 Savvy
Owner Notebook:
What To Do If Shafted By A Shop?
When a maintenance shop does incompetent work or charges for work
not performed, the aircraft owner's first impulse is often to
complain to the FAA. That's understandable, but it's usually not a
wise thing to do.
by Mike Busch,
A&P/IA (mike.busch@savvyaviator.com)
 The
overwhelming majority of A&P mechanics and repair stations are both
competent and honest, but unfortunately there are a few bad apples
in every barrel. So from time to time I hear about a disgruntled
aircraft owner who feels that he's been cheated or mistreated by a
shop or mechanic, and who is seeking advice on what to do about it.
Case in point: Here's a note from the owner of an early-model
Beech Bonanza whose airplane just underwent an annual inspection
that turned up some dangerous and fraudulent work performed a year
earlier:
"I had an extensive (and expensive) annual inspection done
by a shop in southern Indiana in August of last year. The reason
the annual was done in Indiana was because that is where my
partner in the airplane lives, and where I lived before moving
to Arizona. I have since bought him out, making me the sole
owner.
"Come July of this year I took my airplane to a very
reputable shop in Dallas for its annual, and the news is not
good. My mechanic in Dallas calls me up and tells me that the
boys up in Indiana took me for a ride. He sends me a letter
detailing all of the stuff that they said they did but actually
didn't do, and it's quite long.
"Most notably, the Indiana shop said that they replaced
painted and balanced both ailerons, and invoiced for same, but
the Dallas shop says that the airplane still has its original
ailerons. Many other parts were documented by the Indiana shop
to have been replaced with new ones, but the Dallas shop reports
that these parts were covered with paint from the original paint
job.
"The Indiana shop also installed a Jasco alternator in
place of the original generator, but in order to make room for
the new alternator circuit breaker they removed the landing
gear circuit breaker and, according to the Dallas shop,
hard-wired the landing gear motor to the battery bus with no
circuit breaker protection whatsoever.
"Now that I have had the Dallas shop correct these
discrepancies, I am wondering if I have any reasonable recourse
against the shop in Indiana? My Dallas mechanic has documented
everything, including photographs. He is willing to help me
whatever I decide to do. What should I do?"
Every aircraft owner can feel this owner's pain. If you were in
his shoes, what would you do?
Complain to the feds?
 When
an owner finds himself in such a predicament, often his first impulse is to file
a complaint with the FAA. After all, isn't it the FAA's job to ensure that
aircraft mechanics and repair stations are competent and honest, and to protect
aircraft owners from the ones that are incompetent or crooked?
Actually, no, it isn't.
An A&P/IA colleague recently had an off-the-record conversation
with his local FAA Airworthiness Inspector in which he presented the
plight of the unfortunate Bonanza owner cited above (without
revealing the identify of the owner, aircraft, or shops involved).
This FSDO inspector had worked as a GA mechanic for many years
before being recruited by the FAA, so he fully understood how things
work in the real world of GA maintenance.
The FAA inspector expressed the opinion that it probably would
not be wise or productive for the Bonanza owner to file a complaint
with the FAA. From the FAA's perspective, the fact that the owner
was charged for new ailerons and various other parts that were not
in fact installed on the airplane is purely a business dispute, not
a violation of FAA regulations. Even if the shop could be shown to
have defrauded the aircraft owner, fraud is a criminal or civil
matter, not an FAA matter. The FAA normally does not get interested
in such cases unless there is a death, injury, accident or incident
that arises out of the faulty maintenance work.
What about the fact that the landing gear motor was wired without
required circuit protection? Surely that was a violation of the FARs
and created an unsafe condition?
True, but the FAA holds the aircraft owner primarily responsible
for maintaining his aircraft in airworthy condition [see 14 CFR
91.403(a)]. From the FAA's perspective, the owner chooses the
mechanics who work on the aircraft, and the owner is responsible for
ensuring that the work they do is airworthy.
(In my seminars. I explain that the aircraft owner's role is like
that of a general contractor, and the mechanic's role is like that
of a roofer, plumber, or electrician. These subcontractors are
"hired help" who perform various specialized jobs, but it's the
general contractor who is ultimately responsible for the outcome.)
What's worse, explained the FAA inspector, if the Bonanza owner
filed a complaint with the FAA about the fraudulent and unsafe
maintenance performed on his airplane by the Indiana shop, the owner
would unfortunately be admitting in his complaint that he had been
flying an unairworthy aircraft for the past year, and the FAA would
then have no choice but to prosecute the owner for his obvious
regulatory violation. In fact, it's entirely possible that the
Bonanza owner would wind up facing a certificate action while the
mechanic and shop would get off scott-free!
The owner might be able to improve his position by filing a
NASA Aviation
Safety Reporting System (ASRS) report, but even that would not
necessarily protect him from certificate action. Filing an ASRS
report provides sanction immunity for an inadvertent violation only
if the report is filed within 10 days of the violation, and the
owner had arguably been flying his airplane in unairworthy condition
for nearly a year when he became aware of the problems.
So what's the owner to do?
The owner's only real recourse here would be to take legal action
against the Indiana shop. He could try approaching the local
District Attorney and filing a criminal complaint against the shop
for fraud, but it seems rather unlikely that the DA would elect to
pursue such a matter as a criminal case.
His best bet would probably be to hire an attorney in Indiana,
provide him with all possible information substantiating the Indiana
shop's fraudulent business practices (including a detailed letter
from his shop in Dallas and the photos that the shop took of the
misrepresented parts and incompetent work), and then have the
attorney send the shop a demand letter and see how they respond.
Would it be worth the expense to litigate something like this in
court? Often it would not. If the Indiana shop refuses to resolve
the dispute voluntarily or through arbitration, litigation will
often benefit only the attorneys involved.
Sadly, there's a good chance that the Bonanza owner will simply
have to chalk this one up to tuition and move on.
Could this have been prevented?
Could the owner have taken any steps to avoid getting into this
ugly predicament in the first place? Several thoughts come to mind:
- The owner should have done more due diligence before
choosing the shop to work on his aircraft. In this case, it
turned out that there are a number of other owners who have been
treated badly by the same Indiana shop.
- The owner should have exercised more oversight while the
airplane was in the shop. It's hard to imagine this sort of
thing happening during an owner-assisted annual. (The fact that
the owner chose to have his airplane annualed in Dallas this
year, far from his home in Arizona, suggests that he's not in
the habit of keeping close tabs on the maintenance of his
Bonanza.)
- The owner might have been wise to ask the shop to give him
all the defective parts removed from his airplane. This is the
law for automotive repairs in many states, and not a bad idea
for aircraft maintenance.
Owners need to remember that under the FAA regulations they have
primary responsibility for the airworthiness of their aircraft, and
that they are expected to exercise whatever oversight is required to
ensure that maintenance is done properly. Ignorance is no defense.
We need to take charge, and to act like owners-in-command.
| 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. |
|
This
unique weekend course for aircraft owners has received