Shop tries new payment techniques. Block aircraft with tug!

[Chip Sylverne]

That's not too far off.

IF the story as we have it is correct, the avionics shop delivered it to the mechanics shop. The owner had a contract with the avionics shop, not the mechanics shop. The mechanics shop is said to have performed unauthorized work and billed for it, and it is that shop which is holding the plane. Payment has already been settled with the avionics shop.

The avionics shop might have had a lien, but that's been settled since that shop has been paid. I don't see how the mechanics shop, not a party to the original agreement and not authorized to perform all the work they did, can have any lien against the aircraft owner. Their claim is against the avionics shop, if any.

To carry on the parking garage analogy, suppose the garage had some other business come in and wash and wax your car without you asking for it. Does the wash company then have a lien on your car? Can they block your car in the parking space until you pay?

Well, then you get into the issues of sub-bailment. Is the shop the same enterprise as the avionics shop? Is it a separate entity? If separate, and the property was put in the custody of the mechanic shop without the owners knowledge or consent and the avionics shop authorized the work, then the avionics shop may well be liable for a portion of the mechanics bill to the extent that they stood in the owners shoes and had the responsibility to act as a prudent aircraft owner and manage the services provided. The mechanic still has the right to maintain possession of the aircraft until they are paid,by one or both parties, and the owner isn't entitled to a free ride and unjust enrichment because they ultimately gain the benefit of the services.

This is of course assuming there was nothing nefarious or criminal going on here. If one of the party has dirty hands, different story.

In your garage example, the garage owner would be liable for the wash unless the owner was aware of the service, and would be liable for any damage the washer may have caused, but the washer still has a security interest in getting paid for their services, and ultimately the bailor got the benefit.

Sub bailments get complicated.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

No, they wouldn't have a case for a lien. The aircraft owner should have immediately been on the phone with the state Attorney General's office consumer protection division. Performing and billing for unauthorized repairs has been a scam since we've had vehicles and mechanics. Without an authorization from the owner, the shop owner has left himself open to criminal and civil liability. If the facts are as reported, I hope the aircraft owner is mad enough to follow through completely and break it off in the shop.

The fraud is an allegation that's a matter to be litigated. In the meantime, the shop can keep the airplane until they are paid, or there is a order for replevin releasing poseesion to the owner.

 

[Bell206]

It looks like he was in possession on the plane out on the ramp (public space).

FYI: not all ramp space is "public" even at a public airport. My one and only hangar lease came with 4 ramp tie-down spaces that I controlled and had to insure myself on a "public airport". And at the old day job, the hangar lease came with 100' x 350' of flightline for the exclusive use of the company on a municipal airport. So without knowing the arrangement of the OP shop the aircraft could have been on "private" property and under their control. Assumptions are assumptions.

 

[Dana]

Years ago I knew a girl who got behind on her tiedown payments while she was out of town, the FBO put a chain and padlock around the propeller, really messed up the paint on the nose bowl. She settled the bill, but not before we removed and replaced the prop and threw the chain in the trash.

 

[schmookeeg]

"Please leave my private ramp but leave your possessions behind"

I would love to know if there is a list of these states where a perfected lien require possession of the aircraft. It seems I am one bad faith invoice away from having my stuff taken, and would prefer to limit my doing business in those states.

 

[squincher]

The fraud is an allegation that's a matter to be litigated. In the meantime, the shop can keep the airplane until they are paid, or there is a order for replevin releasing poseesion to the owner.

I didn't write otherwise. If the facts are as presented, the shop isn't getting paid for unauthorized work and the owner is getting back the plane because they won't have a case to enforce any lien.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

"Please leave my private ramp but leave your possessions behind"

I would love to know if there is a list of these states where a perfected lien require possession of the aircraft. It seems I am one bad faith invoice away from having my stuff taken, and would prefer to limit my doing business in those states.

Once again, to be clear, if you voluntarily surrender your property (bailor) to a shop (bailee) for a lawful purpose for which you can be charged money and refuse to pay the bill for the work, you only lose right of possession of the property to the bailee, not the title, under the common law of bailment. If you continue to refuse payment, the bailee may follow statutory procedure to obtain a perfected Iien with power of sale from a court. Some states provide a statutory power of sale if the bill remains unpaid for a specific period of time, notice is given to the owner and the public sale is advertised for a certain period. You may lose title at public auction and have any money in excess of the bill and lawfully included expenses of the sale returned to you, but not ever without notice. If the bill is specious or disputed, you may recover your property legally via an order of replevin while the matter of the bill is being litigated.

That's just the way it is.

Bailments are a matter of common law in all states and most countries that have systems based on British common law. Doesn't matter if you board horses, repair guitars operate a parking garage or install avionics, your business is bailment, and common law of bailment governs. You can't take your stuff unless you pay the bill. the shop is required to take reasonable care of your stuff while it's in their possession, the standard of which depends on the reason for the contract of bailment.

If you want to know the statutes pertaining to bailments in a specific state, start at the link below. Knowing the property and commercial codes of the states in which you do business is a good thing, and will save you time and a truckload of money.

https://law.justia.com/codes/

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I didn't write otherwise. If the facts are as presented, the shop isn't getting paid for unauthorized work and the owner is getting back the plane because they won't have a case to enforce any lien.

The plane, plus fees, plus punitive and compensatory damages. Courts don't take fraud lightly, but the matter still has to be litigated. If the shop is crooked, I hope they get taken to the cleaners...

 

[flyingron]

Assumptions are assumptions.

This whole thread is nothing but a bunch of assumptions.

 

[TCABM]

This whole thread is nothing but a bunch of assumptions.

As are most, if not nearly all. Not unlike life itself.

 

[Ventucky Red]

FWIW: while it may not break any laws in your eyes, the existing laws won't offer any protections for you as well with just the logbooks. If you're going to hold "collateral" hold the aircraft in accordance with your state's laws.

Thanks for setting me straight on this.. I guess I am looking at this from my perspective which is for my annual, when I pay for it, I get the logs back. The plane is already back in my spot and free for me to use.

But then again, I am dealing with a reputable person... guess there in lies the difference.

I think there you have a problem. The bailee performed no work on the logbooks, and it could be legitimately argued the bailee has no claim on them. No different than a mechanic who works on a car, releases to the possession of the owner but keeps the owners briefcase. The logs are associated with the airplane, and have value, but aren't the airplane or the purpose for which the bailment was created.

The airplane is the security interest, not the logs. I would think the better choice would be to refuse to sign the return to service until payment was made, if the logs are to enter the picture.

In my case, Maryland Code said I could keep the horses as a security interest, but had no legitimate claim on the owner's saddles.

I think your example has a few more inches of dots to connect. Aren't the logs fungible to the aircraft? If the logs were updated with the work performed, annual inspections, etc... wouldn't they now be attached?

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Thanks for setting me straight on this.. I guess I am looking at this from my perspective which is for my annual, when I pay for it, I get the logs back. The plane is already back in my spot and free for me to use.

But then again, I am dealing with a reputable person... guess there in lies the difference.



I think your example has a few more inches of dots to connect. Aren't the logs fungible to the aircraft? If the logs were updated with the work performed, annual inspections, etc... wouldn't they now be attached?

Could a reputable shop sell the logbooks at public auction to recover their claim from a deadbeat owner? The only reasons to keep them would be as leverage against the bailor, or to enhance the value of the aircraft at public auction. But then, if the claim is but a smaller percentage of the value, the logs wouldn't be necessary.

My guy doesn't want the logs after his review. I get them back, and he prepares and signs stickers with the entries and release.

If the logs are lost, destroyed by fire or otherwise devalued while in their possession, the shop would be liable for the financial hit to the aircraft if the bailor redeems. What is the security interest in keeping only the logs? If we accept your argument that the logs become part of the aircraft, then keeping them would be tantamount to removing radios or other parts, which is not a right of the bailee.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Could a reputable shop sell the logbooks at public auction to recover their claim from a deadbeat owner? The only reasons to keep them would be as leverage against the bailor, or to enhance the value of the aircraft at public auction. But then, if the claim is but a smaller percentage of the value, the logs wouldn't be necessary.

My guy doesn't want the logs after his review. I get them back, and he prepares and signs stickers with the entries and release.

If the logs are lost, destroyed by fire or otherwise devalued while in their possession, the shop would be liable for the financial hit to the aircraft if the bailor redeems. What is the security interest in keeping only the logs? If we accept your argument that the logs become part of the aircraft, then keeping them would be tantamount to removing radios or other parts, which is not a right of the bailee.

Why not just avoid the risk entirely by sharing scans/copies of logs? There is no reason for any A&P to ever have physical posession of your original logs.

 

[Salty]

Why not just avoid the risk entirely by sharing scans/copies of logs? There is no reason for any A&P to ever have physical posession of your original logs.

That's what I do. My logs stay in my safe.

Which brings me to another point. If they'd withheld the log entries for the work done, they could have used that to get payment without holding more property with disproportional value to the debt. If they actually did work that needed to be logged. And if not, well....

 

[Eric Pauley]

That's what I do. My logs stay in my safe.

Which brings me to another point. If they'd withheld the log entries for the work done, they could have used that to get payment without holding more property with disproportional value to the debt. If they actually did work that needed to be logged. And if not, well....

Same. I keep a Google Drive folder with all log entries sorted both chronologically and separated out for ADs/STCs/W&B/etc. I also keep a spreadsheet of most recent replacement and inspection dates for all sorts of parts. If that's harder for the shop to use than a giant binder of logbook pages I don't want them touching the plane anyway.

 

[Bell206]

There is no reason for any A&P to ever have physical posession of your original logs.

Depends. Unsupervised possession of your original logs, sure. But if I'm going to make an airworthiness determination based on those original logs or feel I need to review the original logs for accuracy, then yes I'll want to see the originals but under your supervision as needed.

If they'd withheld the log entries for the work done,

That would be an unsmart move on the part of the shop or mechanic as it puts them in violation of Part 43 and only complicate things.

 

[Salty]

Depends. Unsupervised possession of your original logs, sure. But if I'm going to make an airworthiness determination based on those original logs or feel I need to review the original logs for accuracy, then yes I'll want to see the originals but under your supervision as needed.

That would be an unsmart move on the part of the shop or mechanic as it puts them in violation of Part 43 and only complicate things.

I don't think it violates Part 43 at all. THEY are not operating the aircraft, and they are not condoning operation of the aircraft. If someone else operates the aircraft before work that was done is properly logged, that is their violation, not the mechanic.

 

[Bell206]

I don't think it violates Part 43 at all. THEY are not operating the aircraft,

It does as Part 43 is a "performance" regulation and regulates the task at hand. No aircraft operation required. Part 91 is an "operational" regulation which requires the aircraft to operate in order for there to be a violation. Part 43.9(a) is the specific reg and addresses anyone who works on an aircraft, not just a mechanic, to make the entry for any work performed. Any mechanic or shop who tries holding their signatures to ensure payment will get their azz handed to them once the FSDO shows up.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Depends. Unsupervised possession of your original logs, sure. But if I'm going to make an airworthiness determination based on those original logs or feel I need to review the original logs for accuracy, then yes I'll want to see the originals but under your supervision as needed.

That would be an unsmart move on the part of the shop or mechanic as it puts them in violation of Part 43 and only complicate things.

Please reference the regulation that requires you reference original logbooks to make an airworthiness determination. AFAIK the FAA doesn't even require that logs have any phyiscal form (AC 43-9C mentions issues with signatures in digital logs but this E-Sign act has made it clear that digital signatures can be made with the same legal force as ink ones). Almost certainly the airlines are managing them all digitally now.

 

[Salty]

It does as Part 43 is a "performance" regulation and regulates the task at hand. No aircraft operation required. Part 91 is an "operational" regulation which requires the aircraft to operate in order for there to be a violation. Part 43.9(a) is the specific reg and addresses anyone who works on an aircraft, not just a mechanic, to make the entry for any work performed. Any mechanic or shop who tries holding their signatures to ensure payment will get their azz handed to them once the FSDO shows up.

So, according to this regulation, how many milliseconds do you have to make this log entry from the moment the work is complete? I’ve seen mechanics take days to finish the paperwork after an in-depth maintenance is performed. Sorry, not buying it. I don’t even have to be a certified mechanic to work on a certified aircraft if the aircraft is never flown again. The log entry is not relevant until it’s time to fly.

 

[Bob Noel]

Can work actually be considered complete before the aircraft logs indicate that the airplane is returned to service?

 

[Bell206]

Please reference the regulation that requires you reference original logbooks to make an airworthiness determination.

My A&P certificate and Part 43.13(a) allows me to request the original logs.

Almost certainly the airlines are managing them all digitally now.

Some Part 91K, 121, 135 and similar ops do use electronic signatures and records, however, they are required to be FAA approved systems via their OpSpecs. Now there is guidance for a Part 91 owner to adopt an electronic signature and records program for their aircraft that does not need FAA approval or acceptance. Unfortunately, that same guidance also states if that system doesn't meet certain "standards" the FAA can "question its validity." And believe me they will. We tried several times. So short of purchasing a pricey "approved" system, pen and ink signatures are still required for Part 43/91 requirements.

The log entry is not relevant until it’s time to fly.

Keeping to the context of your statement in post 94: "If they'd withheld the log entries for the work done, they could have used that to get payment without holding more property with disproportional value to the debt"... If the mechanic is holding their signature for payment only, i.e., the aircraft is complete, you can call the FSDO and get him busted on Part 43.9 or 43.11. Its been done before. Hence my initial reply. It has zero to do with flying.

Can work actually be considered complete before the aircraft logs indicate that the airplane is returned to service?

Complete how? A mechanic can only approve an aircraft for return to service with their signature. A pilot performs the actual return to service.

 

[Eric Pauley]

My A&P certificate and Part 43.13(a) allows me to request the original logs.

Are you referring to "accepted industry practices"? The regs don't prevent you from demanding all sorts of draconian junk from owners; doesn't mean an owner will has to put up with demands that have no regulatory basis. If a shop insisted on physical copies I'd see that as a bad sign that they either (a) take an adversarial approach towards owners, or (b) are too incompetent to use a computer. In either case I'd take a hard pass.

Savvy advises all their clients to never provide physical logs to anyone. From what I've heard they haven't faced much pushback on that from people that they want to work with. FWIW I've never faced any pushback from shops for providing only digital logbooks.

Unfortunately, that same guidance also states if that system doesn't meet certain "standards" the FAA can "question its validity."

I don't see your point here. Whether or not you want to produce digital logbook entries is irrelevant. My point is that clearly demanding physical logbook originals has no basis because maintenance records aren't required, in general, to be kept in any physical format.

 

[Racerx]

My A&P certificate and Part 43.13(a) allows me to request the original logs.

I just read 43.13(a) and I don't see anything about logbooks, let alone original logs.

I'll only do digital logs as I once had a logbook scare. Forgot to ask for the logs back when annual was completed. Flew home. Realized it weeks later. Took a couple weeks to get them back in my possession.

 

[Bell206]

FWIW I've never faced any pushback from shops for providing only digital logbooks.

Ha. And I've never been denied access to the original logs except by you. Go figure.

has no basis because maintenance records aren't required, in general, to be kept in any physical format.

As I mentioned you might want to review AC43.9 again. Part 91.417 comes into play with mx records and specifically signatures. But as the owner this all your call and not mine. Curious, when your mechanic signs off your annual inspection or an AD is it done on paper or electronically?

I just read 43.13(a) and I don't see anything about logbooks, let alone original logs.

Part 43.13 are performance rules I need to follow as an A&P. It wont list logbooks, engines, wings, or any other specific item as it covers them all. If in the course of my work I need to look at the original logs then that falls under the catchall "or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator." Regardless, if an owner is incapable of letting me review the original records within the sanctuary of their records vault then more than likely I wouldnt take the job in the first place. However that has never happened until today.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Ha. And I've never been denied access to the original logs except by you. Go figure.

As I said, Savvy does this for all (thousands?) of their clients. I didn't make this up.

As I mentioned you might want to review AC43.9 again. Part 91.417 comes into play with mx records and specifically signatures. But as the owner this all your call and not mine. Curious, when your mechanic signs off your annual inspection or an AD is it done on paper or electronically?

Every mechanic I have ever worked with has given a signed self-adhesive sticker by default (I have never had to ask). Sticker goes in the logbook, new scans go online. Anyone not doing this is clearly living in a different millenium.

Part 43.13 are performance rules I need to follow as an A&P. It wont list logbooks, engines, wings, or any other specific item as it covers them all. If in the course of my work I need to look at the original logs then that falls under the catchall "or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator." Regardless, if an owner is incapable of letting me review the original records within the sanctuary of their records vault then more than likely I wouldnt take the job in the first place. However that has never happened until today.

This makes no sense because clearly digital logs are acceptable to the administrator.

 

[Bell206]

I didn't make this up.

Whats funny is you havent even asked why I want to look at the original records. Instead you go off on a wild "saavy" tangent. Too much. Rock on man. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Whats funny is you havent even asked why I want to look at the original records. Instead you go off on a wild "saavy" tangent. Too much. Rock on man. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

Here's your explicit opportunity: please describe a scenario where you needed physical logbooks (instead of complete copies) to perform maintenance for a part 91 aircraft owner. Examples of scenarios that do not meet this:

• Asked for physical copies because owner took bad scans
• Asked for physical copies because owner scans were missing information
• Asked for physical copies for validation during a prebuy

I am very curious to hear this scenario, because at it stands my logbooks haven't left the safe, nobody has ever complained, and I strongly suspect I will not "figure it out eventually". What I have seen are numerous instances of mechanic-related SNAFUs that would be largely mitigated by not handing over logbooks.

 

[Pinecone]

Why not just avoid the risk entirely by sharing scans/copies of logs? There is no reason for any A&P to ever have physical posession of your original logs.

THIS ^^^^^^

 

[Ventucky Red]

Could a reputable shop sell the logbooks at public auction to recover their claim from a deadbeat owner? The only reasons to keep them would be as leverage against the bailor, or to enhance the value of the aircraft at public auction. But then, if the claim is but a smaller percentage of the value, the logs wouldn't be necessary.

My guy doesn't want the logs after his review. I get them back, and he prepares and signs stickers with the entries and release.

If the logs are lost, destroyed by fire or otherwise devalued while in their possession, the shop would be liable for the financial hit to the aircraft if the bailor redeems. What is the security interest in keeping only the logs? If we accept your argument that the logs become part of the aircraft, then keeping them would be tantamount to removing radios or other parts, which is not a right of the bailee.

Got it... thanks

 

[Bell206]

What I have seen are numerous instances of mechanic-related SNAFUs that would be largely mitigated by not handing over logbooks.

I think the point above is where you went off on your tangent. I actually agreed with you on possession of the logs shouldn’t be given. I merely stated to review your original logs and if you go to Post 96 I stated under your supervision. That’s about as anti-SNAFU as it gets.

As to a scenario, any maintenance performed between scheduled or required inspections. You’ll find, in general, your average Part 91 private aircraft owner becomes lax in their duties between annuals. For example, they won’t track ADs or they will allow discrepancies to accumulate without action even though required by rule, plus those with electronic log records have a tendency to wait till the next inspection cycle before updating their electronic record files.

So given the known issues above and since there is no regulatory oversight provision that ensures the accuracy between the original logs and those electronic copies, it falls to my performance rules to ensure the references I use in performing that maintenance are current and acceptable to the task. And a simple way to comply with that is to compare the original logs to the copies within the specific work scope time frame which is usually the previous year to date unless ADs or similar records are being reviewed and require a bit deeper review.

As I mentioned, never had an issue with this request. Perhaps a recent example of what I normally encounter. Several months ago, I signed off a wide-ranging AD on 18 aircraft in 3 days, located in 2 states. None of that diverse owner group hesitated to bring their precious logbooks to the airport. And even though I brought my trusty, well-worn label machine only 2 owners took me up on it and I personally put the label in the logs. The remaining 16 owners wanted my write up in the log(s) proper.

Regardless, being retentive with your aircraft records is a good thing; jumping down a rabbit hole over them not so much. There are a lot of variables when it comes to aircraft maintenance, some objective but most subjective. And if you isolate yourself from those variables, you may just find yourself boxed in a corner one day with only one way out. I know a number of owners who did just that, including 3 of my former customers. Good luck to you.

 

[Eric Pauley]

I think the point above is where you went off on your tangent. I actually agreed with you on possession of the logs shouldn’t be given. I merely stated to review your original logs and if you go to Post 96 I stated under your supervision. That’s about as anti-SNAFU as it gets.

As to a scenario, any maintenance performed between scheduled or required inspections. You’ll find, in general, your average Part 91 private aircraft owner becomes lax in their duties between annuals. For example, they won’t track ADs or they will allow discrepancies to accumulate without action even though required by rule, plus those with electronic log records have a tendency to wait till the next inspection cycle before updating their electronic record files.

So given the known issues above and since there is no regulatory oversight provision that ensures the accuracy between the original logs and those electronic copies, it falls to my performance rules to ensure the references I use in performing that maintenance are current and acceptable to the task. And a simple way to comply with that is to compare the original logs to the copies within the specific work scope time frame which is usually the previous year to date unless ADs or similar records are being reviewed and require a bit deeper review.

As I mentioned, never had an issue with this request. Perhaps a recent example of what I normally encounter. Several months ago, I signed off a wide-ranging AD on 18 aircraft in 3 days, located in 2 states. None of that diverse owner group hesitated to bring their precious logbooks to the airport. And even though I brought my trusty, well-worn label machine only 2 owners took me up on it and I personally put the label in the logs. The remaining 16 owners wanted my write up in the log(s) proper.

Regardless, being retentive with your aircraft records is a good thing; jumping down a rabbit hole over them not so much. There are a lot of variables when it comes to aircraft maintenance, some objective but most subjective. And if you isolate yourself from those variables, you may just find yourself boxed in a corner one day with only one way out. I know a number of owners who did just that, including 3 of my former customers. Good luck to you.

Ok so basically no such scenario. Re: ADs: It is the airplane owner's (or operator's if you want to be pedantic) responsibility to track ADs between annuals, not yours. You mention risk of incomplete scanned logs (which is out of scope in my request). Regardless, I don't see how you would hesitate to sign off an AD because of fear that the digital logs may be incomplete. Either the work is performed/documented and you sign off or the work wasn't. I suppose in theory there could be an AD caused by work having been done, but the owner could just as easily withhold log entries in original paper form as digital.

Re: your wide-ranging AD sign-off. Sounds like a lot of traveling! If only there were a way to provide logbooks without needing to travel. I don't personally see a big risk in supervised logbook sharing, but what's the point? Recall my original argument:

There is no reason for any A&P to ever have physical posession of your original logs.

Based on your comment I continue to stand by this.

 

[Bell206]

Ok so basically no such scenario.

Ha. I either need to work on my writing skills or you need to work on your comprehension skills. The scenario was "any maintenance performed between scheduled or required inspections." Can't sign off a 100hr without reviewing the logbooks. Nor will I sign off any other work performed unless I can confirm no conflict with previous work. And in my experiences, owner generated references don't cut it without additional verification. The AD sign-off was simply an example of how the owners I encounter handle their logbooks. No games. And the circle continues. Enjoy.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Ha. I either need to work on my writing skills or you need to work on your comprehension skills. The scenario was "any maintenance performed between scheduled or required inspections." Can't sign off a 100hr without reviewing the logbooks. Nor will I sign off any other work performed unless I can confirm no conflict with previous work. And in my experiences, owner generated references don't cut it without additional verification. The AD sign-off was simply an example of how the owners I encounter handle their logbooks. No games. And the circle continues. Enjoy.

In every scenario you've presented the physical logbooks are no more useful than copies. In both cases you are relying on the owner to furnish complete logs. Requiring physical access to logbooks for "any maintenance performed between scheduled or required inspections" doesn't pass the laugh test. So if someone is AOG and needs maintenance you won't do it because they don't have the logbooks? Or do all your clients carry their aircraft logs with them everywhere they go?

 

[Bell206]

In every scenario you've presented the physical logbooks are no more useful than copies

That’s your opinion. My actual experiences are different. Technically, unless your copies meet FAA standards or are certified as exact duplicates they are nothing more than an informal backup with limited value. It is what it is.

In both cases you are relying on the owner to furnish complete logs

Never stated complete logs. And as noted in Post 96, those original logs are only required when needed.

Requiring physical access to logbooks for "any maintenance performed between scheduled or required inspections" doesn't pass the laugh test.

Again opinion. And again my experiences are different. And again only if the logs are needed as for a 100hr.

So if someone is AOG and needs maintenance you won't do it because they don't have the logbooks?

Never said that. As stated, only need access if unable to confirm no conflict with previous work. No conflict, no logbooks.

Or do all your clients carry their aircraft logs with them everywhere they go?

No. And I don’t recommend it either.

Perhaps if you actually read what I write we might get somewhere with this discussion.

 

[mondtster]

The only place I have ever heard absurd assertations concerning aircraft maintenance, record keeping, and denying access to records needed to perform a job is on this web board. I'm glad these problems aren't prevalent in the real world.

 

[Eric Pauley]

original logs are only required when needed.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Pinecone]

I have two different shops work in my plane. NEITHER has needed the physical log books. PDF were fine and they supplied a sticker for me to add.

 

[Eric Pauley]

I have two different shops work in my plane. NEITHER has needed the physical log books. PDF were fine and they supplied a sticker for me to add.

Clearly those shops must be violating the FARs by not following the Bell206 method.

 

[Salty]

I have never given any shop my aircraft logs. Never had one have an issue with that. When reviewing it’s a ton easier to do on the computer than digging through a dozen dusty books.