safe vs airworthy

[Henning]

I've seen some pretty nasty Clevelands too, and required the owner to fix them prior to signing off the annual.

I normally will not take money or make log book entries until the aircraft is airworthy. and safe to fly.

When it is apparent that the owner is unwilling to maintain their aircraft, I simply pack my tool box and go home.

As for the Stinson owner, he is free to do as he wants. he knows my requirements, When he gets the Stinson repaired, I'd be happy to complete the annual.

If you have not charged him, you are clear to act however your conscience dictates. If he has any sense he'll probably bring it back with Clevelands installed anyway, and the whole issue is moot. The reality is you are not incorrect in your opinion and most people have long ago removed them due to the same reality conclusion.

I do the same thing with boat owners, when things get stupid, I leave; but I have a lot more liability at stake. You would have to do something malicious to get charged with manslaughter, I just have to let someone make a mistake.

 

[Clark1961]

It'd be nice to have a consistent set of screws.

speechless

 

[wanttaja]

It'd be nice to have a consistent set of screws.

speechless

Probably not unusual, for an older wood aircraft. These are not structural screws.

The builder of my airplane, for some reason, added some screws around the cockpit coaming. These sometimes back out from the shaking around from me climbing into and out of the cockpit. Sometimes people will say, "Hey, you're missing a screw!" and get upset when I shrug it off. The missing screw isn't shown in the plans...if the designer didn't think it was needed, I don't, either.

There's an inspection panel in the Fly Baby aft fuselage, under the horizontal stabilizer. It's about four inches by four inches. For some reason, the builder used 13 (yes, thirteen) wood screws to hold this down. I replaced this panel a couple of years ago with one that just has four screws. No doubt there would be some who are upset because nine of those old screw holes have nothing in them....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Tom-D]

Under what statute is the Goodyear brake different from the Cleveland brake? We are talking about law here. The Goodyear brakes are fully certified for use in the planes they are on as safe, same safe as they certify for Clevelands.

The risk one is at does not change regardless the signature. Anything that fails and produces a loss or casualty has the exact same potential under the exact same set of rules as any other, including Goodyear brakes.

You must not understand the Goodyear disk brake was a early design, that had some major design flaws, they employ thin spring steel clips to hold the disk in the wheel These clips get over heated loose their ability to be a spring and fall out, or they rust away and allow the disk turn sideways and lock the wheel.

To me they are not safe to operate, in any condition. When you want my ink in your logs saying this aircraft is airworthy and safe to fly, you will bring the aircraft up to my standards. that's all there is to it.

 

[Henning]

The larger problem I think is from the constant removal/installation when doing panel stuff over the years really starts to mess up the wood. Hence why the screw sizes are all different now..which looks like ****.

It'd be nice to have a consistent set of screws.

Do like Ron showed you and slot the foredeck cover to remove around. You may as well disassemble it all, inspect the wood, I would suggest you get a kit of Git Rot and treat the holes and surrounds. A small kit goes a long way on good wood, and will treat a fair bit of rotten wood. It's also good to inject in screw holes of commonly unscrewed items. Not a bunch, you don't want to fill the hole, just the damaged grain structure around the hole. Do it when you take it apart and let it cure before assembly. Also at the sewing stores you can buy bees wax blocks, when you pull screws, screw them into the block for storage. This and Gluvit are my two go to products for keeping 150 year old wood boats sailing, don't be shy to use either on your plane.

 

[Silvaire]

The larger problem I think is from the constant removal/installation when doing panel stuff over the years really starts to mess up the wood. Hence why the screw sizes are all different now..which looks like ****.

It'd be nice to have a consistent set of screws.

It happens to metal airplanes too. The wing root fairings on Cessnas are a prime example as you will rarely find an airplane that has a complete set of original sized screws and washers. Part of the problem is that the nut clips on that section are difficult to replace.

 

[Henning]

It happens to metal airplanes too. The wing root fairings on Cessnas are a prime example as you will rarely find an airplane that has a complete set of original sized screws and washers. Part of the problem is that the nut clips on that section are bleedingly difficult to replace.

FTFY.

 

[schmookeeg]

Under what statute is the Goodyear brake different from the Cleveland brake? We are talking about law here. The Goodyear brakes are fully certified for use in the planes they are on as safe, same safe as they certify for Clevelands.

The risk one is at does not change regardless the signature. Anything that fails and produces a loss or casualty has the exact same potential under the exact same set of rules as any other, including Goodyear brakes.

I think you're quoting FARs and I'm talking about lawsuits... different laws. Both apply, but I think the lawsuit-prevention "standard" is the tighter one here. I also respect that it's a slippery slope whereby EVERY IA may start to refuse signing things off -- and then we can all tar and feather the plaintiffs.

I agree that he will be technically correct to sign off goodyears if they meet their original condition. I also believe that if they're as dangerous as he believes, and that is somewhat common knowledge (I have no idea, this stuff predates me by at least 3 decades), then I think he's correct to behave under the "explain it to the window's jury" standard.

 

[vintage cessna]

I think you're quoting FARs and I'm talking about lawsuits... different laws. Both apply, but I think the lawsuit-prevention "standard" is the tighter one here. I also respect that it's a slippery slope whereby EVERY IA may start to refuse signing things off -- and then we can all tar and feather the plaintiffs.

I agree that he will be technically correct to sign off goodyears if they meet their original condition. I also believe that if they're as dangerous as he believes, and that is somewhat common knowledge (I have no idea, this stuff predates me by at least 3 decades), then I think he's correct to behave under the "explain it to the window's jury" standard.

If a mechanic is going to operate under the the "explain it to the widow's jury" standard, then he shouldn't sign off an inspection unless all the manufacturers "mandatory" service bullitens have been accomplished.

Many shops will present a list of items to the owner after inspection; some labeled mandatory, some labeled recommended and the reason for each. The owner can either accept or decline in writing the recommendations. If this is done I see very little chance of a successful lawsuit.

 

[Henning]

If a mechanic is going to operate under the the "explain it to the widow's jury" standard, then he shouldn't sign off an inspection unless all the manufacturers "mandatory" service bullitens have been accomplished.

Many shops will present a list of items to the owner after inspection; some labeled mandatory, some labeled recommended and the reason for each. The owner can either accept or decline in writing the recommendations. If this is done I see very little chance of a successful lawsuit.

Yep, there is actually more protection for mechanics in law than one thinks.

 

[Henning]

If a mechanic is going to operate under the the "explain it to the widow's jury" standard, then he shouldn't sign off an inspection unless all the manufacturers "mandatory" service bullitens have been accomplished.

Many shops will present a list of items to the owner after inspection; some labeled mandatory, some labeled recommended and the reason for each. The owner can either accept or decline in writing the recommendations. If this is done I see very little chance of a successful lawsuit.

The widow's jury is also the mechanic's jury. These things aren't slam dunks. The part is legal and condition correct, the person was advised that it is highly recommended to change them, this recommendation was declined to be acted upon, the mechanic has satisfied their legal and moral obligation.

 

[vintage cessna]

The widow's jury is also the mechanic's jury. These things aren't slam dunks. The part is legal and condition correct, the person was advised that it is highly recommended to change them, this recommendation was declined to be acted upon, the mechanic has satisfied their legal and moral obligation.

For people who think the established standards are not sufficient protection , I would ask : Are aircraft owners who receive strongly worded "mandatory" service bullitens and ignore them, operating their aircraft with due diligence and care?

 

[Henning]

I think you're quoting FARs and I'm talking about lawsuits... different laws. Both apply, but I think the lawsuit-prevention "standard" is the tighter one here. I also respect that it's a slippery slope whereby EVERY IA may start to refuse signing things off -- and then we can all tar and feather the plaintiffs.

I agree that he will be technically correct to sign off goodyears if they meet their original condition. I also believe that if they're as dangerous as he believes, and that is somewhat common knowledge (I have no idea, this stuff predates me by at least 3 decades), then I think he's correct to behave under the "explain it to the window's jury" standard.

The FARs are the Law that the Judge will use when issuing the jury instructions.

 

[Luvrv8]

This reminds me of a IA who at a air show was looking at my friends PT19. He asked me about the brakes, I told them they were off a 310, there is a STC for this. He asked about the masters, I told him there is some data about what size the master was changed to to lesson the chance of the plane nosing over with out really standing on the brakes. He said he would never sign off on that set up, I said funny our pilots would never fly on the old set up. It seems like there are differant opinions on converting old brake systems to something newer.

 

[Silvaire]

For people who think the established standards are not sufficient protection , I would ask : Are aircraft owners who receive strongly worded "mandatory" service bullitens and ignore them, operating their aircraft with due diligence and care?

We are stepping on eggshells now and venturing into an area with a lot of gray. You can obviously see the CYA strategies of everyone involved, mostly the manufacturers in the form of MANDATORY Service Instructions that will also contain a simple statement that they are herewith incorporated into the Service Manual. Cessna goes a step further with it's SID's (Special Inspections Documents) If you are an aircraft owner in Australia you are now required to comply with these documents and if you read them you'll notice that the second or third line in every one of them says to ensure compliance with ALL manufacturer service bulletins and letters.

For us, you're not going to find anything in the FAR's that says you have to comply with service bulletins but then you're also not going to find anything that says you don't.

 

[Alexb2000]

What about the common sense standard? If something on an aircraft doesn't look up to snuff and it's a safety item like brakes. Is there really any need for further discussion? What is wrong with us that this is such a common conversation.

 

[Richard]

Assuming this is contract law, ie, tort, my answer to Tom's original question is that whatever standards are set by Mfg's recommendations, then SB and AD, and even 'common practices', while Tom could refer to those as guidelines and would have some validity with that, at the end of the day it will fall to the actual work done and it would likely be difficult to provide a plausible answer to the following question. The question will become, If you didn't think it was safe then why did you provide the sign-off? Those aforementioned sources of 'industry standards' are easily pierced and do not protect the tradesman. Basically, Tom could follow the guides to the letter and intent and still be hung out.

Even if he prevails in court, who wants the pain and aggravation of lawyers and courts and that crap?

I'm not a lawyer or expert in any portion of law. But as a tradesman I've been around this sort of stuff too many times.

 

[vintage cessna]

We are stepping on eggshells now and venturing into an area with a lot of gray. You can obviously see the CYA strategies of everyone involved, mostly the manufacturers in the form of MANDATORY Service Instructions that will also contain a simple statement that they are herewith incorporated into the Service Manual. Cessna goes a step further with it's SID's (Special Inspections Documents) If you are an aircraft owner in Australia you are now required to comply with these documents and if you read them you'll notice that the second or third line in every one of them says to ensure compliance with ALL manufacturer service bulletins and letters.

For us, you're not going to find anything in the FAR's that says you have to comply with service bulletins but then you're also not going to find anything that says you don't.

Myself, if my mechanic says something should be done, it gets done. But I know and trust him. But you can run into mechanics who insist something should be done that you disagree with and legally is not required. If the mechanic then wants to hold your plane hostage and the owner incur unnecessary costs, now there is a problem.

For the people who think Tom could be held liable for the brakes, I just wanted to point out that perhaps they should apply the same logic to their liability as an aircraft owner, i.e. noncompliance with mandatory service bulletins.

 

[Silvaire]

...Basically, Tom could follow the guides to the letter and intent and still be hung out...

Whether that's true or not if we are going to live our lives based on it we may as well hang it up and stay home. That or be bonded to the point that only the incredibly wealthy can afford to fly a private airplane.

Perhaps that's why an A&P Mechanic can never get rich because if he reaches a point where he would fear losing his wealth he'd stop working on airplanes.

 

[Richard]

speechless

As Ron W. says, it is not uncommon. My 1944 L-5E had a wide variety of screws, and associated hardware. My efforts towards achieving commonality involved having to R/R skin panels. Plus I was able to increase payload when I accessed every inch of that aircraft to remove decades worth of dropped screws, bolts, nuts, washers, rivets, etc.

 

[Richard]

I had a wonderful book written by Bowers himself. IIRC, he did flip a FlyBaby but I do not remember if it was on floats or wheels. I have much admiration for his achievements including putting an Aeronca C-2 on floats as his daily driver.

 

[vintage cessna]

What about the common sense standard? If something on an aircraft doesn't look up to snuff and it's a safety item like brakes. Is there really any need for further discussion? What is wrong with us that this is such a common conversation.

Because the issue is not about common sense, it is about opinions. A mechanic can label any various components as unsafe based on his experience, but if the component meets the definition of airworthy it is not his call to refuse a sign off. He should advise the owner of his opinion and recommendation but not create a hassle for the owner if the owner declines his recommendation.

 

[weirdjim]

Because the issue is not about common sense, it is about opinions. A mechanic can label any various components as unsafe based on his experience, but if the component meets the definition of airworthy it is not his call to refuse a sign off.

The hell it isn't. When you can put IA after your name, come in here and tell us all about it. Until then, neither Tom nor I am obligated to sign a damn thing off. Again looksee. Tom didn't take a penny for his work. He won't take a penny until the brakes are changed. If the owner refuses, Tom walks away. No harm, no foul.

I've done the same thing on both annuals and flight reviews. Don't like my standards? Go find somebody whose standards meet your expectations.

Jim

 

[vintage cessna]

The hell it isn't. When you can put IA after your name, come in here and tell us all about it. Until then, neither Tom nor I am obligated to sign a damn thing off. Again looksee. Tom didn't take a penny for his work. He won't take a penny until the brakes are changed. If the owner refuses, Tom walks away. No harm, no foul.

I've done the same thing on both annuals and flight reviews. Don't like my standards? Go find somebody whose standards meet your expectations.

Jim

I don't have a problem with what Tom did, since he told him upfront before the inspection and didn't charge anything. However, if you or any other mechanic, accepts a job , performs an inspection, wants payment for the inspection, then you are obligated to sign off the inspection in accordance with FAR's.

 

[Silvaire]

...However, if you or any other mechanic, accepts a job , performs an inspection, wants payment for the inspection, then you are obligated to sign off the inspection in accordance with FAR's.

Absolutely but a signed off inspection does not necessarily mean an airworthy aircraft. It only means that the inspection was performed and that the requirement for an annual inspection has been fulfilled.

 

[Henning]

What about the common sense standard? If something on an aircraft doesn't look up to snuff and it's a safety item like brakes. Is there really any need for further discussion? What is wrong with us that this is such a common conversation.

Well, because here it's a matter of opinion. Who is saying that a set of Goodyear brakes in proper condition is not "up to snuff?" Ultimately it is the owner/operator's call to make, they are the ones ultimately responsible for the maintenance and condition of their airplane, that is black letter law as well. I believe Tom has pointed out many times, the IA is just signing off condition and compliance at the moment of the inspection; the PIC determines airworthiness on every flight.

 

[Tom-D]

As Ron W. says, it is not uncommon. My 1944 L-5E had a wide variety of screws, and associated hardware. My efforts towards achieving commonality involved having to R/R skin panels. Plus I was able to increase payload when I accessed every inch of that aircraft to remove decades worth of dropped screws, bolts, nuts, washers, rivets, etc.

Screws nuts and bolts are minor alterations that do not constitute a safety hazard.

There is a big difference between that and a bad brake system.

 

[Tom-D]

Well, because here it's a matter of opinion. Who is saying that a set of Goodyear brakes in proper condition is not "up to snuff?"

I am,, they were shi- when they were new. And every body knew it except the young new aviators that never had to put up with stuck brakes.

 

[Henning]

Assuming this is contract law, ie, tort, my answer to Tom's original question is that whatever standards are set by Mfg's recommendations, then SB and AD, and even 'common practices', while Tom could refer to those as guidelines and would have some validity with that, at the end of the day it will fall to the actual work done and it would likely be difficult to provide a plausible answer to the following question. The question will become, If you didn't think it was safe then why did you provide the sign-off? Those aforementioned sources of 'industry standards' are easily pierced and do not protect the tradesman. Basically, Tom could follow the guides to the letter and intent and still be hung out.

Even if he prevails in court, who wants the pain and aggravation of lawyers and courts and that crap?

I'm not a lawyer or expert in any portion of law. But as a tradesman I've been around this sort of stuff too many times.

Again, you fail to show where the legal standard differentiates the Goodyear brake or any other currently type certified component. The exposure is the same regardless. If liability exposure is a concern, either insure or quit. Personally I don't see there being any great risk. Tom's liability rider to his homeowner's may even cover this especially since he is retired.

 

[Richard]

My perspective of this thread is there is the practical and the academic parts of this discussion. I believe the two to be equal in importance and that neither is exclusive of the other.

Based on retro's post #104, Assuming no discrepancies, does performance of a condition inspection warrant a sign-off? A follow-on question, Is the fact that Goodyear brakes have fallen out of favor (as evidenced by majority of owners switching to other brake systems) indicative of 'unsafe' condition? Surely, pilots who are notorious for being cheap would not incur the expense absent compelling reason.

 

[Henning]

I am,, they were shi- when they were new. And every body knew it except the young new aviators that never had to put up with stuck brakes.

True, but then why weren't they eliminated by AD? The FAA doesn't view them as unsafe, nor does the manufacturer.

 

[vintage cessna]

Absolutely but a signed off inspection does not necessarily mean an airworthy aircraft. It only means that the inspection was performed and that the requirement for an annual inspection has been fulfilled.

That is true, and if the IA doesn't substitute his definition of airworthy for the legal definition, there is no problem.

 

[Alexb2000]

Well, because here it's a matter of opinion. Who is saying that a set of Goodyear brakes in proper condition is not "up to snuff?" Ultimately it is the owner/operator's call to make, they are the ones ultimately responsible for the maintenance and condition of their airplane, that is black letter law as well. I believe Tom has pointed out many times, the IA is just signing off condition and compliance at the moment of the inspection; the PIC determines airworthiness on every flight.

We are talking about an aircraft that hasn't flown since 1986. The brakes were very rusty according to Tom. Not to mention poor performing design when they were in good shape. Hence the recommendation to change them vs. try and fix. Those factors combined don't warrant a brake rework in your opinion?

 

[Tom-D]

I believe Tom has pointed out many times, the IA is just signing off condition and compliance at the moment of the inspection; the PIC determines airworthiness on every flight.

OK let's say I signed off the annual as airworthy, knowing that these brakes are legal, but not safe.

Here comes a low time pilot just getting their tailwheel endorsement. didn't I just set him up to get killed. or at least ruin a great old Stinson?

I must live with my conscience, I won't allow that to happen if I can help it.

 

[Tom-D]

We are talking about an aircraft that hasn't flown since 1986. The brakes were very rusty according to Tom. Not to mention poor performing design when they were in good shape. Hence the recommendation to change them vs. try and fix. Those factors combined don't warrant a brake rework in your opinion?

"A" 100%,

 

[Henning]

We are talking about an aircraft that hasn't flown since 1986. The brakes were very rusty according to Tom. Not to mention poor performing design when they were in good shape. Hence the recommendation to change them vs. try and fix. Those factors combined don't warrant a brake rework in your opinion?

Oh, in this particular case sure, they failed on condition, might as well swap. I was referring to general context, where the materials passed on condition.

 

[Richard]

Oh, in this particular case sure, they failed on condition, might as well swap. I was referring to general context, where the materials passed on condition.

Brakes as safety items. Probably for the same thinking not all aircraft are required to have electrical systems.

 

[Tom-D]

OBTW folks,, at the prices of Goodyear parts today, by the time he makes the goodyear brakes airworthy, he will be pocket change from a new Cleveland upgrade kit.

Here is what I advised him to do, get the proper P/Ns for the Cleveland kits parts, and call the salvage yards with the numbers. Both sides will probably be less than $1000.00

 

[Tom-D]

Oh, in this particular case sure, they failed on condition, might as well swap. I was referring to general context, where the materials passed on condition.

Remember ,, they were shi- when they were new. unsafe in any condition. but that was all we had, until Cessna bought McCauley and started to produce aircraft with dependable brakes.

Then Cessna sold McCauley to Parker industries, (who owns Cleveland). so now all McCauley part numbers are upgraded and replaced with Cleveland parts.

 

[vintage cessna]

OK let's say I signed off the annual as airworthy, knowing that these brakes are legal, but not safe.

Here comes a low time pilot just getting their tailwheel endorsement. didn't I just set him up to get killed. or at least ruin a great old Stinson?

I must live with my conscience, I won't allow that to happen if I can help it.

If you gave the owner your best advice, then your conscience should be clear. I used to work in ATC . Many times a part 91 pilot would call for a clearance and my first thought would be what in Gods' name is this guy doing? Is his family on board? I would advise the pilot of the severe wx saturating the area ( not to mention it is also night time) and would ask if he would like to wait until later when the wx was forecasted to be better. Sometimes they would wait sometimes not. I never usurped my authority and told them they couldn't go because it was unsafe to do so.