Consequences of Improperly-Documented Repairs/Alterations

[Andy Young]

I was musing on this while reading the "337 library" thread, and thought it worthy of its own discussion.

Most of us, of course, try to keep our birds as legal as possible. Doing so within the framework of vague and often contradictory FAA guidance can be challenging. One FSDO will say something is a minor alteration requiring a logbook entry, another will say it's a major requiring a field approval, and a third says "no field approvals; you have to get an STC". Under these conditions, it's often tempting to go with the simplest path that you've heard of any FSDO approving and just do a logbook entry. After all, the liklihood of anyone ever even noticing that you've done the work is low, and the liklihood that they will ask about the paperwork on it even lower, so why not? And if they take objection, presumably one could say "sorry; we honestly thought this was the correct way to do it" and mabe just do some additonal paperwork in that unlikely event.

What I am interested in is a discussion of the actual consequences of getting it wrong; of not getting the approvals that someone at your FSDO decides you need to have. I can make a few guesses about certain scenarios, such as plane crashes, FAA finds a repair with questionable approval (related or not to the crash) and violates the A&P/IA. Or same scenario and the insurance company finds improperly approved repair and denies coverage. But these are hypotheticals; I've not personally heard of either if these actually happening. I'm wondering if any of you have.

Understand that I am not looking for an excuse to just open the door to doing whatever we please. Just trying to get a sense of the real-world landscape in navigating with the poor map we are given.

[Mountain Doctor]

I think the most likely place an issue would arise is at time of sale if an IA on prepurchace inspection does a comprehensive review and inspection.

Also I suppose if there is a bad event leading to an autopsy of the aircraft.

In my personal circle of experience I've not heard of either event occuring. I'm also not aware of a bad event that was traced to a missing piece of paper, but I suppose it could happen. I could also get hit by an asteroid in the bathtub.

[ajak]

What Mountain Doctor said, pretty much.

I've rejected two potential airplane purchases that I can think of based on discrepancies between inspections and paperwork. If I recall correctly, one had to do with incorrect documentation of an engine major overhaul, and the other had to do with obvious damage repair that wasn't documented. One was probably inadvertent, the other was due to cutting corners and trying to cover up the documentation later. The "cover up" one resulted in court claims. Those were both sales that the seller lost, as I most likely would have bought both otherwise. Like drywall, it's all fixable eventually, but from the eyes of a buyer, why bother with the additional hassle when there are plenty of other clean planes out there.

A fellow I know made various mods to his plane and wasn't too concerned with documentation as he "knew what was there" and wasn't planning on selling it. When he eventually decided he did want to sell it after all, he spent significant $$$ to get the documentation to match the plane. Probably more than if he had done it right the first time around. Guess you gotta pay the piper sometime. I think the same thing applies to houses and boats.

[aero101]

Bottom line is the most recent IA signing annual inspection accepts responsibility and doesn't matter an IOTA how long ago it was done. He is the guy the FAA will hang as he's most recent authority certifying aircraft is airworthy and meets it's TCDS info. Been there / done that. You get verbal from FAA without any documentation it means NOTHING!! Most often inspectors that tell you logbook entry only required will not put that in writing!! For that reason, if at all questionable installation, document and do the field approval which makes everything legal no question!! Also I see Field Approval reference 337's on file starting this website, most anyone can fill out form 337, there is much more paperwork then that which will need to be filed and approved with local FSDO. Personally, I will give anyone copies of 337's, but certainly not the documentation required with it, as in some most cases it consists of several hours worth of doc's and other paperwork that must accompany. In most cases, this cost is not recouped by an IA on a single approval, so therefor there is usually a cost associated for a successful approval. I also feel that putting this info, even 337's, out in the web is a bad idea. All it takes is one A-hole, and viola a new policy gets created. All you can really use these for are to show previous approvals have been approved, and were feasible at that time and place. And there is really no justification there other then for that purpose? Much better to actually contact, discuss, & resolve issues by a more private means.

[Mr. Ed]

A guy I know has a side business working for insurance companies. If there's an accident they have him autopsy the wreckage and logs looking for anything that would get them out of paying any claims. It doesn't matter if what he finds contributed to the accident. If it wasn't properly documented or used NAPA parts when Certified were required then the aircraft was not airworthy. Claim denied. He gave me several examples of just that happening. Keep it legal.

[Andy Young]

A guy I know has a side business working for insurance companies. If there's an accident they have him autopsy the wreckage and logs looking for anything that would get them out of paying any claims. It doesn't matter if what he finds contributed to the accident. If it wasn't properly documented or used NAPA parts when Certified were required then the aircraft was not airworthy. Claim denied. He gave me several examples of just that happening. Keep it legal.

This is interesing to hear. I know this is exactly what people often worry about, but people I know in the insurance industry have assured me that it doesn't actually happen. I know that some states (though not all) have laws that prevent it. Essentially, the laws say that even if something unairworthy is found, they cannot use that to deny the claim, unless it is actually linked to the accident. Ground loop and they find a NAPA bolt that was holding the tailwheel on broke? Denied. Ground loop and they find a NAPA bolt holding the wing on? They have to pay.

Your friend must work in one if the states that don't have such consumer protection laws. Glad I'm not from one of those places.
That said, keeping it legal is good advice.