An Airworthiness Nightmare

[Keith Lane]

Maybe some of you (hopefully not too many) can relate to the story on AVweb about this fellow's C-320 woes. (Maybe Bob Gerace can, a little)

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189513-1.html

Wow, what an eye opener that musta been. Especially the last part about how the FSDO can do NOTHING to the guy who signed off on this whopper.
Look at the pictures at the end. It also should be stated that if the turbo's needed THAT much re-rework that the owner should have at least put his head under the cowl at least once during the "annual". Maybe he is a particularly non-mechanical guy, but some of those pictures make it look pretty obvious that something was visibly wrong on those engines, like the baffling just hanging on the engine.

Somebody should at least get a sternly worded letter from a rapier witted FAA guy in his file for this.....

 

[Dustin]

Egads! That is bad. As a pilot, I always got in a plane with the thought that a knowledgable mechanic had looked at this aircraft so it was safe. Then I got my A&P and started looking at airplanes as a mechanic. There have been planes that I inspected that made me wonder about the mechanic who last worked on it. Sad.

Dustin Smith

 

[Tom-D]

Maybe some of you (hopefully not too many can relate to the story on AVweb about this fellow's C-320 woes. (Maybe Bob Gerace can, a little)

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189513-1.html


Somebody should at least get a sternly worded letter from a rapier witted FAA guy in his file for this.....

Just to add fuel to the fire.

My PMI, from FSDO once asked me,"How many annuals did you do this year" (March-March) I gave him the number, he said how do you know some one has not signed off an aircraft using your numbers?

I stood there with my mouth open, Wondering Could it happen ?
He Said "YES" it happens.

Tom D. A&P-IA ( changed his number this year) Got new plastic card too.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Got new plastic card too.

hey did they do away with the black printed paper ones? Are they all like the pilots creditcard style certificates now?

 

[Tom-D]

hey did they do away with the black printed paper ones? Are they all like the pilots creditcard style certificates now?

Pretty blue, just like my new Pilots certificate.

 

[Tom-D]

Egads! That is bad. As a pilot, I always got in a plane with the thought that a knowledgable mechanic had looked at this aircraft so it was safe. Then I got my A&P and started looking at airplanes as a mechanic. There have been planes that I inspected that made me wonder about the mechanic who last worked on it. Sad.

Dustin Smith

You probably didn't know my F-24 had an annual the month before I bought it.

Could you have seen half the discrepancies I found upon tear down?

WE all have our little corner of aviation, I would have been lost trying to inspect the C-320 in question, and that is why I don't do them. I'm pretty savy on the 100 series Cessnas but the F-24 was a new lesson.

This is why I believe we A&Ps should have recurrency requirements.
Not using it? bye bye ticket.
Want to do Cessna 150s? OK, That's all you are allowed to do with out proving knowledge of other types.

Want to be the Bellanca Wood wing king? why not a repairmens certificate saying you are ?

 

[Dustin]

You probably didn't know my F-24 had an annual the month before I bought it.

Could you have seen half the discrepancies I found upon tear down?

Probably not, a lot of those were things probably hidden by fabric. The plane that I really think about when I tell that story is a certain Piper Cherokee. There were many things wrong with it, insluding many panels that had not been reomved for ages, if ever. I'm talking about one of those rubber stamp annuals 6 years in a row by the same IA.

WE all have our little corner of aviation, I would have been lost trying to inspect the C-320 in question, and that is why I don't do them. I'm pretty savy on the 100 series Cessnas but the F-24 was a new lesson.

Same here. I am more interested right now in the smaller fabric aircraft, they just seem like so much fun. Or the smaller GA aircraft, such as the 100 series.

This is why I believe we A&Ps should have recurrency requirements.
Not using it? bye bye ticket.
Want to do Cessna 150s? OK, That's all you are allowed to do with out proving knowledge of other types.

Want to be the Bellanca Wood wing king? why not a repairmens certificate saying you are ?

By the way, how is the F-24 going? I lost your web site as I went to a new computer a couple of times. Interesting project, to say the least.

Dustin Smith

 

[Dustin]

Sorry, some of my reply is located in the quote. I am still trying to get used to this board.

Dustin Smith, computer illeterate.

 

[Tom-D]

Probably not, a lot of those were things probably hidden by fabric. The plane that I really think about when I tell that story is a certain Piper Cherokee. There were many things wrong with it, insluding many panels that had not been reomved for ages, if ever. I'm talking about one of those rubber stamp annuals 6 years in a row by the same IA.


Same here. I am more interested right now in the smaller fabric aircraft, they just seem like so much fun. Or the smaller GA aircraft, such as the 100 series.


By the way, how is the F-24 going? I lost your web site as I went to a new computer a couple of times. Interesting project, to say the least.

Dustin Smith

It has not been updated for a long time but

http://www2.whidbey.net/nc19143/index.htm

 

[RobertGerace]

Yeah; I got just a taste of that, but my shop was a Repair Station. Nevertheless, one must be very careful to choose the right place. Once there, if you are going to get screwed, you're pretty much screwed...if you choose wrong. Sigh...

 

[Stache]

Being a FAA Inspector I just have to jump in on this. I read the story and saw the pictues and yes the aircraft is NOT airworthy. I don't want to put a bad light the local FSDO, but not having the man power is a real issue in all FSDO's mine included.

However, speaking for myself only I would of looked into it just because it is the right thing to do. If and I know there are IA's out there just signing stuff off and I catch them you can bet your bottom dollar I and my other FED buddies will be knocking on their door.

I have caught a mechanic using someones IA number to sign off annuals. As of this writing he is in federal big house. It took a couple of years to get thru the court system, but justice did prevail in this case.

I beleive aviation is the last honest place to work and their are a few bad apples that need to be rooted out. This is the kind of stuff tha makes us all look bad.

This is just one man's openion.

Stache

 

[Dan Deutsch]

This is why I believe we A&Ps should have recurrency requirements.
Not using it? bye bye ticket.
Want to do Cessna 150s? OK, That's all you are allowed to do with out proving knowledge of other types.

Tom - Not to be rude but that's the dumbest idea I ever heard.

I went to school for two years to get my ticket. I don't use it everyday and in fact don't use it every year. One thing I learned in school is my limitations and I respect them.

This is exactly as you stated.

A parallel argument is that because TD has not worked on a 310 he can't until he takes recurrent training.

BTW there is a reg for A&P's that states you can't do a jon unless you know how to do a job. I'm to lazy to look it up but maybe someone might.

Type ratings for A&P's? I don't think so.

So what's hte difference between a sheet metal repair on a 150 and a 172? What's the difference between timing mags or changing plugs on a O-235 and an O-320.

Or were just trying to start a controversy?

 

[Dan Deutsch]

Being a FAA Inspector I just have to jump in on this. I read the story and saw the pictues and yes the aircraft is NOT airworthy.

Stache - I have a question. I have read a lot of your posts and you often state things like, "As an FAA inspector..." and "I can't speak for other FAA inspectors but my judgement..."

So when you post here are you posting as an individual or as the FAA?

This board is anonymous so the I take the fact that you are FAA at your word. I don't really know that. So people, well me anyway, are going to judge your posts on what you say over time, not becuase you stick an FAA tag on your name.

I hope this doesn't sound rude as that's not my intention. My intention is maybe to make you aware that things you say here could be held in legal context, especiallhy in your FSDO jurisdiction.

It's OK to build your rep on your merits but I personally an always cautious to make sure that I don't drop my company's name when talking about jet engines. I don't have the authority to do that.

Peace..

 

[Stache]

Danno,

Yes, I am a FAA Airworthiness Inspector. However I have to give a disclaimer as a legal matter to keep out of law suits and trouble within the agency. The information I provide is based on the facts and current data. As long as I pass on correct information there is not harm. I post as an individual A&P/IA and not as a FAA person most of the time, but it is hard to seperate the man from the job. But being a FAA type I can pass on information that will guide and assist pilots and mecahanics.

You will find I am not your standard out of the box government type. I have owned my own FBO made it and failed been around the block several times. I have made lots of mistakes to which I don't mind passing on so other will not repeat them. And you will find I am very critical of government workers who do not perform their job and I am quite out spoken about it because we have rules to follow ourselves. If you have read some of my newsletters I write every month you will see I am pretty constant and straight in my views. I recommend you down load my June 2005 "The Aviator" when I publish it in a few weeks on the web. I wrote and article called the Good Bad and Ugly we all have our faults.

You ask a quesiton I will give you a striaght answer. I don't pull to many punchs, if a pilot or mechanic makes a mistake I can understand how it happens, but do it intentional and that's a different story. I am not a aviaiton cop by no means as I still carry a wrench in my back pocket and don't mind helping someone.

In the last post I stated "being a FAA Inspector I have to jump in on this". I read things like this all the time and it upsets me when the FAA can and does not do nothing. Kind of soulds like the whole government is like this and I for one am against it. I think we have rules and those rules should be followed by everyone including government worker no matter what branch they work for.

I have to follow internal Orders that say I am an employee 24-7, so it's hard to cut the strings sometimes. I have read things on the web I know are clear violations, but I don't chase someone down for it. I would like to think I can help someone by giving good advise since this is what I do all day and hope they can use it.

At he end of the day I would like to hope we can all sit down and enjoy a beer together and depart as friends.

These are just one man's openion.

Stache

 

[Tom-D]

Tom - Not to be rude but that's the dumbest idea I ever heard.

I went to school for two years to get my ticket. I don't use it everyday and in fact don't use it every year. One thing I learned in school is my limitations and I respect them.

This is exactly as you stated.

A parallel argument is that because TD has not worked on a 310 he can't until he takes recurrent training.

BTW there is a reg for A&P's that states you can't do a jon unless you know how to do a job. I'm to lazy to look it up but maybe someone might.

Type ratings for A&P's? I don't think so.

So what's hte difference between a sheet metal repair on a 150 and a 172? What's the difference between timing mags or changing plugs on a O-235 and an O-320.

Or were just trying to start a controversy?

There are many A&Ps that work all their lives in a training schools 150/172 fleet, Yet they are allowed to work on all aircraft.

There is some thing wrong with that.

The rule you speak of is 65.81

§65.81 General privileges and limitations.

(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.

(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned. [Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-2, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964; Amdt. 65-26, 45 FR 46737, July 10, 1980]

But if you read the whole reg, (65.79) you will see that the FAA requirements are to a basic skill level both in the written and skill levels.

The aircraft in AVwebs article, and the our own Rogers 310 are good examples why the FAA should do more about poor quality maintenance. recurrent training is a tool used on pilots why not mechanics.

 

[Stache]

The new rule part 66 that was shot down, which would of required recurrent trianing for mechanic's like part 65 currently addresses. The new part 145 rule requires repair stations to develope and have the local FSDO "Apporve" their training manual to keep employee's up to speed on the products they work on and new ones they want to work on. Repair station will be required to keep induvidul training records on all employee's. Regular A&P's working under part 91 do not have to have a approved training program.

However the new rule was to go starte April 6, 2005, but because of repair station pressure it was pushed back to April 6, 2006. Slowly the bar is being raised.

Stache

 

[Richard]

Stache, I'm in the San Jose FSDO region. I'd love to read your articles, where do I find them? I empathize with your notion that you're like a fish swimming upstream in the bureaucracy.

Dan, as for people claiming harm arising from something they read on a webboard; I can see it now, some guy defending himself before the judge, "But your honor, I read it on .... and I took it as good advice because the poster said he was speaking from an authoritive position." That's not to say fools don't prevail in court, they do, that is the sad part.

 

[PoAdeleted5]

I think they ought to divide up the A&P license, just like they do for pilots. Powerplants should be divided into piston and turbine. Airframes should be divided into airplane and helicopter. There should be a category for simple stuff, like our little spam-cans and a category for pressurized stuff, and a category for biz-jets and heavy iron.

The A&P schools would likely focus on turning out turbine/transport category grads and put them to work in the airlines and bizjet world.

There ought to be a way for a guy like me to earn enough credentials to sign off my own mechanical work on my own simple aircraft. I don't want to work on helicopters or biz jets. Let's face it, there's nothing on your typical single engine airplane that warrants 18 months of training and on the job experience to replace or repair. I'd be willing to train for it and pass a written and a practical examination as evidence of training.

 

[Tom-D]

The new rule part 66 that was shot down, which would of required recurrent trianing for mechanic's like part 65 currently addresses. The new part 145 rule requires repair stations to develope and have the local FSDO "Apporve" their training manual to keep employee's up to speed on the products they work on and new ones they want to work on. Repair station will be required to keep induvidul training records on all employee's. Regular A&P's working under part 91 do not have to have a approved training program.

However the new rule was to go starte April 6, 2005, but because of repair station pressure it was pushed back to April 6, 2006. Slowly the bar is being raised.

Stache

The FAR part 66 that was proposed was a farce, written by and for colleges, and would have stopped A&P training in the field.

As you know, 60% of the A&P certificates are held by people who are inactive in the industry, Some have retired, some have moved on to better paying jobs, and some are working part 121 where the A&P certificate is not required.

That whole data base should be updated by a one time renewal of certificates. both PPL and A&P

We asked for a repairmans certificate that a person could carry around in their wallot and show they have been trained in _________ and could return to service in their field of expertise. but NO we got part 66.

The very people who hold the knowledge of certain areas are left out, they are required to work under the supervision. The repairmans certificate we have now is only good if employed by a repair station and under a training program.

For example:

Karl Anderson owns and operates Aircraft Northwest. He is the best matalsmith I have ever seen. He can repair a Cessna wing better than the factory. He has no interest in engines, electricity, or welding so he is required to work under the supervision of an A&P that couldn't come close to his skill level.

The FAA needs to monitor the skill level of the people who are working the GA fleet and have a handle on what is good enough and what is not.

 

[Stache]

Stache, I'm in the San Jose FSDO region. I'd love to read your articles, where do I find them? I empathize with your notion that you're like a fish swimming upstream in the bureaucracy.



My newsletter can be found at: http://www.navioneer.org/

Look under forms and Maintenance

Stache

 

[Dan Deutsch]

I have to follow internal Orders that say I am an employee 24-7, so it's hard to cut the strings sometimes. I have read things on the web I know are clear violations, but I don't chase someone down for it. I would like to think I can help someone by giving good advise since this is what I do all day and hope they can use it.

At he end of the day I would like to hope we can all sit down and enjoy a beer together and depart as friends.

Fair enough - I am sure we could enjoy a few beers. Beer...good....

Tom - I like the idea of the periodic re-registration. They did that years ago. People that migrated completely away from aviation never knew they had to re-register and their tickets were lost.

I think that periodically it's a good idea to find out how many mechanics are out there and that's one way to do it.

However - If one got dropped there should be a somewhat painless way to reinstate.

In regards to "type rating" mechanics I think that the rule that Tom posted already covers it, although I doubt there has ever been much enforcement action.

Administatively, with the dwindling numbers of mechanics anyway, adding more bureacracy will just discourage more young folks from joining the ranks.

I could support a rating for >12,500 lbs with turbine and pressurization.

I also think that we need to a "light-sport" mechanics rating. Maybe a 6 month course that allows the "owner" of a "simple" airplane the authority to do more maintenance than is allowable now.

IA writes up the squawks at annual and if your plane is a simple, 4-cyl non presurized, non turbo etc. you should be able to fix the snags if you have the certificate.

 

[Henning]

I think they ought to divide up the A&P license, just like they do for pilots. Powerplants should be divided into piston and turbine. Airframes should be divided into airplane and helicopter. There should be a category for simple stuff, like our little spam-cans and a category for pressurized stuff, and a category for biz-jets and heavy iron.

I don't know if I buy all that. I've been turning wrenches and fixing things all my life, and everything pretty much falls under a few basic rules of physics as to how it works. As long as I have the manual for whatever it is, I'm good to go. It's no different for me to work on an O-200 or a PT-6 or a Sultzer deisel. Riveting a 172, a 747 or a 300' turn or the century Barque, all the same process (well, the iron rivets need heating and the gun and bar are bigger). Composite work is composite work whether I'm building a spar for a sailboat or a spar for a wing. If you've shown your ability to do the process once, the ability carries trough. I work on stuff all the time that I've never seen before, it just takes me a bit longer than if I've done it a couple of times.

There ought to be a way for a guy like me to earn enough credentials to sign off my own mechanical work on my own simple aircraft. I don't want to work on helicopters or biz jets. Let's face it, there's nothing on your typical single engine airplane that warrants 18 months of training and on the job experience to replace or repair. I'd be willing to train for it and pass a written and a practical examination as evidence of training.

I have been an advocate of that for a long time.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Would more restrictions in the accessibility of an A&P certificate through these additional requirements (type ratings etc) make it better or worse for the average pilot, and thus for GA in general?
I could see it might improve safety (although I think the original post of the problem twin was not the norm) but it might also reduce the number of A&Ps available to us (is there now, or will there be a shortage?)

The idea of an owner being allowed to work on only his/her airplane sounds appealing because you might say, 'Only I fly it' but you WILL sell it at some point, and the new owner will assume some risk of your wrench turning.

 

[PoAdeleted5]

I don't know if I buy all that. I've been turning wrenches and fixing things all my life, and everything pretty much falls under a few basic rules of physics as to how it works. As long as I have the manual for whatever it is, I'm good to go. It's no different for me to work on an O-200 or a PT-6 or a Sultzer deisel. Riveting a 172, a 747 or a 300' turn or the century Barque, all the same process (well, the iron rivets need heating and the gun and bar are bigger). Composite work is composite work whether I'm building a spar for a sailboat or a spar for a wing. If you've shown your ability to do the process once, the ability carries trough. I work on stuff all the time that I've never seen before, it just takes me a bit longer than if I've done it a couple of times.

Yeah, me too. I've built plenty of engines and cars and all kinds of electronic things. I'm like that. Put anything mechanical/electronic in front of me and I can usually figure it out completely just looking at it.

The only thing a license does is say that at one point in time, this guy could answer 70% of the questions asked on the subject correctly.

Some things, like pressurized cabins and the workings of turbine engines require some understanding that is not developed in more ordinary mechanical pursuits. Also stuff that goes really fast and/or carries the public around for money should only be worked on by people who can be held accountable for it.

 

[AdamZ]

This is one of the things that terrifies me about aircraft ownership. Although I am good with my hands I would have no clue what to look for ( beyond the obvious) in purchasing a used plane. I would have to rely on a local A&P for a prebuy to make sure I wasn't buying a lemon. But then with aircraft purchases often not being local how do you know you are not hiring a bozo who will let you plunk down mucho dinero for a flying death trap?

 

[Tom-D]

Would more restrictions in the accessibility of an A&P certificate through these additional requirements (type ratings etc) make it better or worse for the average pilot, and thus for GA in general?
I could see it might improve safety (although I think the original post of the problem twin was not the norm) but it might also reduce the number of A&Ps available to us (is there now, or will there be a shortage?)

The idea of an owner being allowed to work on only his/her airplane sounds appealing because you might say, 'Only I fly it' but you WILL sell it at some point, and the new owner will assume some risk of your wrench turning.

I don't think of recurrent training as a restriction, I do believe the owner of an aircraft has the right to ask what you are proficient in, and you should have a method of proving what extra training you have had beyond the A&P requirements.
Having the A&P does not tell any one that you are trained in the use of an autoclave for the repair of composite structures. nor does it say you have not completed a repair on any thing beyond a C-150. The A&P certificate is nothing but basic training for mechanics.

WE need a method to do two things.

1. Prove we have had training in speciality areas such as Composites, Wood, and the new Fabric covers.

2 A Repairmens certificate that any one can accomplish the training to complete a repair and return it to service with out completeing all the training to be a A&P.

 

[Henning]

This is one of the things that terrifies me about aircraft ownership. Although I am good with my hands I would have no clue what to look for ( beyond the obvious) in purchasing a used plane. I would have to rely on a local A&P for a prebuy to make sure I wasn't buying a lemon. But then with aircraft purchases often not being local how do you know you are not hiring a bozo who will let you plunk down mucho dinero for a flying death trap?

That's easy, if you have a mechanic you know and trust especially if they are going to be doing the work on your plane, you either pony up the extra$$$ to bring it to them or bring them to it.

 

[pete177]

That sounds like an awsome idea. Something the factories could offer. Would be an extra revenue stream for them and I for one would be thrilled to be doing my own work and factory trained to repair my airplane. It would be a real uphill battle with the faa though, them wanting you to know how to repair them old R-2800's and such How come it doesnt seem the part about not getting grease all over my interior isn't taught by anyone or tested by the faa?

WE need a method to do two things.

2 A Repairmens certificate that any one can accomplish the training to complete a repair and return it to service with out completeing all the training to be a A&P.

 

[Tom-D]

That sounds like an awsome idea. Something the factories could offer. Would be an extra revenue stream for them and I for one would be thrilled to be doing my own work and factory trained to repair my airplane. It would be a real uphill battle with the faa though, them wanting you to know how to repair them old R-2800's and such How come it doesnt seem the part about not getting grease all over my interior isn't taught by anyone or tested by the faa?

One thing I have noted is, that the more an owner knows about their aircraft the better condition the aircraft is in.

Ed, Bruce, Ron are prime examples

 

[bbchien]

One thing I have noted is, that the more an owner knows about their aircraft the better condition the aircraft is in.

Ed, Bruce, Ron are prime examples

Buy the maintenence manual. Participate in everything maintenence you can. Don't stint on $$s. Anticipate the next maintenence. Stay ahead.