Filing a Complaint With Local FSDO?

frankly, I wouldn't be that worried about every fitting on pitot static if it had an up to date inspection done on it. ;) But I also wouldn't be freaking out about losing the redundant static line. Lots and lots of IFR planes don't have it.
 
Last edited:
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I think "freaking out" is calling someone a troll for engaging in spirited debate.
Click to expand...
Labeling something is not freaking out. I never even indicated there was anything wrong with trolling, let alone "freaked out" about it.

Reporting someone to the FAA is freaking out.
 
Salty said:
Labeling something is not freaking out. I never even indicated there was anything wrong with trolling, let alone "freaked out" about it.
Click to expand...

Puh-leeze. Labeling someone a troll is pejorative, and you know it.
 
Not going to argue about it anymore. I believe I've already made it clear I was not calling you a troll.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Puh-leeze. Labeling someone a troll is pejorative, and you know it.
Click to expand...

...so is calling someone a jerk. Both of you and Salty considered yourself well-justified in your opinion, but if you're going to throw stones, maybe you should board up your windows.
 
I do not understand this whole thing. If I owned an airplane I wouldn’t even know what to look for. I’m not a trained A&P. I couldn’t even tell what was wrong with the original pic until I read further into this thread. I’ve never seen the guts of a static system, nor any other systems I’m suppose to self inspect according to some.
That’s why I always believed you hired the A&P. As an owner I assumed you were responsible for ensuring the A&P has completed THEIR work (via log book sign off), not *doing their work*.

Seriously, is an owner expected to know how to do an annual?
I thought that’s why we have licensed A&Ps with IA.
 
Kritchlow said:
I do not understand this whole thing. If I owned an airplane I wouldn’t even know what to look for. I’m not a trained A&P. I couldn’t even tell what was wrong with the original pic until I read further into this thread. I’ve never seen the guts of a static system, nor any other systems I’m suppose to self inspect according to some.
That’s why I always believed you hired the A&P. As an owner I assumed you were responsible for ensuring the A&P has completed THEIR work (via log book sign off), not *doing their work*.

Seriously, is an owner expected to know how to do an annual?
I thought that’s why we have licensed A&Ps with IA.
Click to expand...
As an owner, you are wise to understand these things, even if it's not legally required.
 
Salty said:
At this point I’m calling troll, and I don’t do that lightly. You are doing way too good a job of mincing your words to the point of making them meaningless for it to be coincidental.
Click to expand...

You're not calling me a troll in this post? And now who's mincing words. Own your "stuff," @Salty.
 
Kritchlow said:
I do not understand this whole thing. If I owned an airplane I wouldn’t even know what to look for. I’m not a trained A&P. I couldn’t even tell what was wrong with the original pic until I read further into this thread. I’ve never seen the guts of a static system, nor any other systems I’m suppose to self inspect according to some.
That’s why I always believed you hired the A&P. As an owner I assumed you were responsible for ensuring the A&P has completed THEIR work (via log book sign off), not *doing their work*.

Seriously, is an owner expected to know how to do an annual?
I thought that’s why we have licensed A&Ps with IA.
Click to expand...

Oh, Kritchlow, I have taken a beating in 200 or so posts on just this point. Trust me, you're not on the popular side of public opinion on this point.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
You're not calling me a troll in this post? And now who's mincing words. Own your "stuff," @Salty.
Click to expand...
Sure I will own it.

Salty said:
The "troll" label is on the behavior, not the person. Intentionally responding in such a way to elicit a reaction is trolling. Period. He repeatedly crafted his responses to me to sound negative, when he now claims he didn't actually feel that way. It's trolling.
Click to expand...
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Oh, Kritchlow, I have taken a beating in 200 or so posts on just this point. Trust me, you're not on the popular side of public opinion on this point.
Click to expand...
If you're nothing but an ignorant owner, then you aren't even qualified to report it to the FAA. Can't have it both ways.
 
Salty said:
If you're nothing but an ignorant owner, then you aren't even qualified to report it to the FAA. Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Actually, isn't that when something should be reported, so it can be determined whether there is actually a problem, since the person making the report isn't an expert?
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Actually, isn't that when something should be reported, so it can be determined whether there is actually a problem, since the person making the report isn't an expert?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should ask your A&P to report it. He would have the expertise. Solves your problem completely.
 
schmookeeg said:
If the inspecting mechanic noticed a log entry in that area, he might poke around extra, but sounds like yours didn't.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

During the condition inspection I would hope the A&P would look behind a recent repair if it was noted in the logs. I fly an experimental and I'm the guy doing the looking although I do get other eyes on it from time to time. So ... what do I know? :dunno:
 
Looking at the plane's inspection checklist was eye-opening. It doesn't relieve the original repair station's negligence, but I do see the point that the error could have been caught during a subsequent annual. It still begs the question, though, of how much disassembly of the interior and panel should be done in that process. I'll have a discussion with my A&P at the next annual, especially because the plane is undergoing an avionics upgrade now (which is how the original error was discovered).
 
I've never had the instrument panel opened up for an annual inspection. Always looked up from the floor to check cables, pulleys and such.
 
donjohnston said:
I've never had the instrument panel opened up for an annual inspection. Always looked up from the floor to check cables, pulleys and such.
Click to expand...

That highlights a point I made earlier -- my altimeter is at the upper left corner of my panel. Very difficult (if not impossible) to inspect the altimeter pitot-static fittings from under the panel. The question becomes, to properly inspect the pitot-static system at an annual, if you can't see the fittings, do you have to remove the altimeter to inspect the fittings? (This was part of the discussion about whether the problem with my pitot-static system should have been subsequently discovered at an annual.)
 
Salty said:
If you're nothing but an ignorant owner, then you aren't even qualified to report it to the FAA. Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "the fallacy of the excluded middle."
 
Palmpilot said:
Sounds like "the fallacy of the excluded middle."
Click to expand...
Well, it’s true anybody can report anything, but that doesn’t mean they are qualified to determine that they should. And, imo if you are an owner that doesn’t think you should need to understand what should be included in an annual inspection of your aircraft, you also don’t need to understand what’s appropriate to report.
 
Salty said:
Well, it’s true anybody can report anything, but that doesn’t mean they are qualified to determine that they should. And, imo if you are an owner that doesn’t think you should need to understand what should be included in an annual inspection of your aircraft, you also don’t need to understand what’s appropriate to report.
Click to expand...

Kind of, uh, salty, @Salty. As an owner, I may not know everything that goes into an annual, but I know enough to know that a disconnected pitot-static sump bottle ain't right. Is that worthy of a FSDO report? According to most on this thread, it's not. Nonetheless, at least I knew enough to raise the question. Isn't it, ultimately, up to the FSDO to determine whether something reported is actually worthy of investigation? Similar to a cop deciding if there's enough information (probable cause) to investigate a crime report? I think you're being overly harsh and restrictive in your pronouncement.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
But they can quickly conclude there's no "there," there, right?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by “quickly”, I guess. This is a government entity with sometimes onerous processes.

As @Salty indicated, your logbooks are probably going to have to be sent up for review, and they’ll probably have some kind of interview with you, the guy who did the work, and the mechanic who did the subsequent annual. Depending upon workload, that could be a while.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Depends what you mean by “quickly”, I guess. This is a government entity with sometimes onerous processes.

As @Salty indicated, your logbooks are probably going to have to be sent up for review, and they’ll probably have some kind of interview with you, the guy who did the work, and the mechanic who did the subsequent annual. Depending upon workload, that could be a while.
Click to expand...
And after all that, you may discover that it's difficult to find someone to work on you plane locally.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
...Is that worthy of a FSDO report? According to most on this thread, it's not. Nonetheless, at least I knew enough to raise the question....
Click to expand...
The way I would summarize the responses is not that it's not worthy of a report, but that it's not worth the risk of blowback on yourself. :dunno:
 
Salty said:
I'd expect they'd be looking at your log books to determine that.
Click to expand...


Likely followed by a look at the aircraft itself, to determine whether its condition matches the logs and whether there are other discrepancies.
 
Kritchlow said:
I do not understand this whole thing. If I owned an airplane I wouldn’t even know what to look for. I’m not a trained A&P. I couldn’t even tell what was wrong with the original pic until I read further into this thread. I’ve never seen the guts of a static system, nor any other systems I’m suppose to self inspect according to some.
That’s why I always believed you hired the A&P. As an owner I assumed you were responsible for ensuring the A&P has completed THEIR work (via log book sign off), not *doing their work*.

Seriously, is an owner expected to know how to do an annual?
I thought that’s why we have licensed A&Ps with IA.
Click to expand...

As an owner, you do have the right to rely on the A&P/IA/Repair Station to properly perform their work. That being said, flying in inherently dangerous, and if you want to control your risks, you'd do well as a pilot (not just an owner) to educate yourself on a variety of elements of aircraft maintenance. For example, the Cessna Pilots Association offers both in-person and online Systems and Procedures classes for several models. I took that class for the 182 shortly after I bought our plane. It was absolutely worth the time and money. Since then, I have taken many opportunities to continue to learn, and after 18 years of ownership, I think I've become pretty knowledgeable about 182s, particularly to know when "something doesn't look right or feel right" and it's time call the A&P.
 
You may think your logs are fine; until :

Example

AD 76-07-12 Bendix Ignition Switch was due at 4001 hours.

However; the Records show it was not complied with until 4022 hrs.

So; does the Owner/ Operator take the violation or if multiple pilots , each one get cited. I’ve seen both ways.

Consider how current your ADs , W & B and other items are before handing the logs over.

FSDO policies do vary.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
As an owner, you do have the right to rely on the A&P/IA/Repair Station to properly perform their work. That being said, flying in inherently dangerous, and if you want to control your risks, you'd do well as a pilot (not just an owner) to educate yourself on a variety of elements of aircraft maintenance. For example, the Cessna Pilots Association offers both in-person and online Systems and Procedures classes for several models. I took that class for the 182 shortly after I bought our plane. It was absolutely worth the time and money. Since then, I have taken many opportunities to continue to learn, and after 18 years of ownership, I think I've become pretty knowledgeable about 182s, particularly to know when "something doesn't look right or feel right" and it's time call the A&P.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. I've taken the CPA course twice, and each time I've learned something. I often help my A&P do the "grunt work" on my annuals. Same with the currently ongoing avionics upgrade. Each time I do that, I learn more about the plane and its systems.
 
Magman said:
You may think your logs are fine; until :

Example

AD 76-07-12 Bendix Ignition Switch was due at 4001 hours.

However; the Records show it was not complied with until 4022 hrs.

So; does the Owner/ Operator take the violation or if multiple pilots , each one get cited. I’ve seen both ways.

Consider how current your ADs , W & B and other items are before handing the logs over.

FSDO policies do vary.
Click to expand...


121.380 can be your friend:

(c) Each certificate holder shall retain the records required to be kept by this section for the following periods:

(1) Except for the records of the last complete overhaul of each airframe, engine, propeller, and appliance, the records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for one year after the work is performed. ​

If the FAA wants to fish in your logs, there's no requirement (except for OH records) to give them more than a year's worth.
 
Half Fast said:
121.380 can be your friend:

(c) Each certificate holder shall retain the records required to be kept by this section for the following periods:

(1) Except for the records of the last complete overhaul of each airframe, engine, propeller, and appliance, the records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for one year after the work is performed. ​

If the FAA wants to fish in your logs, there's no requirement (except for OH records) to give them more than a year's worth.
Click to expand...

Half - Does this apply to Part 91, or is there an analogous statute under Part 91?
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Half - Does this apply to Part 91, or is there an analogous statute under Part 91?
Click to expand...


Yep, 91.417. It's pretty similar.


(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:


(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.


(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. ​
 
So we want to go back 18 months but only provide Records for last 12 months?

When you call the Fire Dept; don’t complain if the petunias get trampled!
 
Half Fast said:
If the FAA wants to fish in your logs, there's no requirement (except for OH records) to give them more than a year's worth.
Click to expand...

Maybe they could get a subpoena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top