AME Licence Suspended for 14 Months

[Widow]

Watch video: CHBC News: The Okanagan's Very Own

"Uncertified automotive parts", "unauthorized design modifications", "deception and coercion to cover it up".

[Tim]

just 14 months for putting countless lives at risk? string this guy up.

[fougapilot]

just 14 months for putting countless lives at risk? string this guy up.

Mmm...

Now don't get me wrong guys, I'm one of the first guy in line when the time comes to advocate safety, but there is a MAJOR difference between unapproved/uncertified and unsafe/unairworthy. I agree that this individual was conducting his business in an unlawful manner, but to say that he put "countless lives at risk" MIGHT just be a stretch.

There are many sectors of aviation that operate very safely with uncertified parts on uncertified engines attached to uncertified airplanes. Amateur built, Owner's maintenance and Foreign Military are a few that come to mind. Heck, I myself have nearly 1000hrs in such uncertified airplanes and I don't necessarily feel my life has been put at risk.

I have had this discussion with TC on a few occasion. Uncertified means nothing more that that; UNCERTIFIED! An uncertified part is simply a piece of equipment that has not been subject to a certification process. It does not necessarily mean it does not meet the certification standard, it simply mean we don't know whether it meets it or not. For all we know, it might exceed the standard!!! We simply don't know.

All the uncertified airplanes I fly/flew were designed and built to a much more rigid standard, but since the Armies of this world didn't need/want to spend a dime proving to their civilian aviation counter parts the quality of their designs, the airplanes remained uncertified

Does this mean we should start installing uncertified parts on certified airplanes? Absolutely NOT! But that's not my point. My point is simply there a world of a difference between uncertified and unairworthy.

As for the 14 months, I don't see this as a problem. This individual lost his business (I agree, from his own doing), had to move his family, get a severe suspension to his license in a very, very small industry. I think he might just find it very hard to work in this industry again.

F

[Widow]

I don't know ... I think a fuel pump is rather an essential item, is it not?

According to the tribunal documents quoted in the video clip, the fuel pump "was not manufactured to aircraft quality standards", although this Chairman and CEO of the company told his workers they were indeed part of the drawing package, and on many occassions even overrode the authority of the Director of Maintenance. Employees were concerned. The company president ordered the fuel pumps changed "for safey reasons" yet this guy said doing so would "ruin the company" ....

Sure sounds criminal to me.

[Bulawrench]

Unfortunately there are a few of these negligent types still in the industry. I believe they should go.
I aggree, a fuel pump is more important to be certified than an upholstery washer but where does one draw the line.
Any Beaver i see with a Baron stol kit looses my affection. Nothing but a hack job.
His claim to have saved numerous Pilots from stalling their Beavers does not out-weigh him using Napa auto parts.
Maybe he can get together with the Owner of WCA.

[linecrew]

Pretty ironic and a real shame too because back in 2004 & 2005 AOG worked with NRC to design a "hot wing" for the Caravan to increase the safety margin and performance of the aircraft in icing.

http://iar-ira.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/flyers/fal05c_e.html

Computational analysis improves aircraft performance
Date Published: 2005-11-24

A.O.G. Air Support Inc., a Kelowna, B.C. company that designs and develops performance enhancement and safety products for general aviation aircraft, hired NRC Aerospace last winter to test modifications to the wing of the Cessna Caravan to increase its lifting capacity and enable it to take off on shorter runways. NRC first did a computational analysis on the original Caravan wing, then worked with the company on changing its shape to provide better aerodynamic performance, particularly in icing conditions. Both wings then underwent initial testing in the NRC icing wind tunnel in March 2005. Subsequent flight trials by A.O.G. of its "Hot Wings", as the product is called, demonstrated dramatic improvements in the aircraft's performance and safety. The company will return to NRC Aerospace this winter to complete testing requirements.

[fougapilot]

W,

I am NOT claiming this individual was conducting his business in a legal manner. Far from it. I think he got what he deserved. He will most likely never work in aviation again and so it should be. There is simply no room in our industry for this.

The regulatory bodies of our industry have many tools to recall certified products that are deemed faulty in designed, products that have caused accidents and deaths. Yet these parts were certified! Why do we need these tolls if every certified part is safe? Truth is simple, they are not necessarily safe. I should know, in a previous life, I spent a night in the middle of the Canadian Rockies next to my destroyed airplane because some idiot bureaucrat changed his mind about how to fix a bad carburetor. The design was so faulty that the US gov required it to be fixed in the next 50hrs flying. However this Canadian bureaucrat, in his infinite wisdom, found it acceptable to have it fixed in the next 200hrs flying. The US option would have fixed the airplane I was flying, while the Canadian option sent 3 to the hospital and one to the morgue.

My point is simple; that too often we associate uncertified with unsafe and certified with safe. Something uncertified can be safe just as much as something certified can be unsafe. Too many people in this industry think that as long as they remain legal, they are safe and if they break the law the become unsafe. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have seen pilots break every rule in the book safely while other die legally.

Safety is a state of mind. Safety is everyone's responsibility. Both pilots and mechanics are faced with countless decision daily, while not every one of those decision keep the flight 100% "legal" our objective is to keep the flight safe. I am convinced that if we looked hard enough, we could find something illegal (so many obscure regulations) in the majority of flights conducted around the world. Yet, everyday millions of passengers get to destination safely.

My reaction is more to the comment "putting countless lives at risk". Having some experience with the level of accuracy in any media, I suspect that their report might just be "tinted" a bit to beef up the truth. Blood sells. No doubt what was done was illegal and given enough time may have caused problems (FYI, on a turbine engine an electrical fuel pump is not as important as on a piston engine), but did it seriously put countless lives at risk? Perhaps, but then perhaps not. We, who have not read the official TC report, only have the words of a news anchor to form an educated opinion on the actual danger associated with this situation. Some people read this as "putting countless lives at risk" while I am simply more cautious about judging a situation based only on the 6 o'clock news

Truth is TC pulled his license for doing something illegal. Was it unsafe? Perhaps. Probably. Hard to tell from where I'm sitting.

Cheers,

F

[carholme]

Fougapilot;

I can't say that I agree with your outlook.

What interests me more is your statement that "an electric fuel pump on a turbine engine is not as important as on a piston engine". Generally neither engine has an electric fuel pump, they tend to be airframe supplied and mounted. What is it you are driving at by that comment?

carholme

[Doc]

I must agree with his point that "certified" does not always mean "safe" and that "uncertified" does not always mean "unsafe". Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't a voltage regulator sold by Piper, for their PA 28 series, not made by MOPAR? At around six times the price? Seem to remember seeing the "MOPAR" logo on them back in my TBFC days. Wonder where we bought them? I can't see anything wrong with a landing gear motor used on an Airbus 380 being replaced with one made by Lada......

[Tim]

fougapilot, I hear what you're saying with uncert doesn't = unsafe. But in your own words:

"We simply don't know"

You're right when you say maybe it exceeds the standard, but you hit the nail on the head when you said we simply don't know. This jagoff cut corners and costs on a gamble. And I will stand by my statement of putting countless lives on the line. A part that could cause a crash could kill people. Those planes have been flying for years. The part could brake at any time. For me that means a running tally of lives in jeopardy started as soon as that a/c was parked at AOG for the work.

Private kit builds are a different story. It's your plane, your life, your risk (risk for lack of a better word, like I said I agree uncert doesn't = unsafe).

I think you're also right about the fact he'll probably never work in the industry again, and thank god. This guy should count himself as lucky though. If someone died in a crash due to his part, he's got at least neglegence causing death charges.

I'm also gonna stick by my orignal statement of 'string him up.'

[TenForTwelve]

Doc,

I don't know about the PA28, but the two on at least one of the PA31's I flew had Delco voltage regulators. One guy took one down to the Chevy dealer to see if they had any equipment to test it and the guy there says, "I haven't seen one of these in 20 years."
Here's another thought. And let me make myself clear, I'm not in any way advocating the use of uncertified parts, but I would be willing to bet in many cases an uncertified part would work better than the certified one, just nobody bothered to go throught the paperwork, STC, etc.

[Cat Driver]

Regardless of the reliability of any given part the fact remains if the airplane is in the certified category then you can not legally replace the part with an uncertified part unless you get a LSTC or its equivalent for the replacement.

I agree that many uncertified parts and aircraft can be and are better than some of the certified stuff, that is what I like about the home built category.

I have decided to use an 0-200A Continental in my Cub. It will not be a certified engine but one I am getting custom built by Lycon in California.

My decision to have them build my engine is because they build about half of the engines that are used in the Red Bull Air Race airplanes and have been building Sean Tuckers engines for 21 years, if they are good enough for Sean they are good enough for me.

[fougapilot]

What interests me more is your statement that "an electric fuel pump on a turbine engine is not as important as on a piston engine". Generally neither engine has an electric fuel pump, they tend to be airframe supplied and mounted. What is it you are driving at by that comment?

C,

I was simply referring to Widow's comment; "I don't know ... I think a fuel pump is rather an essential item, is it not?" and to the fact that the electrical fuel pump serves a much different purpose on a turbine than on a piston.

Its been a while since I flew anything PT6 driven, but I seem to remember something about the engine driven fuel pump capable to run for 10+ hrs without being assisted by an electrical fuel pump. And even then , it wouldn't fail. It needs to be removed, inspected and perhaps overhauled. I would have to check, but I think some may even be MELable.

I guess I should have said; "the electrical fuel pump on a turbine powered airplane is not as essential as the fuel pump on the engine".



F

[Ballsssssss]

I must agree with his point that "certified" does not always mean "safe" and that "uncertified" does not always mean "unsafe". Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't a voltage regulator sold by Piper, for their PA 28 series, not made by MOPAR? At around six times the price? Seem to remember seeing the "MOPAR" logo on them back in my TBFC days. Wonder where we bought them? I can't see anything wrong with a landing gear motor used on an Airbus 380 being replaced with one made by Lada......

Or when you order a MP line filter for a PA31 and you get a tampon with a Piper P/N on it....at 20 times the cost.

[KISS_MY_TCAS]

Its been a while since I flew anything PT6 driven, but I seem to remember something about the engine driven fuel pump capable to run for 10+ hrs without being assisted by an electrical fuel pump. And even then , it wouldn't fail. It needs to be removed, inspected and perhaps overhauled. I would have to check, but I think some may even be MELable.

I guess I should have said; "the electrical fuel pump on a turbine powered airplane is not as essential as the fuel pump on the engine".

You are correct, boost pumps not required (depending of course on the airframe).

I have seen AME's do far worse than this that have actually caused accidents, in one case wrote off a twin turboprop after a gear collapse and recieved a much lighter sentence by TC, luckily nobody was severely injured or killed. I agree 100% with fougapilot, there is a huge difference between uncertified and unairworthy (even though installing an uncertified part deems the aircraft to no longer be airworthy, but that is another discussion altogether). A prime example is a 2007 model Cessna T182 that I work on that has the exact same Delphi connectors on the electrical harness as my GM truck, installed in the aircraft by the factory in Wichita. Only difference is the price, and a new Cessna part number. 6x the price because it is "certified" to be installed on the airframe, and I am sure Delphi sees none of the profit that Cessna reaps from selling a "certified" connector.

Brings back fond memories of our operator purchasing a new type for the fleet and having to replace a component on the airframe that was attatched with a bonding adhesive. After digging through the manuals, all of the parts and adhesives were ordered and there was a 1 month lead time put on the adhesive, for the low price of $1400/quart. We ordered and waited only to have a can of 3M 1300L show up with a PC generated label stuck on it with the manufacturer's part number printed on it (and yes, it was the part number we ordered, and yes it was shipped direct from the airframe manufacturer using thier part number, the label was no bigger than what you get out of an electronic label maker so there was no mistaking what was actually in the can, the original label was clearly visable and not at all covered by the little "new label" on the can). For those not in the know, 1300L is widely available on this continent for around $100/quart. Lesson learned.

[CID]

You are correct, boost pumps not required (depending of course on the airframe).

You guys are confusing what an engine needs to operate and what an airplane needs to meet a prescribed level of saftey. I think the discussion regarding the fuel pump is a bit disturbing.

I certainly hope it doesn't prompt some young inexperienced AME to dispatch an airplane without a boost pump. As many of us know, the boost pump continues to deliver fuel if the engine driven fuel pump fails. During critical times that can lead to disaster and at very least lack of a boost pump can lead to a forced landing.

So in short, a boost pump IS requiired by regulation AND you can't legally release an airplane back to service without one. Furthermore a busted boost pump reduced the level of safety of the aircraft below the prescribed limits.

It's correct that many "airplane" parts are just common parts manufactured for cars or other consumer goods. And it's also true that aircraft manufacturers charge alot more for them than Canadian Tire. The difference is the additional expenses the aircraft manufactureres and distributors are subject to in order to provide them as airplane parts.

Right or wrong, that's the issue.

[Gixxer]

It is quite common for commercially available parts to be used in an aircraft but it is only legal to do so once they have been inspected and approved by the manufacturer or an appropriately rated AMO. The one that I love the best is Piper Part number 754-817. It is a filter for the manifold pressure gauge on the Navajo Chieftan and comes in a nice little plastic bag with a Piper parts sticker with batch number etc, costs $12.47 and has the commercial brand name on the side of the original packaging... Tampax. No joke, ask anyone who's worked on a Chieftan..

[Wrench]

I have had few PT6 Fuel pumps quit on me. Yes they will run for about 10 hours with out electric pumps. But with that being said. How do you know that fuel pump hasn't already run for 1,2 or 3 hrs + before without an electric pump. You are letting a airplane fly on specutlation. To me that is not right.

[twotter]

You are correct, boost pumps not required (depending of course on the airframe).

You guys are confusing what an engine needs to operate and what an airplane needs to meet a prescribed level of saftey. I think the discussion regarding the fuel pump is a bit disturbing.

I certainly hope it doesn't prompt some young inexperienced AME to dispatch an airplane without a boost pump. As many of us know, the boost pump continues to deliver fuel if the engine driven fuel pump fails. During critical times that can lead to disaster and at very least lack of a boost pump can lead to a forced landing.

So in short, a boost pump IS requiired by regulation AND you can't legally release an airplane back to service without one. Furthermore a busted boost pump reduced the level of safety of the aircraft below the prescribed limits.

It's correct that many "airplane" parts are just common parts manufactured for cars or other consumer goods. And it's also true that aircraft manufacturers charge alot more for them than Canadian Tire. The difference is the additional expenses the aircraft manufactureres and distributors are subject to in order to provide them as airplane parts.

Right or wrong, that's the issue.

Of course unknown to you would be the fact that if the Engine Driven Pump (EDP) on a PT6 packs it in, there are no airframe pumps in the world that will replace it!!! If your EDP craps out you are simply faced with an engine failure. I guess they don't teach that in avionics school so there would be no way of you knowing.

This is a perfect example of you, CID, beaking off when you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. You are the one who needs to learn about the subject being discussed rather than just joining it for the simple reason of demeaning others. You have proven yourself to be ignorant of the subject and yet you have attempted to convince people otherwise. This my short friend will not cut it..

This one post has proven you to be who you really are and that is a non informed person who likes to stir up shit!!!

[Wrench]

Sorry twotter you are wrong. I know this for a fact because i have seen it in a twin otter. You can say all you want on this form. When i was in the airplane i shut the electic pumps off and the engine quit. I changed the EDP myself. Ran the airplane myself and it worked like a charm. I have seen it on more then one occassion. In case your wondering i changed the filters. That being said. I am not looking to start a argument on here. I am just telling you what i experienced. You would think that when the EDP stops turning that it would not push fuel to the FCU. But it did. There must be a bypass. The engine dont run the greatest. There is alot of fluctuations and i would never let an airplane fly without a servicable EDP. My thoughts anyways.

[airplanenut66]

Well not that I want to get into an argument over pumps but no PT6 is capable of pulling any power without the EDP. The aircraft boostpump is there to only supply a head of pressure to the EDP for cavitation purposes at approximately 18 psi. The EDP then boosts this pressure up to aound 850 psi, delivering this pressure to the FCU, excess fuel being sent back to the tank. Without the aircraft primary or secondary boostpump the EDP will require O/H after 10hrs of operation due to pump cavitation issues. These are the facts, I got to agree with twotter on this one.

[CID]

Of course unknown to you would be the fact that if the Engine Driven Pump (EDP) on a PT6 packs it in, there are no airframe pumps in the world that will replace it!!! If your EDP craps out you are simply faced with an engine failure. I guess they don't teach that in avionics school so there would be no way of you knowing.

This is a perfect example of you, CID, beaking off when you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. You are the one who needs to learn about the subject being discussed rather than just joining it for the simple reason of demeaning others. You have proven yourself to be ignorant of the subject and yet you have attempted to convince people otherwise. This my short friend will not cut it..

This one post has proven you to be who you really are and that is a non informed person who likes to stir up shit!!!

Tsk tsk. I must have missed this gem of a reply back when it was entered. twotter, if you want to release an airplane without the boost pump running, go ahead. I expect no less from a moron like you. I'll just make sure to avoid flying in any of the garbage you work on.

Cheers

[Gear Up]

This thread was (is) very interesting and I was quite enjoying reading the input and comments from everyone. As I was reading, I was wondering when the kids might come out to play.

CID/Twotter,
Way to go guys.

GU

[CP]

Of course unknown to you would be the fact that if the Engine Driven Pump (EDP) on a PT6 packs it in, there are no airframe pumps in the world that will replace it!!! If your EDP craps out you are simply faced with an engine failure. I guess they don't teach that in avionics school so there would be no way of you knowing.

CID

PT6s have 2 edp a low pressure and a high pressure. The low pressure edp simply provides pressure for the hi pressure edp so it wont cavitate. If the lp edp fails there is an electrical back up which can be switched on manually.The engine will continue to run just fine thankyou very much with both lp edp and lp electrical pump u/s. The hp edp is the one that will cause a flame out if it fails and thats the one with the 10 hours before over haul limit.

[Mitch Cronin]

Having spent a little time inside an aircraft assembly plant it amused me to see Faucette fuel pumps come in one door{clearly labbled "automotive fuel pump"} have a new lable stuck on the box, up the price threefold and out the door they go. These pumps are used on the vast majority of certified piston aircraft ,up to an including the Cessna 400 series, voltage regulators get the same treatment, also Bosch and Nipontenso {spelling} alternators, what a joke "certified" parts are.

....Oh boy... I don't want to pick on you specifically Clunckdriver, nor anyone for that matter, but Wow! It's almost unreal some of the comments here!

No, certified parts are not a joke! They keep you alive! Would you prefer we just installed any old part? .. or should we just use the any-old-parts that haven't caused a problem so far?... or would you maybe rather some real testing was done at some point to make sure things might keep working properly?... Good grief!

You see what we, as AME's, have to deal with Widow? There are oodles of pilot's and owners and managers, and pilots who become managers and so on, who think like this! "We know what's right, never mind the rules!" Someone above asked... "but where do you draw the line?" The ONLY freakin' place to draw the line is under the pertinent rule in the flippin' rule book! Otherwise this is exactly what you get!
Sadly, this industry is FULL of people who think they know better than the rule book. They're EVERYWHERE! ... and that can make it rather difficult for the young folks to stick to what they're taught.

How many times have we had this discussion in here? Now, of course someone will come along and call me a robot, or a dimwit, or a moron or something, because I advocate following the rule book instead of following what people erroneously call "common sense" .... Just read through this thread alone and see how "common" that sense is....

Gee, I wonder if Mopar uses a little tighter quality control on their line when they're building alternators for aircraft use? Not that that should change anything....