LASAR Recall

[Shadrach]

On 8/17/2024 at 9:51 AM, 1980Mooney said:

If your favorite restaurant moves to a new location with new cook and employees and gets a "F" rating from the Health Department, who do you blame?  The Health Inspector or the restaurant?  Do you keep eating there?

Many are assuming that this is the fault of the big bad old FAA/FSDO. It is possible that the local FSDO is applying the regs consistently and it is the "new" LASAR that can't get their collective act together.  As @kortopates highlighted likely LASAR underestimated the task.  This is not a case of equipment/processes/suppliers/people "that have been flying safely for years...".  They don't have the same welding vendors, virtually none of the same employees (is it only one maybe?), maybe a different steel supplier, etc.  As @PT20J speculates maybe they failed the record-keeping/traceability audit.  Then again maybe LASAR F'ed up worse than just paper work  - It is easy for them to blame the FAA. 

Until LASAR explains their shortcomings we will never know how serious this is and who is at fault.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but it seems to me that once returned to LASAR, the parts are rapidly turned around for shipment back to the owner.  It would be nice to have some transparency on the issue.

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

My assumption that this is an FAA issue is just that, an assumption.
However, If it is indeed the case, I’m curious why they needed to inspect every part rather than a sample from the batch. If the parts are defective, then by all means, recall all of the parts and issue refunds or offer replacements inside a specified time frame.
If the parts are not defective and no physical changes/modifications are being made before returning said parts to the customer, then this looks like a bureaucratic goat rope to me…

I ordered a nose gear leg that came directly from Mooney. I rejected it due to pin holes in welds leaking oil. I talked to the manufacturing engineer and she had the remaining stock reinspected and they all got sent back for rework. She had the rework expedited and sent a replacement within a week. Stuff happens.

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I ordered a nose gear leg that came directly from Mooney. I rejected it due to pin holes in welds leaking oil. I talked to the manufacturing engineer and she had the remaining stock reinspected and they all got sent back for rework. She had the rework expedited and sent a replacement within a week. Stuff happens.

Indeed stuff does happen and fair play to you for calling it out for correction.  To be clear, I am not advocating limited oversight, I am advocating transparency and consistency in oversight. The discussion is shrouded in mystery because the reason for the recall is not clear.  I suspect if this were truly a safety issue, then the FAA would ground all associated aircraft. A voluntary recall suggests it's not a major safety concern.

[DRH4249]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

My assumption that this is an FAA issue is just that, an assumption.
However, If it is indeed the case, I’m curious why they needed to inspect every part rather than a sample from the batch. If the parts are defective, then by all means, recall all of the parts and issue refunds or offer replacements inside a specified time frame.
If the parts are not defective and no physical changes/modifications are being made before returning said parts to the customer, then this looks like a bureaucratic goat rope to me…

From what I understand there was a missed signature(s) on documentation and they needed to be inspected so the parts could become "air worthy". I don't know all the details but my parts had to go back be inspected, none were defective, and a new yellow card issued with the parts. It seems to have been a documentation issue.

[DRH4249]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

What do you mean when you say that the first LASAR rebuilt nose truss had a “fitment issue” requiring you to send it back?  Are you saying that LASAR got the dimensions/ jig alignment wrong during welding?  Or did they send the wrong truss?  

Why would there be a “trial and error” fitment issue? That doesn’t sound like a bureaucratic/paperwork issue. 

I sent my old nose truss along with the other parts listed above to be cores or be rebuilt by LASAR. The first nose truss was a dimension/jig or human error issue. They then sent another to replace it; the second parts was correct but then the email about the paperwork issue(s) was sent. LASAR paid for the parts to be shipped both ways. Sorry, it was a bit confusing. 

[1980Mooney]

7 minutes ago, DRH4249 said:

I sent my old nose truss along with the other parts listed above to be cores or be rebuilt by LASAR. The first nose truss was a dimension/jig or human error issue. They then sent another to replace it; the second parts was correct but then the email about the paperwork issue(s) was sent. LASAR paid for the parts to be shipped both ways. Sorry, it was a bit confusing. 

Actually it was clear. Everyone glossed over the fact that LASAR did inferior work, did not catch their mistakes and sent you a crap part that wasted you and your mechanic’s time. Everyone wants to ASSUME that this is the FAA’s fault.