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

[Cruiser]

Jeff,

 

What is happening with the plane? Is it sitting or being repaired?

[jkhirsch]

It's sitting, I don't have the money to write a check and walk away from it right now.

[alex]

If I go to the dentist and he takes out the wrong tooth, is it my fault that I did not look at the x-ray to tell him which one should be taken out? There are many owners who are not mechanically inclined and rely on the experts to do this for them, hence their signatures on the logbooks. If that wasnt the case all pilots would need to be required to have A&P/ IA's to sign off their own crap. Oh and by the way, I dont go to the dentist to get a complimentary bag of toothpaste, floss and a soft bristle toothbrush, then go back home and drill my own teeth.....or maybe I should, but then why would you be necessary.

[Mooneymite]

If I go to the dentist and he takes out the wrong tooth, is it my fault that I did not look at the x-ray to tell him which one should be taken out? There are many owners who are not mechanically inclined and rely on the experts to do this for them, hence their signatures on the logbooks. If that wasnt the case all pilots would need to be required to have A&P/ IA's to sign off their own crap. Oh and by the way, I dont go to the dentist to get a complimentary bag of toothpaste, floss and a soft bristle toothbrush, then go back home and drill my own teeth.....or maybe I should, but then why would you be necessary.

This is just common sense!

 

Unfortunately, there is a big gap between what the FAR's say and common sense.

 

The owner is ultimately responsible.

[PTK]

The owner is responsible for airworthiness, not the A&P/IA. Here's why:

Consider this scenario. IA signs off the annual of an aircraft with discrepancies. Not approving return to service.

Is that IA or A&P responsible to chase the owner down and see the discrepancies are corrected before flying it?

Of course not! That responsibility rests with the owner!

If the aircraft is operated anyway without correcting the discrepancies the FAA hopefully will find out before there's an accident or incident. It is the FAA's role to see that the owner complies with the regs.

[PTK]

...There are many owners who are not mechanically inclined and rely on the experts to do this for them, hence their signatures on the logbooks...

Owners relinquishing their responsibility like this are in violation of the FAR's!

We're not talking about being mechanically inclined or not.

[mooniac15u]

I'm not sure I see how trusting an IA is relinquishing your responsibility. The OP trusted the opinion of a properly credentialed professional that these items were not airworthiness issues.

[Marauder]

Owners relinquishing their responsibility like this are in violation of the FAR's! We're not talking about being mechanically inclined or not.

I think the argument you guys are in revolves around the interpretation of 91.7. I don't know the ultimate interpretation of this regulation but I have personal knowledge of two incidents (which didn't involve me!) where an unsafe condition existed unbeknownst to the pilot after annuals and the FAA went after the repair station in one case and after the IA in the second one. My understanding of the reg is that as pilots we are the final authority to make sure that the plane is airworthy prior to flight and were are responsible for terminating a flight when it is no longer. Prior to flight means to me that I know all of the inspections have completed and are in the required time frames specified by the regs for the type of flight I am conducting and the aircraft is airworthy by my limited inspection for fuel, oil, lights, etc. I don't think it means I am responsible to measure the backlash of the landing motor gears prior to flying. Where this becomes muddied is in situations like this. If I found a dent on my wing, I would ask my mechanic who is supposed to be an authority either through his/her personal knowledge or by acquiring a second expert opinion who can validate or refute their initial finding that the dent either affects or doesn't affect the airworthiness. I don't think it means we need to hire three mechanics to look at the dent and use the ruling of the majority. § 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. (b)The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

[alex]

The owner is responsible for airworthiness, not the A&P/IA. Here's why:

Consider this scenario. IA signs off the annual of an aircraft with discrepancies. Not approving return to service.

Is that IA or A&P responsible to chase the owner down and see the discrepancies are corrected before flying it?

Of course not! That responsibility rests with the owner!

If the aircraft is operated anyway without correcting the discrepancies the FAA hopefully will find out before there's an accident or incident. It is the FAA's role to see that the owner complies with the regs.

I love this! So I'm supposed to pay attention to (in your scenario) this "expert" signing my logs saying it is unairworthy because he found discrepancies, but I am also supposed to ignore the five or six IA's (certificated by the FAA to turn wrenches and return aircraft to service) that found the particular aircraft in this thread airworthy. I realize that as an owner/PIC I have responsibilities but I have to delegate certain things to those who know and are trained for in the matter at hand. What burns me is the ability of some to pass judgement and say it is out of ignorance wanting to cut corners on maintenance or relinquishing responsibility.

[Cruiser]

What Chris (Marauder) said ^

 

The FAR makes the owner/pilot responsible because the A&P/IA does not see the airplane prior to every flight.

 

Let me say that again, slowly. The owner/pilot is responsible to determine airworthiness BEFORE EACH FLIGHT.

 

The extent of this determination is to assure no change (damage, equipment failure, alteration etc.) has occurred that might change the airworthiness condition. Such as a hangar accident or maybe the annual inspection is now due or the ELT batteries have passed there legal limit in age. The pilot must determine that the aircraft meets the MEL prior to flight, such as the AI is functioning or the navigation lights are working prior to a night flight. Any of these things could happen between inspections. If so, the owner/operator must have the aircraft serviced by an A&P/IA .. 

This requirement doesn't mean the owner must inspect the work of the mechanic, it only means the owner must verify the mechanic signed off the logs for return to service. 

[Hank]

When it comes to work done out of my own presence, whose details I am completely unknowledgeable about,  it is my responsibility to see that the work is performed by someone who I believe to be competent and trustworthy, and to verify that the work was completed and entered into the logbook(s). For annual, that means "returned to service," "airworthy," etc., above the IA's signature and a test flight performed by me. The A&P or IA can certainly make a test flight as part of the return to service, but I make my own also, after a thorough preflight. No, I don't remove every inspection panel during preflight, as I remove and install them during the annual, and I do all greasing/lubrication after the IA tells me that he is through crawling around inspecting and whatnot.

 

For my vacuum pump replacement, I read the logbook endorsement, admired the shiny pump through the oil filler door, ran up the engine and eyeballed the vacuum gage holding steady at 5" and a rock-steady, no-longer-tumbling AI, then had myself a nice little VFR flight to verify proper operation of everything. Didn't check the torque on the clamps, didn't verify proper engine timing, didn't tug on all of the vacuum lines, didn't hook up an external gage to double check the vacuum. I also didn't relinquish my authority, avoid my personal responsibility or break any FARs. Had the pump fallen off on the next flight, it would not be my fault other than the selection of the wrong mechanic.

 

Get a life, Mr. Dentist. Have you reviewed your urine test results at your last medical, or did you simply sign the form when it was presented and accept the fact that you passed? When's the last time you personally evaluated your own chest x-ray? Have you checked the balance and alignment on your tires after paying a shop to do that for you? Get real . . . . .

[PTK]

I think we are talking past one another here. It's really not that difficult.

As Chris said above "..where an unsafe condition existed unbeknownst to the pilot after annuals and the FAA went after the repair station in one case and after the IA in the second one.." The owner/pilot has the responsibility for all decisions on airworthiness. When the owner hires and allows the A&P to put wrenches on the airplane then the A&P is responsible for what he does. Agreed.

The problems arise when the A&P (IA) finds things and makes recommendations that the owner, for whatever reason, chooses not to follow.

Thus getting an annual signed off with discrepancies. At this point the A&P has no responsibility or enforcement powers. It shifts to the FAA.

It's not about checking the mechanic's work as some have suggested. It's the decisions the owner makes with the info the IA has provided.

[PTK]

So I'm supposed to pay attention to (in your scenario) this "expert" signing my logs saying it is unairworthy because he found discrepancies, but I am also supposed to ignore the five or six IA's (certificated by the FAA to turn wrenches and return aircraft to service) that found the particular aircraft in this thread airworthy.

Yes, I would. What you do is your decision.

According to the op, the plane has been through at least 7 prior annuals including Don Maxwell with previous owners. 

I don't believe that not one ever questioned its structural issues!

[Hank]

I think we are talking past one another here. It's really not that difficult.

As Chris said above "..where an unsafe condition existed unbeknownst to the pilot after annuals and the FAA went after the repair station in one case and after the IA in the second one.." The owner/pilot has the responsibility for all decisions on airworthiness. When the owner hires and allows the A&P to put wrenches on the airplane then the A&P is responsible for what he does. Agreed.

The problems arise when the A&P (IA) finds things and makes recommendations that the owner, for whatever reason, chooses not to follow.

Thus getting an annual signed off with discrepancies. At this point the A&P has no responsibility or enforcement powers. It shifts to the FAA.

It's not about checking the mechanic's work as some have suggested. It's the decisions the owner makes with the info the IA has provided.

 

This is very correct. But my understanding is that that is not the case here. The new A&P found an existing condition that prior IA's had signed off as "airworthy," and had apparently not found the condition. The OP is asking for resolution to his problem, not to the imaginary situation to which you have been blindly responding the last few weeks . . . unless I am confused between threads.

[alex]

...and my decision depends on the expertise of those who either ground my airplane or release it back to service as airworthy. Where is the confusion? I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to fly an airplane that has been clearly grounded.

 

 

Forgive me, I find it hard to believe that you were hovering above every instance when this airplane was being signed off and just because you believe something it doesn't make it a fact.

[DaV8or]

Owners relinquishing their responsibility like this are in violation of the FAR's!

We're not talking about being mechanically inclined or not.

 

You are blowing this pilot responsibility thing way out of proportion! On your plane, did you personally check the torque specs on the connecting rod bolts? How about the pre load tension on your landing gear, did you personally check that? Are you absolutely certain, without any doubt, that all the wiring in your panel is 100% correct and secure? So, if you end up throwing a rod, having a gear collapse, or an electrical fire, will the FAA will come gunning for you personally?

 

The intent of the reg is to put the responsibility of the aircraft's maintenance on the owner/pilot to the best of their ability. They fully expect and demand that you employ qualified professionals to look after all the technical details and to provide guidance on airworthy matters as it pertains to the FAA regulations. The FAA wants you to manage and oversee your airplane's maintenance, not actually do it all, or micro manage every little procedure and adjustment.

 

If you tell the FAA that you hired a qualified, FAA licensed mechanic to accomplish a task and defer to their judgement on technical matters, that's good enough for them. You have lived up to the intent of the law. You made sure that the needed work was done and that you sought out the right person to do it.

 

Peter, I suspect that you are like the vast majority of airplane owners and you drop your plane off for annual, toss them the keys and pick it up when it's done. You are no different than Jeff here. You are trusting that your plane is in good hands and that what they tell you is 100% correct. You, or any one of us, could easily end up in Jeff's position. All it takes is the wrong professional.

[DaV8or]

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.

 

The twisted wing was new on the '66 F and continued on the '67. By '68, they abandoned it and went back to the original. I only applies to the 66-67 F. No other models have the twisted wing. Unless yours is a very late production '67, you most likely have as I do. I have never heard of Mooney offering a conversion. It's a big job as it requires replacing pretty much the entire outer 1/3 of the wing. There is nothing dangerous or unsafe about the twisted wing, so there is no reason to replace it. Some say there is a speed penalty, but that's really about it.

[DaV8or]

Jeff, I went back and looked at your pictures. You have the twisted wing. No biggie. It means that used wing panels from any other Mooney other than a '67 F won't fit, but I'm not sure if you can swap panels on these planes anyhow as I'm not so certain the rivet holes will perfectly line up. They were all pretty much hand built with all the variations discrepancies that naturally come with that. I think it may require new metal. An MSC, or a call to Mooney could tell you.

[PTK]

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....

No one is accusing you of anything.

During your preflights though did you ever happen to notice the cracks in the elevator and wingtip skins, the missing screws and fairings? How about the painted over data plate? You had to have noticed these things right? If the FAA inspector noticed them by doing a cursory walk around you had to have noticed them during preflight!

If so did did you ever ask yourself "...gee...is this plane safe to fly?" Did you question the A&P? Any A&P?

Did you offer your trusting pax the choice?

[PTK]

You are blowing this pilot responsibility thing way out of proportion! 

 

The intent of the reg is to put the responsibility of the aircraft's maintenance on the owner/pilot to the best of their ability. They fully expect and demand that you employ qualified professionals to look after all the technical details and to provide guidance on airworthy matters as it pertains to the FAA regulations. The FAA wants you to manage and oversee your airplane's maintenance, not actually do it all, or micro manage every little procedure and adjustment.

 

If you tell the FAA that you hired a qualified, FAA licensed mechanic to accomplish a task and defer to their judgement on technical matters, that's good enough for them. You have lived up to the intent of the law. You made sure that the needed work was done and that you sought out the right person to do it.

 

 All it takes is the wrong professional.

Is that what happened here? There were a series of "wrong professionals" who missed these things but the FAA inspector found them miraculously?

 

We're not talking about torque values on connecting rod bolts! We're talking about cracked and crumbled elevator skins! 

[Marauder]

Is that what happened here? There were a series of "wrong professionals" who missed these things but the FAA inspector found them miraculously?

 

We're not talking about torque values on connecting rod bolts! We're talking about cracked and crumbled elevator skins! 

 

That is exactly what is going on here... A series of mechanics who signed off as airworthy what you saw in the pictures. The FAA is questioning the airworthiness. If all of what is pictured occurred after the last inspection, you may argue that the PIC was at fault for not ensuring that the items were looked at by a trained professional (with or without additional input from others, ex. the manufacturer) prior to flight. That doesn't sound like this is the case. The plane was inspected and deemed airworthy based on what the OP posted.

[jkhirsch]

TO BE CLEAR ONCE AND FOR ALL, NO MECHANIC HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS TO ME, if they had this never would have happened.

(And if you think I'm so petty to lie about this on a forum with a bunch of people who I don't know--to make myself look good or whatever you think, you really need to get a life.)

 

'Jeff I'm not sure about that elevator damage, and those dents on the wings, or that hole or the left wingtip. We'll have to do some research and see if they any of this is an issue. We may need to contact Mooney or a MSC and worst case have to reskin or replace some parts of this to get your plane in order. Also it looks like your data plate has been painted over, it's seems pretty ridiculous that a paint shop did this but they did, do you want me to take some paint thinner to it and see if it cleans right off? If the FAA ever sees that they'll tel you to fix it.'

 

__________ (insert any response here)

 

'Jeff, to be honest I don't think the plane is not going to fall out of the sky, but if I don't investigate this stuff and tell you what I find out the FAA will come after me.'

 

I also want to be clear that I am not making updates to the thread to start or perpetuate arguments, only to update those interested in "following the story" and those who are just curious, or bored at work.

(I know personally I hate reading through a thread and suddenly it ends, and I don't get to hear the rest of the story.) Plus if any of this information helps anyone in the future I'm glad for it.

[N601RX]

Jeff,

I know this has to be very frustrating to deal with. Talk to a few different mechanics. Look for an older guy who has been around for a while and has a good working relationship with the FSDO. Tell him the plane doesn't have to look perfect, but you want it safe and airworthy. This doesn't have to cost a ton to fix. Look for a used elevator and talk to a good sheet metal guy about removing the dents. Possibly a small patch over the end of the wing skin. Splicing a skin is considered a major repair, but usually a skin patch under 6 inches is just a minor repair.

[PTK]

TO BE CLEAR ONCE AND FOR ALL, NO MECHANIC HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS TO ME, if they had this never would have happened.

Let's assume this is indeed the case. A whole series of mechanics spanning several years including Maxwell found this aircraft airworthy.

What did you think? Did you as the owner/pilot preflighting this aircraft agree with them? Did you ever notice the cracked elevator and wingtip skins, the missing screws and fairings, etc.? Did it ever cross your mind that this may just be the tip of the iceberg of possible hidden damage that could lead to catastrophic failure?

I'm interested to know what your thinking process was when preflighting this aircraft.

Did your intuition ever tell you something may not be right? Regardless of what all these mechanics did or didn't do.

I ask because in Safety Foundation Seminars we learn how an aircraft can be in dangerous disrepair but we have developed a certain "blindness" to its condition because we have gotten away with it unil it catches us by surprise.

If intuition tells you something is wrong, you need to prove the intuition wrong before taking it to the air. Intuition is usually and mostly right.

The FAA may very well have done you a great favor here my friend! By breaking this "blindness" cycle for you before it was too late. Be greatful.

[Marauder]

Peter - I'm having a hard time following you on this. Trust me, I'm trying. I get "I wouldn't fly it if it were mine" thing you are projecting. I ended up buying my Mooney 23 years ago after flying a number of rentals that looked horrible but all passed their 100 hour inspections simply because of the "looks matters" thing. I wanted the assurances of knowing that I controlled what I put my family in. My plane isn't the prettiest either. But I absolutely know that it is mechanically fine.

Based on what Jeff is saying, he is okay with "she ain't the prettiest, but she mine and safe" world. Considering he is flying his family in it, that is good enough for me.