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

[carusoam]

What we know...

1) control surfaces can fail catastrophically from harmonic oscillation, AKA flutter.

2) cracks in aluminum can propagate.

3) the parts of a plane must meet their original design criteria. This avoids flutter and other catastrophic failure.

4) there are some tolerances that are allowed for in the aging process. Documented by the factory. Weep, seep, and drips are documented in the MM with drawings. Some are acceptable others are not.

5) there are some tolerances with the fixing process. Documented by the factory. Crack length, stop drilling, etc.

6) if the parts of a plane no longer meet the original design criteria. It MAY no longer meet the requirements for airworthiness.

7) if the FAA inspects your plane and points out it's short comings. It is in your best interest to get on to some remedial action. The kind that are generally accepted practices of mechanics and FAA inspectors.

8) the US government has more time and resources than all the Mooney pilots I know. This makes it challenging to successfully debate their claims.

9) the history of the damage is not that important. All of the inspections and who did them doesn't buy you anything. The sheet metal is damaged and somebody important knows it.

Typical solutions to federal government challenges...

1) The government notices a business doing something improper.

2) They let the business know they are doing something improper and expect that it gets fixed, properly and quickly.

3) When the undesired visitors come back, and things aren't fixed to the level they expect... They start a process called consent decree. "Consent decree" is an agreement that the company signs to stay in business while fixing the challenges. Now the government begins to help you run your business. Yes that's the "help" that you're trying to avoid.

4) pointing at all the other planes on the ramp with unfixed damage won't help you. Theirs is as challenged as yours is, facing similar damage that the FAA wants cleaned up.

5) pointing at all the log book entries for fixed damage on your plane would help your cause. Do you you have these?

6) you can't really expect to slide buy at this point. The big guys have showed up, they know your number. You need to perform some maintenance that addresses their request.

7) Document the solutions performed in the log books.

8) As Marauder points out, it is not a requirement to rebuild the plane to concourse perfection. I've flown in uncomfortably ugly school plains this year. Ugly, but documented to meet airworthiness standards.

9) if you line up all the Mooneys at a fly in, does yours stand out? Do they all have similar damage? Has their damage been addressed? Does the damage look like it may not have even been massaged?

******

Individuals that have IMPROPERLY opposed government have memorable names like Ruby Ridge or David Koresh @ Waco, Texas.

A company that became famous this way was the Johns Manville company. Asbestos issues. Company was decimated. It's headquarters is now under a Walmart parking lot in Manville, NJ.

Those ended disastrously...

Successful responses to government inquiries happen all the time. (OSHA, FDA, EPA, FAA are good sources of inquiries) Pfizer bought Wyeth that came with EPA challenges. Allied signal bought Bendix that came with asbestos brake challenges. Merck bought Schering-Plough after they emerged from consent decree with the FDA.

******************

Successful stories for these situations end with spending money with known experts, to make proper repairs and get on with the business at hand. The government leaves after the solutions are in place or they get a bigger fish to fry...

In other words, make your fish smaller, properly, quickly and hope they are impressed. Employ a good aviation attorney. Going it alone or using internet advice is not recommended...

******************

The ball is in your court. How are you going to play it?

Don't feel compelled to tell me publicly. The challenge you are going through may be better serviced by not sharing at some point.

**********

This is a non-professional opinion. But, let's face it, the damage sticks out like a sore thumb at a hand therapist's convention to those with no mechanical expertise.

Good luck, get on it, and best regards,

-a-

[jkhirsch]

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

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

 

 

Pete or Peter,

 

My thought process has been pretty straightforward: (And I'm happy for you to question any part of it, and we can have a discourse about) (Trust me, these are very, very abridged versions of my actual lines of thinking)

 

I bought the airplane from an ATP that lived on the West Coast, he told me about the damage upfront, and that it had been inspected. (Ok I'm skeptical.)

 

The plane was in a partnership with 3 total contributors. (Ok it's cheaper for everyone so they've probably maintained the plane doing everything the right way, to the best of their knowledge) (After all, they ponied up for an STEC-30, why would they shirk a safety issue)

 

I know for a fact that the ATP flew his family (with small children) all over the West Coast in the plane. (Could he be lying about the timeline of the damage sure, assuaging point to follow)

 

He was willing to deliver the plane on a 10-12hr flight, over mountains (and all those extra wind conditions). (I think had the damaged just occurred and they were trying to dump the plane quickly, I don't think an ATP likely would take that risk.) (I was told the reason for selling was that all 3 partners had partnered in [new] different planes)

 

You guys can argue all you want about whether a pre-purchase inspection has value or not, but the FAA inspector told me that to them it's just as valid as an annual, regardless of log entry, they actually requested the work order from my pre-purhase inspection.

 

We agreed to have the pre-purchase inspection done by a mechanic of my choosing, and they were willing to fly the airplane there and make all the logistical arrangements of dealing with that. (Due to distance it was not feasible to have it done anywhere near me.)

 

The pre-purchase inspection report did not even mention the damage. (Wouldn't he have the incentive to cover his ass? i.e. 'hey Jeff it may need some work') (anecdote: the PPI mechanic got concerned because the interior was redone and he couldn't find the paperwork that it was fireproof, and contacted me and told me that he would have to do a burn test) (contacted one of the partners and they were able to provide it) (So I'm thinking the guy is pretty thorough)

 

Once the plane was delivered I had to do an insurance check out with an instructor. During 2 separate pre-flights he never once mentioned, 'Jeff what do you know about this damage.' He was pilot in command, he was responsible for his decision to fly the plane. Do you think he's an idiot too?

 

I had the first cylinder replaced in May/June of last year and the plane was sitting in a large shop's hangar for no less than 30 days with 5-8 different mechanics walking past it everyday and at least 3 different mechanics contributing to the cylinder replacement. (I understand they were not tasked with doing an annual on the plane or an inspection) But everyone's argument seems to be that this damage is SO EGREGIOUS that anyone with eyes should have questioned it. (The FAA spoke with this shop about it.)

 

Later in the summer I had another cylinder replaced by a completely different mechanic because I wanted to be involved in the process to see for myself. Never one was there a mention of the damage and we manually pulled the plane in and out of a small hangar twice, he definitely saw the damage. (He also does sheet-metal work on Blackhawks for the army.) (Again, he wasn't tasked with doing an annual or an inspection, but that didn't stop the FAA from also meeting with him about it.)

 

Immediately after the second cylinder it was time for the annual. I found a mechanic who was recommended by an MS member, and spoke to him. Even though they are not an MSC both the mechanics, and the MS member said they had been doing ton of Mooney work, and one of them is also and ATP in addition to his IA. Never once during the 2-3 weeks they had the plane for the annual did they say, 'hey Jeff what about this damage?' Again, you really need to take some introspective time, if you think that I walked into that shop or any and said, 'hey just get me back in the air ASAP don't sweat details.'

 

From what I understand, you are saying that as a pilot I should not have believed anyone of these professionals who never made mention of it, not to mention the conglomerate effect of none of them mentioning it.

Do you expect me to believe that you would have contacted Mooney directly and have them tell you if the plane is safe? Do you even acknowledge that Mooney is not a disinterested party?

 

Don't you think it would be in the best interest of a mechanic to cover his ass first of all? Second of all to maybe line his pockets with the work coming his way?

 

I don't have any problem with you questioning the situation, what I've said here can't possibly provide a full picture of the situation. It would be impossible for to disclose every single event that has taken place and how it has affected my thought process at a given time in the past.

 

What I do have a problem with is your holier-than-thou attitude, I don't come to the boards and assume people are lying. You have made it very clear that you think I'm lying for whatever reason you've concocted in your head.

 

I have no problem publicly disclosing information because I have nothing to hide, and I have done nothing wrong.

 

The bottom line is that the circumstances surrounding the damage have lead me to a reasonable conclusion, which the FAA inspector agrees with: A mechanic should have caught it. The mechanic was responsible, not me.

Therefore the FAA is pursuing no action against me at this point in time. Are you so warped in your thinking that you think I would lie about any sanctions brought against me?

 

It is clear that all the mechanics thought it was safe and airworthy at the time because they signed their named to it. (including the holy Don Maxwell)

 

Do you honestly think Mooney has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to cover their ass?

I don't, Mooney has every incentive to say that the plane is not airworthy, I don't care how many engineers they had look at the pictures.

 

Do you honestly believe the FAA has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to keep their jobs?

I don't, the FAA doesn't have any incentive to say my airplane is airworthy. If they go out and find only airworthy planes they risk losing their job. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, they go out looking for problems and they find them.

[carusoam]

JK,

One or two of the things to keep in mind...

Government quality documentation is usually done in ink, has the date when the work was completed, and has the signature of the person that is responsible. Typical of our log books.

Any empty pages get lined out and initialed to indicate they are left empty on purpose.

Quality assurance personnel use the statement "if it isn't written down, it didn't happen." They mean to make sure to get the work or observations documented so you have reliable proof.

Assumptions notably don't carry much weight.

The damaged sheet metal probably doesn't have a date documented of when it happened. It would be hard to say an MSC saw this damage and said it was OK... In other words... The plane could have been seen by an MSC years ago, but the damage could have happened yesterday.

The intention of this post is to give a feeling of the value of proper documentation and how documentation outweighs the spoken word.

PPIs are worth their weight in gold, but only if they are done by the right people. Sometimes they aren't worth the paper they are written on...

Best regards,

-a-

[PTK]

A mechanic should have caught it. The mechanic was responsible, not me.

I get that you want to shift blame and responsibility to mechanics. I don't personally agree with it and I'm incredulous, but I got it!

You haven't answered the question however. And again I only ask for the sake of education to promote safety. I'm sorry but this is important.

I'm asking what you thought, not the mechanics, but you. You preflighted this aircraft multiple times presumably.

During your walk around with checklist at hand going over item by item checking the control surfaces did any of this damage stand out?

Did anything give you an uncomfortable feeling that something may not be right?

Or were you used to seeing this damage and disregarded it taking comfort in the assumption "nothing happened last flight so it's ok. " was this your line of logic?

[alex]

We are not all endowed with the same level of intelligence and expertise that you exhibit in the world of aviation. I think you will just have to accept that everyone else falls short from the bar that you have set. I think this is the lesson we should all take from this thread, strive to be like PTK. I'm on it!

[Hank]

Uh, no thanks, Alex. I try to keep more head and heart than rear end . . . .

[jkhirsch]

Yeah, I pretty clearly answered your question on the line of thinking. And no I'm not shifting the blame, that's what the FAA inspector told me.

[aviatoreb]

I get that you want to shift blame and responsibility to mechanics. I don't personally agree with it and I'm incredulous, but I got it!

You haven't answered the question however. And again I only ask for the sake of education to promote safety. I'm sorry but this is important.

I'm asking what you thought, not the mechanics, but you. You preflighted this aircraft multiple times presumably.

During your walk around with checklist at hand going over item by item checking the control surfaces did any of this damage stand out?

Did anything give you an uncomfortable feeling that something may not be right?

Or were you used to seeing this damage and disregarded it taking comfort in the assumption "nothing happened last flight so it's ok. " was this your line of logic?

 

PTK, I believe you have missed an important point.

 

There is a concept here that more than one person can be at blame.  There are situations where the mechanic can be blamed and held liable for an error AND the PIC can also be held to blame and liable for the very same error.  I am not saying that is what happened here, but your discussion seems to rest in an idea that nothing is the mechanics fault and everything is the pilot's fault.

 

Furthermore, there is a level of interpretation and reliance on experts.  There is an aspect of team work in the process that I believe is deliberately built into the process.  Mechanics fix, check, and sign off.  Pilots rely on their experts but are expected to cross check.  The buck stops with the PIC when it comes to safety of flight, including airworthiness.

 

When I was a student pilot, one of the old C172's we flew was pretty dingy and hat many small dings in the wings.  When the CFI was comfortable, and in turn because the AP signed it off, I learned to be comfortable with the same.  This is a level of interpretation of the rules where the equipment is interpreted as being good enough - instead of brand spankin' new - the standard is not "it must be brand spankin' new".  There is a standard of good enough.  Whether in the situation of this Mooney in question, or that C172 I flew, we learn from interpretation of experts what is good enough.  Truly PTK I would trust my own AP for his opinion in making my decisions  (I mean my specific AP whom I have worked with for many years and whom I work with specifically because I have a high level of demanding maintenance expectation - and not all AP's around here are agreeable to me), but not everything in my airplane is brand spankin' new.  Furthermore, if my AP works inside my panel, inside my tail cone, inside my wing, inside my pistons, there must be a certain level of trust in my expert that what is going on inside that repair, out of my sight, is of acceptable standard.  That is what the sign off is for.  I visit my aircraft while it is in process of being repaired since I do believe in trust but verify.  Truly though your purported standard that you are stating that you verified everything personally because you have no trust in your AP is unrealistic from the stand point that I do not believe that you are disassembling your pistons on every flight to verify that the signature by your AP was a good one that he said he honed your valves.

[PTK]

PTK, I believe you have missed an important point.

There is a concept here that more than one person can be at blame. There are situations where the mechanic can be blamed and held liable for an error AND the PIC can also be held to blame and liable for the very same error. I am not saying that is what happened here, but your discussion seems to rest in an idea that nothing is the mechanics fault and everything is the pilot's fault.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make Erik.

It certainly seems here there's an imbalance of blame assignment. And that's the reason I'm so incredulous. There were several mechanics and one very prestigious MSC over several years, and then there's this one owner/pilot. The allegation from this one pilot is that all those mechanics never questioned this damage. Now that the FAA became involved he curses at them and blames them all!

My question was does he bear any responsibility? Presumably he saw and preflighted the airplane a lot more than all those mechanics combined.

I don't mean it in a bad way nor am I blaming him. I think this illustrates how easily we can fall into this trap of "blindness" towards the condition of our planes. There is a danger in treating them in a nonchalant kind of manner as if it were an automobile. It's not.

[PTK]

NOPE.

You flat out called him a liar. You owe Jeff an apology Peter, in my, and others opinion. I have a thick skull, but I got your "point" a long, long time ago. I still don't think you get mine, though...

NOPE. I don't think you got my point Scott.

[fantom]

NOPE.

You flat out called him a liar....

He does that often Scott. I think we all just fuel his problem by attempting logical or civil discussion.

[alex]

Yep!

[aviatoreb]

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make Erik....

 

Me too PTK - I think a lot of people her got angry since it seemed as if you were taking the opportunity of someone else's misfortune to blame them and say how such a thing would never happen to you because you were smarter.

 

Honestly I though I was pointing out something opposite of what you were saying.  So as it turns out you say that what you were saying is in agreement with what I was saying, so great.  Can I suggest that if you had offered a bit more understanding and less tone of blame to your fellow aviator who's misfortune started this thread then I think we would have been much quicker to hear what you were saying.

[PTK]

Me too PTK - I think a lot of people her got angry since it seemed as if you were taking the opportunity of someone else's misfortune to blame them and say how such a thing would never happen to you because you were smarter.

Not sure where you're getting that from.

For the record, let me state as emphatically and unequivocally as I can, this WAS NOT, IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE my intent!

[triple8s]

Maybe its just my attitude but.......I feel.pretty sure that whether it be a regulated vehicle (DOT),or an aircraft at anytime except maybe when said vehicle leaves the manufacturer....... any such vehicle could be inspected by an officer and a violation could be found. I am very confident in this. I would dare say that even the the aircraft of the good DDS would have some descrepency if an agent were to look hard enough. I have been in the business of dealing with regulated vehicles for many years and I've seen them in action. If they want? They find Its all about looking good enough to prevent piquing an interest, something very obvious will initiate a closer look, that's the way it works and honestly it works pretty good, until the inspector has other motives involved, like ego, or others. We are left with doing our best to keep our equipment and vehicles as close to compliant as possible, but as I said if they want to.find something, they can and will.

[jkhirsch]

Ok St. Peter, I offered a full explanation of why I never thought the damage was an issue and you either were too lazy to read it, or chose to disregard it so that you could continue trolling. I even said, 'I would be glad for you to question any details in my line of thinking' and you failed to provide a valid response to the post.

 

Also, since you chose to dodge the questions in the previous post that were directed towards you, I'll restate them here:

(feel free to answer them all in general or specifically related to this situation)

(but please do contribute something, so far you've failed to provide your opinion, criticized the opinions of others, and called me a liar)

 

1) Do you think CFI who did my insurance check out is an idiot for flying in my plane with me after his pre-flight?

2) Would you ever contacted Mooney directly and have them tell you if your plane is safe, or your mechanic?

3) Do you even acknowledge that Mooney is not a disinterested party?

4) In general, don't you think it would be in the best interest of a mechanic to cover his ass above everything else?

5) Secondarily, don't you think by covering his ass it may also lead to the fattening of his wallet if got to do the work? Wouldn't that be a motivator?

6) Do you think I'm lying by clearly stating that the FAA is taking no action against me and that the inspector told me it was the mechanics responsibility?(which is why they are taking no action against me)

7) In general, do you honestly think Mooney has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to cover their ass?

8) In general, do you honestly believe the FAA has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to keep their jobs?

[Tom]

Dear Lord,

 

Should I not have the requisite mechanical sense to have repaired or replaced airframe components that the more conservative safety-minded in the aviation world agree are due for repair or replacement, please let me have an attitude that is humble, a demeanor that is approachable, and the good sense to say "thank you for bringing that to my attention" to those who point out the results of my weakness so that my family can be the safer for it.  And for those who are less conservative in their maintenance, Dear Lord, please watch over them and their families as they dynamically test what my working tolerance may be.

 

Amen.

[alex]

Dear Lord,

Should I not have the requisite mechanical sense to have repaired or replaced airframe components that the more conservative safety-minded in the aviation world agree are due for repair or replacement, please let me have an attitude that is humble, a demeanor that is approachable, and the good sense to say "thank you for bringing that to my attention" to those who point out the results of my weakness so that my family can be the safer for it. And for those who are less conservative in their maintenance, Dear Lord, please watch over them and their families as they dynamically test what my working tolerance may be.

Amen.

This prayer was answered more than once by the various certified angels of the Holy FAA! They apparently all agreed and gave their blessings inscribing their names in the book of life. ...is this you PTK, with a different name now? ; }

[DaV8or]

Dear FAA,

 

Should I not have the requisite mechanical sense to have repaired or replaced airframe components that the self appointed web forum experts in the aviation world agree are due for repair or replacement, please let me have an attitude that is humble, a demeanor that is approachable, and the good sense to say "thank you for bringing that to my attention" to Pete who points out the results of my weakness so that my family can be the safer for it.  And for everybody else, Dear FAA, please watch over them and their families as they dynamically test what my working tolerance may be.

 

Amen.

 

There, fixed it for ya!

[cujet]

I'd love to get an update. 

 

I found this thread quite interesting. I feel for the owner and his battles with the various entities involved. At a casual glance, it seems some of those items are repairable, and some require parts replacement. It would be interesting to see how it all works out. 

 

Damage of any sort can be quite expensive to repair. 

[Ovation3]

Granted the government has been intrusive as late, my experience with the Faa inspectors has been very cordial. My suggestion is to consult with AOPA as suggested earlier and do your homework. Cool thoughtful heads alwàys prevail.

[jkhirsch]

The plane is currently sitting at Muncie Aviation, I spoke to Don yesterday and should have the quote from them today or tomorrow.

[MB65E]

I'm sorry, what a mess

-Matt

[zx6rrider]

That made for a bit of a painful read but good luck with your aircraft and I hope you get it flying again. 

 

I spent a couple years working part time for a small GA shop and have seen alot of little things let go by the IA that are perfectly safe but probably would not have any legal documention to go by (manual, FARs,ect). The problem is, the aircraft are 40 years old and if every little nick and scratch was to be addressed everytime the mechanic looked at the aircraft, the average Joe would never be able to afford to fly.  In the real world, there is times when making something LEGAL is really cost prohibitive. Did the previous mechanics notice the damage? More then likely, they probably looked at it, decided that it would be safe and let it go at that. If they wrote up every little issue, the aircraft owner is going to throw a fit, call them a crook, take their plane elsewhere and let everybody know to stay away from that prick. If he advises the owner that there are issues and leaves it up to them to fix without signing it off as unairworthy.... now he is negligant and knowinly let an unairworthy aircraft go. Whats the mechanic to do? No matter what it seems like either the FAA will be after him or the laywers at some point in his career. Im my case, I said the heck with GA, I loved it and would rather be working on airplanes but the liability and headaches far outweigh the enjoyment

[N33GG]

That made for a bit of a painful read but good luck with your aircraft and I hope you get it flying again. 

 

I spent a couple years working part time for a small GA shop and have seen alot of little things let go by the IA that are perfectly safe but probably would not have any legal documention to go by (manual, FARs,ect). The problem is, the aircraft are 40 years old and if every little nick and scratch was to be addressed everytime the mechanic looked at the aircraft, the average Joe would never be able to afford to fly.  In the real world, there is times when making something LEGAL is really cost prohibitive. Did the previous mechanics notice the damage? More then likely, they probably looked at it, decided that it would be safe and let it go at that. If they wrote up every little issue, the aircraft owner is going to throw a fit, call them a crook, take their plane elsewhere and let everybody know to stay away from that prick. If he advises the owner that there are issues and leaves it up to them to fix without signing it off as unairworthy.... now he is negligant and knowinly let an unairworthy aircraft go. Whats the mechanic to do? No matter what it seems like either the FAA will be after him or the laywers at some point in his career. Im my case, I said the heck with GA, I loved it and would rather be working on airplanes but the liability and headaches far outweigh the enjoyment

Sad, but a lot of truth in what you stated so very well.

 

There is a bit of parallel logic that partially explains why I do not exercise my flight instructor privileges anymore.  Not worth the risk to me, and especially not worth the risk to my family.