Filing a Complaint With Local FSDO?

asicer said:
Has anyone answered this most basic of questions yet?
Click to expand...

Actually, I've gotten some advice off-line that's been helpful, if I decide to file the complaint. Some people here have given me great advice, privately and in this thread. Others seem to enjoy "attack mode." Ain't the interwebs fun?
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Do I have to do that to engage in a debate? Have I once said, in response to a comment, "no...you're wrong?" I'm debating the issues, and volleying arguments back and forth. Not once have I said that anyone's view is wrong. I may not have agreed with it, but that's what a debate usually is...people presenting differing views. Oh, wait, does that make me a troll, @Salty?
Click to expand...
Uh, yes actually. By not giving true fair feedback to the other participants in the conversation you are manipulating them to get a response. When you intentionally provide nothing but negative feedback, even when you see merit in an argument you are manipulating people. That’s trolling. This is not a high school debate where impartial panelists are judging. You are asking people to convince you of something and then appear to reject any argument but your own, even when you do see merit in the argument. You’re saying whatever you think will elicit a response. That’s trolling.
 
Last edited:
OK, how would the guy that left the bottle disconnected "Make it right"? It took 15 seconds for your G5 installer to reconnect it. Nothing happened in the interim. Pretty much all he could say is "Sorry, I goofed". It seems your main issue is his response vs the actual work.
"Hello, FSDO I want to report an A&P for not saying "Sorry""
 
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...

Having read through the thread so far, and seen the heavily apologist attitude for shoddy work from you and HF, I would not be applying the “troll” label to the OP.

Perhaps your “who cares” attitude to maintenance should be revised, given your recent mechanical failure?
 
Katamarino said:
Having read through the thread so far, and seen the heavily apologist attitude for shoddy work from you and HF, I would not be applying the “troll” label to the OP.

Perhaps your “who cares” attitude to maintenance should be revised, given your recent mechanical failure?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. I would feel the same way the OP does about the actual situation. I would tell others about my experience. I wouldn't go back to this guy. But I wouldn't expect him to kiss my butt after 18 months have gone by. It's just not reasonable.

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.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Done. One of the comments I got back was, quote, "...he has been ripping off a lot of people."
Click to expand...

So maybe get all the photos and/or logbook evidence of him having worked on the planes and no one else since and gather them together along with statements from every pilot who has had problems with him, and bring that to someone. It makes a lot of difference if one pilot complains vs. almost every pilot in a thirty mile radius.

I'm really confused how it was missed at annual, though I'm not a mechanic. I was pretty sure the static syst
 
I aim to visually inspect all work done on my plane. My plane gets dropped off gor annual with cowl removed- I will re-cowl it. I want to see it… I do my own detailed look over before and after work is done. Though my IA doesn’t do owner assisted annuals he knows I’ll be in several times while they are working on my bird so I can poke around it and ask questions….

these things are what I’m trying to prevent…. And I have found a few things from annuals I respectfully request be addressed before i consider it done…
 
SkyChaser said:
I'm really confused how it was missed at annual, though I'm not a mechanic. I was pretty sure the static syst
Click to expand...

Educate me, please. Does this mean that if the PS system appears to be functioning properly (which mine was, because of redundancy), the person doing the annual has to remove interior panels and get under the instrument panel to visually inspect every fitting and tube in the system? (Honest question...is that OK, @Salty?)
 
Salty said:
But I wouldn't expect him to kiss my butt after 18 months have gone by. It's just not reasonable.
Click to expand...

I never asked (or implied) that he kiss my butt. But, as a small businessperson myself, I'd expect him to engage me in a discussion and own his mistake. He did neither, and arrogantly (essentially) told me to pound sand.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Educate me, please. Does this mean that if the PS system appears to be functioning properly (which mine was, because of redundancy), the person doing the annual has to remove interior panels and get under the instrument panel to visually inspect every fitting and tube in the system? (Honest question...is that OK, @Salty?)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think a quick glance at the pitot static system would be appropriate, so if panel removal is necessary for that, then yes. Would I get angry about it not being done? Probably not, but I'd request that it be done next time (and be prepared for the extra cost involved).
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I never asked (or implied) that he kiss my butt. But, as a small businessperson myself, I'd expect him to engage me in a discussion and own his mistake. He did neither, and arrogantly (essentially) told me to pound sand.
Click to expand...
Yup. And I'd never do business with him again because of that. But IMO it's not a reason to report him to the faa. I reject your premise that his rude response indicates a pattern of sloppiness and not caring. Those things may very well be true, and I might even agree that it's likely, but one incident and rudeness is not a pattern, it's our "feeling" that it is. There is no empirical evidence to support it. On a given day, just about every mechanic out there is capable of making that mistake and being that rude.

All you have to report is a single event, and the "feeling" it could be a pattern.

I'm comfortable choosing to not do business with someone over my "feelings" based on their behavior. I'm not comfortable reporting them to the Faa over my "feelings".
 
Last edited:
I'm also stumped. I would say increased accuracy, but that's really not different.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Educate me, please. Does this mean that if the PS system appears to be functioning properly (which mine was, because of redundancy), the person doing the annual has to remove interior panels and get under the instrument panel to visually inspect every fitting and tube in the system? (Honest question...is that OK, @Salty?)
Click to expand...
Again with the straw man argument? I can't find a post here where anyone stated that during the annual inspection that every fitting in the static system should be checked. Can you?

And has been said before, the panels should be removed at every annual. At a minimum to inspect for corrosion, condition of the cables, fuel lines and check the condition of the static sumps (as they age, they have a tendency to crack).

I don't have the annual inspection checklist for a 182 handy, but at least on mine 182-RG this was done at every annual for the 15 years I owned it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
As @Salty assumed, increased accuracy, primarily for accuracy in uncoordinated flight.

An alternate static port (or breaking the glass in your VSI-works best without EFIS :D ) would be for redundancy.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the info. FWIW, I'm having an alternate static port installed as part of the current avionics work.
 
Salty said:
I'm also stumped. I would say increased accuracy, but that's really not different.
Click to expand...
On my plane I installed two so that during slips the static port being blocked by the fuselage would be balanced out by the one facing more into the approaching airstream.

And I put in an alternate static source in the cabin. (breaking the screen of an EFIS doesn't work for that purpose) :D
 
MauleSkinner said:
As @Salty assumed, increased accuracy, primarily for accuracy in uncoordinated flight.

An alternate static port (or breaking the glass in your VSI-works best without EFIS :D ) would be for redundancy.
Click to expand...
I guess I see redundancy as the method used to get the increased accuracy, so it's still redundancy in my mind, but I get ya.
 
Redundancy is what you do to make a failure tolerant system. Putting static ports on both sides of the fuselage isn't done for redundancy, though it does provide redundancy (with decreased functionality).

Fly with one port covered or disconnected and kick the rudder back and forth, or do a slip, you'll see why they used two.
 
Despite @Salty's inaccurate (and snarky) labeling me as a troll, I have carefully read and considered everything that's been written in this near-200 post thread. I appreciate those of you who took the time to provide thoughtful, substantive and helpful information, as compared to some who just wanted to engage in snark/attack mode. (Ain't the interwebs fun?)

I'm leaning toward not filing a complaint with the FSDO, but instead filing a NASA report as (I think) someone along the way in this thread suggested. I just went and looked at the NASA/ASRS reporting options. The "General" form seems to only pertain to piloting/flight issues. The "Maintenance" form seems to be designed for an A&P or IA reporting. Of the two, I think the Maintenance form is probably the best "fit," and I think I can make it work for this report, even though I'm not an A&P or IA, but I'm interested to hear others' opinions.
 
Dana said:
Fly with one port covered or disconnected and kick the rudder back and forth, or do a slip, you'll see why they used two.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I've been flying for 18 months with that sump bottle disconnected, have done multiple slips in that time frame, and didn't notice an issue. Clearly, had sometime seemed amiss, I would have had the PS guy come back and do more troubleshooting.
 
Dana said:
Redundancy is what you do to make a failure tolerant system. Putting static ports on both sides of the fuselage isn't done for redundancy, though it does provide redundancy (with decreased functionality).

Fly with one port covered or disconnected and kick the rudder back and forth, or do a slip, you'll see why they used two.
Click to expand...
it's semantics, so I'm not really disagreeing with you. The error introduced during a slip is a "fault". The redundancy resolves the fault during this flight regime and provides you with more accurate data. When one is not providing good data, the other is. That's the way I look at it. It's still redundancy in my mind.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Educate me, please. Does this mean that if the PS system appears to be functioning properly (which mine was, because of redundancy), the person doing the annual has to remove interior panels and get under the instrument panel to visually inspect every fitting and tube in the system? (Honest question...is that OK, @Salty?)
Click to expand...

Honest answer.

Read https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-D_to_part_43 . Then read the inspection checklist in your plane’s maintenance manual. Let us know what you find.
 
Half Fast said:
Honest answer.

Read https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-D_to_part_43 . Then read the inspection checklist in your plane’s maintenance manual. Let us know what you find.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don’t have a maintenance manual for the plane. After reading the reg, I still wonder how far someone has to go when doing an annual. Does the interior of the plane have to be disassembled to inspect a system that appears to be functioning properly? I will try to get a copy of the maintenance manual to see what it says.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Unfortunately, I don’t have a maintenance manual for the plane. After reading the reg, I still wonder how far someone has to go when doing an annual. Does the interior of the plane have to be disassembled to inspect a system that appears to be functioning properly?
Click to expand...
Isn’t disassembly to inspect systems that appear to be functioning properly what an annual inspection is all about?
 
I feel like the regs (and I'd bet the MM too) are sufficiently vague about how in-depth an inspection should go, to provide proper leeway to hang the mechanic if deemed necessary by inspector or plaintiff attorney. To wit:

Part 43 Appendix D, group (c) has this lovely catch-all:

(c) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the cabin and cockpit group:
...
(7) All systems - for improper installation, poor general condition, apparent and obvious defects, and insecurity of attachment.
 
schmookeeg said:
I feel like the regs (and I'd bet the MM too) are sufficiently vague about how in-depth an inspection should go, to provide proper leeway to hang the mechanic if deemed necessary by inspector or plaintiff attorney. To wit:

Part 43 Appendix D, group (c) has this lovely catch-all:

(c) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the cabin and cockpit group:
...
(7) All systems - for improper installation, poor general condition, apparent and obvious defects, and insecurity of attachment.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem -- how far does the inspection have to go? Does it include disassembling a functioning alternator (as part of the engine area inspection under (d)(10)) to determine if the brushes are worn out? How about checking the wiring at the back of the radio stack to ensure there's no chafing that could lead to a short? Does the entire radio stack have to be pulled out? Seems like a pretty slippery (and vague) slope...
 
Absent any squawks, I don't think it would be reasonable for an inspecting mechanic to actively seek out those static lines to verify operation, continuity, and quality of prior repair.

If the inspecting mechanic noticed a log entry in that area, he might poke around extra, but sounds like yours didn't.

If said mechanic was in that area and "missed it", I could see embarassment.

In either case I can see liability falling to the "last inspecting mechanic" if things got heated or ugly. Which sucks, because every shop I know of is strained to the breaking point already, they're not exactly lavishing extra attention anywhere. Every interaction I've had in the last 2 years has been "barest minimum possible effort" and nothing more to get me on my way. Even my annual had a "Hey, you're an A&P right? Do these things in winter, we didn't have time" list. I wasn't super amused, but I get it and thanked them for calling out the items they found marginal but stretch-able.
 
This is why I do my own inspections both during, and completely outside the annual process. No matter how much I trust my mechanic, he doesn't care as much as I do. And, even if I were an IA, I'd have someone else do the annual inspection on my planes. Because I can make mistakes too.
 
That's a pretty vague checklist. The one for my Beech is several pages.

So given the lack of details, I look at it this way, FWIW.

The inspector is required to "remove or open inspections plates,..." in order to inspect "systems and components." He's not required to dissassemble systems and components. Yes, he should look behind the panel to confirm that the radio is securely mounted and interface wires are not chafing, but he's not required to dissassemble the radio to determine whether any printed wiring board traces are cracked or whether there are any cold solder joints.

The goal should be to find a balance between a conducting thorough inspection versus being so intrusive as to risk inflicting new damage.

In your case,...

(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling.​

An interior panel needs to be removed to see the connection to the static port. If the port needs inspecting, that panel must be removed. So does the pitot-static system have to be inspected?
Well,....

(b) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the fuselage and hull group:


(1) Fabric and skin - for deterioration, distortion, other evidence of failure, and defective or insecure attachment of fittings.


(2) Systems and components - for improper installation, apparent defects, and unsatisfactory operation. ​
Is the pitot-static system a system? Of course. Should it therefore be inspected for "improper installation" or "apparent defects?" Yes, it should, if that can be done with the simple removal of a panel. If it would require dissassembly of the system, then no. In your plane, the pitot-static system had a very apparent defect as a result of an improper installation.

So, IMHO, it should have been examined during your annual. YMMV.
​
 
Half Fast said:
So, IMHO, it should have been examined during your annual. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Not trolling (ok, @Salty?), but let's discuss. The PS system is comprised of metal and plastic fittings and tubes, largely hidden behind interior panels or under the main panel. Is it your view that whatever needs to be done to inspect each tube and fitting, must be done at each annual? So, for example, if the fittings on the back of the altimeter are not easily visible from underneath the panel (and in my panel, the altimeter is in the upper left corner, above several other instruments), does the altimeter need to be removed from the panel to inspect the PS fittings and tubes leading to it? For those in this thread who do their own annuals, do you pull the instruments connected to the PS system to check the PS fittings, if the fittings are not visible from underneath?

Again, I'm not trolling here...but I'm trying to find out how slippery this slope is.
 
Pretty basic ? That’s true as you have ignored the entire Check List!

At one time Cessna published a flat- rate manual that could provide a clue to this.
IIRC A 182 Inspection was about 20-25 man hours.
 
Magman said:
Pretty basic ? That’s true as you have ignored the entire Check List!

At one time Cessna published a flat- rate manual that could provide a clue to this.
IIRC A 182 Inspection was about 20-25 man hours.
Click to expand...

My bad. I found the checklist. Magman is correct, it's lengthy. Pitot and static systems are included for the 100 hour inspection. So it all comes back to what's necessary in terms of removing panels and doing disassembly.

Seems like a conversation with my A&P is next on the list.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
My bad. I found the checklist. Magman is correct, it's lengthy. Pitot and static systems are included for the 100 hour inspection. So it all comes back to what's necessary in terms of removing panels and doing disassembly.

Seems like a conversation with my A&P is next on the list.
Click to expand...


That makes a lot more sense.


SoCal 182 Driver said:
...does the altimeter need to be removed from the panel to inspect the PS fittings and tubes leading to it?
Click to expand...

I'm not an A&P, so my opinion is merely that. As I wrote above, though, I don't believe the inspection requires the dissassembly of systems, and nowhere in Appendix D is the removal of components required.

However, the Appendix D checklist is neccessarily vague, as it must apply to a very wide range of aircraft. The airplace-specific checklist in the maintenance manual is the real word on what must be inspected.
 
Half Fast said:
However, the Appendix D checklist is neccessarily vague, as it must apply to a very wide range of aircraft. The airplace-specific checklist in the maintenance manual is the real word on what must be inspected.
Click to expand...

The checklist merely says Pitot and Static systems. It doesn't specify what needs to be done, but in my plane, clearly, some amount of disassembly would have to be done to get to each fitting and tube of the PS systems.
 
Talk with your A&P. My personal opinion would be to inspect whatever can be done without dissassembly. Maintenance-induced failures are a real thing.

I suspect dissassembly would also require re-certification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top