The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I just received a phone call from an owner who is having difficulty getting the Annual Inspector in Idaho to return his aircraft to him. It seems the inspector has just realized the struts on the airplane are not 170B struts because they have the "disappearing" tie down rings. So he does not want to release the aircraft to the owner.
Problem: He is the same inspector who approved this aircraft for return to service for the last several years of annual inspections. He probably realizes he has an issue with his past approvals and wants the owner to replace the struts or get the present ones approved. He is withholding the aircraft.

My advice to the owner is to point out that the previous approvals, if in error, are the responsibility of the inspector, and that the inspector should determine if the existing struts are approved replacements or not, and if not, then either obtain approval or replace them with approved struts. (I think the owner has an excellent case for the shop to do this at their own expense.) Additionally, the shop has no authority to withhold the aircraft from it's lawful owner, regardless of it's condition of airworthiness. If the owner desires to take his aircraft, I think he should pay whatever is legitimately owed for present work and demand release of the aircraft, with an entry indicating the work accomplished or annual is complete and a list of discrepancies is given the owner,... or offer to bring the sheriff and FAA into the discussion. The owner can next obtain approval or replacement of the struts wherever he chooses and take up the argument regarding previous approvals at a later date.

Remember, an annual inspection finding unairworthy items is not an inspector's authority to withhold an aircraft. (There may be other issues, for example there might be an outstanding invoice, etc.. but even in such cases most states do not allow withholding unless a lien is enacted in court. Check your local laws, but generally if the bill is paid then no authority exists for denying an owner his property.)

There are only two possible outcomes (and two possible log entries) which exist according to FARs: In both cases the entry should indicate that the inspection was accomplished according to the appropriate forms (annual or 100 hour, etc.). And the entry should indicate that the aircraft was found "to be in airworthy condition and approved for return to service" or "disapproved for return to service and a list of discrepancies (dated) was provided to the owner." (No approval for return to service notated. It is NOT appropriate to make any entry indicating the aircraft is "unairworthy" or listing the specific discrepancies in the logs.) FAR 43.11(a) applies.


In the first case, the owner/pilot may immediately return the aircraft to service.

In the second case the owner may have that list satisfied wherever he chooses and upon completion of that list he may return the aircraft to service. If the aircraft must be flown to another facility for the satisfaction of that list, a ferry permit should be obtained....see your friendly A&P and/or contact your local FSDO office.

Contrary to popular opinion, the existence of a ferry permit record in the aircraft logs should not detract from an aircraft's mx history or future value. In my opnion, the opposite actually may be the case. (It shows a conscientious owner who followed the rules and performed mx legitimately.)

Once upon a time, I was asked to pick up a Baron for it's new owner. When I arrived at the aircraft, a Nav radio was missing from the panel. The seller stated that due to the sales-price being below what he thought proper, he was keeping that radio. The new owner said he bought the "whole shebang" and didn't know how to proceed, and in desperation he agreed that I should bring a check for additional payment to the seller's home airport when I picked up the airplane.

I called the sheriff in the seller's town and explained the matter, and asked the sheriff to meet us at the airport to "keep things civil". He agreed.
At the appointed time, I was circling over the airport in the airplane and observed three sheriff's cars arrive at the airport and pull up to the seller's hangar. I landed and walked up to the sheriff and handed him a copy of the Bill of Sale and a copy of the aircraft's Equipment List which showed the radio as installed in the aircraft.
The sheriff explained that unless the seller handed me that radio I was correct to file theft charges and the sheriff was already obviosly "on the scene'. They seller caved-in, and I insisted he install it in the panel and turn it on to prove it worked. Afterwards I flew away to deliver the airplane...and the undelivered check,.... to it's new owner.

Don't let someone fool you into believing they have any authority to withhold your property from you.

I'm sorry to hear of such a problem

I agree but, If the owner is willing to pay the outstanding bill and the mechanic releases the aircraft with a list of discrepancies and found unairworthy in the logbook, the owner should be good to go. The mechanic however, has every right to notify the FAA of the issue.

It's the owners right to pursue legal action (On his dime) but it has been my experience with the Feds that the owner might not get much support, FAA being short on staff and in their words having "Bigger fish to fry".

Getting the mechanic to install new struts on his dime??

My advise, Get on with life. Lesson learned. Change the darn struts or get a field approval.

Remember that a annual inspection is nothing more than a snapshot in time just like a light bulb failing on the next throw of the switch. Anyone can argue that the struts where installed after the last annual. Without proof

Next time get a prebuy inspection, take lots of pictures at that time (with time/date stamp), then you might have a better chance in court.

UUUUG.... goofy things can happen. As I have mentioned in an earlier thread, I have been put into the middle of a pissing match. I found an aircraft unairworthy, and the owner agrees. (HE HAD JUST BOUGHT IT) I simply pulled the unairworthy parts. Making the entire aircraft unusable. This is now (after more than two years) In federal court.....I think some one is going to go to jail over this one......Brad

Brad,

My heart is with you pal.

I'm sure there is alot of this that has not been brought to lite but things like this don't happen unless someone is spring loaded to sue.

Mechanics try and do the right thing and BAM Too bad you can't hit the rewind and flush the owner. And those scum bag lawyers, don't get me going

Maybe the old lie detector before taking on a new client

Makes me want to hang it up. Owners butter you up, complain of costs, don't mention all of the great (mikey mouse work they have done) and when you point out issues they give you nothing but grief as if you caused the problem. THEN, they take the plane to some other unsuspecting mechanic not mentioning original problems that could cause the next guy to be placed in the cross hairs.

We earn every meager dime.

I'm now waiting for someone to chime in and defend this guy.

I've got some legal struts. I'll put them on and then lets go fish'in!!

Good luck!

minton wrote:Brad,

My heart is with you pal.

I'm sure there is alot of this that has not been brought to lite but things like this don't happen unless someone is spring loaded to sue.

Mechanics try and do the right thing and BAM Too bad you can't hit the rewind and flush the owner. And those scum bag lawyers, don't get me going

Maybe the old lie detector before taking on a new client

Makes me want to hang it up. Owners butter you up, complain of costs, don't mention all of the great (mikey mouse work they have done) and when you point out issues they give you nothing but grief as if you caused the problem. THEN, they take the plane to some other unsuspecting mechanic not mentioning original problems that could cause the next guy to be placed in the cross hairs.

We earn every meager dime.

I'm now waiting for someone to chime in and defend this guy.

I've got some legal struts. I'll put them on and then lets go fish'in!!

Good luck!

Well Mintion,
Don't feel sorry for me .....or the new owner ( after all he didn't have me do a pre purchase) This AP that is in federal court deserves every thing that is coming to him. Really the original owner of the aircraft is who deserves the most blame....But this guy singed it off.....AND THEN DILIVERED IT WITH HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER.....That's what pisses me off more.You Know we work our butts off trying to do things right and make a name for our selves, then there is people that just degrade our work and position to nothing but pencil pushers....When in actuality we have lives in our hands.....Brad

minton wrote:I'm sorry to hear of such a problem

I agree but, If the owner is willing to pay the outstanding bill and the mechanic releases the aircraft with a list of discrepancies and found unairworthy in the logbook, the owner should be good to go. The mechanic however, has every right to notify the FAA of the issue.

Yes, but I think you misunderstand this particular scenario... It's the mechanic/IA who does not wish to involve the FAA, as it is himself who has signed off on the previous several annuals with these struts installed. (The idiotic thing about it is that the IA has not pursued/researched to see if the struts are actually legal or not. It's quite possible that later 172 struts are superceded part numbers for original B-model struts...but he apparently prefers to intimidate the owner by withholding the aircraft. The owner had no idea he could call the FAA in on the IA until we visited.

minton wrote:...It's the owners right to pursue legal action (On his dime) but it has been my experience with the Feds that the owner might not get much support, FAA being short on staff and in their words having "Bigger fish to fry".

Yes, It's a mistake to believe the FAA will be supportive of an owner bringing suit against a shop. That is not their job. They will not necessarily even help with expert testimony. In fact, it is usually a bad idea for an owner to involve the FAA in such disputes because it will likely complicate the issue of determination of airworthiness due to other matters, and will likely extend the time required to get the airplane flying again. Also...once the FAA bell has been "rung"... it's impossible to "un-ring" the bell. The owner will have lost all power of intimidation/motivation to the shop....the matter must then go the full Monty of resolution. It generally behooves the owner to come to mutual agreement with the shop without FAA involvement. (THIS particular case may be an exception.)

minton wrote:...
Getting the mechanic to install new struts on his dime??

Firstly, New struts may not be the answer. But,...If the IA is on record as having previously approved illegal struts (if indeed they are illegal) it might behoove the IA to find a way to legalize this airplane to avoid FAA attention on his previous oversights. Especially since several other oversights also exist on the aircraft. (undocumented wheels/brakes which the IA previously installed/inspected.) FAA has PLENTY of staff and motivation to pursue such maintenance problems.

minton wrote:My advise, Get on with life. Lesson learned.

EXACTLY what the owner wishes to do but the IA has intimidated him into believing he cannot have possession of his airplane.

minton wrote: Change the darn struts or get a field approval.

May not be necessary for either of those actions, but those are certainly good recommendations if the present struts prove incorrect. The IA hasn't even attempted to find out if the existing struts are proper....he only refuses to sign off the annual and return the aircraft because he has just recently noticed the different tie down rings. It's quite possible there is no problem with these struts at all.

minton wrote: Remember that a annual inspection is nothing more than a snapshot in time just like a light bulb failing on the next throw of the switch. Anyone can argue that the struts where installed after the last annual. Without proof

Now THAT is exactly what I've heard some shops say. It is pure B.S. Without evidence the struts have been changed since last annual...it's the last annual inspector who is on the hook! These struts have reportedly been on the airplane since the previous owner.

minton wrote: Next time get a prebuy inspection, take lots of pictures at that time (with time/date stamp), then you might have a better chance in court.

I think I know what you MEANT by that, mintion, but for everyone: There is NO SUCH THING as a "prebuy inspection"! The term "prebuy inspection" has NO LEGAL BASIS or DEFINITION. There is only an ANNUAL INSPECTION to determine the aircraft's airworthiness. ANNUAL inspections are what I recommend when considering any airplane for purchase.

I realize that you are a professional mechanic/inspector, minton, and I know you have a high degree of integrity. But your bias against owners in predominant favor of mechanics does not lend it'self to objectivity in such cases as this one. The point of this thread is to get everyone to understand that without a lien or court order or sheriff's warrant, no one has the authority to withhold a person's property from them regardless of whether it's an airplane or a basketball.

(Additionally, this scenario is as it was presented to me by the owner. It is his point of view and his reflection of events that have been portrayed. We all know there are usually two sides to any story. But at first-blush...I take the viewpoint of our fellow Members who I have no reason to doubt. There would be little to gain in seeking advice regarding an inaccurately described matter.)

George said "Now THAT is exactly what I've heard some shops say. It is pure B.S. Without evidence the struts have been changed since last annual...it's the last annual inspector who is on the hook! These struts have reportedly been on the airplane since the previous owner."

I've had this discussion with those in the know, and they say FAA order 8082-11 applies, which says "When the holder of an IA approves an aircraft for return to service, he or she will be held responsible for the condition of the aircraft AS OF THE TIME OF APPROVAL"

Your description of this particular situation with the struts is most likely the fault of the IA to notice them during previous inspections, and so I'm not defending him. But if I thought I was responsible for an airplane from the time I return it to service until an indefinate time in the future when the next IA approval, I would not be in this business. Alot can happen to an aircraft in that time, and I'm certain that is why the FAA only holds us accountable for the work we do and the current condition of the aircraft as the ink dries.

I am not/was not implying that IA approval of an annual extends beyond the moment of inspection. I am saying that if the last annual inspection overlooked a serious airworthiness issue... that previous inspector is accountable. In the case of an inspector verifying an engine as airworthy...clearly any operations of that engine degrade it's airworthiness...and that is the intent of FAA order 8082-11...to accomodate for wear/tear. It is not to absolve an inspector for overlooking unapproved parts indefinitely, and particlularly not repeatedly.

When I purchased my 206, the "prebuy" was an annual inspection performed by a different inspector/mechanic than the one previously responsible for the airplane. It was discovered that the engine/prop combination was incorrect for the model aircraft. (It had an IO-520-D and a prop from a C-185 on it instead of the correct IO-520-A and correct prop.) The previous mechanic/inspector had been overlooking that matter for 3 years in a row.

Needless to say, that previous inspector was very interested in not involving FAA in the matter, and at his own expense he converted the engine to an "A" model (per TCM SB) and exchanged that prop for a fresh-overhauled correct model.

No one should be fooled by any inspector who claims the burden of proof rests entirely upon the victim/owner.

============

Relating this example to the present discussion: There would be no authority for the inspector hired to perform the "prebuy/annual" to withhold the aircraft from it's owner simply because it had an incorrect engine/prop.

If I was the owner of an airplane being held hostage in a shop, I would kindly ask the person holding the plane to give me an invoice for charges due, a log book entry stating what inspection was performed and a list of any discrepencies.

I would write a check for the amount, hand it to the shop, and demand my aircraft. If the plane was not released immediately, I would not argue with the shop but would call local law enforcement on my cell phone while standing in front of the SOB and report the theft. I would file charges and make them stick. I would also file a report in writing with the local FAA. They might already have a list of complaints against the guy for other inappropriate activities.

Once upon a time, and this is no BS, I bought into a 1/3 ownership of a 1953 PA-18-105 Special Super Cub which originally was built under a military contract, had a 105hp engine and no flaps. I asked the owners about paperwork and they said it was all ok and I took their word as they were good friends.

The same IA had annualled the plane for the previous 12 years.

The paint on the wing struts was badly chipped and rusting so the struts were taken to an FAA repair station, powder coated, then x-ray inspected, and given a clean bill of health.

When the IA came back to annual the plane after the struts were replaced with new hardware and fittings, he refused to annual the plane because he said the struts were repaired illegally and he was going to report the owners to the FAA. The plane had not flown since the strut repair.

After taking the plane to another IA, a list of discrepencies was made up detailing 32 items which any one of them would make the plane illegal to fly. Some were safety of flight issues. The struts were not on the list. The plane had undocumented; 150hp engine, prop, flaps, home-made data plate, illegal fuselage tubing repairs, missing structural tubing, etc., etc.

I called the FAA inspector and asked him if the first IA had reported illegal struts on the plane and he indicated he had. I asked the fed to come to the new IA's shop and inspect the plane and look at the current list of descepencies. After seeing the condition of the plane, some sort of action was taken on the first IA's certificate since the feds already had a list of other problems with the guy. The FAA inspector told me this was the icing on the cake. I don't know what happened after that but whatever the feds did, maybe it saved somebody's life. That guy was dangerous.

3-1/2 months and $15,000 later and we had it legal and flying again.

In case you've never heard this before, GET AN ANNUAL INSPECTION BEFORE YOU BUY A NEW PLANE, NO MATTER HOW WELL YOU KNOW THE SELLER. Education is expensive.

There are bad eggs out there. I've dealt with the after birth from those types many times. Trust me, it's very difficult to get the FAA to get involved. But don't enter into this mindset that you must get them involved to get results. If you document your issues, line up your evidence, have a few "experts" lined up to testify, get an aviation attorney involved, and go to civil court you can prevail! But what are you after?? If it's the guys certificates, win in civil court and hand the findings over to the FAA.

BUT!, don't get all riled up by your friends goading you into some knee jerk re-action. In most cases they are not qualified to give you such advise. Don't go in and start making threats and trying to throw your weight around. Smile and pay your bill, get your intact aircraft and logbooks back in your possesion, a list of discrepacies, then go for it. One warning, If your plane is found UN-airworthy, don't jump in and fly away. Get a ferry permit

I've used the vinegar and the sugar approaches, and trust me the latter works much better.

The above proves my point. You'll go without your plane/records, maybe for months, if you try the vinegar approach.

Just ask yourself a few questions. What outcome am I looking for? Is it realistic to think that outcome can happen? Am I over reacting to the businesses rude responce?

Good luck

George,

FOGHORN, I'm not getting into anymore pissing contests with you. You are no more qualified to make such statements that my cat. I am not an expert BUT,There are prebuy inspections in every line of work, Automotive, Marine, furture wives and Aviation. It includes but not limited to, visual inspections, compression tests, records reveiws (ad's, service bulletins, 337's, logbook reveiws) and maybe a test drive. It does'nt require any sign offs, just your thumbs up or down.

I am now signing off for good.

You try helping to keep guys out of hot water and all you get is grief from the likes of you.

You guys deserve each other (s)

GOOD BYE!!

Ease off, everybody! The syrup running down the page makes it hard to read.

minton wrote:George,

FOGHORN, I'm not getting into anymore pissing contests with you. You are no more qualified to make such statements that my cat. I am not an expert BUT,There are prebuy inspections in every line of work, Automotive, Marine, furture wives and Aviation. It includes but not limited to, visual inspections, compression tests, records reveiws (ad's, service bulletins, 337's, logbook reveiws) and maybe a test drive. It does'nt require any sign offs

I am now signing off for good.

You try helping to keep guys out of hot water and all you get is grief from the likes of you.

You guys deserve each other (s)

GOOD BYE!!

Mintion,
Take it easy.....There is nothing in these forums that are personal. We just try to exchange ideas. Sometimes the ideas seam to cut to the Bone....But this is still the best place for exchange of ideas for 170's I have ever found. Stuff happens...and we try to verbalize it, sometimes it doesn't come across quite right.....Waite for the next post and someone will keep all of us in line.....Brad

Could have fooled me.

minton wrote:George,

FOGHORN, I'm not getting into anymore pissing contests with you. You are no more qualified to make such statements that my cat. I am not an expert BUT,There are prebuy inspections in every line of work, Automotive, Marine, furture wives and Aviation. It includes but not limited to, visual inspections, compression tests, records reveiws (ad's, service bulletins, 337's, logbook reveiws) and maybe a test drive. It does'nt require any sign offs, just your thumbs up or down.

I am now signing off for good.

You try helping to keep guys out of hot water and all you get is grief from the likes of you.

You guys deserve each other (s)

GOOD BYE!!

Well, firstly, you are wrong....I'm well qualified to make the statements I've made, and instead of just blowing-hot-air and anger...why don't you REASONABLY and CALMLY take each of my points and show where your cat's opnion is better?
In summary, All I've said is:

1: A shop has no legal authority to withhold a person's airplane from him solely for airworthiness issues.

2: A "prebuy" inspection has no legal definition ... only an annual inspection has a legal definition.

3: An inspector is accountable for his work.

Now, why do you seem to have an anger management problem with that? Does any of the shoddy practices I've related cause you heartburn? If not, then what, exactly, is the problem with the statements I've made? Please note that I have not gotten personal, ....and you have.