|
 Savvy
Owner Notebook:
Over A Barrel At Annual
While your aircraft is in the shop for an annual, you and your
IA get into a disagreement over some costly repair. The IA insists
it must be done before he'll sign off the annual, but you don't
think it's necessary. What are your options?
by Mike Busch (mike.busch@savvyaviator.com)
 Over
the last month I've received emails from a half-dozen aircraft
owners who felt that an A&P/IA had them "over a barrel"
with respect to a disputed repair during an annual inspection. When
a mechanic tells an owner that he won't sign off the annual unless
some costly repair is done, most owners feel helpless and
victimized. Most of the time, the owner capitulates to the IA and
reluctantly agrees to have the work done, -- then goes away angry
vows never to use the mechanic again.
I love to get these emails because I'm often able to help
owners resolve their problems and arrive at a good result. I always
start off by making sure the owners understand that they do indeed
have options and are still in the driver's seat. Contrary to what
many owners believe, no mechanic has the authority to ground an
airplane, nor to force an owner to perform any repair, nor even to
require that an annual inspection be re-done. The FARs are
written quite clearly to hold the owner primarily responsible for
the maintenance and airworthiness of his aircraft, and to place
authority for maintenance decisions squarely in the owner's lap.
After reassuring the owner that he is truly in control of the
situation, I next try to help the owner determine whether or not
the disputed repair is really necessary. Sometimes the
issues in dispute are so clear cut that I can offer advice on the
subject sight-unseen; in other cases, I may refer the owner to
another mechanic who can take a look at the airplane and render a
second opinion. Frequently the problem gets resolved at this stage:
either the owner concludes that the IA was right and agrees to do
the repair, or the IA is persuaded to change his position and sign
off the annual without the repair.
If the owner and IA still cannot agree, I usually advise the
owner to instruct the IA to sign off the annual with
discrepancies, and then to take the aircraft to another mechanic.
Most owners are reluctant to do this because they believe
(incorrectly) that the annual inspection will have to be repeated,
but that is not correct. When an annual inspection is signed off
with discrepancies and the aircraft not approved for return to
service, there is no need to repeat the inspection. The owner
may take the aircraft to any authorized mechanic to get the
discrepancies corrected, and there is no requirement for the IA who
did the annual to re-inspect the work. If the owner takes steps to
ensure that the paperwork is handled correctly, this procedure does
not result in any sort of "black mark" in the aircraft's
permanent maintenance records that might affect resale value.
This whole subject of owner/mechanic dispute resolution is one
that I discuss at considerable length in my Savvy
Owner Seminars. To illustrate some of these points, I'd like
to share a few of the emails I received this month:
Piper Warrior fuselage repair
I heard from a renter pilot who had just purchased his first
airplane, a 1977 Piper Warrior, and was going through his first
annual inspection -- often an eye-opening experience for a
first-time owner:
Mike, your recent article mentioned A&Ps having owners over a barrel. I feel that describes my current situation.
I recently bought a 77 Warrior and arranged with my mechanic to
do the pre-buy inspection coupled with the annual which was currently due. The
inspection turned up the usual expected squawks for a 26 year old plane,
including some airworthiness issues
that I was happy to have dealt with, but one issue remains a bone of contention
in which the mechanic states he will not sign off on the annual.
 The issue in
question is a repair to the airframe that was never documented.
It is uncertain what damage was repaired, however, there is an 8"x8" aluminum
skin patch on the empennage near the right stabilator. The patch is unconventional because it is applied from the inside
rather than from the outside. The piece has been formed to fit over a fuselage
stringer. The rivets look normal both inside
and out in every way. Everything looks solid. The outside reveals
refinishing of the paint and the slight hint that some things might have been
filled with body putty. The previous owner of 8 years was entirely unaware of
the repair. My mechanic has inspected it and has not found it unsound as such, but feels
responsible for signing off on something he didn't do that has no history. His
solution is to pull it apart and redo it at an estimated labor of 10 hours.
My thinking is that this plane has been through probably 20 annual
inspections with this repair, and everyone signed off on the plane as being
airworthy, but suddenly I am left holding the bag. At this point my annual is
up to about $6,000. The plane has been mine legally for about two
weeks, and progress on the work has been sporadically progressing.
The undocumented repair has not yet been redone to date, but I do feel given
the circumstances I am in no position to tell the mechanic to put the plane
together and take the plane to a different shop to redo the annual. My plane is based
at an airport that has several shops, and my choice was based on the fact that I have been
renting planes from this FBO for the past year. This mechanic did a previous
pre-buy inspection on a plane that he advised me to reject. His inspections have
been thorough to say the least.
I explained to this owner that I obviously could not evaluate the
questionable repair sight-unseen, and suggested that he might want
to ask another A&P from a different shop on his field to take a
look while the aircraft was all opened up and render a second
opinion. I also suggested that the owner take a look at the
relevant chapter of FAA Advisory Circular AC43.13-1B ("Acceptable
Methods, Techniques, and Practices -- Aircraft Inspection and Repair")
that mechanics use to determine whether or not an airframe repair
has been done correctly.
The next day, this owner emailed me back to tell me that after
researching AC43.13-1B and then inspecting the airplane and
discussing the matter further with his IA, he had come to the
conclusion that the IA was right: the existing repair was indeed
improperly done, and 20 previous annuals had simply missed it. The
owner agreed that the repair needed to be done, and authorized the
repair.
Beech Baron tail bulkhead cracks
The owner of a Beech Baron based in the Washington DC area
emailed me to describe a distasteful experience he'd had during a
recent annual:
 [FBO
name deleted] did in fact hold me over a barrel on a Beech Mandatory
Service Bulletin (which is in fact not mandatory at all for part 91
operators). The bulletin required a reinforcement in the tail
bulkhead if cracks of a specific size are present. When we asked the
FBO to show us the crack, the FBO would only say it was present but
we could see no evidence of the crack.
The two-week annual was already two months overdue (that is
not a typo) and we instructed the FBO not to perform the service.
The FBO said they would put the aircraft back together but would not
sign-off on the annual. In the end we were forced to concede the
point, as that was less expensive then starting another annual with
a different FBO. I've subsequently come to learn that the manager at
this FBO has a history of holding aircraft owners of all types over
a barrel.
This owner related this unfortunate episode to me after-the-fact,
so I was not able to help. Nor did I have the opportunity to speak
with the mechanic and hear the other side of the story (and there
usually are two sides). Of course I have no way of knowing whether
the aircraft's tail bulkhead had serious cracks or not. What I do
know is that this situation was badly mishandled, both by the shop
and by the owners.
In my view, the shop had an absolute obligation to show the
owners the alleged crack and to do whatever else was reasonably
necessary to facilitate "informed consent" by the owners
to the repair called out by the service bulletin. There is
absolutely no excuse for a mechanic who fails to do this, or who
employs strong-arm tactics to coerce an owner into doing things the
mechanic's way.
At the same time, the owners made the classic mistake of
believing that if they didn't capitulate to the mechanic's demands,
they would have to have re-do the annual inspection somewhere else.
That is simply not so. The regulations require an owner to have an
aircraft inspected every 12 calendar months by an authorized person
(usually an A&P with Inspection Authorization or a Repair
Station). The inspection may be completed in one of two alternative
ways:
- the inspector finds the aircraft to be airworthy and approves
the aircraft for return to service; or
- the inspector finds that the aircraft to be unairworthy
because of one or more discrepancies.
In the first case, the inspector records the annual in the
aircraft maintenance logbook as set forth in FAR 43.11(a)(4):
If the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved
for return to service, the following or a similarly worded
statement--"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected
in accordance with [an annual] inspection and was determined to be
in airworthy condition."
In the second case, the inspector signs off the inspection per
FAR 43.11(a)(5):
If the aircraft is not approved for return to service
because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable
specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data,
the following or a similarly worded statement--"I certify
that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with [an
annual] inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
items dated [date] has been provided for the aircraft owner or
operator."
Note that the discrepancies need not (and indeed should not) be
recorded in the aircraft logbook, but rather provided to the owner
on a separate sheet of paper signed by the inspector. At this point,
the annual inspection is over, the inspector is off the hook and out
of the picture, and the owner now has the responsibility to have the
discrepancies corrected by a mechanic of his choice (not necessarily
an IA). The discrepancy list is technically part of the aircraft's
maintenance records until the discrepancies are corrected, but once
they are corrected the discrepancy list may be destroyed. The
logbook winds up having two entries, one by the IA saying "I
did an annual inspection and found some discrepancies," and
another by the mechanic saying "I fixed the discrepancies and
approve the aircraft for return to service." No big deal.
Had the Baron owners consulted me while the airplane was still in
the shop and told me that the FBO was insisting on performing a
costly structural repair while refusing to show them the defects
that needed repair, I would have recommended that they instruct the
FBO to sign off the annual with discrepancies, and then run (not
walk) to one of the other repair facilities on the field.
Cessna 340 flap track
A friend who owns a Cessna 340 with a Robertson STOL conversion
discovered during an annual inspection that one of his flap tracks
was severely corroded, apparently due to a manufacturing defect. The
airplane was AOG for months while he waited for the STC holder to
fabricate a replacement flap track. When the new flap track finally
arrived, my friend thought he was finally out of the woods, but he
was wrong. Weeks later, he emailed me in frustration:.
 I
find myself in a pissing contest between an IA and and A&P. The IA
is the one that found the flap track problem. However, his shop
is now seriously overcommitted, and as a result my plane is still
down 6 weeks after the new flap track arrived.
I have found an A&P that is a sheet metal specialist and
can install the flap track now. The problem is that this A&P and
the IA are in a feud over another piece of work the A&P did. It
has gotten to the point where the IA will not sign off on work done
by this A&P, but other AIs have no problem with him. In fact, I
got this A&P on recommendation from another IA I know very well.
The IA doing my annual inspection does have another A&P
that does the sheet metal work and he will sign off on his work.
Unfortunately this guy is 30 miles away, so it means getting a ferry
permit and me not being able to monitor the work. The local A&P
I want to use will do the work in my hangar where I can keep an eye
on it. What should I do?
I advised my friend to tell the IA that he had decided to have
the flap track installed by the local A&P, and that if the IA
was uncomfortable with that the IA should sign off the annual with
discrepancies. My friend followed this advice, and the next day
emailed me to say that the IA had relented and agreed to permit the
work to be done by the local A&P (with whom the IA was feuding)
and then to sign off the annual without discrepancies.
This was the best possible outcome for my friend, of course, and
did not surprise me. When an IA takes an unreasonable position with
an aircraft owner, requiring the IA to document that position in
writing (by instructing him to sign off the annual with
discrepancies) often causes the IA to reconsider and sometimes to
relent. But whether or not he relents, the unreasonable IA is out of
the picture and the owner is free to have the discrepancies repaired
by the A&P of his choice.
Keep those emails coming! 
| Do you have a maintenance-related
"war story" that you'd like to share with fellow
aircraft owners? If you do, I'd
love to hear from you. The most interesting stories
I receive each month will be rewarded with highly prized Savvy
Aviator coffee mugs, so please include your
shipping address. Also be sure to let me know if you'd like
me to "change the names to protect the innocent"
when sharing your story. |
|
