What recourse do I have - extortionary mechanic

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, takair said:

Paul

Are you referring to the static drain or the actual port on the aft side of the plane?  I can’t quite picture the oring and plunger on the ports.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out!  I was entirely referring to static drain and not the ports. I realize now the OP said port, but my mind just translated that to drain since how could a port not leak - its intended to open. So I assumed it was really a drain since they do often cause leaks. 

[T. Peterson]

Wow! Most of you seem pretty cavalier toward the OP’s plight. Maybe I am missing something, but if that happened to me I would be livid. Paying for a full panel upgrade and having your instruments shatter twice, while blaming it on sabotage!! That’s just nuts.

 I am glad I didn’t read MS much until after I bought my Mooney, or I probably wouldn’t have bought an airplane as an old airplane is all I could afford. I did not realize that if my instruments shattered after coming out of maintenance I should just expect it cuz I bought an old airplane.

 I guess I am just blessed that I haven’t had this horror story on my 43 year old plane, but if the prop falls off tomorrow, oh well things get brittle with age and there are lots of screws…..

[glbtrottr]

- MSC pointed out my case was cracked during annual.
- engine was overhauled and returned for repair
- mechanic installed overhauled engine
- case was still cracked!
- engine was removed and new case installed

How many people messed up here?

- overhaul shop wanted to save money and asked if their brother AP could reinstall engine - sure
- mechanic only hand tightened spark plugs. After test flights which showed nothing, manifold pressure instrument began to fail and JPI showed cylinders having issues - landed and discovered problem . Mechanic who installed engine screamed in anger and pointed fingers.
———————-
- incurred flap damage
- took airplane in for replacement
- shop charged me for new flap though they were reinstalling my old flap
————————-
- shop guaranteed a repair would be completed in writing in 30 days
- shop took almost two years to complete
—————————
- shop was performing a major repair
- shop owner became Ill in his late 70’s
- employees raided shop and took all the tooling away
- part of the items taken included my aircraft log book
- owner of shop had no shop insurance and closed / sold business

All of these items were witnessed first hand by prominent members of this board and could not have been resolved without their help.

————————
There are some exceptional service centers and some mechanics are fantastic.

Mechanics screw up. Sometimes they screw up substantially. As pilots, we fly the heck out of our airplanes - while we bear responsibility, it is the job of a mechanic holding the ticket to be responsible and safely keep us up in the air. Many sadly fall short.

Hold them accountable, even if sometimes that means getting the FAA involved. Better the FAA help deal with it than the NTSB.

[Fly Boomer]

16 hours ago, kortopates said:

I don't get replacing the static drain - if it was a drain rather than port. I am sure all it needed was a new internal o-ring and re-sealing the screw in top. The metal drain has no wear points but the o-ring and the thread sealant can need replacement. There is also an internal spring and clevis pin I have never had to replace (causing the resistance when you push the clevis pin plunger in). Mooney has a SB on these too. 

Is this the gizmo on the lower part of the fuselage with a little spring-loaded button on it?  I haven't looked behind the skin to see what is there.

[A64Pilot]

11 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Wow! Most of you seem pretty cavalier toward the OP’s plight. Maybe I am missing something, but if that happened to me I would be livid. Paying for a full panel upgrade and having your instruments shatter twice, while blaming it on sabotage!! That’s just nuts.

 I am glad I didn’t read MS much until after I bought my Mooney, or I probably wouldn’t have bought an airplane as an old airplane is all I could afford. I did not realize that if my instruments shattered after coming out of maintenance I should just expect it cuz I bought an old airplane.

 I guess I am just blessed that I haven’t had this horror story on my 43 year old plane, but if the prop falls off tomorrow, oh well things get brittle with age and there are lots of screws…..

It wasn’t instruments, it was old plastic essentially refrigerator water fittings.

I believe one instrument did have a leaking diaphragm, now that can be induced in an old instrument as checking it takes it to a lower pressure than it probably ever flies at but most likely even then it got old and brittle and age had a lot to do with failure.

If a new fitting failed then I can’t explain that, apparently neither could the mechanic, but shop should “eat” that although they really aren’t responsible for vendor parts, but you eat it for reputation.

I fly a 76 yr old airplane and have a 100 yr old car, age does cause deterioration and the simpler the machine the better they age due to lack of complexity. Went to move the Model -T yesterday and the ignition switch had failed, I’m sure being 100 yrs old had something to do with it. I think I can disassemble it and clean it up as it’s a simple switch. Real easy to hot wire a Model -T

The 76 yr old airplane has I believe none of its original instruments nor its pitot static system, almost all of the wiring has been replaced, brakes etc. Most of the airframe is original though. With it I’ve learned that whatever you have issue with it’s best to just rebuild / overhaul / replace the whole system and be done with it or you’ll go nuts constantly fixing the next thing.

I bet you don’t drive a 40 yr old car? Why not? For some reason we are conditioned to accept that a ten yr old car is old, but a 40 yr old airplane isn’t?

[DCarlton]

I believe my airplane has a few brass fittings left in the pitot static system.  I prefer those fittings especially if you have to disconnect something for maintenance.  Does anyone know if brass is still available or is plastic the new best standard?  Is there a fitting manufacturer that's better than others?  

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

I believe my airplane has a few brass fittings left in the pitot static system.  I prefer those fittings especially if you have to disconnect something for maintenance.  Does anyone know if brass is still available or is plastic the new best standard?  Is there a manufacturer that's better than others?  

You can still get the brass stuff, it's just more expensive.   I used the brass fittings when I put my 2nd G5 in.   There were a lot of them there already.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

I believe my airplane has a few brass fittings left in the pitot static system.  I prefer those fittings especially if you have to disconnect something for maintenance.  Does anyone know if brass is still available or is plastic the new best standard?  Is there a fitting manufacturer that's better than others?  

We used plastic at the plant, almost certain supply was Grainger etc. I don’t think Aviation grade really exists. Brass is widely available, brass fittings will last essentially forever but the tube will eventually need replacing. Often you can glue in a piece of metal tube inside of the old and new tubing and gently pull the old out and in with the new, if someone didn’t get stupid with tie wraps.

[T. Peterson]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

It wasn’t instruments, it was old plastic essentially refrigerator water fittings.

I believe one instrument did have a leaking diaphragm, now that can be induced in an old instrument as checking it takes it to a lower pressure than it probably ever flies at but most likely even then it got old and brittle and age had a lot to do with failure.

If a new fitting failed then I can’t explain that, apparently neither could the mechanic, but shop should “eat” that although they really aren’t responsible for vendor parts, but you eat it for reputation.

I fly a 76 yr old airplane and have a 100 yr old car, age does cause deterioration and the simpler the machine the better they age due to lack of complexity. Went to move the Model -T yesterday and the ignition switch had failed, I’m sure being 100 yrs old had something to do with it. I think I can disassemble it and clean it up as it’s a simple switch. Real easy to hot wire a Model -T

The 76 yr old airplane has I believe none of its original instruments nor its pitot static system, almost all of the wiring has been replaced, brakes etc. Most of the airframe is original though. With it I’ve learned that whatever you have issue with it’s best to just rebuild / overhaul / replace the whole system and be done with it or you’ll go nuts constantly fixing the next thing.

I bet you don’t drive a 40 yr old car? Why not? For some reason we are conditioned to accept that a ten yr old car is old, but a 40 yr old airplane isn’t?

I hear you, but I think you are missing the point. ( BTW you are one day newer than am I. Happy belated birthday!)

I completely understand that old stuff fails, but he just had a panel upgrade. I take that to mean at least some of the instruments were new, or at least his pitot static system was impacted in some way. I am not a mechanic and I know nothing of old refrigerator fittings. I don’t care if they are refrigerator fittings or couplers from Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, but I do expect a professional mechanic to know about them and to inspect and replace them if they are part of the very system I am paying him to upgrade!

No, I don’t drive a 40 year old car, but if chose to, and paid 5 to 10 thousand bucks a year to have it annualed, replaced the engine every 150,000 miles or whatever the manufacturer recommended, changed the oil every 35 hours to the tune of 500 bucks a pop and whatever other sundry mechanical issues came up, I would certainly expect it to be reliable transportation.

 If it is unreasonable to expect that in an airplane, then I would suggest old airplanes are unsafe and should be banned.

[A64Pilot]

38 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

 

 If it is unreasonable to expect that in an airplane, then I would suggest old airplanes are unsafe and should be banned.

Curious, how do you know my Birthday?

Your expectation is invalid, because the problem was found during a required inspection, and your missing the point.

Point isn’t safety, although the FAA love’s to discuss the “Aging Aircraft Problem” . I know because as a manufacturer I’ve had meetings with them on that subject and I disagree with their assertion and I believe the data supports me, older aircraft aren’t necessarily less safe than newer ones, or they didn’t used to be anyway. IF and only if they are maintained.

The point is as anything ages, even aircraft things will require more maintenance and failure rate of things that aren’t life limited will fail more often than newer aircraft.

Not much on GA aircraft are life limited, very few follow engine TBO’s, I’ve never seen an engine overhauled in the US because it was ten years old for instance.

Almost everything is maintained on condition basis, that is it’s fixed or replaced when it either breaks or becomes inoperative.

But surely you have to know that it’s not just interior and paint that wears out as airplanes age, it’s all hoses anything rubber like brake master cylinders and wheel cylinders, wheel cylinders often corrode and need replacing as do the wheels themselves being Magnesium. Corrosion is much more prelevant on older aircraft, wiring becomes brittle and insulation breaks down, wiring terminals corrode, bearings wear out. The list is endless. None of that occurs in new aircraft.

I can’t afford new myself, or said another way I could but don’t think some piece of plastic with a Rotax engine is worth more than my Mooney. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that it’s not going to require a LOT more maintenance than a new one. I just got through rebuilding my master cylinders, the O-rings lasted 41 years, and the Stat-O-seal is apparently getting hard to find and therefore ridiculously expensive for what it is.

As an A&P / IA I don’t have to pay shop labor rates usually, if I did I’m not sure I’d have an older Mooney and parts availability has me concerned.

I can get every single little piece part for my 1923 Model-T with no problem, but a simple no back spring for my Mooney? To say nothing about $24,000 for a landing gear actuator etc.

The point is that a 60 yr old Mooney can be bought for much less than one of the last ones made, but it’s going to cost a LOT more in upkeep.

Honestly the guy that started the thread, his problems are macht nichts. He should talk to those that are told their aircraft is scrap due to corrosion etc.

I don’t mean that to be ugly, but if you own a 60 yr old complex aircraft there will be continual problems due to aging. It’s just part of ownership, and I suspect is THE major driving force behind the popularity of Experimental aircraft.

‘Only way I considered an older Mooney myself is that I’m an A&P / IA, if I wasn’t I’d be flying an RV-8 or a 7 if I couldn’t find an 8.

 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I hear you, but I think you are missing the point. ( BTW you are one day newer than am I. Happy belated birthday!)

I completely understand that old stuff fails, but he just had a panel upgrade. I take that to mean at least some of the instruments were new, or at least his pitot static system was impacted in some way. I am not a mechanic and I know nothing of old refrigerator fittings. I don’t care if they are refrigerator fittings or couplers from Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, but I do expect a professional mechanic to know about them and to inspect and replace them if they are part of the very system I am paying him to upgrade!

No, I don’t drive a 40 year old car, but if chose to, and paid 5 to 10 thousand bucks a year to have it annualed, replaced the engine every 150,000 miles or whatever the manufacturer recommended, changed the oil every 35 hours to the tune of 500 bucks a pop and whatever other sundry mechanical issues came up, I would certainly expect it to be reliable transportation.

 If it is unreasonable to expect that in an airplane, then I would suggest old airplanes are unsafe and should be banned.

From the original post:

+ 5 hours after the install, all of my pitot/static fittings into my instruments shattered and airspeed dropped to 40kts in cruise.  Mechanic said they had "likely been sabotaged" by a thief

+ Mechanic replaced them, sent me on my way, and the exact same thing happened again 2 hours later.  Mechanic found it was due to faulty plastic fittings
 

Reads to me like a bunch of faulty/defective fittings.  The first bunch may have been old, we don’t know.

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Curious, how do you know my Birthday?

Your expectation is invalid, because the problem was found during a required inspection, and your missing the point.

Point isn’t safety, although the FAA love’s to discuss the “Aging Aircraft Problem” . I know because as a manufacturer I’ve had meetings with them on that subject and I disagree with their assertion and I believe the data supports me, older aircraft aren’t necessarily less safe than newer ones, or they didn’t used to be anyway. IF and only if they are maintained.

The point is as anything ages, even aircraft things will require more maintenance and failure rate of things that aren’t life limited will fail more often than newer aircraft.

Not much on GA aircraft are life limited, very few follow engine TBO’s, I’ve never seen an engine overhauled in the US because it was ten years old for instance.

Almost everything is maintained on condition basis, that is it’s fixed or replaced when it either breaks or becomes inoperative.

But surely you have to know that it’s not just interior and paint that wears out as airplanes age, it’s all hoses anything rubber like brake master cylinders and wheel cylinders, wheel cylinders often corrode and need replacing as do the wheels themselves being Magnesium. Corrosion is much more prelevant on older aircraft, wiring becomes brittle and insulation breaks down, wiring terminals corrode, bearings wear out. The list is endless. None of that occurs in new aircraft.

I can’t afford new myself, or said another way I could but don’t think some piece of plastic with a Rotax engine is worth more than my Mooney. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that it’s not going to require a LOT more maintenance than a new one. I just got through rebuilding my master cylinders, the O-rings lasted 41 years, and the Stat-O-seal is apparently getting hard to find and therefore ridiculously expensive for what it is.

As an A&P / IA I don’t have to pay shop labor rates usually, if I did I’m not sure I’d have an older Mooney and parts availability has me concerned.

I can get every single little piece part for my 1923 Model-T with no problem, but a simple no back spring for my Mooney? To say nothing about $24,000 for a landing gear actuator etc.

The point is that a 60 yr old Mooney can be bought for much less than one of the last ones made, but it’s going to cost a LOT more in upkeep.

Honestly the guy that started the thread, his problems are macht nichts. He should talk to those that are told their aircraft is scrap due to corrosion etc.

I don’t mean that to be ugly, but if you own a 60 yr old complex aircraft there will be continual problems due to aging. It’s just part of ownership, and I suspect is THE major driving force behind the popularity of Experimental aircraft.

‘Only way I considered an older Mooney myself is that I’m an A&P / IA, if I wasn’t I’d be flying an RV-8 or a 7 if I couldn’t find an 8.

 

I got your birthday from your profile.

I have been reading your posts for about 9 months now. I highly respect and admire your expertise. I very much enjoy reading your work and the Tesla series was quite entertaining.

 I have noticed that sometimes when you get into a back and forth you are talking apples while it seems the other fella is talking oranges. That may be what is happening here and it may be because I simply don’t have the depth and knowledge or the technical prowess that you enjoy.

 I completely agree with the notion that old things break and need more maintenance. The OP’s issue may be small potatoes compared with scrapping your whole airplane, but if all of your instruments fail and the airspeed drops to 40 on the indicator while on an instrument approach in IMC, that’s not a good thing. 

It did not appear to me that the OP was skimping on maintenance, but it did seem that maintainers performance was abysmal. As you pointed out the airplane was there for an inspection and the instrumentation failed twice after being inspected! Why bother with inspections? Just roll the dice and fly to failure.

Since it seems I am the only one on the forum that thinks this is a big deal, I must be missing something but I have no clue as to what. I fly a 1979 model and am totally dependent on professional maintainers. I fly, I don’t wrench. It’s just not my skill set. I put my beautiful bride of 41 years in that airplane and while I hope that after 20,000 some hours of flight time I have a meaningful understanding of the risks, I darn sure don’t expect the airplane to fall out of the sky on a whim. I do expect airplane maintainers to be thorough, honest and professional.

After seeing 4 Mooney’s crash in one month and then reading the abortion that happened to this poor poster along with the seeming apathy of this very experienced and knowledgeable group, I am flummoxed.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I got your birthday from your profile.

I have been reading your posts for about 9 months now. I highly respect and admire your expertise. I very much enjoy reading your work and the Tesla series was quite entertaining.

 I have noticed that sometimes when you get into a back and forth you are talking apples while it seems the other fella is talking oranges. That may be what is happening here and it may be because I simply don’t have the depth and knowledge or the technical prowess that you enjoy.

 I completely agree with the notion that old things break and need more maintenance. The OP’s issue may be small potatoes compared with scrapping your whole airplane, but if all of your instruments fail and the airspeed drops to 40 on the indicator while on an instrument approach in IMC, that’s not a good thing. 

It did not appear to me that the OP was skimping on maintenance, but it did seem that maintainers performance was abysmal. As you pointed out the airplane was there for an inspection and the instrumentation failed twice after being inspected! Why bother with inspections? Just roll the dice and fly to failure.

Since it seems I am the only one on the forum that thinks this is a big deal, I must be missing something but I have no clue as to what. I fly a 1979 model and am totally dependent on professional maintainers. I fly, I don’t wrench. It’s just not my skill set. I put my beautiful bride of 41 years in that airplane and while I hope that after 20,000 some hours of flight time I have a meaningful understanding of the risks, I darn sure don’t expect the airplane to fall out of the sky on a whim. I do expect airplane maintainers to be thorough, honest and professional.

After seeing 4 Mooney’s crash in one month and then reading the abortion that happened to this poor poster along with the seeming apathy of this very experienced and knowledgeable group, I am flummoxed.

 

I don’t think anyone is down playing the situation, and while potentially serious, how would the maintainer know of or have any control over the parts failing?  

[A64Pilot]

I can’t explain why the fittings broke any more than I can understand the comment about a thief, was there some other damage indicative of someone trying to remove instruments? If not the the comment makes no sense.

What I’m saying is this kind of stuff is going to happen, first time you get a line of BS, don’t come back, if they are like that they won’t stay in business.

You really don’t have any realistic recourse. If you think something unsafe was done, call the FSDO, they WILL investigate it, they aren’t about getting your money back or anything but they will investigate unsafe maintenance.

But I can tell you as often as not anytime you open up an old airplane it’s not unusual at all for all kinds of issues to come to light. Old brittle Pitot static lines are fine until you moved them around to install something then crack.

We started a wing spar replacement program at the plant I worked at because there was an AD and they had to be replaced, because one or two had broken and people died, we were installing the new 29,000 hour spar cap, original is good for 5,400 hours. We found out that by the time we opened up the average 40 yr old wing and fixed all the cracks, replaced corroded parts etc. it just wasn’t cost effective.

We went back to selling the 5400 hour cap and it being installed in the field, most of the old airplanes 5,400 hours would likely see them retired anyway, but if you wanted it you could buy a new set of 29,000 wings for less than twice what it cost to put the 29,000 caps in an old wing.

I guess where I’m headed is you can buy a 60’s vintage Mooney for 60K or so on average I think, mid time engine oldish paint and interior and older avionics.

But it’s real easy to have to put serious money into one, it’s I’m afraid what airplane means.

Of course a few exist that are nearly perfect, but they aren’t common.

‘I guess what I’m saying is this may have been a relatively inexpensive lesson and possibly a realistic lesson on expectations.

But the sabotage or thief comment makes no sense at all unless there was evidence of tampering, if there wasn’t that was your clue to run away, the guys a nut best case, incompetent or crook worst case.

Like everything, there are a lot of incompetent mechanics out there.

On edit, there is a reason why it’s hard to get an avionics shop to do work on older Mooney’s

[A64Pilot]

Oh, and all of his instruments should not have become unreliable, if his A/S indicator read incorrect, it was Pitot system and only his A/S should be affected. Static leaks honestly don’t do much but could make Altimeter read off a little, many aircraft have an alternate static lever that opens the static up to inside of the airframe if the outside one gets clogged like from ice, a broken Static line would do the same

[EricJ]

29 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I don’t think anyone is down playing the situation, and while potentially serious, how would the maintainer know of or have any control over the parts failing?  

Over-torquing the plastic ones can break or crack the nuts.   If they're cracked they can come apart in flight due to vibration.    If they're old, even NOS, and were stored improperly they may have started out more brittle than usual and more subject to over-torquing fractures.

Two sets of the same failure mode from the same maintainer has to be a big yellow flag at minimum for an owner, assuming I'm understanding the story correctly.

[T. Peterson]

19 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I don’t think anyone is down playing the situation, and while potentially serious, how would the maintainer know of or have any control over the parts failing?  

Thanks for weighing in Clarence. I have the greatest respect for both you and @A64Pilot along with all the other very savvy fellows on this forum that I both admire and envy!

 I completely agree, but this happened twice! This is where I hate my own ignorance; did the same manifested instrument failures happen from failures of different parts? If so, that has to be incredibly rare?

What also gives me pause is the comment from the maintainer blaming sabotage!! To me that just screams, “There is something rotten in Denmark!”

Anyway, I am not going to beat this to death anymore. I know you guys are not clairvoyant, but I would bet my bottom dollar this would not have happened at your shop. And certainly not twice.

[T. Peterson]

31 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I can’t explain why the fittings broke any more than I can understand the comment about a thief, was there some other damage indicative of someone trying to remove instruments? If not the the comment makes no sense.

What I’m saying is this kind of stuff is going to happen, first time you get a line of BS, don’t come back, if they are like that they won’t stay in business.

You really don’t have any realistic recourse. If you think something unsafe was done, call the FSDO, they WILL investigate it, they aren’t about getting your money back or anything but they will investigate unsafe maintenance.

But I can tell you as often as not anytime you open up an old airplane it’s not unusual at all for all kinds of issues to come to light. Old brittle Pitot stac lines are fine until you moved them around to install something then the crack.

We started a wing spar replacement program at the plant I worked at because there was an AD and they had to be replaced, because one or two had broken and people died, we were installing the new 29,000 hour spar cap, original is good for 5,400 hours. We found out that by the time we opened up the average 40 yr old wing and fixed all the cracks, replaced corroded parts etc. it just wasn’t cost effective.

We went back to selling the 5400 hour cap and it being installed in the field, most of the old airplanes 5,400 hours would likely see them retired anyway, but if you wanted it you could buy a new set of 29,000 wings for less than twice what it cost to put the 29,000 caps in an old wing.

I guess where I’m headed is you can buy a 60’s vintage Mooney for 60K or so on average I think, mid time engine oldish paint and interior and older avionics.

But it’s real easy to have to put serious money into one, it’s I’m afraid what airplane means.

Of course a few exist that are nearly perfect, but they aren’t common

Well said, but I suspect there is something bad wrong at that shop. I don’t for a minute believe that would have happened if you, Clarence, Andy or the other fine mechanics on this forum had done the work.

 

[A64Pilot]

Don’t go back. I know it hurts but at least you didn’t find out they were incompetent after they had torn your wing apart to fix a fuel leak or all kinds of other possibilities.

Thats what I meant by this was a relatively inexpensive lesson, I’ve heard horror stories, people have had engines stolen and of course the shop owner long gone, lord knows where.

Years ago one pilot was killed because whoever installed his wind driven AC compressor drilled into the main spar to mount it

Guy in Dawson Ga got busted a few years back for selling aircraft that had liens on them, how he did that I don’t know.

I don’t even know how to vet a Dr, much less a mechanic. However sites like this have helped a lot. I’d say post who has the best shop close to where you live?

A LOT of good mechanics are aging out or already have. I used to go to IA seminars in my late 50’s and more often than not I was the young guy.

[A64Pilot]

I think this works best in small towns with one man ops, but find an IA that you get to know and make friends, see if he will allow you to work under his supervision, of course pay him well, but learn to do your own work.

I’m retired only Annuals I’ll do are owner assisted, make no mistake FAR’s require I must perform the Annual, I cannot delegate it, but owner can do a lot of the grunt work and me perform the inspection.

If you want to be the guy who’s participation is writing the check because you just don’t have the time, then I’m afraid this airplane thing may get expensive.

Airplanes are often like ink jet printers, cheapest expense was buying the thing.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Over-torquing the plastic ones can break or crack the nuts.   If they're cracked they can come apart in flight due to vibration.    If they're old, even NOS, and were stored improperly they may have started out more brittle than usual and more subject to over-torquing fractures.

Two sets of the same failure mode from the same maintainer has to be a big yellow flag at minimum for an owner, assuming I'm understanding the story correctly.

I believe that there’s more to this story than what’s being presented.  I don’t know what tools would be used to cause failure of several sets of fitting in 2 hours and 5 hours.  It’s not like an aluminum B nut under constant hydraulic pressure.

Cessna uses their infamous plastic sump jars in their static systems, crappy threads on each end, I’ve seen them twisted, melted and mangled yet never fall apart, leak yes, fail no.

[EricJ]

3 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I believe that there’s more to this story than what’s being presented.

That's usually the case, I think. 

[LANCECASPER]

This may have been mentioned somewhere in the post, but it just demonstrates that all avionics quotes are not equal as far as the scope of work to be done.

If it's a comprehensive job on an older airplane I would insist that they take a close look at it before quoting and that the quote include all old wiring to be removed and all pitot static plumbing be replaced. It's definitely more money upfront but less headaches down the road and much easier to track down problems and, if necessary, expect accountability. Getting a quote by e-mailing pictures of front of the old panel may give you a low quote that looks inviting, but ultimately you want a job done once and done right.

[goalstop]

Another fun one... putting a little black cap on top of the PTT switch was a "1hr" task marked down to "30min".  This PTT switch was also part of the initial install, and the cap had popped off with less than 20hrs of use.  In reality, this was a ~1 minute task and should have been under warranty anyway

PS: labor rate here is now $150 an hour (was $120 when install started)

Edited December 19, 2022 by goalstop

[Will.iam]

2 hours ago, goalstop said:

Another fun one... putting a little black cap on top of the PTT switch was a "1hr" task marked down to "30min".  This PTT switch was also part of the initial install, and the cap had popped off with less than 20hrs of use.  In reality, this was a ~1 minute task and should have been under warranty anyway

PS: labor rate here is now $150 an hour (was $120 when install started)

Now that is inflation to see labor rates increase while still doing a job.