feds going after ai

Re: feds going after ai

Amen Gary!!!!:bravo: I can't believe anyone would say this guy is ok when he turns out an aircraft with no engine data plate (ever seen a shoddy repaired case that had the data plate removed because it wasn't airworthy before??? I have...), and is basically trying just to get rid of the guy that bought it??? I've run into a few of these guys and I think they STINK!! It makes a HUGE black eye on every legitimate mechanic and IA out there!!!
Wade, I think you have the right idea in asking your friend.
John

Hi John,

I think you are right about that, if that is what happened, and I hope I didn't diminish the importance of it, if that occurred.

I guess if the guy did that it could be a mistake or malice.

Everybody mistakes, the only difference between us is how we handle it when we do.

Malice is obviously worse.

I suspect it would be difficult to nail a guy for that infraction, especially after the passage of time and the fact that he presently refuses to return it to service.

Thanks for your comments.

Dave

[akroflyer]

Re: feds going after ai

Wade, If you bought it as a non airworthy airplane , what you see is what you get. If the plane was still in annual when you got it then you may have a case, if it was out of annual there is no way to prove it was flown with the modifications made to it. just my 2 cents worth. Keith

[flyguy]

Re: feds going after ai

Good idea, 10 bucks as I recall, and worth a lot more. Huge amount of information on a CD. Really good read.
DC

Re: feds going after ai

Wade,

Before you do anything drastic get the aircraft records from Okla City and you might find a 337 filed for these mods. Its only a few bucks and may be a big help to you.

Dave.

[N96337]

Re: feds going after ai

Amen Gary!!!!:bravo: I can't believe anyone would say this guy is ok when he turns out an aircraft with no engine data plate (ever seen a shoddy repaired case that had the data plate removed because it wasn't airworthy before??? I have...), and is basically trying just to get rid of the guy that bought it??? I've run into a few of these guys and I think they STINK!! It makes a HUGE black eye on every legitimate mechanic and IA out there!!!
Wade, I think you have the right idea in asking your friend.
John

[wadeclavin]

Re: feds going after ai

I've got to ask, was this Taylorcraft represented as being airworthy, and by whom, when you purchased it? Your statement: "Also, for what I payed for it, I could get a good T-cart guy to go through it and fix everything correctly and still be in it right- and basically have the equivalent of a model 19 with a c-85-12 with a starter and alternator" is puzzling to me. I'm an A&P/IA and from what has been described I wouldn't be able to make the required repairs and be in it "right" if the airplane was given to me as a gift! It is also stated: "I'd be thrilled if he'd annual it for me." That would only be delaying the inevitable, this airplane needs to be made airworthy. Airworthy: conforms to the type certificate and in a condition that is safe to fly.

Garry Crookham
N5112M
Tulsa

No, the airplane was not represented as airworthy- was it misrepresented? Not really. Was there full disclosure? Not really. Was it a buyer beware situation? Absolutely. Did I beware? Harldy. So its on me. But I wont sell it that way.

The main issue is the fuel system. The fabric is good. IT has full electrical and the guy I bought it from did get the Harer stc. I have a newly rebuilt pair of ailerons for it. I was thinking I could stick 10 grand in it and have it airworthy. Would it cost more than 10k to 12k to tear the existing tanks out and install a nose tank? Maybe I'm all wet.

[Garry Crookham]

Re: feds going after ai

I've got to ask, was this Taylorcraft represented as being airworthy, and by whom, when you purchased it? Your statement: "Also, for what I payed for it, I could get a good T-cart guy to go through it and fix everything correctly and still be in it right- and basically have the equivalent of a model 19 with a c-85-12 with a starter and alternator" is puzzling to me. I'm an A&P/IA and from what has been described I wouldn't be able to make the required repairs and be in it "right" if the airplane was given to me as a gift! It is also stated: "I'd be thrilled if he'd annual it for me." That would only be delaying the inevitable, this airplane needs to be made airworthy. Airworthy: conforms to the type certificate and in a condition that is safe to fly.

Garry Crookham
N5112M
Tulsa

[flyguy]

Re: feds going after ai

Drive over with the biggest ugliest buddy that you have and get your engine data plate, promise him you'll be nice if necessary. When you get home think everything over and start new from there.
DC

[wadeclavin]

Re: feds going after ai

Just some thoughts.

I don't see any substantive evidence in your post that this guy did anything wrong other than piss you off, which is bad, I agree. Just because its not in the post doesn't mean you don't have it, I know that.

You need to have details & facts the demonstrate some proveable infraction of the regs. If you have that then go for it, as i said I don't see it here though.

I am a firm believer in going after capricious and cavalier A&P's and IA's.

I have turned them in and had their tickets pulled, they deserved it, they needed to be pruned from the tree, they endangered lives.

The packet I turned into the FAA contained substantive detail that could be verified by FAA inspectors.

Think about whether you have that kind of evidence or just post purchase annoyance.

Hope that helps.

Dave A&P/IA

Well, all I know is he recovered it over illegal wing tanks, no fuse tank- his own fuel line system- he just did whatever he felt like, wrote down whatever he felt like- The proof would be that he did do the paperwork for the fabric job over illeagal wing tanks and signed everything off hunkydory for years when it shouldnt have passed annual.



As I said, I dont really want the headache of turning him in. I'd be happy if he'd send me the data plate and co-operate a little but he just wants me to go away.

I'd be thrilled if he'd annual it for me, but for some reason is not interested. I do have an AI friend who is ultra fussy - even too fussy for me, but very good, and I may just show him the airplane and the logbooks and have him do his thing- which would probobly include contacting the feds.

Re: feds going after ai

I"m not absolutely sure but I dont think AI did do anything that would necessarily be unsafe -he did do exactly what Bill mentioned- removed the fuselage tank and installed larger unidentifiable wingtanks- no mention whatsoever on the paperwork nor did he mention in the logs the install of the c-85-12 and the long mounts- there is a logbook for the engine but no notation of the installation and removal of the c 65- somewhere back in time (1950s or early 70's) before he had it there was paperwork (337) for gross wt increase, extended baggage and engine upgrade - all the work was done except the c65 was re-installed.

All in all- if a legitimate mechanic went through it and thought it was airworthy I would have no problems flying it at all as it is. The problem is I cant find a legit mechanic who will sign it off.- so for me its almost a mute point.

I would not say the airplane is frighteningly unsafe, but it is kind of a cobbled up affair- funky bucket seats I tore out- heavy and not really a "cherry" installation. Lots of hose clamps on the pieced together, homemade looking exhaust shroud, Stuff like that.

The spars on the aileron coves are rotten- he signed it off for the fairy flight that way- (a few years back) probably they wouldn't rot off and fall apart in flight. But I'm the first owner in the last three (withing five years) who even poked around and found the rot.

In his mind he can probably justify everything in the fact that he sold it to an old guy for pretty cheap - But my problem is, I've got a mucked up airplane, (in that no one will sign off) incomplete logs, which basically are useless as far as trusting they are accurate. And without the engine data plate which he claims he has but refuses to follow up on- I have no engine- ALthough it has great compression.

I flew in Alaska for a couple years in the early eighty's and am a realist about this kind of stuff. I have no problem at all with not having every jot and tittle on the paperwork perfectly documented. But I think this guy crosses the line.

Give part 91.417(b) a read, records only have to go back one year.

FAA Okla City may have the 337's for the work on file.

Re: feds going after ai

I recently bought a Taylorcraft that, as it turns out has many alterations and "improvements" that were not approved but the AI who owned the airplane did as he pleased and then made notations later that all ad's are complied with, aircraft is airworthy, etc. He was 2 owners ago.

Fortunately I bought it right and will get my money back. And, after going through the thing and lapping up all the info available on this site and talking to experienced t-craft a&p's on the phone and others via email and phone calls, I've gotten a good education on pre-buying taylorcrafts.

Also, The AI tells my AI he has the engine data plate in his toolbox, and will mail it to me, (I've also talked to him on the phone) appearantly he replaced the part of the case with the data plate when rebuilding the engine and did not bother to put the data plate back on the new case- (he really might have rebuilt the engine, as stated in the engine log book, because the compressions are all over 78/80) but I dont trust any of his logbook notations, few that they are)

The AI who once owned this airplane is a legitimate guy with a shop and fbo and real pleasant to chat with, although a little tight lipped at times...hmmm,
But basically I know he is shinning me on, waiting for me to go away, Which I normally would, but I have a friend who wants me to sic the feds on him. I wouldn't wish that on anybody, so I prolly wont, but I thought I would get ya'lls thoughts on this.



Also, for what I payed for it, I could get a good T-cart guy to go through it and fix everything correctly and still be in it right- and basically have the equivalent of a model 19 with a c-85-12 with a starter and alternator.

Please no lectures. I could give lectures and often do to would be buyers who have adopted the innocent notion of: "Hey, what could possibly go wrong?" or have somehow been tricked into believing that the "aviation community" is a tight nit group brimming forth with good will in the land of rainbows and lollipops, although I will say that I have met some real strait shooters.

Anyway I might trade this thing for a flyer of any kind or a tractor or sell it outright or keep it in my garage and give tours to potential t-cart owners although many family members and often prospective A&Ps recoil in horror at the sight of her, she's not real pretty.

So feel free to offer any advice. I can take it like a man. I've paid my dues. I'd be happy to write a term paper for potential tribe members entitled, How NOT to buy a Taylorcraft.

Just some thoughts.

I don't see any substantive evidence in your post that this guy did anything wrong other than piss you off, which is bad, I agree. Just because its not in the post doesn't mean you don't have it, I know that.

You need to have details & facts the demonstrate some proveable infraction of the regs. If you have that then go for it, as i said I don't see it here though.

I am a firm believer in going after capricious and cavalier A&P's and IA's.

I have turned them in and had their tickets pulled, they deserved it, they needed to be pruned from the tree, they endangered lives.

The packet I turned into the FAA contained substantive detail that could be verified by FAA inspectors.

Think about whether you have that kind of evidence or just post purchase annoyance.

Hope that helps.

Dave A&P/IA

[wadeclavin]

Re: feds going after ai

I"m not absolutely sure but I dont think AI did do anything that would necessarily be unsafe -he did do exactly what Bill mentioned- removed the fuselage tank and installed larger unidentifiable wingtanks- no mention whatsoever on the paperwork nor did he mention in the logs the install of the c-85-12 and the long mounts- there is a logbook for the engine but no notation of the installation and removal of the c 65- somewhere back in time (1950s or early 70's) before he had it there was paperwork (337) for gross wt increase, extended baggage and engine upgrade - all the work was done except the c65 was re-installed.

All in all- if a legitimate mechanic went through it and thought it was airworthy I would have no problems flying it at all as it is. The problem is I cant find a legit mechanic who will sign it off.- so for me its almost a mute point.

I would not say the airplane is frighteningly unsafe, but it is kind of a cobbled up affair- funky bucket seats I tore out- heavy and not really a "cherry" installation. Lots of hose clamps on the pieced together, homemade looking exhaust shroud, Stuff like that.

The spars on the aileron coves are rotten- he signed it off for the fairy flight that way- (a few years back) probably they wouldn't rot off and fall apart in flight. But I'm the first owner in the last three (withing five years) who even poked around and found the rot.

In his mind he can probably justify everything in the fact that he sold it to an old guy for pretty cheap - But my problem is, I've got a mucked up airplane, (in that no one will sign off) incomplete logs, which basically are useless as far as trusting they are accurate. And without the engine data plate which he claims he has but refuses to follow up on- I have no engine- ALthough it has great compression.

I flew in Alaska for a couple years in the early eighty's and am a realist about this kind of stuff. I have no problem at all with not having every jot and tittle on the paperwork perfectly documented. But I think this guy crosses the line.

Re: feds going after ai

Someone already asked... I'll repeat his question:

DID the guy do anything unsafe or mechanically unsound... or did he NOT do anything unsafe or mechanically unsound?

I remind everyone that MINOR alterations are within the jurisdiction of the IA, MAJOR alterations require higher approval. And neither one of these categories can automatically be linked to something safe or unsafe.

So something like removing the fuselage nose tank and replacing it with wing tanks would definitely be a modification qualifying as majoralteration... but removing the fuel from the cockpit makes a Taylorcraft FAR LESS fatal in a crash and might not be such a bad idea after all if the guy did it right. The FAA's position would be based on paperwork and mine is based on whether the occupants would be safer in a crash or not.

I remind everyone that there are fewer and fewer mechanics willing to work on T-crafts, fewer yet who will entertain a clear and open discussion about modifications, and fewer yet who understand mechanically when and where a modification to an airplane is OK or not OK.

Based on the current state of the FAA both politically and regarding operational field knowledge, I don't think anyone should jump on the idea that the IA in question should be turned in like some sort of a molester. I for one have not yet seen any specific details in this thread about what he did or did not do.

If he did something that makes the airplane less safe, that's one thing, and if he did something that did not make it unsafe that's another. If he did something that made it a paperwork problem that's ANOTHER thing, but it may not make the airplane unsafe or worthy of hanging the mechanic by the yardarm!

In these days of the FAA becoming more and more the poster child for affirmative action and inclusion philosophies... but less and less the poster child for real aviation knowledge and safety, let's not pin the tail on anyone just yet until there is some black and white evidence.

Hi Bill,

A comment on your statment I marked in red.

By the way I pretty much agree with all you said.

The comment in red is wrong though, its actually the A&P that draws the line between alteration and major alteration or repair and major repair.

The A&P is the first guy on the scene and if he determines it is a major event then he seeks an IA to return the a/c to service if its major. So then alterations/repairs (what you call minor) are within the jurisdiction of the A&P. Basically the A&P decides what he must bump up to the IA.

Major alterations/repairs are within the jurisdiction of the IA, he must decide if approved data is available and then approves based on that availability. If it is not available then a feild approval is needed and that requires a higher authority. In this case the IA decides what he must bump up to the FAA for feild approval.

At the IA meetings this comes up sometimes and the FAA recognizes that two A&P's may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same repair/alteration being a major or not. Its just the way it can work out.

So my point wasn't to just say you were wrong, sorry about that, but that it is even a little more fuzzy than one might think with A&P's and IA's making these decisions. Yet it seems to work for the most part!

Also very likely that A&Ps and IA's have a different knowledge level that will effect their assesment of the situation.

Dave

[VictorBravo]

Re: feds going after ai

Someone already asked... I'll repeat his question:

DID the guy do anything unsafe or mechanically unsound... or did he NOT do anything unsafe or mechanically unsound?

I remind everyone that MINOR alterations are within the jurisdiction of the IA, MAJOR alterations require higher approval. And neither one of these categories can automatically be linked to something safe or unsafe.

So something like removing the fuselage nose tank and replacing it with wing tanks would definitely be a modification qualifying as majoralteration... but removing the fuel from the cockpit makes a Taylorcraft FAR LESS fatal in a crash and might not be such a bad idea after all if the guy did it right. The FAA's position would be based on paperwork and mine is based on whether the occupants would be safer in a crash or not.

I remind everyone that there are fewer and fewer mechanics willing to work on T-crafts, fewer yet who will entertain a clear and open discussion about modifications, and fewer yet who understand mechanically when and where a modification to an airplane is OK or not OK.

Based on the current state of the FAA both politically and regarding operational field knowledge, I don't think anyone should jump on the idea that the IA in question should be turned in like some sort of a molester. I for one have not yet seen any specific details in this thread about what he did or did not do.

If he did something that makes the airplane less safe, that's one thing, and if he did something that did not make it unsafe that's another. If he did something that made it a paperwork problem that's ANOTHER thing, but it may not make the airplane unsafe or worthy of hanging the mechanic by the yardarm!

In these days of the FAA becoming more and more the poster child for affirmative action and inclusion philosophies... but less and less the poster child for real aviation knowledge and safety, let's not pin the tail on anyone just yet until there is some black and white evidence.

[Dano"T"]

Re: feds going after ai

Did any of the "mods" create a safety issue? Has he done this before? or does he have a bad rep. Don't string the guy up if he made a mistake....if he has a bad rep or is known to do shotty work on a regular basis that's different. Do what you gotta do.