Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Validity of W&B

wigglyamp wrote:

Why? If an installer suspects that an existing W&B is incorrect, then he’s perfectly justified in querying it. Not just because he suspects it may be fraudulent, but because people make mistakes and a competent installer has a duty to release the aircraft to service with an accurate W&B report.

Then he should clearly state the reason he “suspects” something is amiss.

Personally, I find way tooo many engineers who act like police dectectives rather than aircraft engineers.

Example: Just last month an french A&P/IA called in the BGTA (French Air Police) because he “suspected” that the engine data plate on a vintage (1946) plane was “frauduleuse” based on a 1973 log-book entry. Think about it: 45 years of continual maintenance inspections and this prick gets his panties in a wad because he " suspects " something …

At any rate, despite there was absolutely NO REASON to take any action whatsoever, I wrote to Continental Motors and a few weeks later they provided a NEW engine data plate along with a letter of permission from the FAA.

Last Edited by Michael at 11 Apr 06:44
FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

wigglyamp wrote:

Any significant avionics upgrade will result in lots of deleted wiring and old equipment being removed, plus the new parts going in. A calculation in this case isn’t likely to be very accurate (determining the moment for a wiring harness?).

Thank you, that’s a good point. But in this case, where the scope of work includes removal of all of flight and engine instruments (save for RPM indicator and magnetic compass) and all radio avionics shouldn’t a professional installer know that reweigh would be necessary?
And consequently shouldn’t reweight be included in fixed price contract?

Like many things, we have done this one before. Unless foul play is suspected (with evidence) then the mechanic should accept existing records at face value.

The weighing (or not), at some 1% of the job value, is irrelevant. Anyway, the great majority of avionics installs are not followed by a weighing – as I well know

BTW, wigglyamp, it wasn’t 60ft of cable and the way I know it wasn’t 60ft is because they were going to use a cheap cable so I had to buy some RG400 and free issue it to them

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Robin_253 wrote:

But in this case, where the scope of work includes removal of all of flight and engine instruments (save for RPM indicator and magnetic compass) and all radio avionics shouldn’t a professional installer know that reweigh would be necessary?
And consequently shouldn’t reweight be included in fixed price contract?

No and no.

The installer would assume that the acft has proper paperwork at the get go and if he discovers that is not the case then it is the OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY to correct it.

Last Edited by Michael at 12 Apr 06:17
FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

So the question boils down to:

• Does the installer have a reason to doubt the correctness of the W&B sheet?
• Does the installer have a reason to suspect any modification work on the aircraft in the five months between the W&B sheet was written and he got access to the aircraft?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Your opinion seems to contradict that of @wigglyamp.
Let’s assume that the installer would rely on his calculations to release the aircraft to service, despite know limitations of this method.
In this case we are coming back to “discovery” phase. What would constitute a reasonable doubt in my case?
1. There were no changes to aircraft since the W&B was done. There is no doubt.
2. W&B was fresh, done just 5 months before the aircraft was delivered
3. The installer didn’t “discover” anything for 8 months while the aircraft was sitting in his hangar. He didn’t even ask me to send him W&B. He knew for 6 months that equipment list in form that he expects doesn’t exist. In the mean time the installer removed and disassembled instrument panel, cut out old harness and cabling rendering the aircraft unairwirthy.
4. Till today the installer doesn’t have the STC or any other approval required to install the very good equipment which he tricked me into paying for back in November 2016

Two questions come to my mind:
1. What’s the ‘doubt’ in case of my W&B?
2. Shouldn’t the installer confirm he has the required paperwork, both:
a) aircraft related supplied by aircraft owner, and
b) avionics related, I mean STC or other approvals,
in good order before removing, dissembling and cutting out old instrument panel and harnesses?

Last Edited by Robin_253 at 12 Apr 08:51

Airborne_Again wrote:

• Does the installer have a reason to doubt the correctness of the W&B sheet?

The only “doubt” the installer shared with me was the “police car” style rotating beacon installed in my aircraft:

The fact is that back in September 2017 I send to Installer factory documentation confirming that this beacon was factory installed.


• Does the installer have a reason to suspect any modification work on the aircraft in the five months between the W&B sheet was written and he got access to the aircraft?

He didn’t share with me any such suspicions.

So why don’t you just up-date the equipment list (very easRobin_253 wrote:

Two questions come to my mind:
1. What’s the ‘doubt’ in case of my W&B?
2. Shouldn’t the installer confirm he has the required paperwork, both:
a) aircraft related supplied by aircraft owner, and
b) avionics related, I mean STC or other approvals,
in good order before removing, dissembling and cutting out old instrument panel and harnesses?

1 – Very likely your equipment list does NOT reflect the state of the aircraft, in simple terms there are items on the list that are not on the acft and vice-versa.

2 – Not necessarily. Did YOU provide EVERYTHING before the start ?

ps: Seems to me that you are making a big fuss for something that’s very simple to correct…, just saying.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Michael wrote:

So why don’t you just up-date the equipment list

I’m afraid you didn’t read my previous posts

Michael wrote:

1 – Very likely your equipment list does NOT reflect the state of the aircraft, in simple terms there are items on the list that are not on the acft and vice-versa.

I’m curious what was discovered after the installer has spent 8 months “working” on the airplane, and after 7 months counting from the day when the old panel and avionics were removed?

Michael wrote:

ps: Seems to me that you are making a big fuss for something that’s very simple to correct…, just saying.

I guess you are right, I didn’t fully explain what is going on here. I shall start a new thread and tell the complete story from the very start

Last Edited by Robin_253 at 13 Apr 08:47
19 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top