The Saga of A Plane Gone Wrong

douglas393 said:
Been digesting this since January. Have gotten a number of POV and everyone agrees with the findings and conclusions of my new mechanic. This includes a wing repair shop that assisted my mechanic, the original shop who did the prebuys and previous annuals, as well as another mechanic I showed the report to. It is much more than paperwork, and a few rivets. It is both wings, hundreds of rivets, and the tail, and then there is the unknown. It goes without saying that I have been brutally honest with the buyers, to the point that I sent them the report my new mechanic made, allowed them to talk to my new mechanic, and had them do their own inspection of the plane. I would not have it any other way.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised that there is no recourse against the original maintenance shop that did the prebuy, especially after they admitted to missing these items. I know you consulted a lawyer who said you would be net negative. Perhaps find another Aviation lawyer who would take the suit on as a percentage of the award. Sue for the cost, the lawyer, and the lost flying, and perhaps punitive damages.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Some of the worst maintenance I’ve had came from those. Not that it makes any difference, though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And most costly annuals.

Seems the more stuff some of these famous shops can discover, list, fix and charge for regardless of any connection to airworthiness must mean they are a great shop and super thorough to earn and keep such a great reputation.

Decades ago (when dollars still meant something) a big well known Mooney shop charged over $200 for a set of new "Mooney Approved" decals. Like "No Step" on flap, etc. The existing ones were a little beat up, but still very readable. That particular annual back then cost over $7000, and much of it was on non-airworthy items that could have waited to stretch out the cost and addressed at future annuals.
 
Douglas393.... you did everything right from your end and still got screwed. you are not the first, won't be the last. there are plenty of aircraft out there flying with same issues.

when I did DER work I came across projects that some later inspection determined the repair wasn't completely done per approved design. However. many repairs are not covered in manuals as there are so many circumstances. in which cases, owners hire faa Designated engineering reps (DERs which are like designated pilot examiners that represent the FAA to approve and issue pilot certs...DERs do same but for aircraft certification issues....in your case a structural DER that could conclude the repair meets requirements or can outline what needs to be done to get there, and approve it).

so just because an A&P makes a finding using manf repair manual as a basis, doesn't mean the thing is not safe, just not air worthy. remember the definition of air worthy is it conforms to its type design ... a lot of mods and alterations do not confirm but it doesn't make them unsafe. and thus reason for field approvals. STCs, and non- approved repairs that get approved by DERs. The A&P basis is because things like the wrong rivet used based on the type design make it un airworthy based on definition, doesn't make it unsafe or possible to be considered airworthy after a engineering study or more simple procedure. extreme Example may be installing the experimental version of a Garmin G5 instrument rather than the 3x cost of certified version (same unit), or using a carb heat cable control from an old tractor....both making plane technically unairwothy but not unsafe, and you could make it airworthy if you want to spend the money to do so.

disclaimer. I was not a part 23 structural DER, I was a part 25 flight test pilot DER, so not an expert on the subject...but. I know enough that not all repairs have to be done to original factory specs, and other means of compliance exist. which may be worth looking into.

in war time, damaged areas were simply repaired by riveting a new sheet directly over damaged area....it wasn't pretty but practical, cheap and stronger than original. this of course an extreme example, but the repair was signed off as it was determined to meet original design strengths and now considered airworthy.

point being, you may want to reach out to a der or repair station to explore other methods of compliance other than redoing the thing back to original design which likely non feasible. But understand you got a lot of $ already down the rabbit hole, but maybe a few will read the report or take a look and render a viable option.

if you still decide to get rid of it. these things are worth more parted out than whole, especially in your case. may want to consider parting it out yourself or contacting a salvager like Beagles for a offer.

then consider reaching out to shops that are liable for your overall loss to make you whole....it's a lot less $ for them to consider compared to total aircraft cost. ..otherwise sue them and likely reach agreement with their insurance co. I've seen this in the past in the jet world. this may allow you to get most $ and rid yourself of future liability of selling the flying plane to a pilot.

I get the angst in selling it to someone and the liability that sticks with you regardless of full disclosure. long story, but I have an experimental c172 that's awesome and cheap to fly... about $25/hr ...but I don't fly it much and some friends are using it to get their licenses and build time. I was thinking about selling it in the future but very concerned about the liability should someone crash it....I was told I would likely get sued regardless even though with a strong release of liability. I would most likely win in court but I would have to defend myself. So I may sell it for parts as well when done with it but hate the act of scrapping a great flying plane simply due to liability.

anyways, sorry for your predictiment and wish you good luck moving forward.
 
I have thoughts…

1) Don’t ever hire someone to spend 30-40 hours ripping apart your plane under any circumstances lol.
2) Who did this repair? Have you contacted them? What do they say - I can’t imagine they would knowingly do a non-legal repair. Why would they even bother? Perhaps they were relying on some interpretation of 43.13 or alternative means of compliance that you would probably like to be aware of. Perhaps you should call them.
3) The above poster is probably right, a DER could help here. But while a DER *could* help, getting the FAA involved here is a guaranteed disaster. Steer clear.
 
Rcmutz said:
I’m surprised that there is no recourse against the original maintenance shop that did the prebuy, especially after they admitted to missing these items. I know you consulted a lawyer who said you would be net negative. Perhaps find another Aviation lawyer who would take the suit on as a percentage of the award. Sue for the cost, the lawyer, and the lost flying, and perhaps punitive damages.
Click to expand...

Care to share with the scope of a pre-buy is?
 
douglas393 said:
I had used a shop on my home base for the prebuy evaluation and subsequent three annuals. When I relocated the plane to a new home base, I used a new shop at this location for my annual this year. As part of the annual, he did a preliminary inspection of the plane and documents. Prior to this, he only had done an oil change and replaced a nonfunctioning oil heating element on the plane. He immediately discovered discrepancies in the 337, as well as issues with the wings. He called me to inform me that he could not state the plane was airworthy but did not know the extent of the issues. He told me I could get a second opinion or have him do a more complete inspection of the plane and get a better idea of what was wrong so that I could know what needed to be done to get it airworthy. I chose the latter, and this resulted in a 60+ page report of his findings. This report was seen by a number of other mechanics including the original shop, and a wing repair shop, and no one disputes his findings or conclusions.

Sorry you think my posts are rage bait. I do not believe it is. If it was, I would have mention names, etc. I think I pretty much laid out the facts without much emotion or commentary. Am I disappointed, yes. Am I happy with the situation, no. Do I think the original shop has done me a disservice, and should take responsibility, and accountability for their misses, yes. There is concern from the mechanic as well as those that reviewed his report that discovered the missed issues that a wing could fall off in flight given the issues he found. Certainly, its flight parameters for VA, VNO, and VNE are clearly affected. Also, because of the angles of the wings not being correct its stall characteristics, and tendency to spin, or spiral and recover are affected as well. Since I tend to be extremely conservative in my flying I fortunately did not experience any of this, but I also fly in an area where sudden turbulence, and pop-up storms are quite common, so the risk was certainly there. I also do a lot of maneuver practice, and this includes power on and power off stalls and the consequences thereof with altered stall characteristics.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn’t not articulate the question very well. I realize you have posted most of this previously.

What exactly made your mechanic start digging into the details of the 337 in the first place? What did he see?

Most mechanics and inspectors that I know do not go digging into work previously performed and signed off by another inspector or mechanic without a good reason.
 
as far as a DER goes. they work for you...and work as engineers so you could hire them without the faa hat on. call a few and get a feel for them.

again. just because it's not to design data doesn't mean it's not safe...there's several was to make the same thing. I'm sure there's some structal guys here that will be willing to take a non jepardy look. you could also check in with homebuiltairplanes site, they seem to be thick there.

faa mechanics are like faa doctors, find one you can trust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top