I really appreciate your comments @C210_Flyer
To out the shop but not out the owner is odd. Nothing can be achieved there.
Frankly, I’m quite grateful to read threads like this. Not only do I learn what can go wrong, but also what the worst case looks like.
It is strange to me to see so many posts telling this guy (or gal, who knows, they’re anonymous) to shut up, and maybe they’re right in doing so, as we the audience have no clue about the full transaction or the minor details (did he spit on the shop owner? :)
I’ll tell you guys that I have taken my plane to a Mooney Certified Service Center every year for the very reason that I’m primarily ignorant, and never want to end up in a situation like this…
When I see a burning car on the side of the road, I look at it and go ‘oooh, I never want that to happen to me’.
So when my mechanic says, “yeah I think you should take care of this detail” I remember that burning car.
For me, this is a burning car…
Thanks Peter and David for letting this post run. It’s ugly, it stinks and nobody’s having a good time, but I’m glad you’re letting it ride.
Hopefully, the thread will end on a happy note, with a picture of the aircraft flying again and all parties shaking hands at a EuroGA fly-in event.
gratd wrote:
Yes , and having a judge decide on the matter ensures that both sides are heard and all facts are taken into account
Not in Scotland it does’nt……….voted year on year the most judicially corrupt country on the planet. Untruths on all sides is de rigueur.
Civil Litigation Court is a game played by lawyers, with the customer paying for the privilege. You never, ever, want to get to proof unless the sum sought is a lottery win. I am involved in a case at the moment where we have an individual going to proof for 5k. His legal bill to date is topping 20k. He thinks the guy he is taking action against has some money and he will recoup expenses. The pursuers solicitors are heaping fee upon fee pre ‘proof’. The more educated amongst us will realise that the defender has the square root of zero and is pulling the pursuers chain….edited to add I am neither the pursuer, nor defender 
gratd wrote:
Yes , and having a judge decide on the matter ensures that both sides are heard and all facts are taken into account
Just curious who is going to step up and pay for the legal bills? You? The whole point of all these layers upon layers of various companies is to reduce financial liability. Anyone know how much liability insurance Jesse is carrying? Which companies?
If your talking about an aircraft worth a million Euros it would still be a problem.
My beef is that There is an anonymous accuser and the accused is just as absent allowing other “friends” to sow doubt into the charge.
Personally if a shop screws up and then has the temerity to stonewall and not make good, everyone should hear about it. Thats why they say reputation is everything. If you are in the wrong admit it and make good.
By the way for big ticket items its not unusual for the shop to ask up front payment for all or part of the equipment being purchased.
I dropped many times 40- 50000 dollars at a shop for all sorts of work with balance paid at completion. In my case I knew many who used the shop had a great reputation by many to whom I spoke to. Getting advice by, who knows whom, on this site is irresponsible. Sorry pilotmark but you should not deal with information gotten from anonymous sources when making such large financial transactions. Ok course that is hindsight talking.
Maybe you could advise the owner, which of Jesse’s companies would have to be taken to court?
Leaving aside the legal costs estimated in the range of 20 – 30 kE, what shall happen when a favorable sentence would be achieved?
Jesses limited liability companies do not have capital. It’s been stated a few times already.
You would be more effective asking God almighty for justice in this case
Depending on how you value your time, it is likely cheaper and will yield better results than to spend hours anonymously slagging someone off on the internet.
Yes , and having a judge decide on the matter ensures that both sides are heard and all facts are taken into account
gratd wrote:
It will propably take a lawyer several months and a sizable investment in legal costs to get the aircraft back and sue Vliegwerk for damages
Depending on how you value your time, it is likely cheaper and will yield better results than to spend hours anonymously slagging someone off on the internet.
Airborne_Again wrote:
why couldn t you just sign the document? It is cheaper and faster to have work done according to CS-STAN compared to a change approval from EASA.
I do not know why such and not other decisions were made by the owner of the aircraft, but if I had to guess, the answer seems to be simple:
To not degrade the aircraft to Day VFR only.
Would you pay 35 000 Euro and fly your aircraft 600+ NM to downgrade it to Day VFR only?
If you would look at Jesses offer for GTN here:
https://www.euroga.org/system/1/user_files/files/000/035/961/35961/8caf1f6bf/large/1.jpg
it contains 3 approval modes:
1. STC which as Jesse stated has been in development at that time
2. EASA minor change
3. CS-STAN
The last option was like the backstop. Never, ever to be used because it would render the aircraft Day only VFR. And we are talking about this installation:
https://www.euroga.org/system/1/user_files/files/000/030/472/30472/2af98b58c/large/Panel.jpg
In any case Jesse promised, that he successfully pushed several minor changes through EASA and getting a minor change for GTN for a Robin was was not something that others would not do before.
Time passed. The project stood still. At some point, Jesse suggested that he would get approval for the entire installation (Dual Aspen + GTN + GTX ) through EASA minor change. It was supposed to be Plan B in relation to the STC created by DOA.
On March the 8th Jesse confirmed that EASA approved location of RSM antennas also for his minor change.
A few weeks later, however, Jesse changed his mind, demanded approval of the GTN installation and antennas as CS-STAN. When the owner reminded him of the arrangements and stated from the very beginning expectation to get IFR capable plane, Jesse accused the owner that he was holding the project. And that he will bear the costs. As a result, the owner, having a gun aimed at his head, signed all the documents.
A very sad story indeed and it shows that one cannot be carefull enough in selecting maintenance facilities and especially checking their reputation. It will propably take a lawyer several months and a sizable investment in legal costs to get the aircraft back and sue Vliegwerk for damages.
Business emails.
My email to wigglyamp contained nothing sensational, however. All he needs to do is read this thread, and the answer (re Jesse not being banned) has been posted several times. I have just timed it. It took me 55 seconds to see ~ 5 posts stating that Jesse is not banned. If there is some unknown technical reason why he is not responding, he knows how to get in contact.
wigglyamp wrote:
From an e-mail to me from Peter in March 2017:
[ posting contents of private emails is not permitted by forum rules ]
pilotmark has posted several.
