Shop tries new payment techniques. Block aircraft with tug!

Eric Pauley said:
Clearly those shops must be violating the FARs by not following the Bell206 method.
Click to expand...
Ha. Must be desperate if you’re putting words in my mouth. Why not use the quote function and show me stating copies are against the FARs? And while you’re at it quote me where I don’t accept copies?
I’m simply rebutting your idea that I can’t request a review of the original logs during the course of maintenance. You're wrong.;)

Pinecone said:
I have two different shops work in my plane. NEITHER has needed the physical log books.
Click to expand...
Salty said:
I have never given any shop my aircraft logs. Never had one have an issue with that.
Click to expand...
Why not ask your respective shops how the FAA allows them to use copies of the aircraft records for their maintenance? Also ask them if they have the ability to request a review of the original records/logbooks in the course of their maintenance on the aircraft? There are precedents, just not in the FARs. Be interesting to see your answers.
 
Bell206 said:
I’m simply rebutting your idea that I can’t request a review of the original logs during the course of maintenance. You're wrong.;)
Click to expand...

Who's putting words in mouths? Here's a quote for you:

Eric Pauley said:
The regs don't prevent you from demanding all sorts of draconian junk from owners
Click to expand...

You can request the owner leave a hundred-dollar bill between every logbook page for you if you'd like. You can request users post "All hail Bell206" on PoA before you sign off the annual. You can request whatever you want.

The question is whether you are required to use original logbooks. I would argue no (the default answer about any requirement unless there's a regulation requiring it). If you think it the answer is yes, please provide evidence that substantiates that requirement.
 
I do like to use copies, BUT!

Owners should realize that if they don’t furnish complete, legible copies for the Tech then they may have a “situation”.

My primary concern is with AD research for a first time inspection by me.

All too often the Status indicates C/w, p/c/w or N/a with no further details.

Or the AD is simply not listed.

Was the c/w an inspection or terminating action?

Was the cylinder installed in a time frame where an AD may apply depending on date of mfg?

Misinterpretation of what was or was not accomplished years earlier can have dire consequences.

At best; it just slows the job down.

If the Owner furnished data is not complete then I have to request they furnish whatever is needed for determinstion.

That pretty much means the Owner must actually understand the AD to make that determination.

“ The previous owner said etc etc “ doesn’t cut it.
 
Magman said:
I do like to use copies, BUT!

Owners should realize that if they don’t furnish complete, legible copies for the Tech then they may have a “situation”.

My primary concern is with AD research for a first time inspection by me.

All too often the Status indicates C/w, p/c/w or N/a with no further details.

Or the AD is simply not listed.

Was the c/w an inspection or terminating action?

Was the cylinder installed in a time frame where an AD may apply depending on date of mfg?

Misinterpretation of what was or was not accomplished years earlier can have dire consequences.

At best; it just slows the job down.

If the Owner furnished data is not complete then I have to request they furnish whatever is needed for determinstion.

That pretty much means the Owner must actually understand the AD to make that determination.

“ The previous owner said etc etc “ doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I provide my IA with full, searchable copies of all maintenance records, as well as summary spreadsheets of part/serial numbers, replacement dates, and historical stats.
 
bflynn said:
Dude should pay the bill, get the plane out of the equation, then sue the mechanic. There's no reasonable definition that would include authorization to do an annual and fix all discrepancies in an agreement to install avionics.
Click to expand...

Just gonna dog pile here: NOPE.

A judgement is a useless piece of paper that is a moral victory, but doesn't get you a dime back.

I would simply move the tug and retrieve my property. If its in a hangar I would simply take it out. Worst the owners can do is have me cited for tresspass. So what.
 
pfarber said:
Just gonna dog pile here: NOPE.

A judgement is a useless piece of paper that is a moral victory, but doesn't get you a dime back.

I would simply move the tug and retrieve my property. If its in a hangar I would simply take it out. Worst the owners can do is have me cited for tresspass. So what.
Click to expand...

And in PA, that's felony theft of services in the second degree if the unpaid bill is over $2k.

"In Pennsylvania, refusing to pay for services ordinary paid for immediately after the service is rendered gives rise to the presumption of deception under § 3926. The defendant must prove he or she did not intend to steal these services rather than the prosecution having to prove his criminal intent. However, the defendant must actually refuse to pay or leave without making payment."

Good luck with that.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
And in PA, that's felony theft in the second degree if the unpaid bill is over $2k.

"In Pennsylvania, refusing to pay for services ordinary paid for immediately after the service is rendered gives rise to the presumption of deception under § 3926. The defendant must prove he or she did not intend to steal these services rather than the prosecution having to prove his criminal intent. However, the defendant must actually refuse to pay or leave without making payment."

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Paying a substantial part of the bill and wanting to discuss the part you disagree with and never agreed to is far from refusing to pay.

how do you steal a service you never asked to have performed?
 
Salty said:
Paying a substantial part of the bill and wanting to discuss the part you disagree with and never agreed to is far from refusing to pay.

how do you steal a service you never asked to have performed?
Click to expand...

The shop would disagree with you. They have an invoice. It's up to a judge to decide.
 
pfarber said:
Just gonna dog pile here: NOPE.

A judgement is a useless piece of paper that is a moral victory, but doesn't get you a dime back.

I would simply move the tug and retrieve my property. If its in a hangar I would simply take it out. Worst the owners can do is have me cited for tresspass. So what.
Click to expand...

Or have the sheriff arrest you. Or charge you with B&E. Or the airplane is blocked by more than a tug / secured in other manners. Or, in some states, they can shoot you. Meanwhile your plane is going to sit and not fly for as long as it takes the case to wind it's way through the courts, motions, face appeals, etc. When you finally get it back, it won't be in annual anymore and probably has had other things crop up.

Alternatively, pay the man, then sue him to get the money back for the unauthorized work. You go through the courts still, but you're not stressing about the plane. The court will either rule for you and you get your money back or against you and you've already paid. The only way a judgement doesn't get you a dime back is if the owner defies the judge. At least around here, that's a Bad Thing(tm) to do.
 
bflynn said:
Or have the sheriff arrest you. Or charge you with B&E. Or the airplane is blocked by more than a tug / secured in other manners. Or, in some states, they can shoot you. Meanwhile your plane is going to sit and not fly for as long as it takes the case to wind it's way through the courts, motions, face appeals, etc. When you finally get it back, it won't be in annual anymore and probably has had other things crop up.

Alternatively, pay the man, then sue him to get the money back for the unauthorized work. You go through the courts still, but you're not stressing about the plane. The court will either rule for you and you get your money back or against you and you've already paid. The only way a judgement doesn't get you a dime back is if the owner defies the judge. At least around here, that's a Bad Thing(tm) to do.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, don't pay the man. Go to the local court of jurisdiction and file an action for replevin, and make a case to the judge why your property is being unjustly held. If the judge agrees, an order will be issued for the property to be returned to you. You will have to post a bond in some amount to be determined by the court, but your money will not go directly to the shop, and will be held by the court untill the matter of the disputed charge is resolved.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Or, alternatively, don't pay the man. Go to the local court of jurisdiction and file an action for replevin, and make a case to the judge why your property is being unjustly held. If the judge agrees, an order will be issued for the property to be returned to you. You will have to post a bond in some amount to be determined by the court, but your money will not go directly to the shop, and will be held by the court untill the matter of the disputed charge is resolved.
Click to expand...

That at least makes more sense than trying to Break&Enter a Private Property (not yours) to retrieve (steal) property with claimed lien against it.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What kind of idiot jumps into a dispute they are not a party to, based on something they read on the internet?
Click to expand...
I had a feeling that would happen. I'll admit, the shop's move sounded totally bogus to me, but no way I would ever get involved or write hate-mail based on a one-sided view of the issue.
But in our culture it's the person who initially writes about it gets the first mover advantage, and that goes a long way towards finding someone guilty in the court of public opinion. Then the public piles on because... that's just the world we live in.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What kind of idiot jumps into a dispute they are not a party to, based on something they read on the internet?
Click to expand...

It happens quite frequently with things posted on internet web boards. Just like in real life, I would bet that this story is being distorted and that running to the web boards to try to gain sympathy is a tool to gain leverage for one party in the dispute.
 
Second hand info:
Apparently there’s video of the aircraft owner hitting Gallagher and they are pressing charges. And the aircraft owner wrote him a check, cancelled it as soon as he went to leave and that’s why the cops were called.

-as the propeller turns…
 
anyone-hungry-this-could-be-a-while-popcorn-meme_559956_1.jpg
 
Rgbeard said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/13vvkp0/update_2_my_friend_asked_me_to_help_pickup_his/
Click to expand...

When I read these kind of he-said-she-said disputes, my initial inclination is to believe the business owner.

First, the business has more at stake. Nobody starts and operates a business without an acute sense of risk. Businesses that pull these kinds of stunts don't last long. It's just not worth it for 18K in revenue.

Second, my personal experience is that people in these situations are often serial antagonists. They are just naturally disputatious, and convinced that everyone is trying to take advantage of them.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
When I read these kind of he-said-she-said disputes, my initial inclination is to believe the business owner.

First, the business has more at stake. Nobody starts and operates a business without an acute sense of risk. Businesses that pull these kinds of stunts don't last long. It's just not worth it for 18K in revenue.

Second, my personal experience is that people in these situations are often serial antagonists. They are just naturally disputatious, and convinced that everyone is trying to take advantage of them.
Click to expand...
As a small business owner currently dealing with a thorn in my side customer who's not even a customer. I agree.

But to add a third point. We're not even hearing the story from the plane owner or the maintenance shop. We get the story from the owners buddy. Sure the guy was there. But there's no way he's privy to every detail of this cluster.
 
More info over on BT.

Of course, still only one side of story.
 
I don't know, I'm starting to lose sympathy for the owner in this case. I'm feeling like there is equal responsibility here for this mess, both should leave some skin behind in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top