Peter wrote:
Let’s say an A&P/IA takes a quick look at the plane and sees multiple serious issues which make it obvious the plane cannot be flown. He has not done a formal inspection and since the customer is getting “agitated” he chooses to walk away.This is fairly common in GA. A smart IA doesn’t want to get busted by the FAA. It’s happened to a number of them, as some here well know.
I believe he is not required to sign anything.
In the real world, he walks away having ‘never met the owner or seen the plane’. No paperwork, end of story, owner pursues other options, or none. Since friendly A&Ps do not grow on trees its best to establish if the guy is basically reasonable and if he is, do not annoy him.
That aside, I find that for various reasons three quarters of the businesses providing GA parts and services (and people behind them) are unreliable. I was recently surprised to receive a quote in only four days from my airframe parts supplier in Europe, and at reasonable cost. If I’m lucky they may ship the parts soon, which BTW are 50 year old NOS, Peter’s favorite variety of parts 
I’d like to have the parts on hand to install during Annual down time and my fingers are firmly crossed. Prior experiences have been cartoonishly ridiculous, but maybe I caught them on a good day this time.
If you can, the best way to maintain your plane is in collaboration with A&P friends having real non-aviation jobs to make real money, buying as much as you can from Aircraft Spruce – which has the volume to operate a real business. When you unavoidably need ‘professional’ (e.g. repair station) labor or OEM/specialty airframe parts be prepared for poor service, high costs and/or long delays. Its also useful to be plugged into whatever owners groups may exist, community in this case case solves problems that business cannot economically address.
I have been doing my best to stay off this thread as I have seen a just about all the types of customers over the years and largely they bring trouble on themselves by not talking to the maintenance company early enough before the check is due so they can get time critical parts ordered.
I know of no maintenance companies ( bar one ) that are openly disruptive of the owners wish to get the aircraft flying on time, after all an aircraft cluttering up your hanger prevents the bill being paid and the next chance to make money from rolling in the door.
I have no doubt that one or two of my former customers think I am disruptive but I won’t certify anything that I consider dangerous, I want to sleep easy in my bed knowing that the aircraft that I have released to service are safe. It is also the customers who push the hardest to get a dubious aircraft released who are the first to call the lawyers if something goes wrong.
Those who develop a relationship with their maintenance provider usually get the best all round deal as the aircraft becomes a known quantity to those who have to maintain the aircraft and sensible decisions on the items requiring replacement can be tailored to the way the aircraft is used.
I think there may be a grey area.
Let’s say an A&P/IA takes a quick look at the plane and sees multiple serious issues which make it obvious the plane cannot be flown. He has not done a formal inspection and since the customer is getting “agitated” he chooses to walk away.
This is fairly common in GA. A smart IA doesn’t want to get busted by the FAA. It’s happened to a number of them, as some here well know.
I believe he is not required to sign anything.
Peter wrote:
Every mechanic will have on occassions been presented with planes he doesn’t want to sign off (of any reg).
In that case, though, he should just sign off the inspection as completed and the aircraft as unairworthy with discrepancies. He should never refuse to do that.
It is true that MT is slow on overhaul work. Last winter, one blade of a propeller already running on condition was damaged, so we went for an overhaul instead of s repair.
MT told us they are mostly busy with manufacturing new propellers and are overhauling only on the side.
They suggested to use another overhaul shop and recommend Brinkley in the UK. They are, amongst others, a MT Propeller service station. Turnaround was five weeks including shipping, with Christmas and New Year inbetween.
Form a mechanics point of view, I can’t complain about their work, the propeller has accumulated roughly 250 hrs in the meantime.
I don’t know the cost involved, but I could ask our accountant.
Is this hearsay
It does happen.
Every mechanic will have on occassions been presented with planes he doesn’t want to sign off (of any reg). This is because some people don’t want their planes to be maintained 
Of course “normal” people will try to have a good relationship with their mechanic so that stuff is planned ahead so enforced groundings don’t happen.
Up to now, I’ve always agreed that the repair should be done so it wasn’t an issue. Maybe I’ve just been fortunate. Many things are cheaper to incrementally fix while the cowlings, plugs, covers, and inspection plates are removed.
Yes; the best way is to not defer stuff and do everything when the cowlings etc are removed next.
Peter wrote:
N-reg planes are just as frequently grounded in Europe as Euro-reg ones, by the IA withholding his signature in the same way the EASA Part M EASA66 guy withholding his.
Is this hearsay or do you have a list of specific examples? I have never heard of an FAA-certificated IA withholding his signature on an inspection in Europe. If mine ever tried such a trick I’d consider threatening to report it as a violation to the FAA.
Having said that, there aren’t so many FAA-certified A&Ps in Europe to just call one in from nearby to do the repairs and return the aircraft to service. Normally here the IA who does the inspection is also the A&P doing any repairs and RTS. My IA always makes a “squawk list” of items that will need future attention, but aren’t (yet) airworthiness items. Anything that he finds doing the inspection that he feels is an airworthiness issue, he calls me to quote the repair and discuss. Up to now, I’ve always agreed that the repair should be done so it wasn’t an issue. Maybe I’ve just been fortunate. Many things are cheaper to incrementally fix while the cowlings, plugs, covers, and inspection plates are removed.
General Aero Services at Thurrock are a really nice bunch
Another vote for these guys.
They do 50hr checks while we wait, and once changed a cylinder while I waited – having only discovered during the 50hr that it needed changing.
@Graham, They did the same for me a few years ago – it was a GO-300 cylinder. Ian’s philosophy seems to be “keep customers flying safely while leaving as much money as possible in their wallets”. So I’m happy to fly, quite literally, the length and breadth of England to have my Maule maintained and inspected there.
Another superbly informative post by NCYankee.
Very few people know the above, and N-reg planes are just as frequently grounded in Europe as Euro-reg ones, by the IA withholding his signature in the same way the EASA Part M EASA66 guy withholding his.
An A&P or IA can’t ground an aircraft, only the pilot owner or an FAA inspector can. Inspections, repairs and modifications must be signed off by the person doing the work. In the case of an annual inspection, the aircraft can be signed off with it being airworthy or unairworthy. In the latter case, the IA must sign off the annual has having been completed and found to be unairworthy with a list of deficiencies provided to the owner. The discrepancies do not need to be entered into the log book, only repairs or preventive maintenance performed by the inspector. It is then up to the owner to deal with the discrepancies and options include having the discrepancies reviewed and repairs made by another A&P. They enter any repairs into the log books and their signature returns the aircraft to service. The date of the annual is based on the date of the unairworthy sign off of the inspection by the IA. I have used this many times for various reasons, that is have the annual signed off as unairworthy with a list of discrepancies provided to me on a separate document. One example was when my IA was leaving on a two week vacation and several aircraft were in the shop that would be completed before he returned. So he finished the inspections and provided the list of discrepancies and my other mechanics did the repairs and returned the aircraft to service. In other cases, when selling an aircraft, the prospective buyer wanted an independent shop to do an annual. If there was a disagreement as to which discrepancies were airworthiness items or the seller wanted their mechanic to do the repairs, we used the unairworthy sign off method. Examples of SB that are not required by AD are optional for the FAA, but some shops mandate they be done anyway. So before I sell a Bonanza, I make sure the buyer realizes the seller will not pay for the wing bolt inspection SB unless their are clear signs of corrosion and that if the buyer wants it done, it will be at their expense. In the over 70 years of history, there has never been a wing bolt failure on a Bonanza. There have been failures on a King Air and to cover themselves, Beechcraft issued a SB requiring repetitive inspections and every third time replacement of wing bolts. The FAA did not agree that an AD was warranted, so it is totally optional.
An IA MUST sign off an annual if they did an inspection and can’t withhold their signature or they are in violation of FAA regulations. They don’t need to sign it off as airworthy.
