Un-documented maintenance

R

Ron Stowell

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
35
Location
Granbury, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Granbury Aviation Services
Had a fairly new customer come in the shop with a 1950's 172 they bought from a "really good guy" and GREAT mechanic and flight instructor, as the story goes. The customer said the DG was not working at all. They had been in contact with the really good guy who sold them the airplane. He told the new owner he replaced the DG not log ago and its probably the hoses being old as the problem.

Pulled out the newly replaced DG by the GREAT mechanic, and it was a POS. This DG had the original data tag peeled off the side of the case and was wrapped on both ends with electrical tape. Further investigation revealed its an experimental DG NOT for certified aircraft made in China. The really good guy did not do any log entry and this is a flight school airplane.

So now this really GOOD GUY knowingly installed a NON certified instrument, modified the data tag by removing it as to cover it not being certified it and pawned it off as legit. These people need to be stripped of what ever certificates they have.

It is criminal that these people are doing un-documented, illegal maintenance and selling this to an un suspecting buyer. And they buyer NERER had a pre buy because the really good guy and Great mechanic was a good friend and mentor.

We do not do maintenance on any aircraft that we know has had un-documented maintenance performed on it....especially as blatant as this.
 
Unfortunately, it happens more than we think. I had my plane in for a transponder and roll-steering install and "somehow" the remote gyro on the HSI (in the tail) got replaced with a junk unit full of "radio shack" parts. (I took it to another shop for repair) Cost me another $1-2 grand to get it overhauled. We verified that the serial number that was on the unit didn't match what was originally installed.... and because we didn't check the serial numbers going into the shop (which would have been a problem to get to) we couldn't prove when it happened. Discovered it when the gyro would unlock without warning - and it would lock up 20-40 degrees off of the correct heading. Fortunately when that happened we were not in hard IMC.
 
I really want to expose these hacks and get them removed from us Professionals that maintain aircraft for a living and want to better the aviation community as a whole.
 
Ron Stowell said:
experimental DG
Click to expand...
Ron Stowell said:
NON certified instrument
Click to expand...
FWIW: While I agree totally with the title, let's not confuse the issue with the above terms. As I'm sure you know, there is no regulatory definition of "experimental" parts within the FARs and that most vendors simply use that term so as not to run afoul with Part 3. As to "non-certified" instruments, as I'm sure you also know, in most cases those instruments are only required to meet the performance and environmental requirements of the appropriate certifications and not the specific certification requirement. There have been numerous previous threads on these topics which contain the proper reference materials. While there are unscrupulous mechanics out there trying to bunch everything into one sentence doesn't do the topic justice.;)
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: While I agree totally with the title, let's not confuse the issue with the above terms. As I'm sure you know, there is no regulatory definition of "experimental" parts within the FARs and that most vendors simply use that term so as not to run afoul with Part 3. As to "non-certified" instruments, as I'm sure you also know, in most cases those instruments are only required to meet the performance and environmental requirements of the appropriate certifications and not the specific certification requirement. There have been numerous previous threads on these topics which contain the proper reference materials. While there are unscrupulous mechanics out there trying to bunch everything into one sentence doesn't do the topic justice.;)
Click to expand...
They are not for certified aircraft.... that's why they are sold as for experimental aircraft and do no come with an 8130. And when customers and students expect to be flying a legitimate aircraft and these parts are installed they do the entire industry a disservice. There is a reason why we have certified and experimental classification of aircraft. Do you want this experimental instrument installed on your King Air, Lear 45 or Gulfstream G650.... there is no difference, its a problem and needs to be addressed. Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable an what's not? You can not install experimental parts on certified aircraft.... for lease or charter, that's the point.
 
I don’t lease my C150, but I did just install an “experimental” GTR-200 as my only radio.

And I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

My Is signed it off and sent in a 337 to the FAA (not that he needed to technically, but whatever, it was his choice).
 
Ron Stowell said:
They are not for certified aircraft.... that's why they are sold as for experimental aircraft and do no come with an 8130.
Click to expand...
Ron Stowell said:
You can not install experimental parts on certified aircraft..
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, this topic has been discussed adnauseam here on PoA with all the appropriate references. But for this post can you provide a FAA reference that defines what an "experimental" part is? And where it states in the FARs every part must come with an 8130? Here is a good article that touches on what can be installed in a TC'd aircraft and how.
https://www.valavionics.com/installation-in-type-certificated-aircraft.html
Ron Stowell said:
Do you want this experimental instrument installed on your King Air, Lear 45 or Gulfstream G650
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. PoA mainly deals with Part 91 GA aircraft. If you want to discuss those type aircraft that usually fly under 91k or 135 then a separate thread would be better. Regardless the same rules apply to all aircraft.
Ron Stowell said:
Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable an what's not?
Click to expand...
By following the established FAA guidance and not personal opinion.;)
 
It’s not just shade tree mechanics. I recently found myself in a near emergency situation because a large so called authorized Garmin avionics shop installed critical components of the G5’s AHARS in the tail instead of the wing, right Next to a air blower motor. It was half ass secured with nothing other than duct tape.
Surprise- it’s partial panel day. Had to make compass turns in IMC to join a localizer to get in. Another avionics shop found the problem. They couldn’t believe what they found. Total negligence.
 
Last edited:
The FAA requires that any part installed on a FAA certified aircraft be FAA approved AND have installation eligibility. The previous mentioned part installed has none of this.

Approved parts eligible for installation include parts listed on the aircraft’s Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS), Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or parts with Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA).
AC 20-62E CHG 1
Has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator (i.e., manufacturer’s data), which have been developed and documented by the holder of one of the following: • TC; • STC, or article approval under § 21.8; or • PMA.
Return to Service Inspection Records. The person approving or disapproving for return to service a TC’d product must ensure that the required maintenance record entries comply with part 43, and therefore must include the following information: • Type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection; • Date; • Product hours, cycles, or life limits as applicable; • Signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service; and • The appropriate certifying statement that the product or part thereof is approved or disapproved for return to service, as applicable
 
Not long after I bought the Navion, the DG died. As me and the mechanic pulled it out of the panel we found a piece of masking tape on the top of it that said "$5." Not sure which fleamarket that came from but it made any part that I didn't personally replace on the plane a bit suspect.
 
Ron Stowell said:
The FAA requires that any part installed on a FAA certified aircraft be FAA approved AND have installation eligibility. The previous mentioned part installed has none of this.

Approved parts eligible for installation include parts listed on the aircraft’s Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS), Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or parts with Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA).
AC 20-62E CHG 1
Has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator (i.e., manufacturer’s data), which have been developed and documented by the holder of one of the following: • TC; • STC, or article approval under § 21.8; or • PMA.
Return to Service Inspection Records. The person approving or disapproving for return to service a TC’d product must ensure that the required maintenance record entries comply with part 43, and therefore must include the following information: • Type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection; • Date; • Product hours, cycles, or life limits as applicable; • Signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service; and • The appropriate certifying statement that the product or part thereof is approved or disapproved for return to service, as applicable
Click to expand...

Don’t forget about owner produced parts. And avionics that the FAA has recently allowed such as AOA indicators that don’t have STC or PMA. And the old KX-170 radios that did not have a PMA or TSO.....yet are installed on thousands of certified of airplanes.
 
Ron Stowell said:
The FAA requires that any part installed on a FAA certified aircraft be FAA approved AND have installation eligibility. The previous mentioned part installed has none of this.
Click to expand...

You say "FAA Approved". Who makes this determination for the FAA?
 
flyingron said:
Not long after I bought the Navion, the DG died. As me and the mechanic pulled it out of the panel we found a piece of masking tape on the top of it that said "$5." Not sure which fleamarket that came from but it made any part that I didn't personally replace on the plane a bit suspect.
Click to expand...

That might’ve been a $5 roll of masking tape labeled for sale and that piece was the first to come off the roll :D
 
I know a chap---Fuel pump failed and he opened up an aluminum line under the floor boards, and installed an automotive pump with rubber hoses. He didn't like the elevator tension and loosened up the cables a bit. He installed a wing leveler he got somewhere. He does his own cylinder work. He uses mogas with alcohol. Etc,etc,etc. He got PO'ed at me when I refused to do an annual for him.
 
Jdm said:
It’s not just shade tree mechanics. I recently found myself in a near emergency situation because a large so called authorized Garmin avionics shop installed critical components of the G5’s AHARS in the tail instead of the wing, right Next to a air blower motor. It was half ass secured with nothing other than duct tape.
Click to expand...

That's HORRIBLE ... now if they used Gorilla Tape instead, everything would've been just fine;)
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Flex Tape. I built the entire tailcone of my plane from Flex Tape. Then I cut it in half with a chainsaw when I need to do an inspection.
Click to expand...
ripped-plane5.jpg
 
Theoretically you could cover an entire plane in tape from the get go, right? Possibly only an experimental. I love that repair in how it actually seems to be a great repair to get back home and fix it correct and will remember to keep a roll in a plane if I end up flying a fabric covered airframe in the future.
 
Ron Stowell said:
The FAA requires that any part installed on a FAA certified aircraft be FAA approved AND have installation eligibility.
Click to expand...
Ron Stowell said:
AC 20-62E
Click to expand...
Considering your above comments are a different topic, how about we tie off the loose ends/questions from your OP before we move into that discussion. FWIW: You’ll find there are a number of PoA’rs who are good at posting multiple topics/points but rarely complete those topics before moving onto the next one... which can cause confusion for those members that do not have our experience level. I trust you are not one of those types.

So is there an FAA definition for experimental parts? -- keeping in mind a vendor has zero regulatory authority to determine what parts or how those parts are installed on an aircraft.

And what is the FAA reference requiring an 8130 for every part? -- considering most vendors will charge extra if you request one.

But just to keep the discussion fluid until you answer the questions above, I think you’ll find there are more FAA “acceptable” parts installed on an aircraft than FAA “approved parts.” As to “installation eligibility” it depends on the specific part itself. For example, any part designed/produced under a TSOA does not provide installation eligibility or installation approval.
 

I show this in our Young Eagles ground school.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Theoretically you could cover an entire plane in tape from the get go, right?
Click to expand...
Sure. I think the pic above is from a bear going after fish in the baggage compartment. If it's the same one I'm thinking of they got a ferry permit to fly it back that way. Besides the fuselage fabric is more a bug shield vs the wings/tail feathers that make it fly. Some of the Valdez STOL Comp planes have their aft fabric removed. And yes on the experimental until to get your tape STC approved. A bunch of German guys got a shrink wrap cover system approved... so why not an approved tape system? But I'd recommend a high speed Mylar tape instead like Continental used to temp repair wing tips.
 
Bell206 said:
Sure. I think the pic above is from a bear going after fish in the baggage compartment. If it's the same one I'm thinking of they got a ferry permit to fly it back that way. Besides the fuselage fabric is more a bug shield vs the wings/tail feathers that make it fly. Some of the Valdez STOL Comp planes have their aft fabric removed. And yes on the experimental until to get your tape STC approved. A bunch of German guys got a shrink wrap cover system approved... so why not an approved tape system? But I'd recommend a high speed Mylar tape instead like Continental used to temp repair wing tips.
Click to expand...
With out a STC or field approval,,, ain't going to happen.
repairs of fabric in wings are restricted to size. then it requires a field approval (337)
 
pmanton said:
I know a chap---Fuel pump failed and he opened up an aluminum line under the floor boards, and installed an automotive pump with rubber hoses. He didn't like the elevator tension and loosened up the cables a bit. He installed a wing leveler he got somewhere. He does his own cylinder work. He uses mogas with alcohol. Etc,etc,etc. He got PO'ed at me when I refused to do an annual for him.
Click to expand...

Ive seen a lot more of that kind of activity than I have of mechanics doing the wrong thing.

And people around here continue to wonder why I won’t do work for them...
 
Tom-D said:
With out a STC or field approval,,, ain't going to happen.
repairs of fabric in wings are restricted to size. then it requires a field approval (337)
Click to expand...
Come on Tom, lighten up a little. It is pretty obvious that that is Alaska and certainly the rules are different when your choice is Field Approval and freezing to death over night or duct tape and flying home and living.

But for an experimental, it actually is a valid repair method, am I right?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Come on Tom, lighten up a little. It is pretty obvious that that is Alaska and certainly the rules are different when your choice is Field Approval and freezing to death over night or duct tape and flying home and living.

But for an experimental, it actually is a valid repair method, am I right?
Click to expand...
All fabric repairs are emergency repairs -- right?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Theoretically you could cover an entire plane in tape from the get go, right? Possibly only an experimental. I love that repair in how it actually seems to be a great repair to get back home and fix it correct and will remember to keep a roll in a plane if I end up flying a fabric covered airframe in the future.
Click to expand...
I’d suggest two rolls...maybe three. ;)
 
Tom-D said:
All fabric repairs are emergency repairs -- right?
Click to expand...
Obviously not. But if you are stuck in the Alaskan bush and you are 100 miles from a road, do you duct tape the plane and fly home, or freeze and die? Regardless of the legality of the repair, I am duct taping the plane. If I am at home, I would repair it with my AP/IA using approved methods for the fabric in question, if larger than the allowed small fabric patches allowed by owners.
 
At what point does the un-document event turn to negligent ?

I have often seen a good aircraft turn to trash simply because lack of maintenance, no annual for several years, And now the maintenance bill costs more than the aircraft is worth.
 
Tom-D said:
At what point does the un-document event turn to negligent ?

I have often seen a good aircraft turn to trash simply because lack of maintenance, no annual for several years, And now the maintenance bill costs more than the aircraft is worth.
Click to expand...

I've seen the same thing from people taking their planes to get a $200 annual done. After several years of those "cheap 20 minute" annuals the planes are essentially worthless.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If the work and inspections ares done by a certificated A&P / IA, you won't find those kinds of problems / neglect.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I bought a plane while still in training so I couldn't fly anywhere else for service. There was a shiny shop on my field that was happy to work on my Cherokee. They did mostly good work, but I had to always check it. First issue, came back with the cowl not properly latched. No big deal, noticed it in preflight. Mentioned it, "we don't work on a lot of Cherokee's". Next time got charged for a 50 hour inspection that I didn't ask for. It listed checking tire pressure as part of the work completed (and logged). I found it interesting that my front tire only had 10 PSI (it had slow leak, so it needed to be filled about once a month). Also they always logged hobbs time on the maintenance logs. I kept asking for them to log Tach as the hobbs time bore no relation to either airframe or engine hours. Think the hobbs got added with the JPI 930 a prior owner installed.

Maybe I should start a thread of documented maintenance not performed. That shop reminded me of Van Halen and brown M&M's. Part of VH's contract for stage shows asked for a bowl of M&M's with the brown ones taken out. They had no issue with brown M&M's, they just used that as a way to see if the staging crew actually read the specifications. Brown M&M's and all the staging got re-checked.

I have a great AP/IA now that does owner assist work and have none of those issues anymore. My only point is that an A&P certificate is no guarantee of not having issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top