This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
This is related to pilot’s action based on the airworthiness statement from A&P after an annual condition inspection on an experimental aircraft.
At the completion of the condition inspection, the A&P instructed me that the Van’s RV-4 was cleared for flight.
After the initial flight, there were significant engine performance issues from the A&P changing the engine timing. After correcting the timing, the plane was again cleared for flight. This was in the spring time. The A&P retained the logbooks.
On a subsequent flight, the plane experienced an abnormal oil pressure condition and I made a precautionary landing. Many weeks later and after the A&P heard that the plane “went down,” the A&P filed a complaint that the aircraft was not in a safe condition and not released to fly.
The phrase that the plane “went down” was used as the explanation related to why he took the action that he took. His belief appeared to indicate that he thought it crashed, not that it was a precautionary landing.
In another case with the same A&P, Person B stated that she has had a similar problem with the same A&P, that he was not right in his head, dishonest, incompetent, and would never work on one of their aircraft again. In her case, the company plane had an abnormal oil condition.
The same A&P worked on the plane and replaced the magneto, which has no relation to oil pressure. Replacement of the magneto obviously had no impact on the condition and she hired another A&P.
The second A&P, who was also an IA, found a defective piston and the engine was near catastrophic failure.
When the first A&P learned of the defective piston, he attempted to change (falsify) his logbook entries about his workmanship and airworthiness of the plane.
Given the two incidences of falsification and attempted falsification of records, there are serious risks being introduced to pilots. There are multiple concerns related to this A&P.
Pilots are dependent on technical astuteness of the A&P, which he is lacking.
Pilots’ and passengers’ lives are dependent on the assessments and actions of the A&P.
Personal integrity and honesty of the A&P are an integral part of aviation safety. There was an exceptional lack of knowledge and skill demonstrated by the A&P on these two planes.
In filing this report, it was unclear if this should have been filed as a flight issue or a maintenance issue as there are implications of both.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 2034090
The first question that crossed my mind is was this particular pilot doing what I see many pilots do, shop for the cheapest sign off they can find? Quality isn’t cheap and cheap isn’t quality. A good quality mechanic is getting more and more difficult to find. Buyer beware.
Sometimes the owner does stellar work and only needs a sign off for technical reasons.
Is your aircraft actually less safe with the airworthiness certificate not on board, all though that deems it unairworthy?
Far sweeping accusations and assumptions serve little purpose.
A&P’s are not required by law to approve for return to service any kit plane. Frankly, I don’t work on kit planes
Way too much risk
I have worked with many A&Ps and A&P/IAs. Most of them have been really good.
That said, If it hasn’t been done yet, this A&P needs to be reported to the FSDO he is under ASAP.
I say this because of an experience we had with a plane where the IA had been doing “paper annuals.” The first annual we had done after the purchase found *all* the errors.
And the Inspector called the FSDO and then called me.
The FAA contacted (so I’m told) all the aircraft owners that he had done their Annuals for, to tell them to have them re-checked and why.
This A&P in this report has worked on how many aircraft in a year? And he keeps those log books so he can change things so if there is a crash, they can’t hold him accountable [note what he did per the report(s)] — those are fraudulent entries in those logbooks and may be criminal per the FAA.
Who (and how many) has to die before this guy is found out?
As an A &P I never work on kit planes
I never keep the log books but I make digital copies for my own protection and for that of the owner.
Maintaining seven copies ensures that if the owner references them I can read along as well. On three occasions those records were lost and I was able to provide records… at no cost
Not all mechanics have a mechanical aptitude! Those should ever touch an aircraft!! When I joined the military back in 1961 you were given an aptitude test with 4 different parts. It would reveal which one you scored the highest. Those consisted of mechanical, electrical, administration, and medical/general, I can’t remember it has been a long time ago!! I started mechanical skills on the ranch at about 8 years old. I took classes in shop in highschool, welding, lathe machine, engine overhaul, auto maintenance etc. Overhauled my first V8 engine 1953 Ford flathead. I was a hydraulic mechanic on aircraft for better than 40 years in the US Airforce, I have a A&P license since 1971. When you have the life of a pilot an passengers in your hands you better know what you are doing!!! Just my 2 cents….
Only the owner should keep the logbook. It is advisable to use a copy macbhine/ cell phone to retain proof against loss and fraud.
The tried and true “old-style” approach was to always make sure your first passengers after an annual were the mechanic or mechanics that worked on your plane. Once they realize their life is on the line as well, it gets real for them too. They have to trust your flying skills and you have to trust their mechanic skills. If they won’t fly with you, it would be wise to find another mechanic. I mean you both have certificates earned by skills testing right?
The A&P retained the logbooks???? My plane, my logbooks, my responsibility, so in my possession.
Absolutely, I will only have the logbooks while making my entries. This is often with the owner standing at the desk.
Exactly
The guy in the story sounds a lot like a guy I know in central Oklahoma. Major scammer, liar, falsifier of records and logbooks. This guy literally stole a plane from my friend. The plane was to undergo a major restoration: engine overhaul, new avionics, interior, paint, etc. A price was given-in writing- and accepted. Time frame was three to four months.
Three and a half YEARS later, the plane was still far from complete. The AP/IA kept asking for more money. He refused to allow the plane owner on the property. Would not respond to communication. Friend said he was bringing a new mechanic over to trailer out/remove the plane. The AP filed a mechanic’s lein against the plane for an amount DOUBLE the contracted cost. Refused to allow owner on property to remove the plane.
My friend took him to court. AP/IA’s lawyer kept stalling, getting postponements, etc.
The lawyer was working for free in exchange for free maintenance on his own plane.
Eventually, my friend ran out of funds to fight the case in court and had to just walk away from the plane.
That A&P is one pathetic person.
While based on good intentions,, FAA requirements for A&P-IA are a kneecap to GA.
With a minor peculiar to aircraft transition coarse and test from automotive there are hundreds if not thousands of quality personnel out there…often the aircraft’s owner.
“…kneecap to GA?” Nope! A&P-IA personnel make life-and-death decisions and take actions directly affecting the lives of both airborne and on-ground live, property and insurance rates.. The professions have licensure requirements and can remove their licenses for malfeasance — i.e., disbarred, defrocked, etc., to separate the unworthy from the public they serve. Same for skilled trades — electricians, plumbers, etc., have licensure requirements which can be removed for incompetence. Here again is a case where the GA industry/community/fraternity lags behind contemporary societal safety regulations. You object to saving lives by providing reliable engine service on the single point of failure one-engine airplane? I’d like to hear your response to this question, sir. GA needs to adopt professional standards and an enforcement mechanism to weed-out the silent killers in your ranks. Until then, more smoldering craters and grieving friends and relatives resulting from this particular GA problem, second only to get-there-itis incompetent pilots.
/J
In a pipe dream all is well if FAA mandates are followed and that’s how it is in the real world. Give me a break!
I am not an A&P or an AI, and I am not the builder of my RV 9-A. But I do a lot of the work myself. All avionics are done by an avionics shop. When it comes to preventative maintenance, tires, brake pads, bearings, and even changing the battery, alternator/belt, voltage regulator and removal/install of prop…it’s all inspected by my AI. The condition report is done in my hangar with my assistance and observation. He tells me what he’s going to do and how he going to do it and I assist. It’s not easy finding a good AI but when you do it’s important to do whatever it takes to keep him. Leaving a big tip helps.