Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 121

Thread: Unapproved Parts Notification- Dan's Aircraft?

  1. #81

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you sign off the logs the way the DPE wants it and he is wrong as in this case then you have done a dis-service to every future check ride applicant he does it to. He is a representative of the FAA Administrator by definition and held to a higher standard. If he wants to enforce maintenance regulations he should know the rules. If he can't show you where it is required in the regulations, maybe you should ask his boss at the FSDO to explain to him where he is wrong. For those of you that say, I have to work with this DPE again, all I can say is you are letting a bully get away with his ego trip that "I am a DPE and I am right". He owes an apology to the check ride applicant, the aircraft owner, and the mechanic. If he can't do that, and there are complaints from others, the FAA should review the DPE's behavior and if required revoke his DPE authority. If the FSDO doesn't do the review they are not doing their job.

    As you can tell, I have a problem with people placed in positions of authority on ego trips who feel they are never wrong. Both inside and outside the FAA.

    Tim

  2. #82
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    ....In the story about the student pilot checkride, why were there logs in the aircraft at all???? Not required. Only upon request with a reasonable time to present.
    I know normally you aren't required to have your logs, in the case of a ramp check request the "reasonable time to present" applies. Don't recall about in the case of a private pilot checkride, it's been a long time but I kinda remember having to present more than the standard ARROW. I've never met him, but from some pireps the DPE involved in this situation is a piece of work. I have heard that he requires the applicant to meet with him ahead of the checkride, along with his instructor-- maybe a good thing to be sure that all the i's are crossed and the t's dotted, but I sure didn't have to do that back in the day.
    Last edited by hotrod180; 03-20-2016 at 11:44 AM.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  3. #83
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    i would have told him he's an idiot and go f*&k himself......
    That's exactly NOT the way I think it should be handled. Seems like a good way to get punched in the nose. If nothing else, it pretty much guarantees poor relationships with everyone involved. The IA in my story took that attitude and it ended up hurting him in the long run.

    I don't have the logs from any of my old airplanes, but looking through the engine logbooks from my current mount I see that every year there is a sign-off for either an "annual inspection" or a "100 hour / annual inspection". This is over the course of 22 years and six different IA's.So required or not, apparently some people do want to see those entries and some IA's don't mind providing them.

    If an IA told me to go f*** myself re this logbook entry issue:
    1) I would be very reluctant to pay for a job that wasn't done to my satisfaction.
    2) He would never get any more of my business or see another penny of my money, EVER.
    3) I would tell everyone I know and ŕnybody else who would listen about the poor service he provided.


    So I guess you have to ask yourself if proving you're right that way is worth the repercussions. If it is, go for it. But if you treat very many customers this way, pretty soon you might not have very many customers.
    Last edited by hotrod180; 03-20-2016 at 03:14 PM.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  4. #84
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I was schooled on this years ago, when I took an IA to task for signing off the annual in my engine logbook as a 100 hour inspection. He explained that there is no requirement to sign off an annual there, but there is a requirement to sign off a 100-hour. So he signs the airframe books as an annual and the engine book as a 100-hour.

    My take on the situation I cited is that the airplane owner was paying the IA for the inspection. It's his airplane, he's the customer & is paying the bill, if he wanted a sign-off in the engine book for the annual and that's not prohibited then just do it!

    Right or wrong, most people expect to see a signoff in both logbooks (including me). What started the whole thing was a student pilot went for his private checkride in the airplane, the DPE was examining all the aircraft records (ARROW, logbooks, etc) and noticed that the "required" (in his mind) entry wasn't in the engine logs.

    He therefore stopped the checkride process & sent the applicant home. So he's mad, the griped to the owner of the rented airplane so he was mad, then the IA got his back up and got mad too. So much easier on everybody to just bite your tongue and sign the darn logbbok!

    Bill O'Brien Had an article in AMT quite a few year ago about this subject. He was one of the smartest , most common sense people the FAA ever employed.( in my feeble mind) He said in writing that You annual an aircraft not an Engine. Only one entry is needed. I had to look it up when one of the Flight examiners told the local flight instructor he had to have a 100 hr signoff in the engine logbook for the annual. You don't but now we put one in that airplane so the student doesn't have to take the wrath.
    So It is in writing by someone in the FAA. Most FAA types don't have the I.F. to do that any more. O'Brien did.

    It also get to the question about annualing an airplane every 100 hours instead of giving it a 100 hr.
    If you go 3 hrs over the last annual, is your ANNUAL only good for 97 hrs if you are using it for hire.
    Last edited by S2D; 03-21-2016 at 10:42 PM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
    Thanks cpa99 thanked for this post

  5. #85
    irishfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Penetanguishene, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by T.J. View Post
    Yep. I've got a sign on the hangar door that says... "This ain't Burger King. You don't get it your way. It's either my way or the hiway." I learned a long time ago, that some customers are more trouble than their worth. If you think about it, It isn't an attitude thing, its a business decision. If I can't make a living working on good folks planes, I'll go to work at Burger King.
    This one TJ.... wife bought it for camp to give guests a hint! LOL
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	summer2014 574.jpg 
Views:	107 
Size:	112.3 KB 
ID:	24814  

  6. #86
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    It also get to the question about annualing an airplane every 100 hours instead of giving it a 100 hr.
    If you go 3 hrs over the last annual, is your ANNUAL only good for 97 hrs if you are using it for hire.
    Exactly. Which is why OAS/DOI did every 100 hour as an annual....many of those airplanes worked in remote areas where maintenance may not be available. The option to fly past a 100 hour occasionally permitted us to avoid the need for a ferry permit which would be required if there wasn't enough time left to get to maintenance after an annual expired. And, yes, it was almost always possible to just get the plane to maintenance "on time", but on rare occasion weather or ??? interfered.

    And, if the customer is willing to PAY for an annual every 100 hours, why should the maintenance professional care? Are you going to refuse to sign off an annual inspection a month early if a customer wants it?

    As to DPEs wanting to see the aircraft's logbooks prior to conducting a check ride, I've seen a case where an annual inspection had actually been done, but the "maintenance professional" had not signed same off in the airframe logbook. If the DPE had flown in that airplane, he would have been in violation, at least technically. The owner of the plane (a club) was partially at fault for not verifying that the signature got entered. In that case, the "maintenance professional" signed the logbook, and the checkride went forward.

    We placed a COPY of the airframe logbook annual/100 hr signoff page and a copy of the AD compliance record in the airplane's "Binder", which the student/instructor took out to the plane when they went to fly. That served as verification to an examiner (and everyone else) that the airplane was in annual, and any "in between" AD's were complied with.

    As an examiner, that's what I wanted to see. It's called CYA.

    MTV

  7. #87
    cubpilot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    723
    Post Thanks / Like
    Once upon a time we used to have these 2"x2" "Annual inspection reminder" stickers that we would put in the airplane. We would just enter the date that the next inspection was due. I always thought that they were a great idea and they were produced and available from the FAA. What ever happened to those??

    Customers used to think that it was a required item; sort of like a vehicle inspection sticker in the windshield.

    It was usually all that was needed to satisfy currency questions.
    Ed

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Any updates on the proceedings of this investigation? Heard a rumor that the shop in question "got shut down by the FAA" recently- any truth to this? Sad if true...

  9. #89
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ak49flyer View Post
    .. that the shop in question "got shut down by the FAA" recently- any truth to this? Sad if true...

    again??

    any updates on what the original issue was,

    i still don't understand this thread.....???

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Read the letter that is linked to in the first post... Sounds weak at best...

  11. #91
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,633
    Post Thanks / Like
    The owner of the airplane in question called me last week.The FAA pulled Dan's tickets and the air worthiness on the airplane. Now the owner has a pile of Super Cub parts.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    267
    Post Thanks / Like
    I hope the feds go look at rareaircrafts Taperwing waco certified aircraft oh that's right they have a few original parts in them

  13. #93
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarddart View Post
    I hope the feds go look at rareaircrafts Taperwing waco certified aircraft oh that's right they have a few original parts in them
    I can't comment directly on Rare Aircraft except to say that the Waco type certificates are in the public domain. Any person who acquires all of the drawings and data can produce and present the result to the FAA for an airworthiness certificate.
    N1PA

  14. #94
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    The FAA pulled Dan's tickets
    Please pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand what this means. Could you please clarify? Thanks - -
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  15. #95
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,633
    Post Thanks / Like
    My understanding is that they revoked his A&P and IA.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  16. #96

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    267
    Post Thanks / Like
    I always thought if you were selling A certified airplane you needed data plate and some original parts

  17. #97

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know they pulled his tickets once before; I thought maybe this time they pulled the plug on the repair station...? There's got to be more to the story than what's contained in the letter- there always is. Steve, if the unapproved fabric is the only complaint with the airplane in question, wouldn't it be a simple matter of recovering with an approved process, demonstrating conformance to type design and/or approved data for proper mods and reissuing the airworthiness certificate? Think this type of thing has happened before...

  18. #98
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    yes, it would like to know exactly so i don't do something dumb too and get in trouble.... which rules they choose to enforce and which they ignore....

  19. #99
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,633
    Post Thanks / Like
    The airplane in question was built off a data plate, the rest of the airplane was left with the guy Dan bought the paperwork from. Makes no sense to me but that is what I am told by the guy who has the most to lose, the owner of the aircraft
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  20. #100
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    My understanding is that they revoked his A&P and IA.
    Damn! That's hardball!
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  21. #101
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    yes, it would like to know exactly so i don't do something dumb too and get in trouble.... which rules they choose to enforce and which they ignore....
    The Fighter pilot's prayer. "Please God don't let me F**k up!"
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  22. #102
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    The airplane in question was built off a data plate, the rest of the airplane was left with the guy Dan bought the paperwork from. Makes no sense to me but that is what I am told by the guy who has the most to lose, the owner of the aircraft
    Where's Paul Harvey, now when we need 'the rest of the story'.

    Web

  23. #103
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefoy84 View Post
    The Fighter pilot's prayer. "Please God don't let me F**k up!"
    Same for the infantry. Getting beat by bigger/better is logical. Screwing up is unforgivable, lol.

    Web

  24. #104
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ours mainly concerned blowing up the bad guys and not the good guys. It's called the "Fog of Battle."
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  25. #105
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    The airplane in question was built off a data plate, the rest of the airplane was left with the guy Dan bought the paperwork from. Makes no sense to me but that is what I am told by the guy who has the most to lose, the owner of the aircraft
    strange,

    i know of others like that....
    someone want's a brand new one, and sells the old but flyable airframe & old pieces.....

  26. #106
    180Marty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paullina, Ia
    Posts
    2,025
    Post Thanks / Like
    And didn't this whole deal start because the engine crapped out. Bet it was FAA A number one approved too!!!
    Thanks cpa99 thanked for this post

  27. #107
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    strange,

    i know of others like that....
    someone want's a brand new one, and sells the old but flyable airframe & old pieces.....
    That's the main reason that I think something else happened behind the scene. In the strict sense of the rules, building up a Cub type airplane under a data tag is not illegal as long as the builder is qualified, uses correct parts, and documents all work. This happens a lot with engines, especially when cases are replaced.

    Web

  28. #108

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can't find a regulation that says I can't replace every part of an aircraft with an approved, pma'd or stc'd part either, yet at every IA conference they get up and show a slide of some craigslist ad where someone is selling cub paperwork with logs, airworthiness cert, registration, etc, and they say "building an airplane from parts and installing this data tag and calling it this airplane is NOT legal!" I understand we can't say "rebuilt" in the log entry, but I've never yet seen a reg that limits how many parts I can change at one time. I can buy a stc'd fuselage and everyone agrees it's perfectly legal to install, but I can't do pma'd wings, tail feathers, etc at the same time?

  29. #109
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is usually the Internet story and the Real story. Amazing how often they diverge.

    Sounds to me like the Feds were flexing their muscles. They have the hammer and everything looks like a nail regardless of how nice and buddy, buddy they come on.
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  30. #110
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hope that Alaska Airman's cubs are not in that target group
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  31. #111
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    bump.... anymore clues??

  32. #112
    nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,643
    Post Thanks / Like
    It has always been my understanding that you couldn't buy the logs & D plate off a "destroyed" aircraft. If the aircraft is written off as a total & de-registered. The Feds won't allow you to bring it back to life once destroyed. Buyer beware...

  33. #113
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,633
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would hope that if you call the Anchorage FSDO they could explain their actions.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  34. #114

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    It has always been my understanding that you couldn't buy the logs & D plate off a "destroyed" aircraft. If the aircraft is written off as a total & de-registered. The Feds won't allow you to bring it back to life once destroyed. Buyer beware...
    You have to show the Feds that the aircraft that is reported as destroyed is rebuildable. My project was reported as such, but is now flying.

  35. #115
    nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,643
    Post Thanks / Like
    Big difference between salvaging a wreck and selling the data plate/logbooks to put on an aircraft that has none. This is what the Feds were cracking down on.

  36. #116
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    was just talking to someone on the field, and he said his fed told him Dan took his framed repair station certificate off the wall and threw it at the one FAA guy and hit him in the chest....

    that don't sound like a productive or smart way to interact with the FAA might explain why this seems odd...

    then he went and took his IA test to get an IA???

  37. #117

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've heard of guys tossing their license on the ground at the fed's feet, but throwing it AT them might be a step too far, particularly if you have any desire to stay in the industry...

  38. #118
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    Big difference between salvaging a wreck and selling the data plate/logbooks to put on an aircraft that has none. This is what the Feds were cracking down on.
    30 years ago, it didn't take as much to make a cub not worth rebuilding....now a days, pretty much anything that's big enough to carry home is worth fixing......
    John

  39. #119

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by flybynite View Post
    So, back to the original point of uncertified fabric or processes. How many stamps have to be visible to determine the entire stc was followed? Doesn't the IA's signed statement that the aircraft was covered iaw the stc indicate that certified materials were used if required by the stc? Can't see the tapes stamps. They are buried. Rib stitch materials certified? . Trust but verify? When is good enough good enough?

    Wayne
    Ceconite tapes aren't stamped, and the Poly Fiber tapes are only stamped once at the start of the roll. The Ceconie tapes have a sticker on the roll identifying them as Ceconite tapes, but that's it. The STC referenced - SA4503NM - is Ceconite's STC, so I'd suspect that perhaps Poly Fiber's medium fabric was used, rather than the Ceconite 102 fabric. Same fabric, different stamp - but only Ceconite fabric can be used to comply with the Ceconite STC, and you can see those stamps easily after installation from the inside. I don't think he'd use uncertified light fabric as it isn't suitable for that type of aircraft.
    Thanks cpa99 thanked for this post

  40. #120
    WhiskeyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Boxford MA
    Posts
    873
    Post Thanks / Like
    When, and how, do Type Certificates get into the public domain?

Similar Threads

  1. Northland PA-18 Aircraft Parts
    By Bushwhacker Air in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 12:35 PM
  2. Northland Aircraft Parts
    By Bushwhacker Air in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2005, 07:01 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •