airworthy = Safe as far as you are concerned as a IA.

Heck, based on your history you're he biggest point of failure in a tailwheel plane.
I don't think anyone is trying to screw me, unless they prove to me that they are.

Your attitude is showing again, your so willing to judge others, wait, your turn will come, after you been flying 60 years you have your scars too. There are those who have and those who will.

Have you ever stopped to think, maybe I have BTDT and try to keep other from doing it too. ?

 

[Tom-D]

Tom I know exactly who you are, don't comment on saftey on a tailwheel, especially after you pranged the heck out of a perfectly good plane.

Is that what you think this thread is about? Really does your little ego require you to go on the attack.

Airworthy = Safe as far as you are concerned as a IA.

That's the whole of it, it is my decision as to what I sign off.

Heck, based on your history you're he biggest point of failure in a tailwheel plane.

There you go again, on the attach, trying to turn this on me.

I don't think anyone is trying to screw me, unless they prove to me that they are.

You screw your self enough, we don't have to get involved.

 

[Tom-D]

Mods might as well lock it, it's gone to spin zone by personal attacks anyway.

 

[James331]

Maybe this is a sensitive area for me, Ive had some GREAT APs, I've also had a few try to take advantage of me.

Maybe its because I'm younger, but these fools know I am in the industry, one tried to do work without authorization, another provided me a estimate with insanely inflated prices for some parts, I guess he figured even though Im paying for his work based on my pay as a pilot, I must not be able to search spruce or AERO or anything.

Both lost money on their stupidity, and I have zero hesitation putting their shinagins on blast.

It's better to just be by the book and be honest with folks.

If you have your own specifications OUTSIDE of the FARs, tell the customer and advertise it on your marketing. It will save quit a few folks a bit of time avoiding you entirely.

Suggest all you will, but wasting someone's time and not signing off a airworthy plane is BS everyday of the week.

Mods might as well lock it, it's gone to spin zone by personal attacks anyway.

Good idea, run and hide, better not get called out in public.

 

[jesse]

Tom, I may not agree with the fact that the brakes absolutely cannot be airworthy, but I do most certainly think it's within your right to refuse to signoff.

As to where this thread is going - you are both doing a really good job at showing your true colors. I think it's pretty obvious which one of you has colors worth respecting.

 

[Henning]

Maybe this is a sensitive area for me, Ive had some GREAT APs, I've also had a few try to take advantage of me.

Maybe its because I'm younger, but these fools know I am in the industry, one tried to do work without authorization, another provided me a estimate with insanely inflated prices for some parts, I guess he figured even though Im paying for his work based on my pay as a pilot, I must not be able to search spruce or AERO or anything.

Both lost money on their stupidity, and I have zero hesitation putting their shinagins on blast.

It's better to just be by the book and be honest with folks.

If you have your own specifications you use instead of the FARs, tell the customer and advertise it on your marketing. It will save quit a few folks a bit of time avoiding you entirely.

Suggest all you will, but wasting someone's time and not signing off a airworthy plane is BS everyday of the week.





Good idea, run and hide, better not get called out in public.

Tom doesn't market so I don't really know how he could change anything there. People go to him. If he looks at the plane and says "Here's what needs to be done for me to be comfortable signing off your plane." I don't see where there is any problem at all.

 

[James331]

Tom doesn't market so I don't really know how he could change anything there. People go to him. If he looks at the plane and says "Here's what needs to be done for me to be comfortable signing off your plane." I don't see where there is any problem at all.

As a CFI if I told a student he met the PTS 100%, but since he couldn't recover a 3 rotation spin on heading I won't sign him off for his ride, Id fully expect to be taken to court, loose and have my crap put on blast.

Here is what I would do, Id say you're to spec, I'll sign you off, but I think we should do more work on this even though its outside of the PTS, I believe should should be better at spins.