Stinson 108-3 revisited

docmirror said:
Nice of you to keep it flying somehow.

Don't know what it would cost to fly a Hangar 9 Aero guy in and do the same work, but I'm sure it wouldn't be free. Mebee they got a guy around the PNW that would come over and give it a look-over.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me, but none of us do it for free.

That brings up the next question. What Should I charge him for the annual?
 
Tom-D said:
Yeah, me, but none of us do it for free.

That brings up the next question. What Should I charge him for the annual?
Click to expand...

I used to do consulting work on complex stuff, not aero related. I had some good clients, and when there was a billing question here's how I settled it.

Once the customer was happy, and everything was spinning in greased grooves, I'd sit down with them out of the work environment and take a couple of pens, and a few pieces of paper and I'd say; 'I'm gonna write down what I think I should charge, and you write down what you think I should charge you and we'll open them together.' No conversation, they know what work was done, you know what work and hours were done, just have them spitball the labor(materials are flat % of cost).

Most times, we'd be pretty close, so we'd split it. Once in a while they would be over my estimate, and rarely would they be way under. In the case of a way under estimate by them, I would go over what I did, and why I charged what I did, and ask them to repeat the process. Maybe I'd give a little on my side, maybe they'd give a little too and we come to terms.

Remember, for this to work, the plane has to be in the air, logs filled out, washed, tools put away and the customer is ready to fly home, not before. I bet you'll both be pretty close on the paper.
 
Tom-D said:
So you believe I do not know Stinsons, that just a personal opinion formed by reading into my posts things that are simply not there.
Click to expand...


Just from reading this thread it's apparent you don't know the 108.

It's REALLY easy to spot a -3 with the huge tail.

The fact that you couldn't identify what type of aircraft you were working on, well that's why I said you should kick this over to someone who knows the aircraft.

I doubt your customer would want to pay for you to learn about Stinsons while tinkering with his plane.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Just from reading this thread it's apparent you don't know the 108.

It's REALLY easy to spot a -3 with the huge tail.

The fact that you couldn't identify what type of aircraft you were working on, well that's why I said you should kick this over to someone who knows the aircraft.

I doubt your customer would want to pay for you to learn about Stinsons while tinkering with his plane.
Click to expand...

Another thread turned into a Pizzing contest. by James.
 
Yea I hope nobody is forming solid opinions of me based on some of the boneheaded stuff I write here. I'm actually much smarter than I come across on paper :D

At least I didn't come up with the idea to log maintenance in hours and minutes to save money LoL
 
Tom-D said:
did you read 43.9?

What's on a W/O that makes it a legal sign off?
Click to expand...

The data to determine the required parts and services were acquired and installed in that engine. If that data set is incomplete, there is a problem. It's then up to you to determine if they were assembled correctly and the parts meet spec. Since it's your signature, as with the install, it up to you to determine the level of inspection you require to be comfortable providing that signature, even if that means doing a full tear down IRAN.

At the point you are comfortable with the engine, and you have the supporting data, the FAA authorizes you to sign off the overhaul. There is nothing in the FARs that states you had to do or see the work to sign it off.

I don't see where there is an insurmountable problem here.:dunno:
 
Yea and from the work order description I'd say he knows more about the innards of that engine than we often do as inspectors.
 
Silvaire said:
Yea and from the work order description I'd say he knows more about the innards of that engine than we often do as inspectors.
Click to expand...

As long as the work order matches reality. And I suspect there are ways of verifying that short of a teardown.
 
Henning said:
The data to determine the required parts and services were acquired and installed in that engine. If that data set is incomplete, there is a problem. It's then up to you to determine if they were assembled correctly and the parts meet spec. Since it's your signature, as with the install, it up to you to determine the level of inspection you require to be comfortable providing that signature, even if that means doing a full tear down IRAN.

At the point you are comfortable with the engine, and you have the supporting data, the FAA authorizes you to sign off the overhaul. There is nothing in the FARs that states you had to do or see the work to sign it off.

I don't see where there is an insurmountable problem here.:dunno:
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.
 
Tom-D said:
You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

That's just it, you don't have a specific question. You haven't pointed out the exact deficiency, you just make vague references. I want you to tell me exactly why you think you cannot sign it off, because I see Nothing that prevents it.:dunno: So ask a specific question and explain your issue with it instead of being a troll.
 
Silvaire said:
Yea I hope nobody is forming solid opinions of me based on some of the boneheaded stuff I write here. I'm actually much smarter than I come across on paper :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, but are you smarter than you come across on my iPad?:yikes:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
As long as the work order matches reality. And I suspect there are ways of verifying that short of a teardown.
Click to expand...

Fortunately The Franklin is an engine that you can remove the top or bottom cover and see the entire interior of the engine. In this engine we can see the fresh cross hatching in the cylinders, plus the smell of preservative and the interior looks like it was just overhauled, and not run.

But what did it for me was the paper work that came with the aircraft history records, which was kept in the history records, there was a Standard warrantee from Deb's aircraft, and a paid receipt from the local A&P that sent the engine to Deb's aircraft in Grant's pass, plus sheet of parts replaced, and a final sheet of the work order that says" The engine will be ready to be shipped by Thursday'', and then includes payment methods executable to them. To me that is a logical trail of paper that would indicate it was overhauled, and a recipe from the local A&P for work completed, dated for the period 4/20/98 to 2/22/99.
Now I want to see the old logs to see if there was a entry for that work. hopefully that will show it was mounted by a rated mechanic and no more entries are needed.
 
Henning said:
That's just it, you don't have a specific question. You haven't pointed out the exact deficiency, you just make vague references. I want you to tell me exactly why you think you cannot sign it off, because I see Nothing that prevents it.:dunno: So ask a specific question and explain your issue with it instead of being a troll.
Click to expand...
I asked you point blank, if the Work order met the requirements of FAR 43.9. Does it or not?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Yeah, but are you smarter than you come across on my iPad?:yikes:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

Ha, ha probably most definitely not. My sister in law took some pictures with her ipad at our niece's wedding. I told her I wanted to get copies so no problem right? Just go home, log onto my wifi and drag copies onto one of my hard drives eh? Well, nope, not with a freakin' ipad you don't. Dang thing doesn't even have a USB port so how the heck you get anything off it is beyond me. :dunno:

So I did do a Google query and found something about installing some program then opening an itunes account....no thanks.

Nope, those ipads are way too smart for me :rolleyes:

Back now to your regularly scheduled pizzing contest...
 
Henning said:
Yes, I have stated that several times now. You have not once stated why you question that.
Click to expand...

If you answered that question show me where. Because I don't think you know the right answer, Just a simple yes or no, does the work order fill the requirement of FAR 43.9
 
Tom-D said:
If you answered that question show me where. Because I don't think you know the right answer, Just a simple yes or no, does the work order fill the requirement of FAR 43.9
Click to expand...

The work order gives you all the data you need for you to fill the requirements, yes.
 
Henning said:
The work order gives you all the data you need for you to fill the requirements, yes.
Click to expand...

no, a work order is not a return to service. That is why TCM and Lycoming provide a new log book with the first entry saying what was completed. That is what is missing in this case.
 
Tom-D said:
no, a work order is not a return to service. That is why TCM and Lycoming provide a new log book with the first entry saying what was completed. That is what is missing in this case.
Click to expand...

I did not say the WO was a return to service. I said with that and the plane in front of you, there is everything required to for YOU to provide the return to service.
 
Henning said:
I did not say the WO was a return to service. I said with that and the plane in front of you, there is everything required to for YOU to provide the return to service.
Click to expand...

Not true, there is no signature saying who completed the job. or that the Work order was even completed.
 
kyleb said:
It's like Lucy with the damn football.

And you can see it coming a hundred miles away.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you two knowitalls answer the question correctly so every one can learn. ???
 
It doesn't matter Tom. You're going to do the inspection and you're going to determine if the aircraft is airworthy and you're going to release it for service.

Do I have a detailed work order with every part and serial number and all such wonderful things every time I do an annual on an airplane? Gosh I'd wish.

Bottom line - if you don't want to sign it off and nobody else wants to sign it off then General Aviation in this world is effectively dead.

Henningway is right in this argument
 
Silvaire said:
It doesn't matter Tom. You're going to do the inspection and you're going to determine if the aircraft is airworthy and you're going to release it for service.

Do I have a detailed work order with every part and serial number and all such wonderful things every time I do an annual on an airplane? Gosh I'd wish.

Bottom line - if you don't want to sign it off and nobody else wants to sign it off then General Aviation in this world is effectively dead.

Henningway is right in this argument
Click to expand...

You are right, I do have every thing I need to determine the airworthiness of this aircraft, but that was not the question asked of Henning.
I takes more than a work order to show the paper work trail for this case.
 
Tom-D said:
Then why don't you two knowitalls answer the question correctly so every one can learn. ???
Click to expand...

I don't enjoy feeding trolls.

As Wayne Bower once explained: Tom, you have a lot to offer. But you go about it the wrong way too often.
 
Tom-D said:
Not true, there is no signature saying who completed the job. or that the Work order was even completed.
Click to expand...

That is for you to determine. You are an IA, that gives you the authority to inspect things to determine they are as they should be and that the work has been completed satisfactorily. You have the necessary data to determine if everything required was purchased, and you have the authority to verify it is there. If that means you tear down the engine on an IRAN basis to confirm the accuracy of the data and the quality of the labor, fine. But in the end, you have the authority to sign it off on your determinations, and you make those at your discretion.
 
Just - wow. You guys and your cattiness. It's like I'm on a web board with a bunch of 14YO girls. Jeez, can't just focus on the plane, and paperwork, you gotta go personal?

If you don't like a guy's style, don't read his thread. If you don't want to discuss the topic, then don't post! I know I've got a big ego, but jeezalou, what a be-otch-fest. Vagina-city.
 
Tom-D said:
... It takes more than a work order to show the paper work trail for this case.
Click to expand...

I get you Tom, I know what you're saying but here's what I'm saying. If we consider every time we touch a wrench to an airplane a potential court case then we may as well just shut the whole thing down right now. I mean really, what is the point if you don't just love this stuff? I'm not an A&P because I figured I'd get rich.

We ain't that stupid.
 
Silvaire said:
I get you Tom, I know what you're saying but here's what I'm saying. If we consider every time we touch a wrench to an airplane a potential court case then we may as well just shut the whole thing down right now. I mean really, what is the point if you don't just love this stuff? I'm not an A&P because I figured I'd get rich.

We ain't that stupid.
Click to expand...

The come to you with the tools in their truck A&Ps IME tend to be more sensitive about liability and risk with what they sign off compared to any big shop.

Take a 172 into a big FBO shop, tell them to fix something, they'll hand you an invoice at the end. You give them your credit card and they give you a receipt and a sticker to shove in your logbook. Don't even ask to see the logs unless it's an annual.

Whereas some of the more independent guys dig into everything and want to see logs for any task. The shops of course know that doing so isn't profitable and ultimately you can only prevent so much risk.
 
Silvaire said:
I get you Tom, I know what you're saying but here's what I'm saying. If we consider every time we touch a wrench to an airplane a potential court case then we may as well just shut the whole thing down right now. I mean really, what is the point if you don't just love this stuff? I'm not an A&P because I figured I'd get rich.

We ain't that stupid.
Click to expand...

No matter your profession, no matter what you do, you are at risk. so we mediate the best we can.

I'm certain you do the best you can with what info you have.

This Stinson was mismanaged from the get go. no entry removing the 150 horse, no entry for upgrading to the 165 horse, no entry for the work completed by Deb's aircraft, No entry for the installation of the present engine.

In this case all I can do is back fit the entries needed and hope for the best.

But you certainly can't just use one piece of paper to make a decision.
 
jesse said:
You give them your credit card and they give you a receipt and a sticker to shove in your logbook.
Click to expand...
There in lies a problem of believing the owner knows their responsibility to their records.
 
jesse said:
The come to you with the tools in their truck A&Ps IME tend to be more sensitive about liability and risk with what they sign off compared to any big shop.

Take a 172 into a big FBO shop, tell them to fix something, they'll hand you an invoice at the end. You give them your credit card and they give you a receipt and a sticker to shove in your logbook. Don't even ask to see the logs unless it's an annual.

Whereas some of the more independent guys dig into everything and want to see logs for any task. The shops of course know that doing so isn't profitable and ultimately you can only prevent so much risk.
Click to expand...

Shop has insurance, the guy in the truck not likely.
 
Tom-D said:
...But you certainly can't just use one piece of paper to make a decision.
Click to expand...

No you're right, you can't but what I'm trying to relay here is the chain of command.

You,as an IA, are delegated and licensed to make these decisions and they didn't give you that power with a restraint that you had to ask somebody else how to do it. We are all aware of how a specific regulation can be interpreted in many different ways by different people but your signature is not up for peer review. There isn't any cause, outside of criminal fraud, for anyone to question it. It's not an opinion, it's a release to service authorization which you have the power to apply.

Now if you are not comfortable doing that then that's fine, don't do it but honestly, somebody's got to step up to the plate or the whole thing is going to cease to exist.
 
Silvaire said:
No you're right, you can't but what I'm trying to relay here is the chain of command.

You,as an IA, are delegated and licensed to make these decisions and they didn't give you that power with a restraint that you had to ask somebody else how to do it. We are all aware of how a specific regulation can be interpreted in many different ways by different people but your signature is not up for peer review. There isn't any cause, outside of criminal fraud, for anyone to question it. It's not an opinion, it's a release to service authorization which you have the power to apply.

Thank you for making that point.

Now if you are not comfortable doing that then that's fine, don't do it but honestly, somebody's got to step up to the plate or the whole thing is going to cease to exist.
Click to expand...


This isn't my first rodeo, I've been returning old aircraft to service a long time, I see a lot of faulty log books.

we cope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top