AndyFromCB Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I highly doubt that in FAA world an airplane exists that is truly airworthy ;-) Having have said that, I work mostly with two shops maintaining my mooney. Both have great mechanics and I trust both shops with my life. However, there is a major difference between shop A, a small shop and shop B, a repair station. There is a lot of things that shop A will point out but allow me to make a decision about whether to fix or not. Shop B, not so much. They are 100% by the book, see my engine mount saga. Mooney/Stacey said replace/repair due to scratches, Shop B said I had to, otherwise, would not sign off the annual. Shop A would let that mount fly for many more years if I did choose. What passes as airworthy to many mechanics vs what is truly airworthy according to TC and FAA best practices is worlds apart. I trade annuals between A & B, this way everything gets fixed at least once every 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Scott, If the inspector can't read the name plate, he has found somebody he can spend all day with. Planes don't fall out of the sky for missing or unreadable documents. But they do need to exist and be legible to be allowed to fly. The police officer wouldn't be any happier if he couldn't read your VIN or your registration wasn't available. They print the rules. They make them available. They are pretty understandable. There is room for negotiation. And they allow for Experimental planes as well. Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkhirsch Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 If you're accusing me of directing my annuals to let me fly in an unairworthy plane you can stop right there. That's ignorant and irresponsible, I fly my family and friends in this airplane and would never take any chances with them or myself. Like I previously said, I pay my mechanic to put me in the air in a safe plane and legal plane. If he says it's good to go, and nothing changes with the condition of the plane in between times that I fly it then it's good to go. Funny thing about Stacey, I specifically stated in a voicemail to him that I was calling in regard to an FAA inquiry into my plane tail number N9664M and would appreciate a call back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Scot, Then you are off to find the painter... Search for re-balance of the aelerons after painting... The painter was so busy rebalancing the aelerons, he didn't have time to clean off the data plate? OSHA serves a very similar purpose and follows a very similar methodology. Very few people like OSHA visits. But nobody likes it when somebody gets killed or maimed at work. A successful OSHA visit is when they find a fire extinguisher mounted askew. An unsuccessful one is when they can't find one at all in the factory rubble... I had a plane that failed PPI. Missing rivets and cracked body filler under a nice paint job. The colors were matching the state police cars in NJ.... The pilot had interesting landing technique. Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 If you're accusing me of directing my annuals to let me fly in an unairworthy plane you can stop right there. That's ignorant and irresponsible, I fly my family and friends in this airplane and would never take any chances with them or myself. Like I previously said, I pay my mechanic to put me in the air in a safe plane and legal plane. If he says it's good to go, and nothing changes with the condition of the plane in between times that I fly it then it's good to go. Funny thing about Stacey, I specifically stated in a voicemail to him that I was calling in regard to an FAA inquiry into my plane tail number N9664M and would appreciate a call back. Nobody is saying you've been "directing" annuals. Did you even have this aircraft long enough to do an annual? My question is who did your pre buy for you? Or did you not have a pre buy done? All I am saying is there is a lot of aircraft out there with nothing more than paper annuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 A while back I came across an issue that I though was noteworthy and I went ahead and posted my experience in this forum. Instead of serving as a heads up for all, I found myself defending my maintenance practices from a couple people. No one here knows how much money is spent by an individual on their particular aircraft but it doesn't matter because judgments come fast and furious to the point where you begin to wonder if it's even worth sharing. While no one here directly said "those annuals have been pencil whipped", the comments made weren't very far from that. It is just sad... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronk25 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I will never ever go to Louisville........so sorry to hear about this. Totally out of line. Call your congressman. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 ...these "discrepancies" have been signed off on mutiple annuals, they didn't happen the day before the inspection...And never through these multiple annuals did someone have the presence of mind to take a screwdriver and replace the missing screws? How about the missing fairings and cracked skins? This is not the inspector's or Mooney's problem. They are the messenger here. The best thing you can do is check your attitude at the door, don't take it personally and be grateful. The FAA is correct here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piloto Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 What is conflicting here is the airworthines criteria. The one from the FAA inspector and the one from the IA inspector that did your annual and declared your plane airworthy. Since the IA used the FAA approved Mooney service manual, what criteria is the FAA using to determine your plane is not airworthy? Is there an FAA criteria (dimensions) on what is the maximum dent size allowed? Ask FSDO these questions. Ask them to show you the applicable regulation for dents on the FAA bible. You plane is in no violation if there is no applicable rules to the inspector findings. I notice on the report that there was no indication of the applicable rules in violation. There is lot of planes with hail damage flying safely. Dents are not uncommon. José 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N601RX Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Here is a dent repair solution. Has anyone ever tried it, or seen it in action? http://www.fluxtronic.com/index.php 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple8s Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I won't go into the whether or not this or that is airworthy, I'm not an IA an AP or an Engineer so that I'll leave alone. I can attest to this having been in the maintenance business of aerial lifts. In the last several decades frivolous law suits have been a huge burden to every industry in the country. Have been indirectly involved in litigation where an aerial device designed to lift a man and tools of a weight of 400 lbs or less was used to attempt to pull a pole from the ground. Of course this ended tragically but the litigation has been unbelievable, the plaintiff has already been awarded 7 figures and is after more, even though said plaintiff was the operator who misused/overloaded the device. This goes on everyday all over the country, and this is exactly why Mooney has made the statement they made, covered their arse is what they did. I know of an avionics shop that is in litigation because they worked on a plane which 15yrs after said work was completed there was an inflight fire which ended in a crash......15yrs.........and the insurance the shop has to pay has to cover the costs. It's our own faults we have our selves to blame for all these lawsuits. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooneymite Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Here is a dent repair solution. Has anyone ever tried it, or seen it in action? http://www.fluxtronic.com/index.php I saw a leading edge dent removed by fluxtronics. Magical. Pulled the dent right out. How can a magnetic process work on aluminum? But it does. Mostly they do high dollar jet repairs, but they can also do little spam cans too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_B Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Scott, You are right on this. Mooney seriously stepped in it with the way they replied to this inquiry. As has been said, Mooney should have withheld judgment until they either inspected the aircraft themselves or had a credentialed professional put eyes on it. This seriously call into question their owner/customer support. Yes, probably not that many of us were direct Mooney customers, but I would expect better as an owner of their product. jkhirsch I wish you the best of luck working your way thru the issues. Thanks, Randy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB65E Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 What missing step faring are they talking about on an F? Is it not just a square tube that retracts? Just need to play the game now that your this far. I know when I visit with my PMI it's usually his game and rules too. Smile and nod... -Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronk25 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I think the FAA is operating "inside the red box" inspecting airplanes that are on tie downs......make me think about renting a hanger for overnights when away.......although besides needing new fuel placards I think I'd be fine. Sorry again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piloto Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I saw a leading edge dent removed by fluxtronics. Magical. Pulled the dent right out. How can a magnetic process work on aluminum? But it does. Mostly they do high dollar jet repairs, but they can also do little spam cans too. Looks expensive. I think this is not static magnetic field but an RF field like on a microwave oven that heats the surface close to melting point and then vaccum it to bring the indentantion even to surface. José Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I would like to see pictures as well. If this is as it seems how many 50 year old planes don't have a few dents in them? Mine does. I'm going to put two locks on the hangar now and cover it with all the same camouflage they use on prototype cars when they take them on the road when I travel! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z W Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 It took 4 pages to get to the "frivolous lawsuits are destroying the world" post. I'm actually proud of the group for that, as a lawyer. Jkhirsch, please talk to a qualified aviation lawyer before you make any more statements to the FAA, if you have not already. Some advised you to do that, several pages ago, but I can't tell if you did. You can PM me for my phone number and I will talk to you, no charge. You are swimming in dangerous waters here, and posting far more information online in a public forum than any lawyer would tell you is wise. I'm all for freedom of information and transparency of government, but this is a story that should be posted after you're done with the FAA's enforcement action, not before or during. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N601RX Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Here is a description of how it works. We used to have a lot of magnaform machines at work that we use to form aluminum cans over the armature of electric motors. They basically had a huge capacitor bank that was charged up to around 600 volts. All the energy was dumped into coils made of heavy copper bars that was positioned around the can. There was also a 1/2" thick scatter shield to contain the explosion that happened a couple of times a year when the bars shorted. http://www.electroimpact.com/EMAGDR/overview.asp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Not to take the FAA's side or anything, but come on now. Dents I would agree are subjective. On bigger planes they have tolerances in the SRM with regards to depth and area before repair or replacement. However cracks in the elevator skin, a painted over data plate, cracked wingtip skin, missing screws, and missing fairings should have been caught at the last annual. I work on airplanes and none of that would have escaped our shop. If your mechanic feels it's airworthy right now then just have him make a statement that the aircraft was inspected and conforms to it's type design; it's in airworthy condition, give that to the inspector and roll on. If not, then why not? In all fairness, the retractable step fairing is a crock o' crap. It amounts to a little piece of aluminum that finishes off the bottom of the step and kind of plugs the hole when in the up position. Aerodynamically, it does nada. Zilch. More than one MSC has signed off on my plane without and they gave me the plans to make one only because I asked. Mine has been missing since I've owned it and judging by the condition under my step, probably for over a decade. I plan to make and install a new one on mine because it is easy to do, I like the plane to have all it's bits and it'll look cooler in flight should somebody take a picture, not because it is some safety issue. This too me is an example of a bureaucrat trying to pile up stuff in a form just to impress superiors and to make a solid case leading to enforcement and therefore a favorable performance review. The FAA is not here to help you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 OSHA used to penalize for hanging a fire extinguisher an inch higher or lower than "standard". Really? <Thread creep alert!> My one OSHA story- An OSHA inspector walked into my business one day and looked around to find something to write up. All he could find was my Home Depot horizontal air compressor. It's a 26 gallon, Husky brand one on wheels. It apparently exceeded some threshold in air volume and it became known on that day to be a "pressure vessel". Because pressure vessels are known to be dangerous to workers, this one would need to be inspected annually. The problem was, it had no serial number on the pressure vessel so it could not be properly tracked in triplicate on the forms. So, my resourceful inspector, having encountered this conundrum before, whipped out his handy hammer and punch and proceeded to hammer in some made up serial number on the tank so that the paper form gods would be appeased. Now in my mind, hammering on a steel tank with a sharp center punch would actually weaken the "pressure vessel" and hasten the disaster they are trying to avoid, but that's just me. I'm not well educated in the ways of safety. Bear in mind that this is the same exact, or very similar air compressor that many of you have in your garage/shop/hangar. Home Depot should be taken to court for selling such a potentially dangerous device to the general public! The cost to me for this increased level of safety was I think $75. Well worth the price... particularly since the guy never did show up again. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple8s Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 It took 4 pages to get to the "frivolous lawsuits are destroying the world" post. I'm actually proud of the group for that, as a lawyer. Key word here is frivolous , we ought to remember that lawyers are human and like any other profession not every human in it has the best intentions, as with any industry there re those in it that are only interested in revenue. As for destroying the world, I would compare it to all the rivets on those other aircraft that slow them down, they're a drag man! Are they needed? Drill them out and try to fly the plane, is there a better way? We Mooney drivers know the answer to that. My frustrations are from seeing so much effort exhausted on protecting those in our society that blatantly do things that could cause harm to themselves and others knowing full well what they out come might be then when things go wrong they cry for a handout from others to support them for the rest of their lives. I could go on and on but really my point was companies are not like a person, companies are innocent until proven guilty. And that is why a lens for the beacon costs 298$ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruiser Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Mike, I have no Idea what you are trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Here is a description of how it works. We used to have a lot of magnaform machines at work that we use to form aluminum cans over the armature of electric motors. They basically had a huge capacitor bank that was charged up to around 600 volts. All the energy was dumped into coils made of heavy copper bars that was positioned around the can. There was also a 1/2" thick scatter shield to contain the explosion that happened a couple of times a year when the bars shorted. http://www.electroimpact.com/EMAGDR/overview.asp Yea! I learned something new today. And on topic. You have my sympathy. Clearly this has put you in a difficult position, and it appears it is an over reach on the part of the FAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 ...and it appears it is an over reach on the part of the FAA. I'm sorry. Based on what had been posted by op here I just don't see how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.