MikeOH

Hmm, it's been awhile since I've flown a 'B' model, but if the flap is drooping when parked, I'm not sure it's the fault of the spring you are showing; I think that one is just to hold the flap handle in its detent. There may well be a retract spring somewhere in the system. Take a look at the IPC.

Let's say he did, maybe even supplied the part. Shop should still have called BEFORE hacking up his panel. There is just no excuse for that omission.

SIGH...nothin' like blaming the customer, good grief! Say all of that is TRUE, it still does NOT excuse cutting up the guy's panel without at least a phone call! Don's shop absolutely did this to him, NOT the other way around. He is NOT the co-creator of the original issue. Argue all you want how the customer mishandled it (never blame the shop for how THEY mishandled it, right?), but the ORIGINAL problem is not on the owner. I've more respect for the claim that we are just lucky to have anyone willing to work on our planes at all. Therefore, you should be happy to over pay and receive crappy service! Don't dream about complaining or you'll ruin it for everyone! At least that's an honest opinion on why acceptance is the best policy (i.e., bend over and take it). I do agree with @PT20J that we only have one side of the story, but it's hard to see a scenario (other than an outright lie) where grinding on someone's panel to 'fix' anything would be okay without a phone call to discuss FIRST.

Yes

Another fan of shutdown at 1000 rpm and restart by advancing mixture with NO boost. Works for all 'voodoo territory' situations

Not being asked in the first place is what would drive me crazy! I realize the need to defend Maxwell is almost a religion around here, but NOT calling the customer before grinding the panel is UNACCEPTABLE! I can't believe anyone thinks this is okay.

I certainly don't hold myself out as a spring expert, but other than being a little dirty I don't see anything wrong/worn with that spring. Remove, clean, reinstall.

You're a riot. Practical question for you: Do you really think the FAA went to the trouble to issue this SAIB because only 3 people are concerned? Sounds like part of the process for coming up with an AD, to me.

Curious why the need to replace the pistons (assumes no actual damage to them is found)? Wouldn't the hone and new rings address the issue?

That criteria is for the necessity of REPORTING an accident (i.e. NOT merely an incident), not whether or not the NTSB is obligated to investigate. I don't believe Part 830 addresses what criteria NTSB uses to decide if THEY are actually going to investigate a particular accident; that's their internal decision, I believe.

Well, my recollection from PPL training is that the NTSB Part 830 regs are completely separate from those of the FAA. And, weird as it may seem, the incident does not rise to the level for them to spend the money and effort to investigate further. Frankly, what are they going to learn that would be valuable? As the article says, the FAA is the one to 'investigate' the pilot.... I imagine they'll pull his Student pilot cert

Like @1980Mooney I've always trusted the shops I've used with my physical logs. I figure I'm trusting my life to their work, so why not the logs? I don't have his 45 year record, only 7, but no issues. If, someday, I have to recover from scans I may feel differently.

Give Top Gun a call and find out the annual inspection cost. Two years ago the annual inspection for my F was $3,120 flat. At the time their shop rate was $145/hr. So, in theory, about 22 hours for the inspection itself. Not sure what model you have; a J should be pretty similar, but no idea for newer models. Obviously, no repairs are included in those numbers. If you had a decent pre-buy, and historically Jimmy Garrison has been a solid guy, so I'd think you should be okay. Still, I could see another $5K depending on what they find; they are THOROUGH! Again, not everything they'll find is going to be an airworthiness issue, so you'll have some room to control your outlay.

Helluva relief tube going to be needed for that installation

@EricJ You're the A&P/IA, not me, so I'll take your word on how much theoretical responsibility falls to each individual IA based on your points. Practically speaking, I still believe there's no real financial liability risk to the IA. My argument is based on exactly what you said, "so a judge may have to decide at some point". What the judge is actually deciding is WHO has the money to pay! Out of everyone involved the IA is the LEAST likely able to pay! It's going to be the manufacturer and the fuel distributors. And, my guess is that GAMI is, in the scheme of things, VERY small in terms of assets...and furthermore, is structured to NOT hold many in the first place (very little net worth and retained earnings...all the profit is 'pulled out')! IMHO, the FAA should be accountable as they issued the blanket STC...but good luck successfully suing, winning, and collecting from the FEDS! The fuel disty's are going to get stuck. Especially ironic in that, if the Consent Decree is upheld, they will be FORCED to sell the fuel in the first place...and then have to pay for damages it causes!

You could be right, but I think from a legal perspective the IA is, practically speaking, probably safe from personal liability. His argument (his lawyer's) would be that he installed an FAA approved STC in accordance with the STC instructions. I doubt trying to prove whether he was even aware of issues with the fuel would be allowed into court. After all, some IAs might well NOT be aware even if they're well publicized. My objection is a moral one; I wouldn't want my customer to suffer any negative consequences.

Well, crap! You mean I need to go buy a new Pilatus PC12 because my Mooney, which runs well, is 55 years old???? I'll be sure to tell you "I hate it" when you ask

One takeaway from the Concorde instructions is that a CONTINUOUS charge, even from a 'smart' minder charger may deplete the electrolyte; you don't fly the plane continuously so that just flying the plane doesn't constitute the same risk. The other takeaway is that frequent flying (once a week) is plenty to stave off even the need for a battery minder. What a surprise, flying often is good for the plane

Not a chance.

That argument always sounds logical, but think about it, how many times have you asked someone with a new car how they like it...ever had anyone tell you they hate it and wished they hadn't bought it

Exactly one of the two reasons I've never believed in continuous "maintenance" charging; the other is I'm paranoid about the, albeit small, fire risk.

Top Gun is definitely proud of their work; pricing is Top Tier, I'll be the first to acknowledge. Honestly, I'd probably use them every year if the logistics of getting there from southern California weren't such a pain. They are very easy to work with, meet commitments, and no doubt they know Mooneys. Unlike some family businesses, the transition from father, Tom, to son, Mark, has been without issue. Yes, as a new owner, you run the risk of a big first annual. But don't you want someone who knows Mooneys to find all the flaws so you at least start with a known 'clean slate?'. Remember, after the inspection you'll get a clear, itemized, list of findings with costs clearly delineated with parts and labor broken out for each item before any work begins. You do NOT have to approve the non-airworthy items; I sure haven't. E.g. they wanted $29 for a new placard that was coming off; I politely declined that one!

THIS! And, if true, Braly isn't the good ol' boy many seem to believe. Remember, he's an attorney so it's not like he's ignorant of these factors.

Hmm, doesn't sound like the best business plan...

Just that GAMI now know there are problems in the field from the two airports already selling G100UL...now introducing another one!