More maintinance frustrations....

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

I guess we don't want to talk about static system tubing then.

No appreciable pressure and or temperature.

Sometimes brakes get HOT, hotter than I believe plastic can withstand, and 200 PSI is minuscule, and is that 200 PSI still true at elevated temperatures?

If plastic brake lines were the go to material, then autos and motorcycles would have them, but they don’t.

[JimB]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I think we are discussing 91.411 & 413 checks, an A&P can do the .411 check (Static system) but I’m nearly certain they can’t the 413 check (transponder) as they are both due every 24 months and are done together, what’s the point of having an A&P do the Static check if you have to take it to an Avionics shop to do the 413 Xponder check, which I believe is also a Static system test?

An A&P can leak check the static pressure system but not the altimeter. So theoretically one could have their altimeter(s) sent out and recertified. The A&P could reinstall it and leak check it.  Only repair stations can do the required 91.411/.413 inspections and certifications. But you are right that you also have to have the encoder and the transponder checked, so it wouldn't make much sense.

One thing to keep in mind also is that if you have an A&P install a new G5 for you, it isn't necessary to redo the IFR certification at that time as long he/she performs the static pressure system tests and inspections. The unit is considered tested and inspected at the time of manufacturer. 

[A64Pilot]

On the subject of liability of a home built, I too think the liability is huge, but according to the EAA no home built manufacturer has ever been sued, maybe it was none had ever been found liable, which if true is surprising, because I’m certain there have been several accidents and some fatalities directly attributed to sloppy build etc.

Unsurprisingly it’s a hot topic with lots of hits

https://www.kitplanes.com/builder-liability-and-you/#:~:text=As noted%2C suits filed against,be disappointing to potential plaintiffs.

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/builderresources/next-steps-after-your-airplane-is-built/selling-and-buying-articles/part-1-protect-yourself

[GeeBee]

Simply put, there are no really deep pockets in the experimental game.

As to Richard Collins, there is smart, then there is wisdom.

 

[Shadrach]

On 8/25/2023 at 2:19 PM, A64Pilot said:

No appreciable pressure and or temperature.

Sometimes brakes get HOT, hotter than I believe plastic can withstand, and 200 PSI is minuscule, and is that 200 PSI still true at elevated temperatures?

If plastic brake lines were the go to material, then autos and motorcycles would have them, but they don’t.

You've seen plastic brake line plumbed directly into a caliper?  That’s a new one for me. I've only seen it on the supply to the brake cylinder. No pressure and no heat.

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Simply put, there are no really deep pockets in the experimental game.

As to Richard Collins, there is smart, then there is wisdom.

 

The Patey Brothers would be too nice to tell you that you're full of shit on this one...but I'm not.

[A64Pilot]

25 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You've seen plastic brake line plumbed directly into a caliper?  That a new one for me. I've only seen it on the supply to the brake cylinder. No pressure and no heat.

No, my Mooney has it to the master cylinders. I’m OK with that no pressure or heat to speak of

I’m talking the entire brake systems line are plastic.

‘Go look at some LSA’s it’s common as I’ve seen it twice now and I honestly don’t look at many.

[A64Pilot]

34 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Simply put, there are no really deep pockets in the experimental game.

As to Richard Collins, there is smart, then there is wisdom.

 

You have to define deep, but I think Van as in RV guy has been pretty successful.

There however quite a few Lancair turbines etc that are in actuality professionally built, but a wealthy individual has his or her name as manufacturer.

Saw one the other day, has a PT-6 in it, we are supposed to believe some Dr., Lawyer, investment banker built it as their first Experimental build?

That I admit I don’t see the sense in

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

The Patey Brothers would be too nice to tell you that you're full of shit on this one...but I'm not.

Do you know the difference between smart and wisdom?

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Do you know the difference between smart and wisdom?

I like to think so but I don’t always personally live up to it. That being said, you and I both know that that’s not the part of your comment that I was commenting on. 

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

What he did to his airplane was essentially "euthanasia" -  In his mind his plane had lived 90% of it's life.   The plane could have "lived longer".  The P210 was certificated under the FAA’s old CAR 3 rules and therefore with no required airframe life limit.   Cessna engineers stated the P210’s airframe was ‘tested to the equivalent of 10,000 flight hours’ but it did not fail and that does not mean that they couldn't have simulated testing longer.  

What Collins did was emotional and most would say totally irrational.  It's like the liability concerns of letting "grandpa" live past 85 - "he might give the family estate away - or he might set the house on fire - or he might harm a neighbor's pet or child....".   

Collin's actions have no bearing upon Certified vs Experimental liability.

"Certification" of GA aircraft is just a contrived system of rules, that by definition and design, limit liability of the parties involved.  The "rules" may be based upon any combination of physics, material science, real or accelerated material aging testing, observed performance or by bureaucratic decree.  You can like them or agree with them or not - But they are the "Rules" for Certification.  They are the "rules" that the manufacturers' play buy - the rules that the maintainers' play by - the rules that the owners' play by - and lastly the rules that the COURTS MUST PLAY BY in order to ascertain and assign liability to the responsible parties for Certified Aircraft.

Richard Collins, who intentionally destroyed a perfectly Certified Cessna P210, would have only been liable if he, as an Owner, knowingly either broke the "rules" or authorized others to "break the rules".  (i.e. - installed icemaker vinyl tubing in his brake lines, etc).  Perhaps this was an admission by Collins that he "had not been playing by the rules" all those years.  

IANAL and I don’t believe you are, either. Your bold claim that the courts must play by these ‘rules’ is easily shown false by the Carnahan case where Parker Hannifin paid out even though their certified/TSOed vacuum pump had NOT failed! They were held LIABLE despite the fact they “played by the rules”/didn’t break any.

All I’ve been claiming is that a homebuilder IS accepting potential future liability when he sells the experimental aircraft he built; he was the de facto manufacturer! It seems rather naive to believe that he would not be sued should his aircraft crash and injure/kill others. That’s what happens to certified manufacturers.

This is starting to feel a lot like feeding trolls, so I’m done

 

[McMooney]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Experimental bothers me, if I built my own, from the perspective of selling it later: I would never want that perpetual liability. I’d have to scrap it…which would kill me!

I don’t think you could waiver your way out of it…buyer’s family could still sue, as could subsequent owners down the line!

For those who think I’m paranoid consider that Richard Collins scrapped his P210 to avoid future liability concerns…and that was a type certificated aircraft!

should we all scrap our moonies ?

[GeeBee]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I like to think so but I don’t always personally live up to it. That being said, you and I both know that that’s not the part of your comment that I was commenting on. 

In the interest of commodity which has been lacking of late, and damaged this site, we'll let it go at that.

[MikeOH]

52 minutes ago, McMooney said:

should we all scrap our moonies ?

No. We didn’t manufacture our Mooneys!

How did my comment about HOMEBUILTS get conflated to Mooneys??

[GeeBee]

27 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

No. We didn’t manufacture our Mooneys!

How did my comment about HOMEBUILTS get conflated to Mooneys??

Because you put in bananas, mangos and blueberries into the smoothie machine when you commented about Richard Collins destroying his P210 then talked in the same breath about homebuilts. Can't complain when people don't want to pick out the blue berries after you throw the switch.

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Experimental bothers me, if I built my own, from the perspective of selling it later: I would never want that perpetual liability. I’d have to scrap it…which would kill me!

I don’t think you could waiver your way out of it…buyer’s family could still sue, as could subsequent owners down the line!

For those who think I’m paranoid consider that Richard Collins scrapped his P210 to avoid future liability concerns…and that was a type certificated aircraft!

 

9 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I simply raised a valid concern that perhaps others hadn’t considered when building.

 

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

All I’ve been claiming is that a homebuilder IS accepting potential future liability when he sells the experimental aircraft he built; he was the de facto manufacturer! It seems rather naive to believe that he would not be sued should his aircraft crash and injure/kill others. That’s what happens to certified manufacturers.

This is starting to feel a lot like feeding trolls, so I’m done

Well rather than claiming and assuming let's see what the EAA has to say about it.

Part 1: Protect Yourself: The legal risks of selling the aircraft you built (eaa.org)  link

• You are right that the law holds each of us responsible for our own negligence or carelessness in the event someone is hurt because of it. The law also passes this responsibility to our estate if we subsequently die, or to the partners we worked with on the project that caused the harm.
• When building aircraft the opportunities for negligence are many-from failing to follow the plans or assembling the kit improperly, to improperly engineering that clever modification we invented. Homebuilders have almost unlimited freedom to make mistakes because the FAA imposes few, if any, constraints on them.
• If a mistake causes a crash, the homebuilder, or his estate, can be sued.

BUT

• The good news is that it's a low probability risk.
• While a few such suits have been filed, EAA has not heard of even one of them being successful. 
• The bad news is that there could be cost of litigation even when the builder prevails (as builders always have prevailed in the past). 
  • Additionally, if, in the rare chance a suit ever succeeds, it would be bad like the chances and consequences of a meteor hitting your house....

Part 3: Waiver & Releases Buying & Selling a Homebuilt (eaa.org) link

• Although a "Waiver and Release" may be considered an "Exculpable Contract" in a sale of an Experimental homebuilt, the EAA advises to execute one regardless.
• They claim that the courts will closely scrutinize the Waiver and Release associated with the sale by the "builder" and won't automatically invalidate it.
• Because personal injury attorneys generally work on a contingency fee basis, they may back away from filing a lawsuit if it appears the waiver and release may be an effective defense. EAA says "have seen potential lawsuits warded off by immediately providing the buyer’s attorney with a waiver and release, coupled with the fact that the seller had little or no assets in which the plaintiff attorney could attach to satisfy a judgment". (It sounds like an effective "Jedi Mind Trick"!)
  •  

Sample Waiver by Glasair: Experimental Aircraft Bill of Sale & Release of Liability | Glasair Glastar Sportsman Transition Training by Alan Negrin Aviation Services (glasairtraining.com)   link

• The aircraft does not have an FAA Form 317 Statement of Conformity on file, as there are no FAA approved data with which to conform.  

• This is an amateur built experimental aircraft and the registered owner(s) is/are the experimenter(s).  

• Many parts of the aircraft were not built in permanent jigs and, as such, may not be directly interchangeable among other aircraft of the same facsimile.  

• FAA records list the registered owner as the manufacturer of an experimental-amateur built aircraft and, as manufacturer, the registered owner is free to make any modifications or changes to the design as he/she sees fit.  

• The aircraft is an example of the owner/builder’s creative ability.  Upon sale, the new registered owner of an experimental-amateur built aircraft becomes its manufacturer.  

• The new owner becomes responsible for its aerodynamic and structural function/concept.  The new owner is responsible for the performance and fit or purpose of every part/piece on the aircraft. 

• No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is made to the Purchaser or anyone else as to the merchantability or airworthiness of this experimental aircraft

• The experimental aircraft is sold on an “AS IS” with all faults basis, as the Seller is an amateur builder of this experimental aircraft and, by virtue of being experimental, this aircraft does not comply with the Federal Safety Regulations for “Standard Aircraft."

• Flying poses certain inherent risks and can result in injury or death.  Any person who pilots or rides in this experimental aircraft does so at his/her own risk.

• .. the Purchaser hereby Waives and Releases the Builder/Seller from any and all Claims, Demands or Liability of every kind which the Purchaser may have, or an owner , or a pilot, or a passenger in this experimental aircraft.  

• This Release and Waiver is binding on all Heirs, Personal Representatives and Assigns of the Purchaser, Subsequent Owners, Pilots and/or Passengers. 

P.S. - how can we be the "trolls"?....you started this.

Edited August 26, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[EricJ]

It was mentioned recently in the thread regarding the destruction of a member's Mooney at Oshkosh, that many actual aircraft manufacturers do not carry liability insurance both to make themselves an unattractive litigation target as well as to save the expense.    If this has been a practical strategy for some manufacturers for many years, I don't think an individual experimental builder is going to be at a high risk when selling an aircraft that they made.   Most amateur builders aren't particularly deep pockets.   If Patey's sold airplanes, it might be a little different, but it also sounds like it isn't difficult at all to mitigate the existing risk significantly.

I've always heard that one issue with building and selling an experimental is the continuing liability, and I'm sure there's some exposure, but it doesn't sound like a huge barrier to doing so.   There is risk to selling any used vehicle, since a determined subsequent victim can always claim you had some responsibility, and with an airplane there's always some potential there.

 

[Yetti]

On 8/25/2023 at 1:19 PM, A64Pilot said:

No appreciable pressure and or temperature.

Sometimes brakes get HOT, hotter than I believe plastic can withstand, and 200 PSI is minuscule, and is that 200 PSI still true at elevated temperatures?

If plastic brake lines were the go to material, then autos and motorcycles would have them, but they don’t.

I guess we don't want to talk about plastic brake lines on the air systems of trucks, do we?   Google DOT air brake lines.

[1980Mooney]

On 8/25/2023 at 8:32 AM, Shadrach said:

Interesting time for owners and mx professionals alike. Demand for maintenance is up, supply seems to be tightening; perhaps due to consolidation, perhaps due to a large number of maintenance professionals retiring….

I see that the hourly shop rate at the local low tech/no tech “no thinking part change philosophy” NTB tire and automotive repair shop is now $149/hour. It’s probably just a matter of time before we should start planning on A&P shop rates of $150 - $200/hour.  
 

After all A&P’s actually have to think and diagnose the issues related to our handmade (many times modified and deviating from original design/manufacture) airplanes.   They actually add value. It makes sense that they will (eventually?) seek higher compensation than the ordinary, minimally trained automotive repair chain.  

[Austintatious]

Update to this, and more BS

The shop that did the annual and the static check wont accept responsibility for the now misreading ASI.  I also discovered that somehow, the OAT  no longer works either, probably a connection knocked loose when they were messing with the ASI.

Furthermore, after I had already received the aircraft back and flown it,  while discussing the situation with the shop, They informed me that the Airspeed switch for the gear lockout appeared to be getting hot and melting the tubing going to it....  They never said anything to me about it or gave me an option to choose to replace it, they just left in and kept quiet about it until the aircraft was gone from the field.  IMHO they handed me an aircraft with a known fire hazard.

I decided to take the aircraft to yet another avionics shop and have them do the ASI repair as well as address some other issues and make sure the airspeed switch wasn't a fire hazard.

I got a nice little 1500.00 surprise...   One of the issues I have not been able to get resolved (multiple visits to a few avionics shops and money spent to troubleshoot) was that I have not been able to use Nav 1 to fly an ILS.  In fact I can get no data from Nav 1 to the HSI (a G5).    This fact has not really been all that bothersome because of the cherished LPV which works just beautifully between the 530w, G5 hsi and the auto-pilot.  Nonetheless, I want things in my aircraft to work, so I asked this shop to look into why it doesn't. 

What they found is just a nice little point on the entire reason I started this thread.... To rant about the completely unacceptable level of maintenance/work that I have been experiencing with GA and how I am ready to go experimental so that I can do all the work to my own aircraft.

The 530w was installed 2002  Well, as this shop looked into my no ILS problem, What they discovered was that whoever installed the rack for the 530w installed the ARinc 429 bus D-sub connector upside down.  The 530w was then shoved in and then subsequently driven in with an allen wrench destroying half the pins and pushing the other half out of the D-sub connector on the rack.  So, going all the way back over 20 years, the ILS has NEVER been functional, it could not have been and about 3 certified avionics shops couldn't figure out why. 

So, We have the first installer who gets the connector upside down and forces the 530w in...

Then at least 3 certified avionics shops having looked into the no ILS issue (3 during MY  ownership for sure) and failing to figure out that a connector was upside down and pins were destroyed.

 

Fun stuff!

 

 

[jetdriven]

One of the first things you do, is pull out the radio and then ring out the wiring from the back plate of the radio tray to the auto pilot. But you'd figure that they would figure out that the d-sub was upside down and the pins were smashed over in about three seconds.

[affricate]

On 8/22/2023 at 6:20 AM, GeeBee said:

I take my IA to lunch at least every 2 weeks. 

When my boat is in the shop (a large shop at the lake) I order pizza in for the entire shop.

My avionics shop has a woman who runs the front office. It is the owner's mother. She likes Yankee candles. So I make sure I bring one with me every time, usually a seasonal scent.

Make sure they know they are appreciated.

 

I give mine a cash tip, they know they're appreciated.

[Fly Boomer]

2 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

One of the first things you do, is pull out the radio and then ring out the wiring from the back plate of the radio tray to the auto pilot. But you'd figure that they would figure out that the d-sub was upside down and the pins were smashed over in about three seconds.

I don't know anything about the avionics in question, but I have connected a zillion cables with d-sub connectors.  How can this get "upside down"?  The shell would have to be completely crushed with a hammer or something.

 

 

[JimB]

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

The 530w was installed 2002  Well, as this shop looked into my no ILS problem, What they discovered was that whoever installed the rack for the 530w installed the ARinc 429 bus D-sub connector upside down. 

 

 

I'd love to see some pictures of the upside down connector. If you look at a back plate on 530W rack, there are cutouts for the connectors. It would be virtually impossible to install them upside down.

 

[Pinecone]

Remember, nothing is fool proof as fools are so ingenious.