Heart of Texas Aircraft Engines, anybody ever use them?

And looking at how people are willing to ship this guy their engines, that seems to be the only thing that counts.

I don't know anything about the guy's engines, but yeah, pilots are cheap as they come. Personally I'd likely do my own field overhauls if I had the time. Not because of the money, I likely wouldn't save much, but because then I know exactly what I have.
 
I don't know anything about the guy's engines, but yeah, pilots are cheap as they come. Personally I'd likely do my own field overhauls if I had the time. Not because of the money, I likely wouldn't save much, but because then I know exactly what I have.
Of course pilots have a preference for lower cost items. If folks did not have a preference for paying less, it would be a lot harder to make a living as an economist.
 
:confused: Can you show me that law? It's quite common in my experience for a CRS manager to sign off all the work done in the shop regardless which mechanic(s) did the work.

14 CFR 43.5

No idea what a "CRS manager" is.... the reference was to the shop owner. I'm referring to AP's.... and a shop owner may not be one.
 
14 CFR 43.5

No idea what a "CRS manager" is.... the reference was to the shop owner. I'm referring to AP's.... and a shop owner may not be one.

Repair Station Certificate owner. The governing rule on signatures for returning to service are in 43.9 & 43.11 which I will cite below, please indicate to me which passage says that the person doing the work must be the person to provide the signature:

§43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, §135.411(a)(1), and §135.419 of this chapter).
(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.

(b) Each holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under Part 121 or 135, that is required by its approved operations specifications to provide for a continuous airworthiness maintenance program, shall make a record of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration, on aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts which it operates in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter, as appropriate.

(c) This section does not apply to persons performing inspections in accordance with Part 91, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 of this chapter.

(d) In addition to the entry required by paragraph (a) of this section, major repairs and major alterations shall be entered on a form, and the form disposed of, in the manner prescribed in appendix B, by the person performing the work.

[Amdt. 43-23, 47 FR 41085, Sept. 16, 1982, as amended by Amdt. 43-37, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 43-39, 69 FR 44863, July 27, 2004]

§43.11 Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.
(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.

(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service.

(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof.

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”

(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”

(6) For progressive inspections, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that in accordance with a progressive inspection program, a routine inspection of (identify whether aircraft or components) and a detailed inspection of (identify components) were performed and the (aircraft or components) are (approved or disapproved) for return to service.” If disapproved, the entry will further state “and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator.”

(7) If an inspection is conducted under an inspection program provided for in part 91, 125, or §135.411(a)(1), the entry must identify the inspection program, that part of the inspection program accomplished, and contain a statement that the inspection was performed in accordance with the inspections and procedures for that particular program.

(b) Listing of discrepancies and placards. If the person performing any inspection required by part 91 or 125 or §135.411(a)(1) of this chapter finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet the applicable type certificate data, airworthiness directives, or other approved data upon which its airworthiness depends, that persons must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies. For those items permitted to be inoperative under §91.213(d)(2) of this chapter, that person shall place a placard, that meets the aircraft's airworthiness certification regulations, on each inoperative instrument and the cockpit control of each item of inoperative equipment, marking it “Inoperative,” and shall add the items to the signed and dated list of discrepancies given to the owner or lessee.
 
Henning:

You are now claiming something I didn't say. I said shop owner... not CRS manager. My shop owner doesn't hold an AP/IA nor are they qualified to swing a wrench. They have never signed any return to service on my aircraft... the AP/IA does that. I'm not seeing in the citations where it claims someone with no skills in the field can sign a return to service.

In any case, why ask a question you already seem to know the answer to?
 
Henning:

You are now claiming something I didn't say. I said shop owner... not CRS manager. My shop owner doesn't hold an AP/IA nor are they qualified to swing a wrench. They have never signed any return to service on my aircraft... the AP/IA does that. I'm not seeing in the citations where it claims someone with no skills in the field can sign a return to service.

In any case, why ask a question you already seem to know the answer to?

Because you said the law states that the A&P doing the work has to provide the signature, that is false. The person doing the work doesn't even have to hold an A&P. As for Bruce McWhorter he holds an A&P with IA.
Personal Information
BRUCE ROBINSON MCWHORTER

PO BOX 203
DEVINE TX 78016-0203
County: MEDINA
Country: USA
Medical
No Medical Available.
Certificates
MECHANIC
Date of Issue: 3/13/2013
Certificate: MECHANIC Print
Ratings:
MECHANIC
AIRFRAME
POWERPLANT
INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION
DISTRICT OFFICE: SW17 03/2013
 
Because you said the law states that the A&P doing the work has to provide the signature, that is false. The person doing the work doesn't even have to hold an A&P. As for Bruce McWhorter he holds an A&P with IA.

I thought an AP had to supervise the work? Might want to check the initial compliant.

In any case, you win the internet argument Henning.
 
Another first post.

Jeff, instead of commenting on the # of posts I have, deal with the actual comments. I have pics of my engine, taken @ his shop, + more pics taken within 2 mos of completion. Also have copies of letters written at that time that were ignored. Most of the issues are self proving or obvious.
Perhaps I am a troll, in that I was screwed over, and I wish to warn others so they can avoid same issues.
 
:confused: Can you show me that law? It's quite common in my experience for a CRS manager to sign off all the work done in the shop regardless which mechanic(s) did the work.

Depends, my manager has no RTS authority, I do though
 
I thought an AP had to supervise the work? Might want to check the initial compliant.

In any case, you win the internet argument Henning.

Depends, at a CRS a repairman can do all the work sans A&P
 
Jeff, instead of commenting on the # of posts I have, deal with the actual comments.

They are one in the same as it very likely goes to your creditably. Now I'm not saying on your very first post you might just have happened to stumble across this post... and then only to second another first time poster (did you forget your password to that one?). I'm just saying this series of coincidences seems highly unlikely. Also it's hard to notice you've not been on the board for 3 weeks now... 2 posts here being your entire contribution.. and just this thread.


I have pics of my engine, taken @ his shop, + more pics taken within 2 mos of completion. Also have copies of letters written at that time that were ignored. Most of the issues are self proving or obvious.
Perhaps I am a troll, in that I was screwed over, and I wish to warn others so they can avoid same issues.

I believe you believe that.... I also suspect you are a regular on here who is using a fake user name with some unknown ax to grind. If I'd had the experience you did... I'd likely be posting under my own user name... in fact I might even be posting the judgement I got against this company.
 
If you are considering using this company for anything at all, be VERY careful. I have used a company, defunct, at Devine, Texas, near San Antonio, owned by him and got thoroughly screwed by Bruce McWhorter. I sued him and won, but could not collect because he had closed his corporate account. I would not consider using him to carry out my garbage. It appears he had to leave Texas for some reason. I wonder why? If you choose to deal with him, make sure he is not insulated from a lawsuit by a corporate veil.
 
Who is the guy that keeps calling everybody a troll?
 
A random, brand new user resurrects a three year old zombie thread just to complain about shop that has been reorganized years ago? This is obvious troll land. If you're a real person and not a puppet account of the last two that peppered this thread, stick around a couple months and post some stuff so that PoA gets to know you. Then, maybe, we'll take you seriously. If you're not... good bye, good riddance.
 
A random, brand new user resurrects a three year old zombie thread just to complain about shop that has been reorganized years ago? This is obvious troll land. If you're a real person and not a puppet account of the last two that peppered this thread, stick around a couple months and post some stuff so that PoA gets to know you. Then, maybe, we'll take you seriously. If you're not... good bye, good riddance.

So you're the guy who is calling everybody a troll? Have YOU had any dealings with Bruce McWhorter?
 
So what's up with this website? It is now called "Heart of the West" and is located in Wyoming. Or was it always that way and people assumed it was in Texas?
 
And your point is....?
His point is....you wont win many friends here busting in, resurrecting an old thread, start blasting regular users and acting all bad-ass. You may very well be right, I dont know, but you arent coming across as credible. There ya go.
 
His point is....you wont win many friends here busting in, resurrecting an old thread, start blasting regular users and acting all bad-ass. You may very well be right, I dont know, but you arent coming across as credible. There ya go.

Speaking plainly and offering fact diminishes credibility? Incidentally, I did not come here to win friends, but to influence people who are about to make a possible mistake.
 
Maybe more your speed is Proverbs 17:28, Proverbs 18:1, and Job 13:5

You are using biblical passages to defend a guy who avoided his responsibility by using the technical defense of the corporate veil?
 
You could post a copy of the judgement you obtained against the guy and the lovers of cut rate overhauls here would claim that it is photoshopped.
 
You could post a copy of the judgement you obtained against the guy and the lovers of cut rate overhauls here would claim that it is photoshopped.

I think you are absolutely correct. BTW, the judgment is public record, and they can get it themselves. These guys are the classic definition of trolls.
 
You are using biblical passages to defend a guy who avoided his responsibility by using the technical defense of the corporate veil?
Missing-the-Point.png
 
So you're the guy who is calling everybody a troll? Have YOU had any dealings with Bruce McWhorter?

I have not. And it's completely irrelevant whether I have or have not. This isn't about Bruce. This is about you. And I have now had the unfortunate displeasure of dealing with you.

You have zero credibility. Folks who are not trolls do not come on to public boards and start attacking someone at random. In particular, someone who is not even registered on the board. People who desire credibility start by building up their own reputation before trying to tear down someone else. Tearing down another person means spending some of your own goodwill. You have earned none yet and have none to spend.

The usual admonition to someone like me is, "Don't feed the troll!", but I will admit that I don't believe you actually meet the traditional definition of "troll", as in someone who stirs the pot just get off on the resulting carnage. I might be wrong; you may well be that. There are a few options for the person behind the username rffjr:
  • Traditional troll. Already discussed. Seems unlikely.
  • Disgruntled customer on the warpath. Seems most likely, with one caveat: you posted zero information on how you would know of Bruce. That is probably because the actual facts of the interchange would discredit you or identify you, possibly both.
  • Disgruntled competitor. Possible. Undermining a competitor is a functioning, though unethical, strategy.
  • Disgruntled supplier. More possible. As you haven't specified your reason for the hack job, it's possible that it's unrelated to the actual work done. If you didn't get paid or paid on time or rejected as a supplier, this sort of reaction is possible. Since the actual facts would undermine the statements, you won't share.
  • Unhappy with Bruce for something not related to the shop. Possible. Could be personal, could be driven by ideology. If it's ideology, I expect to see that espoused on soon.
Two other puppet accounts on this thread already with similar content suggests that all three are probably you. In particular, the fact that this thread was found and resurrected strongly suggests that, as it would have been nearly impossible to find by anyone without direct knowledge and participation in it.

Overall, your actions are unethical, annoying, and do not accomplish what you claim you want. They may violate the terms of service of the board as well, though I'll leave that up to the management council to decide.
 
Speaking plainly and offering fact diminishes credibility? Incidentally, I did not come here to win friends, but to influence people who are about to make a possible mistake.

You havent provided any facts. Im glad you didnt come to win friends, your are right on track.

You could post a copy of the judgement you obtained against the guy and the lovers of cut rate overhauls here would claim that it is photoshopped.

This is a fantastic Idea, would take care of issue one on facts.

I think you are absolutely correct. BTW, the judgment is public record, and they can get it themselves. These guys are the classic definition of trolls.

We dont know your name, so any judgement that we may find against the other guy would be unverifiable as yours. Troll....I dont think it means what you think it means.
 
I have not. And it's completely irrelevant whether I have or have not. This isn't about Bruce. This is about you. And I have now had the unfortunate displeasure of dealing with you.

You have zero credibility. Folks who are not trolls do not come on to public boards and start attacking someone at random. In particular, someone who is not even registered on the board. People who desire credibility start by building up their own reputation before trying to tear down someone else. Tearing down another person means spending some of your own goodwill. You have earned none yet and have none to spend.

The usual admonition to someone like me is, "Don't feed the troll!", but I will admit that I don't believe you actually meet the traditional definition of "troll", as in someone who stirs the pot just get off on the resulting carnage. I might be wrong; you may well be that. There are a few options for the person behind the username rffjr:
  • Traditional troll. Already discussed. Seems unlikely.
  • Disgruntled customer on the warpath. Seems most likely, with one caveat: you posted zero information on how you would know of Bruce. That is probably because the actual facts of the interchange would discredit you or identify you, possibly both.
  • Disgruntled competitor. Possible. Undermining a competitor is a functioning, though unethical, strategy.
  • Disgruntled supplier. More possible. As you haven't specified your reason for the hack job, it's possible that it's unrelated to the actual work done. If you didn't get paid or paid on time or rejected as a supplier, this sort of reaction is possible. Since the actual facts would undermine the statements, you won't share.
  • Unhappy with Bruce for something not related to the shop. Possible. Could be personal, could be driven by ideology. If it's ideology, I expect to see that espoused on soon.
Two other puppet accounts on this thread already with similar content suggests that all three are probably you. In particular, the fact that this thread was found and resurrected strongly suggests that, as it would have been nearly impossible to find by anyone without direct knowledge and participation in it.

Overall, your actions are unethical, annoying, and do not accomplish what you claim you want. They may violate the terms of service of the board as well, though I'll leave that up to the management council to decide.

FYVM. What a twit you are. If you will look at the title of the thread, you may discern why I am commenting on this page. It matters not one whit to me whether I have credibility with you. Emotion like that requires that I have respect for you, which I do not. My comments and this thread are about Bruce McWhorter and the problems he has had with customers related to aircraft. I am not a troll, but you have all the characteristics of a troll. rffjr is my only account and is not a puppet account, nor are the other accounts you refer to. I do not know your motivation, but methinks you protest too much.
 
I don't know, but I suspect you are.
Would you even want a gay horse?
You would want to ride it but it would be lookin at all the other horses like "Can I get some of that?"

And they would look at each other and say "All opposed, Say Nay"
Then your horse would be like "Hay!"
 
Im sure someone is going to report this, and since rffffffjjrrrrrrlmnop has broken about 6 of the ROC, it could be bad. However, I sure hope they dont drop the ban hammer and I hope this thread doesnt get closed because it is turning into solid gold.
 
Im sure someone is going to report this, and since rffffffjjrrrrrrlmnop has broken about 6 of the ROC, it could be bad. However, I sure hope they dont drop the ban hammer and I hope this thread doesnt get closed because it is turning into solid gold.

Yeah, this thread is epic. Lesbian horses, some anonymous dude with an axe to grind against a rebuild shop, same anonymous dude questioning the sexuality of a longstanding member (see the joke there?).

What we need here is more anonymous dude with a bad attitude. There's never enough of that.
 
Back
Top