The audacity of some A&Ps

[Tom-D]

Working on my 185 customers aircraft today he tells me he dropped his aircraft off to have the big tail wheel installed. 2 days later he drops by to see how things are going, and his 185 is not at the facility. He discovers the facility owner took it to eastern Wa. over the week. and to add insult to injury, they had removed the fold up rear seat and replaced it with a 170 rear seat. so the whole family could ride along.

Use a customers aircraft with out permission. is beyond belief. I'd simply would have shot the SOB.

 

[Hank S]

Sorry, Tom, even my rifles don't have that kind of range. Wait til he gets back, be waiting at the field when he pulls in. With the Sheriff, to keep you from shooting him in front of his family. "Grand Theft Airplane" has to be a felony, right?

 

[nimdabew]

That sounds like theft to me. Write down hobbs and tach when dropping off airplanes! Also, write down mileage when dropping a car off for multiple days too.

 

[weilke]

That sounds like theft to me. Write down hobbs and tach when dropping off airplanes! Also, write down mileage when dropping a car off for multiple days too.

That will only catch a dumb A&P.

 

[denverpilot]

Get a rope.

 

[Zeldman]

You dropped it off to be worked on and the shop owner took it on a trip without permission? Report it as stolen.

 

[Richard]

While the sale of my plane was started but not yet finalized, I went camping in AZ. I swung by the Lake Havasu airport to visit a friend who flew in with his MU-2. While I was there, the FBO manager who knew my plane quite well came over to say hi and to ask how come I didn't come see him when I flew in the day before. I explained I hadn't been flying.

A week later I barged into the office of the broker handling the sale and read him the riot act. I'm sure the entire airport heard as I told this dude off. It turned out he had let prospective buyers take a solo hop. I did NOT authorize that. This one buyer messed up by to the making a cross country flight to the wrong airport on the wrong day.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Pls post the names of these losers, so the rest of us can avoid them. TIA

 

[JOhnH]

That will only catch a dumb A&P.

What do you call an A&P that steals a customer's airplane? Smart?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

maintenance flight.....pure and simple.

 

[ahkahn]

Wow. Definitely theft. I'd report him, take the plane back, and send him a bill for the use.

 

[Tom-D]

This was told to me yesterday, but it happened a while ago, I worked on the 185 yesterday, so the owner has his aircraft back.

 

[bflynn]

Huh...I think I would have billed the A&P for the use of the airplane. And I'm willing to bet that the cost would been just slightly more than the cost of having the tail wheel installed. Which he could either pay or explain to the police why he "borrowed" the aircraft without authorization.

 

[flyingron]

Was it these guys?

 

[FredFenster]

Was it these guys?

Does tach time come off if you turn the prop backwards?

 

[docmirror]

Not a lawyer, and didn't stay at Holiday Inn last night, but technically, I don't think this rises to the criminal level of theft. The owner gave the keys, and the property to the A&P to work on. Taking unneeded flights with it is certainly conversion(civil), and a really crappy thing to do, but unless he keeps it when the owner asks for it back, not theft.

There was a recent case of this with a Ferrari F40 where the car was dropped off with a shop, and one of the mechanics took it on an unauthorized joy ride -- and wrecked it. No charges filed except maybe the obvious reckless driving.

Then there's the story of the FBI agent out for an unauthorized joy ride in an F50, wrecked it, and not only was there no criminal repercussions, the feds denied any civil liability as well as criminal. The agent did not have permission to operate the recovered vehicle at the time it was destroyed.

But - I could be wrong.

 

[Henning]

Yeah, it's not theft if there is a bailment agreement in place, and if he dropped it off for work and signed a work order, that is typically in the fine print on the back. So as far as criminal prosecution, not much really can be done. They might find some consumer protection code to violate him with, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Civilly though, there is a case that gets you at least fair use of the plane (since the only damages incurred are the time) value, and maybe a multiplier for punitive damages if you can make them apply.

 

[bflynn]

Or maybe you just post the story with the AME's name all over the internet and in the FBO....

 

[wsuffa]

Get a rope.

I believe the term is "git a rope"..... :wink2:

As the others noted, that's theft, at best it's use of a vehicle without permission.

I'd be mad, too....

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not a lawyer, and didn't stay at Holiday Inn last night, but technically, I don't think this rises to the criminal level of theft. The owner gave the keys, and the property to the A&P to work on. Taking unneeded flights with it is certainly conversion(civil), and a really crappy thing to do, but unless he keeps it when the owner asks for it back, not theft.

There was a recent case of this with a Ferrari F40 where the car was dropped off with a shop, and one of the mechanics took it on an unauthorized joy ride -- and wrecked it. No charges filed except maybe the obvious reckless driving.

Then there's the story of the FBI agent out for an unauthorized joy ride in an F50, wrecked it, and not only was there no criminal repercussions, the feds denied any civil liability as well as criminal. The agent did not have permission to operate the recovered vehicle at the time it was destroyed.

But - I could be wrong.

I'd suspect there's a difference between "no charges filed" and "no charges could be filed". I'd bet that the shop and/or its insurance company made a pretty substantial offer of recompense.

 

[Henning]

I'd suspect there's a difference between "no charges filed" and "no charges could be filed". I'd bet that the shop and/or its insurance company made a pretty substantial offer of recompense.

The insurance company I doubt. There were no damages besides the hours on the plane, and that would likely fall below deductibles. If they were on the hook for a larger suit, they would likely take it to court.

 

[SkyDog58]

Audacity? I think it is the epitome of aviation maintenance professionalism. As an A&P, I am a big proponent of thorough operational checks before returning an aircraft to the owner/operator. Thus an installation of a new tailwheel on an aircraft such as a 185 would require takeoffs and landings on the various surfaces that the aircraft might operate from. This means paved, grass, dirt, gravel and at least a couple of sandbars. The guy was obviously just doing his due diligence. Give him a break.

 

[docmirror]

I'd suspect there's a difference between "no charges filed" and "no charges could be filed". I'd bet that the shop and/or its insurance company made a pretty substantial offer of recompense.

Well, again - not an atty so take it with a grain of salt, but it's not up to the damaged party in a case like this to file charges or not. There is clearly a damaged party, and there is clear evidence, and there is clear negligence so anything the victim(car owner) would have to say about the charging the driver or shop owner with a crime would be moot. They may, or may not be asked to give evidence or testimony, but in a case like this, the evidence is Right There, busted in many parts, with the key in the ignition. It's the state's law, not the victim in a republic.


http://lifestylesdefined.com/mechanic-wrecks-out-of-town-owners-500000-ferrari-f40/

 

[Henning]

Well, again - not an atty so take it with a grain of salt, but it's not up to the damaged party in a case like this to file charges or not. There is clearly a damaged party, and there is clear evidence, and there is clear negligence so anything the victim(car owner) would have to say about the charging the driver or shop owner with a crime would be moot. They may, or may not be asked to give evidence or testimony, but in a case like this, the evidence is Right There, busted in many parts, with the key in the ignition. It's the state's law, not the victim in a republic.


http://lifestylesdefined.com/mechanic-wrecks-out-of-town-owners-500000-ferrari-f40/

And that right there is the defect in the Republic model. It takes justice out of the hands of the damaged party and gives it to the state. It just doesn't produce a good result as it interferes with the natural evolution of a society.

Whenever mankind sticks their hand into a natural process to control or alter the result, they pretty much invariably **** it up. Rule of Law has not served us well, but then it really never was meant to, neither was a Republic. Both systems are methods of control over the many by the few; methods of collecting taxes and forcing behavior, typically inhuman behavior.

 

[Tom-D]

Audacity? I think it is the epitome of aviation maintenance professionalism. As an A&P, I am a big proponent of thorough operational checks before returning an aircraft to the owner/operator. Thus an installation of a new tailwheel on an aircraft such as a 185 would require takeoffs and landings on the various surfaces that the aircraft might operate from. This means paved, grass, dirt, gravel and at least a couple of sandbars. The guy was obviously just doing his due diligence. Give him a break.

No not at all, this A&P simply used the 185 for his own pleasure, prior to installing the STCed tailwheel.

In the discussion about this between the owner and the A&P when the aircraft was picked up. the A&P tried to deny he used the aircraft, that lie POed the owner really bad, the ensuing fist fight got the A&Ps a$$ kicked. the owner paid for the tail wheel but not the labor. And now I get a good customer

 

[flyingron]

MY A&P (another Navion owner) has borrowed my plane on occasion, but has always asked.

 

[Tom-D]

MY A&P (another Navion owner) has borrowed my plane on occasion, but has always asked.

This happens a lot. I have maintained a few aircraft for the use of them. But I always called the owner and let them know I was using the aircraft. I mean it is simply common courtesy.

 

[James331]

Go over the plane with a fine tooth comb.

Any damage would be billed to him.

I'd say all the work he did was on the house plus he needs to pay for the hours he put on your plane.

Any issue he has, report the aircraft as stolen, take him to court for ANY damage on the plane, ANY DAMAGE.

 

[frfly172]

You have to prove he wasn't on a test flight,after the tail wheel installation.

 

[Henning]

MY A&P (another Navion owner) has borrowed my plane on occasion, but has always asked.

That's normally how it works.

 

[Palmpilot]

You have to prove he wasn't on a test flight,after the tail wheel installation.

A test flight for a tail wheel replacement required installing a different passenger seat?

 

[Palmpilot]

Perhaps suing in small claims court for the uncompensated time on the airframe and engine would be the way to go.

 

[Henning]

Perhaps suing in small claims court for the uncompensated time on the airframe and engine would be the way to go.

Hardly worth the time and effort.

 

[Tom-D]

Hardly worth the time and effort.

That is how the owner feels about it, he got the tail wheel he was after, the plane was not damaged, and he got satisfaction, of kicking his a$$ for using the aircraft with out permission, and then trying to lie about it.

 

[poadeleted21]

Am I the only one who really wouldn't care? it's just a 50 year old hunk of metal. It can be replaced. This is what insurance is for.

Bad form? Yeah. But I'm not going to raise my blood pressure or lose any sleep over it.

 

[Tom-D]

Am I the only one who really wouldn't care? it's just a 50 year old hunk of metal. It can be replaced. This is what insurance is for.

Bad form? Yeah. But I'm not going to raise my blood pressure or lose any sleep over it.

To some, as demoed here that think of their aircraft as their "baby"

I learned a while back that you never work on any woman's aircraft that she has named.
No matter what you do, your going to hurt it.

 

[rbridges]

Am I the only one who really wouldn't care? it's just a 50 year old hunk of metal. It can be replaced. This is what insurance is for.

Bad form? Yeah. But I'm not going to raise my blood pressure or lose any sleep over it.

I'd be a little aggravated. It's the principle of the matter. Switching out the seat, taking the family on a vacation in my plane without asking? Did he beat the hell out of it, did he land hard, was anything damaged or dinged that I won't notice right away? I'm sure the AP wouldn't like it if I went to his house and camped out there and used his stuff while he was gone. People look at things differently, but this would have been a thorn in my side.

 

[docmirror]

It's not the metal, it's the entitlement mentality. Like, your stuff is my stuff, but my stuff isn't your stuff. Offensive socialist crap.

 

[Luigi]

Audacity? I think it is the epitome of aviation maintenance professionalism. As an A&P, I am a big proponent of thorough operational checks before returning an aircraft to the owner/operator. Thus an installation of a new tailwheel on an aircraft such as a 185 would require takeoffs and landings on the various surfaces that the aircraft might operate from. This means paved, grass, dirt, gravel and at least a couple of sandbars. The guy was obviously just doing his due diligence. Give him a break.

In the past I have flown my own plane with the mechanic on board for flight after work has been done. I strongly disagree with your position.

 

[SkyDog58]

No not at all, this A&P simply used the 185 for his own pleasure, prior to installing the STCed tailwheel.

In the discussion about this between the owner and the A&P when the aircraft was picked up. the A&P tried to deny he used the aircraft, that lie POed the owner really bad, the ensuing fist fight got the A&Ps a$$ kicked. the owner paid for the tail wheel but not the labor. And now I get a good customer

Well, what a dumbass! That blows my theory (which was tongue in cheek) out off the water.