Here's to the Mother ****ing FAA

[Mooneymite]

No...this is bullshit. Wrinkled skins, hangar rash and a missing data plate is a bit much. Go look at the "Frankenstein Laboratory" RV fleet (I know...different standard, yet same safety infringement)...go to Alaska and walk down a float plane pier and just pick out any two you see....or better yet....walk down any row you'd like at OSH this July...are you kidding?

 

This is the result of a bloated government, big issues with LEX, and the strong likelihood jkhirsch didn't sound right on the radio or cut off one of the FAA Officer's buddies in the pattern. Or better yet...maybe the FAA guy didn't like blue Mooney's. Safety? Safer skies?????  If this is what the FAA has come to, all of us are in deep shit. After paint and log books, those out board main skins will be $2k each at a good shop and the elevator skins will be a back breaker. And I am unclear....was the A/C deemed not airworthy on the spot?

 

 

I don't think there is anything new going on here.  If this case is BS, it's been going on for a long time.

 

This is just a function of certification.  The government "certifies" a design through its TC.  To stay "certified" everything must be done according to the way the manufacturer and the gubmint says it has to be done.  The up-side, is the owner has some assurance of airworthiness, the down-side is that there is very little lee-way in compliance.

 

Yes!  There are thousands of examples of flying planes that no longer comply with their TC.  They are not technically "airworthy", even though they may be perfectly safe.  In this thread, we seem to be objecting to the FAA enforcing the present rules, but the case is open and shut.  If the FAA determines that an aircraft is not in compliance with its TC, it is not airworthy.  Prove that it is in compliance and the FAA will pronounce it "airworthy".

 

I suspect that most airplanes more than 10 years old are no longer completely in compliance with their TC.  I further suspect that on any given day, any FAA maintenance inspector could ground any airplane for "something" that is non-compliant.  Happily, the FAA does not do this, but it does spot check and writes up obvious violations as a warning to the rest of us.

 

The solution to all of this is to move to the experimental world, where there is no FAA assurance that an aircraft is airworthy and what the builder considers "safe" is all that matters.

[marks]

Personally I'm tired about all the trash talk concerning the FAA.  The one time I truly crossed paths with the FAA it involved an FAA investigation of my plane crash on the golf course in Hyannis, MA after an engine fire.  The FAA paid for an IA at the accident scene who proved that the work done that day to correct a hot mag resulted in the incorrect routing of the fuel line and failure to attach the fuel pressure gauge leading to a small spraying leak into the engine compartment. As a result I received a handsome settlement and an additional sum to settle all future claims from trama of any kind.  Also the FAA punished the IA who did the work that nearly killed me. -  The first thing they did was require me to hand over the aircraft logs, my paperwork showing my right to fly the plane, such as my medical and info regarding my BFR and ICC.  I thought they did a thorough job.  Very professional and helpful to me.  The liability insurance for the mechanic's company even paid for the damage to the golf course.  -  It's my personal view that the words we choose to use tells a lot about us.   

[AmigOne]

My mechanic in LA does not like the concept of a pre-purchase inspection because it has no teeth. There is no accountability of the person doing the inspection because they are not signing anything off other than maybe putting part of the airfame/engine back together (I had Don Maxwell pull a cylinder on my Bravo to check for engine corrosion - but that's all he signed off on except to state the compressions). An annual holds someone accountable for the airworthiness of the aircraft.

Please correct me (and my mechanic) if we're wrong.

Bingo,  years ago when trying to buy a Bonanza in Amarillo, Tradewinds Corp did not want to do a pre-purchase.  Instead they did a progressive annual, that is as discrepancies appeared they called me and asked permission to continue.  After several appeared and considering that the airplane had been annualed only a few months earlier I said stop.  No deal, my cost the expenses to Amarillo and $1500.  The important thing here to get out of the deal was the purchase agreement that I had the owner sign.  

In the 14 airplanes that I have owned, including my 68C, and besides the Bonanza, I only had a pre-purchase many years ago on a 1947 Cessna 140 and a 1971 Twin Comanche that I purchased abroad.  If you do proper due diligence there is so much that you can tell by learning about the owner, the airplane, the environment in which the airplane lives and your own research before you take a lot of time reading the logbooks.  And reading them in your house, not in at an FBO with the owner looking over your shoulder.    Also of all these airplanes, the Cessna 140 was the only that had been kept outdoors, the rest  all hangared.

 

Sorry, not much help now, but I would never have purchased the airplane we are discussing no matter what the price because to me, it showed neglect.  Also, what sort of reputable paint shop paints over the data plate? 

[DaV8or]

There are two kinds of airworthy. FAA airworthy and real world airworthy. If all aircraft had to conform to FAA airworthy before they took to the sky, we would have never won WWII, a large portion of cargo and people would never get moved in Alaska and kids in Africa would have to go without medicine. It is what it is though and the FAA has the final say.

 

In the case of the OP's plane, I suspect that it wasn't so much one individual problem that made him write it up, but rather so many different issues on one airframe. What is visible on the surface of the plane draws into question the quality under the surface. Had it just been one dent, or one hole, or one wrinkle, he may have moved on, but in this case it is as much an investigation into the owner's attitude towards maintenance as it is about who has been doing these annuals? I have to admit, the plane looks a little pencil whipped.

 

The repairs will have to be done and it will cost what it will cost. Many here can probably point the OP in directions to save a bit on these repairs. The take away for the OP might be to get this plane to a proper Mooney specialist (lots of recommendations on this site) for the next annual. I suspect it isn't going to be a cheap one and while the stuff on the surface of the airplane is IMO, not life threatening and the airplane is still real world airworthy, some of the things they may find under the skin may actually be life savers. It may be 100% FAA approved under the skin, I don't know, but I would have it critically looked at.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I'm far from a bureaucracy apologetic, but seriously....Get that elevator looked at.  The visible structure may not fail on you, but do you have any idea how that damage got there?! Wouldn't you want to be certain that nothing else got tweaked when the aircraft struck [object] / [object] struck the aircraft?

 

You're responsible for flying an airworthy aircraft, but I cannot see how some of this possibly got signed off!

 

I have personal experience flying an aircraft that was "repaired" with a new elevator (tug backed into plane) but had some small underlying damage in the tail section.  How was it discovered?  A Mooney Service Center looked at the repairs and found additional items that needed attention.

 

Save yourself some time and energy and don't go for who quotes you the cheapest repair...get someone who knows these airplanes.

 

Aside: This is exactly why the "flying car" idea is impractical.  You're one minor parking lot scrape from being unairworthy.

[AmigOne]

For the record in 45 years as a licensed pilot I had 3 encounters with the FAA (ground loop and runway excursion at a controlled airfield (no damage), ramp check and airspace violation) and two with ATC (loss of separation while IFR) reports and all were justified, professionally handled and fairly disposed of.   The FAA or its employes may not be perfect but neither are we.

[Parker_Woodruff]

How sure are those people that signed it off that there won't be some type of flutter induced under whatever circumstances, etc.?

 

*I'm not an engineer and wouldn't know...and most A&P/IAs aren't either*

[KSMooniac]

As long as he didn't follow it up with "We're not happy until you're not happy!" he sounds like a good one.

[M20E-TN]

Although this may well not be of concern to the OP, jkhirsch, it would be a top concern for me: was a title search accomplished (AOPA does a fabulous job!) prior to this purchase?

At the risk of becoming tedious, the "odd" (to anyone else?) condition of the "erstwhile" dataplate and the (as of today) lack of an updated registration status would make me very edgy when considered individually, to say nothing of their combined impact.

I would suspend all consideration of bringing the machine into compliance until I was certain the A/C was actually mine. I would not want to spend any more resources (mental, legal, or financial) until I could ascertain that such resources were, in fact, being directed in the interest of my property.

Jim

[Ron McBride]

We had a light sport experimental plane crash at out local airport last weekend.  I do not know why?   Possible contributing factors may be.   This was a project plane that sat for a long time, Small Continental engine,  The plane was in pieces when purchased, was it reassembled correctly?   Fabric cover, plane was painted with latex paint and a paint brush.  Or none of the above.   Did he have a real good condition report done?   Pilot was a real good guy, but maybe 75,   current??.   This plane should stall at 30 MPH approx. an off field landing in an open field, should have been ok??      I will be waiting for the final NTSB for the conclusion on this.   What ever the cause, he is not be with us any longer.

 

Ron

[ChrisH]

daver328 has a point, what other civilian federal employee do you ever want to see/speak to? IRS? HHS? Customs? 

[cujet]

Too bad you are not here in South Florida. I'd be happy to help you resolve some of these issues. From what I've read, you really needed to address these issues prior to FAA intervention. 

 

I deal with the FAA regularly (as an aviation professional) My experience has been all over the map. From a recent, stunningly complete audit which went very well, to an FAA ambush that was intended on causing hardship (which I also passed by sheer dumb luck and a bit of a nagging feeling at the start of the day) . The one thing that I truly dislike is the "ramp check". I try my very best to avoid these at all costs. A violation here could cost me my job. 

 

My goal is perfection in my Corporate flight department. It's clear the instant you walk in my office, and when you view my aircraft. It's clear to the FAA also. 

 

I like things perfect!

 

[jkhirsch]

I know this topic is mostly old/dead, but I want to throw a quick update on. I spoke to the previous of '7 years' and he indicated to me that the damage was there when they bought the plane! He also said they have had the plane annual-ed 7 times by 3 or 4 different mechanics and none of them ever balked and the damage.

[jkhirsch]

The owner wrote me back again and said the the ownership group prior to his group had the same damage and that Don Maxwell was the one who maintained it for them and never once questioned the safety of the condition!

[DaV8or]

Are you getting the plane fixed?

[jkhirsch]

I basically don't have the money right now, or the time, but if I had the money I'd make the time...so I'm going to waste a bunch of time trying to not spend any money.

 

On top of that I still don't like the way this has come about especially with the new information from the previous owners. Since I don't have the money, I'm going to try to wriggle around and make it work out.

 

I'm also in the middle of trying to start my career and relocate to the east coast so...a lot going on right now.

 

Bottom line: The plane combined with my life is a cluster right now.

[PTK]

The owner wrote me back again and said the the ownership group prior to his group had the same damage and that Don Maxwell was the one who maintained it for them and never once questioned the safety of the condition!

This is irrelevant and means absolutely nothing!

 

Are you certain the airplane was/is airworthy? This is your responsibility, not theirs!

[N33GG]

Wow!  Hmmmm!  You have my greatest sympathy!  A total nightmare.

[jkhirsch]

Actually it is relevant, because the FAA is already taking action against the mechanics who I have used since I purchased it. As far as I'm concerned if the FAA and Mooney are "right" every mechanic who's signed off on the plane should be held accountable. I'm not going to direct quote the prior owner in public, but the plane has been through 7 annuals and 3 or 4 mechanics that he can account for with the plane in the same condition.

 

Edit: And on a whole 'nother side note Don Maxwell butchered an engine overhaul on this plane years ago and was found liable for negligence and had to pay out for the new engine and all the expenses incurred in the process of the owner getting trapped in Florida with a engine falling out of the plane.

[orionflt]

it is the right wing tip, I was thinking about picking it up if it was the left.

 

Brian

[jkhirsch]

Looks like left wing--I think the access panels are at the bottom--which is where the hole is at the tip, thanks! I put a bid in, does anyone have any clue what a price of that should be? I'm also making an assumption that M20C skins would work on the M20F.

[jkhirsch]

Mine's a 67, but as stupid as it sounds I can't remember if I ever determined whether it is a twisted wing or not, I feel like in the back of my mind I looked it up by serial number and it is, but that's a complete guess. It also seems like I remember reading that early on they realized it was stupid and offered a conversion to a straight wing.

[sreid]

What year M20F do you have? 1967 F has a twist and the outboard two skins are not the same as a C model. The 1967 F outer skin list price was in the ballpark of $300 a couple years ago.

[PTK]

Actually it is relevant, because the FAA is already taking action against the mechanics who I have used since I purchased it. As far as I'm concerned if the FAA and Mooney are "right" every mechanic who's signed off on the plane should be held accountable. I'm not going to direct quote the prior owner in public, but the plane has been through 7 annuals and 3 or 4 mechanics that he can account for with the plane in the same condition.

 

Edit: And on a whole 'nother side note Don Maxwell butchered an engine overhaul on this plane years ago and was found liable for negligence and had to pay out for the new engine and all the expenses incurred in the process of the owner getting trapped in Florida with a engine falling out of the plane.

Jeff, the mechanics are as responsible for airworthiness of our planes as much as our CPA is responsible for our taxes!

 

Both the FAA and the IRS look at us. They may go after the mechanic and CPA but claiming ignorance certainly doesn't relieve us of our responsibilities.

[jkhirsch]

My CPA is an Enrolled Agent, and is directly responsible for my taxes based on the information I provide.

 

I'll quote the FAA inspector here, "if your plane was in that condition when a mechanic had it to inspect and didn't "catch" or "address" these issues he is responsible along with everyone other mechanic who "signed it off" as airworthy." Which is why they are pursuing more than just the mechanic who did the last annual.  Again, those aren't my words, those are the words of an FAA inspector.