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

[Jeff_S]

I believe fully that the OP (also named Jeff, it appears) felt he was doing everything correct and did not suspect his plane would be found to have such issues. After all, unless we are trained as A/Ps ourselves, we are at the mercy of what our trusted mechanics and Inspectors tell us.  That said, having seen the photographs, I have to seriously question the judgment of those people who kept passing this plane through inspections. Corroded wing tips with gaps in the sheet metal. A crinkled up elevator corner. A laughable dataplate with a stick-on label. Having seen plenty of photographs of warbirds coming home from the front with gaping holes and torn-off vertical stabs, we know that most planes are engineered to fly even when not in perfect condition. But you don't TAKE OFF with those kinds of problems!

 

If I were the litigious type (which I'm not) I'd start venting my anger on the aforementioned mechanics/inspectors who let these things slide. But most of them don't have much money so that would be a futile gesture I suppose.  This seems to be one of those times when you just have to chalk it up to a painful lesson learned.

[pinerunner]

The elevator looks ugly of course but I'd worry more about the wing. The thing is: a big part of a wing's strength is in the skin, not just the spar. So when you start getting dents and/or corrosion its hard to know if you're losing any strength and how much. Since your dents, etc were way out on the tip I'd worry a little less. I look for loosening rivets on my old bird as a sign that things are getting a bit weaker and starting to "work" a bit.

 

I'd probably dare to fly it since you've been and no problem. If I were shopping I'd pass on to the next candidate. While I'd not an A/P my dad was and I spent a good part of my teenage years bucking rivets in his rebuild projects (Cessna 180's). We (read that as he) stayed away from wing work because its a pain to get at the rivets. The expense will be in the labor.

[Mooneymite]

Like Jeff I purchased with this and would not knowingly fly an "unsafe/unairworthy" aircraft.

 

And I don't think any satient human would!

 

The crux of the problem is that "airworthiness" is not a matter of feeling, or knowing.  Anyone who has dealt with Minimum Equipment lists and Configuration Deviation lists, knows that airworthiness is what "the book" says it is!

 

In the certified world, unlike the experimental world, once we step away from the TC, we are un-airworthy.

 

I've seen multi-million dollar jets grounded for a single rivet.

[chrisk]

Still waiting for the explanation of the crinkle-wrinkle...

Seriously, why such a "big deal" to so many?...

Walk me through your logic on why the elevator needs replacement based on a wrinkle in the skin.

I would have replaced mine if it had an opening/cut due to moisture/corrosion inside, but not getting the wrinkle being a deal-breaker.

Like Jeff I purchased with this and would not knowingly fly an "unsafe/unairworthy" aircraft.

The picture was a little fuzzy, but it looked like the outside support/edge was cracked.   I assume the strength is compromised, and I could also see where someone might have some concern for the stress to transfer to the skin, maybe resulting in a portion of it separating from the plane in flight.

--But I'm not an A&P or and AI.  I would defer to one I trusted.

[chrisk]

...so, bottom line is it's un airworthy because the FAA says it is...based on Mooney saying "they would recommend replacement of skins before flight"...

 

This reasoning seems a little scary if true.  I too would like to know what leading edge damage qualifies as un-airworthy and who gets to decide.  I always assumed it was an AI.  --Now finding an AI who is willing to say it is ok after Mooney said it isn't might be difficult.

[Mooneymite]

No one has yet discussed why the wrinkle is a "no go", yet many feel it is.

Not sure why you targeted that one sentence and then went where you did.

 

Because the wrinkle is not in the TC.

[OR75]

proper course of action is for a qualified person (IA) to do his job and inspect. Based on the inspection result, get the work done ( if any is needed ) so that the IA can write in the airframe log that the aircraft is approved for return to service.

i don't think that should be done remotely via pictures and telephone.

[pinerunner]

proper course of action is for a qualified person (IA) to do his job and inspect. Based on the inspection result, get the work done ( if any is needed ) so that the IA can write in the airframe log that the aircraft is approved for return to service.

i don't think that should be done remotely via pictures and telephone.

I suspect the IA who has been approving this for the last few years will be involved in responding to this, whether he likes it or not. 

[KSMooniac]

Are there any mooneys with 32 gal. fuel tanks ?

Yes, the F and J have 32 gallon tanks per side.

[KSMooniac]

I suspect the IA who has been approving this for the last few years will be involved in responding to this, whether he likes it or not. 

 

Yep.  I'm surprised it was signed-off and expect some remedial training is coming.

[KSMooniac]

Because the wrinkle is not in the TC.

Correct.  The damaged elevator is not airworthy because there is no allowance for it in the Mooney maintenance manual or type certificate.  I don't believe Mooney has a separate allowable damage limit document either, which would govern this case (and the wing issues).  The wing skins and elevator skins are structural, and thus important.  If they don't conform to the type design, then you need additional coverage to use them without repair...such as from Mooney directly or a DER that analyzes them and provides substantiation to the FAA that they are acceptable for use without repair.  Replacing the elevator is definitely cheaper than a DER, and likely replacing the outboard wing skins will also likely be cheaper than a DER.

 

It is that simple, and yes it is painful.  

[Cruiser]

I don't think it is really that simple.

 

Let's look at what has occurred..

1. There was a pre-purchase inspection that either approved the dents as airworthy or at a minimum did not deny the airworthiness because of them.

2. There was a subsequent annual inspection that also either ignored or approved the dents as airworthy. Same A&P /IA ? I don't know, but because of location very possibly two different inspectors.

3. The FAA inspectors differ in their inspection/approvals,

 

So, we have at least one and possibly two working professionals that approved this aircraft as airworthy. I am not an A&P /IA so my opinion does not count but it doesn't sound so clear cut and simple.to me. As the pilot/owner we are responsible for the airworthiness of our aircraft. Most of use defer that decision making to the people that do the work and sign off our logbooks. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence about doing that when something like this happens. 

[Marauder]

Now that photographs have been provided, are any of the APs & IAs who visit here willing to comment on what they observe in the photos? Just curious...

Sent using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

I suspect the IA(s) that approved the damage as airworthy will get a visit as part of this process.  Of course they might claim the damage wasn't there when they performed their inspections... and if there isn't a specific reference in the log entry or other evidence they might be off the hook and our unfortunate owner is left holding the bag.  I don't know how it will play out, but I can almost guarantee that they had no supporting data to approve what is pictured.  

 

There is general allowables/coverage for losing 10% material thickness when cleaning corrosion, or limits on blending a nick in a prop, etc, but not for crunched control surfaces and holes on the leading edge of a wing.

[FlyDave]

I don't think it is really that simple.

 

Let's look at what has occurred..

1. There was a pre-purchase inspection that either approved the dents as airworthy or at a minimum did not deny the airworthiness because of them.

2. There was a subsequent annual inspection that also either ignored or approved the dents as airworthy. Same A&P /IA ? I don't know, but because of location very possibly two different inspectors.

3. The FAA inspectors differ in their inspection/approvals,

 

So, we have at least one and possibly two working professionals that approved this aircraft as airworthy. I am not an A&P /IA so my opinion does not count but it doesn't sound so clear cut and simple.to me. As the pilot/owner we are responsible for the airworthiness of our aircraft. Most of use defer that decision making to the people that do the work and sign off our logbooks. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence about doing that when something like this happens. 

 

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.

[WardHolbrook]

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.

 

Your mechanic is correct. It's really not a prepurchase "inspection", it's a prepurchase "evaluation of condition". Bottom line is that we are talking "Legal Airworthiness" as determined by the FAA. If the FSDO having jurisdiction determines that the airplane is unairworthy - for any reason - the owner is simply going to have to jump through the hoops to get it rectified. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact remains that,in all likelihood, the only way that airplane will fly again between now and such time is deemed airworthy, will be on a ferry permit. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Is it right or fair? Who is to say, but I've had enough dealings with the FAA over the past 50 years to know that's the way it is. Ain't bureaucracies great?  

[WardHolbrook]

I suspect the IA(s) that approved the damage as airworthy will get a visit as part of this process. 

 

I've seen A&Ps and AIs get certificate action taken against them for signing off as airworthy repairs and/or components that were later deemed to not be. I've seen pilots violated for flying "unairworthy" aircraft even though the appropriate sign offs were in the aircraft logs. The pilots fought it and won, but the mechanics weren't as fortunate. And while all of this nonsense was taking place, the airplanes involved were grounded until the paperwork was made good. I guess if you're uncomfortable with that scenario, then you probably ought to be flying a homebuilt airplane that you designed and built yourself. 

[N33GG]

I hope this isn't a trend such that before long every A&P and AI will refuse to sign off any aircraft with dents or hangar rash for fear of action from the FAA. May seem reasonable to owners with relatively new,aircraft, but the fleet out there is old, and it shows. Require every aircraft to be completely cleaned up would ground a lot of planes. And consider the older aircraft like Swifts, one of which I used to own, there just aren't skins and replacement feathers lying around.

We just need a reasonable government agency. Hmmm, we may be in trouble here.

[jetdriven]

I hope this isn't a trend such that before long every A&P and AI will refuse to sign off any aircraft with dents or hangar rash for fear of action from the FAA. May seem reasonable to owners with relatively new,aircraft, but the fleet out there is old, and it shows. Require every aircraft to be completely cleaned up would ground a lot of planes. And consider the older aircraft like Swifts, one of which I used to own, there just aren't skins and replacement feathers lying around.

We just need a reasonable government agency. Hmmm, we may be in trouble here.

What reasonable agency would allow wrinkled control surfaces or holes in a wing? There are plenty of airworthy Swifts around. One of which was done 2 years ago in our shop. The FAA allows owners to fabricate parts meeting the original type design and to even substitute parts that are obsolete or no longer available. There is also a process to modify aircraft on a 337.

[chrisk]

What reasonable agency would allow wrinkled control surfaces or holes in a wing? There are plenty of airworthy Swifts around. One of which was done 2 years ago in our shop. The FAA allows owners to fabricate parts meeting the original type design and to even substitute parts that are obsolete or no longer available. There is also a process to modify aircraft on a 337.

 

The problem seem to be applying a reasonable standard.  If for example, a gnat hits your wing at 150 kts, it may microscopically remove an atom of paint or aluminum.   In that case, I guess your plane no longer meets the type certificate and is un-airworthy.

 

As for holes in wings and wrinkles.   My wing has holes in it.  They are on the bottom along the leading edge and the factory put them there as drains.   Common sense would tell you that another hole of similar size would not be an airworth issue.  As for wrinkles and dents.  What is the tolerance out of the factory?  And again with some common sense, how would the dented or wrinkled area compare to inadvertent ice picked up in the same area?  Or the dented inspection plates on most Mooneys.  If it's a dent smaller than light ice or a wrinkle smaller than the indented inspection plates, then it shouldn't be an airworthy issue. 

[N33GG]

It would seem to me that there are wrinkles, and then there are wrinkles. In my reasonable view, not all wrinkles are equal, and not all wrinkles are a matter of safety of flight. And a reasonable agency would indeed allow a nonthreatening wrinkle to continue to fly. But alas, where does the line get drawn. But then again, that is the reasonable point I was trying to make.

Perhaps if you make money off of repairing wrinkles, all wrinkles are a serious threat!

Just having a little fun here....

[cliffy]

Disparity in the work done by different A&Ps and IAs is a decades long item. Some here have 50 + years as A&Ps and we all have seen different abilities in A&Ps over those years.  Just like Doctors, someone had to graduate at the bottom of the class.

 

As to the OP, he probably did and does want his airplane correct and thought it was by what he has been told. Unfortunately it is not. I feel for him.

 

I too have questions on how all the items got signed off every year. We see stuff like this all the time in our local shop.

 

As to an IA  determining that the "injuries" were "airworthy", that he can not do unless he has some form of "APPROVED DATA" to support his claim. Then it has to be written up in the log book and noted as to the approved data. Mooney has no "allowable damage" guidance as was mentioned therefore, it must be, for all practical purposes, perfect condition or "factory new". An IA can not make that determination period, As was also mentioned, a DER can but at a very high cost. It doesn't seem reasonable but that is the way it is legally.

 

As to the FAA guy looking at the airplane, by what is seen on the pictures I can understand why he decided to do what he did. There is enough damage to raise a lot of questions. It is not a matter of whether or not the airplane can fly it is a matter of does it meet Type Design criteria and the law? The feds can only go on what the law says and in effect, an IA in signing off an annual, IS taking his own hat off and putting on the FAA's hat at that time. He is an FAA representative at that time. With every Annual he signs off he is attesting that the airplane meets its Type Design in all aspects including down to any and all placards. Someone may be getting a visit in the near future. 

 

Little things (like the data plate) that many of us think are inconsequential really are a big deal to the FAA and can have very real and difficult ramifications. The A&P or IA has his butt hung out legally with every sign off he puts in a log book-for years to come! 

 

It really is just  black and white matter. Does it match the TC or doesn't it. Is there "approved data" to support the sign off or not? 

KSMooniac has hit the nail on the head. I really do wish the OP well in trying to fix his airplane. He got caught in a trap not of his own doing but he will have to pay the price for someone else's mistakes. 

[carusoam]

Nicely explained Cliffy...

-a-

[aviatoreb]

 

Little things (like the data plate) that many of us think are inconsequential really are a big deal to the FAA and can have very real and difficult ramifications. The A&P or IA has his butt hung out legally with every sign off he puts in a log book-for years to come! 

 

At the hotel on business travel this weekend, I was watching a documentary about a Japaneese jet airliner crash where the plan lost all controllability and eventually crashed into a mountain (after 30 minute of heroic fighting the problem by the crew) creating the worst loss of life in an airline crash in Japaneese history.  It was eventually found that a tail cone repair a decade earlier following a tail strike was done improperly that lead to a weakening of structures and a catastrophic failure that caused this crash. The Japaneese AP/IA who signed off the repair was so distraught in the mater that he committed suicide.  

 

Talk about hung out legally and emotionally for years to come.

 

(edit: here it is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123  )

[John Pleisse]

It really is just  black and white matter. Does it match the TC or doesn't it. Is there "approved data" to support the sign off or not? 

KSMooniac has hit the nail on the head. I really do wish the OP well in trying to fix his airplane. He got caught in a trap not of his own doing but he will have to pay the price for someone else's mistakes. 

 

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 talked with a FSDO Officer once about an enforcement action. I was shocked at his diabolical "county sheriff" mentality. If they are going to walk up to any airplane they see and start writing repair orders at will, get a government job or commit bribery to keep your bird.

 

You shops....just wait until they start showing up for dumb sh&^t like this.