I think I got fired

Blade #1 is stamped on the front of the prop where the blade blends into the hub. It is usually hidden by the front bulkhead for the spinner.

Bob
 
An FAA inspector can red tag an airplane.


But, unless you know one personally, they will most likely just shine you on.
 
Nice of you not to bill the owner for a days worth of labor.

At best, this is a back of the hangar project for an A&P to work on during slow periods. At worst, it's a lawn ornament or a beer can.
 
Brad Z said:
Nice of you not to bill the owner for a days worth of labor.

At best, this is a back of the hangar project for an A&P to work on during slow periods. At worst, it's a lawn ornament or a beer can.
Click to expand...


Mount it on a pole and it would make a great wind indicator...:yes:
 
N801BH said:
But,,, If I see a obvious problem with a plane that could / will result in an accident... I sure as hell am going to say something to somebody...:yes:
Click to expand...

I was at an airport in AZ once, and got some gas. There was an old codger sitting around and he took a look at my Bonanza and got pretty upset because I didn't have the ruddervator cuff AD done. So, he looked inside, and didn't see the required red line on the ASI when the cuffs aren't on. He was ranting, and went to talk to the AP in the hangar, etc. He started asking questions, and I finally had enough and told him to step away. He said he was gonna call the FAA, and report my tail number. I got out my phone and gave him the number.

Sadly, for all his 'help' he didn't know that the plane was exempt from the AD. Oh well, wonder if he ever called them?
 
Brad Z said:
Nice of you not to bill the owner for a days worth of labor.
Click to expand...

There is a method to my madness, When I bill him for the work, doesn't that attache me to the aircraft?

Now the FAA has proof that I'm involved with the aircraft in some way.

It's just easier to say " Thanks for letting me know to stop work" and let it go at that.
 
docmirror said:
I was at an airport in AZ once, and got some gas. There was an old codger sitting around and he took a look at my Bonanza and got pretty upset because I didn't have the ruddervator cuff AD done. So, he looked inside, and didn't see the required red line on the ASI when the cuffs aren't on. He was ranting, and went to talk to the AP in the hangar, etc. He started asking questions, and I finally had enough and told him to step away. He said he was gonna call the FAA, and report my tail number. I got out my phone and gave him the number.

Sadly, for all his 'help' he didn't know that the plane was exempt from the AD. Oh well, wonder if he ever called them?
Click to expand...

Every body is an expert. Even here. :)
 
Reminds me of the tear down report on my Gopher engine. The guy from G&N said he'd send me a complete report but wanted to give me a heads up that I'd probably be better starting with a different core than this one. I told him to not bother reassembling it but just throw it in a box and I'd come get it.

The report went on for a page and a half. The last line was:

Six of the spark plugs need replacing.

I then asked if that was sort of the sum total of my plane: that I had six serviceable spark plugs?
 
Tom-D said:
There is a method to my madness, When I bill him for the work, doesn't that attache me to the aircraft?

Now the FAA has proof that I'm involved with the aircraft in some way.

It's just easier to say " Thanks for letting me know to stop work" and let it go at that.
Click to expand...

Now I realize you're not wrenching for a living these days, so you have the luxury of walking away. But I disagree with the premise that billing for work makes you more liable.

This happens to mechanics conducting pre-buys all of the time. A&P begins inspection, finds a bunch of not so nice things, purchaser asks to stop inspection, A&P prepares a list of things found up until that point, shares it with buyer, bills buyer.

In your situation, you document what you're required to document, put it on a sticky, keep a copy for your records, and mail the sticky to owner, along with the invoice for a day's labor.

I think it would be more disconcerting if there was an incident, and someone mentions or had seen you working on the aircraft, without any corresponding documentation.

FWIW, I am only a Pilot, Instructor and aircraft owner, but not an A&P. That said, I've flown with some unsat pilots, but that didn't stop me from logging the dual given. But like your annual in the OP, I sure as heck wasn't going to sign off their flight review.
 
Brad Z said:
Now I realize you're not wrenching for a living these days, so you have the luxury of walking away. But I disagree with the premise that billing for work makes you more liable.

This happens to mechanics conducting pre-buys all of the time. A&P begins inspection, finds a bunch of not so nice things, purchaser asks to stop inspection, A&P prepares a list of things found up until that point, shares it with buyer, bills buyer.

In your situation, you document what you're required to document, put it on a sticky, keep a copy for your records, and mail the sticky to owner, along with the invoice for a day's labor.

I think it would be more disconcerting if there was an incident, and someone mentions or had seen you working on the aircraft, without any corresponding documentation.

FWIW, I am only a Pilot, Instructor and aircraft owner, but not an A&P. That said, I've flown with some unsat pilots, but that didn't stop me from logging the dual given. But like your annual in the OP, I sure as heck wasn't going to sign off their flight review.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%...:yes:
 
I certainly don't think Tom has any liability here, but paying would sure increase the likelyhood of becoming liable.

The only thing I might have done, which the FAA likes is to put a big placard on the yoke, and across the key slot "NOT AIRWORTHY". Snap a pic, and be on your way. If the owner comes along later and removes it, oh well.
 
docmirror said:
I certainly don't think Tom has any liability here, but paying would sure increase the likelyhood of becoming liable.

The only thing I might have done, which the FAA likes is to put a big placard on the yoke, and across the key slot "NOT AIRWORTHY". Snap a pic, and be on your way. If the owner comes along later and removes it, oh well.
Click to expand...

There again you leave evidence that you had some thing to do with the aircraft. Now the questions start.
 
N801BH said:
Agreed 100%...:yes:
Click to expand...

We know this type of operator will some day be under the FSDO's microscope, when that happens I don't want any thing pointing to me as having anything to do with this aircraft or owner.

If he were to indicate I was involved, I'd simply tell the inspector that I was contacted to do an annual inspection and was told to stop.

It is my impression that his kids don't want him flying. I can't blame them. That opinion is based upon what others have told me. True? untrue? who knows.
 
Tom-D said:
There again you leave evidence that you had some thing to do with the aircraft. Now the questions start.
Click to expand...

Well, then the question becomes, "what is your legal responsibility?" Meet that and you eliminate your liability. There are certain things that require being rendered destroyed failing an inspection, but I have never heard of it applying to doing an annual.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
There are times when we refuse to work on a vehicle, some of them are so screwed up that we know they'll never be totally fixed. These are usually ones that the customers neighbor or buddy has been "fixing" for them, wiring is a mess, used parts of various origin and quality. And the people generally can't afford to get it fixed right, so if we replace a processor of something, we end up married to the car!:mad2: If that doesn't fix all the problems, they bring it back and expect us to fix whatever happens next for FREE! :mad2:
I've got a lady now complaining that we are racist, we diagnosed her car FOUR times over the last year, she never had any repairs done, we replaced her transponder that controls the ignition and the total that she has paid us is $54.00, which I have offered to refund to her! :mad2:
 
Tom-D said:
There again you leave evidence that you had some thing to do with the aircraft. Now the questions start.
Click to expand...

If you go down the 'I see notink' route and later turns out there is ANY evidence you did in fact see something, that is even worse. Like this thread on POA describing your findings.

ruh-roh
 
docmirror said:
If you go down the 'I see notink' route and later turns out there is ANY evidence you did in fact see something, that is even worse. Like this thread on POA describing your findings.

ruh-roh
Click to expand...

My point EXACTLY.....
 
docmirror said:
If you go down the 'I see notink' route and later turns out there is ANY evidence you did in fact see something, that is even worse. Like this thread on POA describing your findings.



ruh-roh
Click to expand...

That was my thought exactly, as well.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That was my thought exactly, as well.
Click to expand...

So, what am I supposed to do? Break and enter his hangar, complete the inspection, and declare the aircraft unairworthy? by holding a gun to his head?

I'l do what I was told to do. (Quit) and be happy he asked me to.
 
docmirror said:
If you go down the 'I see notink' route and later turns out there is ANY evidence you did in fact see something, that is even worse. Like this thread on POA describing your findings.

ruh-roh
Click to expand...

All any one would see is the discrepancy list, either here or at his hangar.

And of course, all the posts and opinions.
 
docmirror said:
If you go down the 'I see notink' route and later turns out there is ANY evidence you did in fact see something, that is even worse. Like this thread on POA describing your findings.

ruh-roh
Click to expand...

How did you get the idea that I would ever go that route?

I did make a discrepancy list. I did leave it in the hangar.

When the FAA does get involved, why would they question my actions.
 
Tom-D said:
So, what am I supposed to do? Break and enter his hangar, complete the inspection, and declare the aircraft unairworthy? by holding a gun to his head?

I'l do what I was told to do. (Quit) and be happy he asked me to.
Click to expand...

Understood, I don't see an issue with what you did, however do you have an obligation to make an entry in the log since you did the inspection? If you complete the inspection phase, don't you normally make an entry like "Annual Inspection performed, discrepancy list provided to owner" or something like that if you can't sign it off as good? That should be more than sufficient to protect you against forward liability, because as you say, you can't force him to fix it, that's his choice.
 
This is why I prefer the format of airline logs over GA logs. In the airline world, you write the discrepancy or the inspection due on the left side of the log book and the right side is for the corresponding corrective action. In the GA world, you basically have just one block where you put down what you did.

If GA followed the airline model, all of these discrepancies would be documented in the log and the owner would be required to have them signed off by an A&P with either an actual fix or a statement that it is acceptable as is.
 
You were asked to perform an inspection and you inspected the plane. What is seen cannot be unseen, now that you inspected it you have to document the results. If he doesn't give you the logs, put your log entry on a sticky (along with your discrepancy list) and mail it to him certified return receipt. Whether you bill him or not will not affect whether you are liable for someone getting hurt in the junk-plane.

ERA12FA514 is an accident report that illustrates what can happen if unscrupulous people dont wait for a discrepancy list to be worked off before they sell a plane. In this case, aircraft owner and a potential buyers wife died in a takeoff crash (the buyer survived with >60% burns). Both seller and IA were deadbeats, so there was no lawsuit, you otoh have some assets so you can't bank on the 'I am broke' protection. You inspected it, document that you informed the owner of the unairworthy condition.
 
I think Tom's lawyer would rip the parties a new one if they tried to tie him to this.
 
Every one assumes I completed the inspection.

All I really did was the preliminary stuff. I inspect as I go as I open the aircraft. I didn't get far to get these discrepancies. most are apparent on a walk around.

I don't believe I have any responsibility to the owner when he stopped the work.
 
Guessing I'm way out in left field on this case, but I don't give a wet, dribbly spit about the logs, paperwork, documentation. I just would prefer that someone not hop in and fly the thing away not knowing about the unseen defects. Now if the owner comes along after and takes it off, so be it. His plane, his rules. But - he was warned.
 
docmirror said:
Guessing I'm way out in left field on this case, but I don't give a wet, dribbly spit about the logs, paperwork, documentation. I just would prefer that someone not hop in and fly the thing away not knowing about the unseen defects. Now if the owner comes along after and takes it off, so be it. His plane, his rules. But - he was warned.
Click to expand...
Believe me that will not happen.

Think of this guy as the hermit of aviation. :) I'd bet he doesn't know a lawyer.
 
Tom-D said:
Every one assumes I completed the inspection.

All I really did was the preliminary stuff. I inspect as I go as I open the aircraft. I didn't get far to get these discrepancies. most are apparent on a walk around.

I don't believe I have any responsibility to the owner when he stopped the work.
Click to expand...

Your choice, but it sure passes the quack test for having performed the Annual Inspection. I agree with mailing him the stickies and discrepancy list certified mail and keeping a notarized and dated copy. Now your bases are covered.
 
Henning said:
But the potential buyer likely does.
Click to expand...

Get that out of your mind, this guy will never sell. His estate might, but any one that knows any thing will have it inspected. and it is a buyer beware market.
 
Tom-D said:
Get that out of your mind, this guy will never sell. His estate might, but any one that knows any thing will have it inspected. and it is a buyer beware market.
Click to expand...

And your name will be the last one that comes up. Again, up to you, but it's easy as it can be to CYA by crossing the Ts and dotting the Is.... In less time than it took to participate in this thread it could have been done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top