Narrative:

Aircraft owner is holding contract on my house. I was ultimately forced to fly aircraft under duress, because aircraft owner would not address my concerns about 'cracked and sticking' waste gates and spar caps that were affixed to the wings. Aircraft owner approached me in nov/88 and informed me of the fact that he wanted a cpr aircraft, and that he wanted me to head up his flight concerns and manage his airplane so it did not cost him anything. In order to create revenue with the plane he wanted me to obtain and manage a single pilot 135 certificate or I could pursue a jointly owned scenario which would have me collecting management and flight fees. Owner bought a 1978 piper PA60-601P aeronautical STAR. Owner would not pay for a mechanical pre-buy inspection, but at my insistence we paid my aeronautical STAR initial instructor to give the plane a once-over. He was thorough and brought the spar caps to my attention. His pre-buy report was that the plane was 'rode hard and put away wet,' but that it was airworthy according to the regulations and signed off as so. Owner of aircraft wanted the plane so he and I agreed that if I could get the plane home we would completely refurbish the plane to new specifications so as to pass part 135 checks. After nearly a 99% rebuild, the waste gates would not work and the spar caps were not addressed. I performed test flight after test flight. The aeronautical STAR factory said to rebuild the waste gates and get paperwork on spar caps (spar caps are why they did not buy plane). Owner kept saying he would allow me to fix the spar cap problem, but never would. I refused to accept a mission and he took aircraft to local maintenance center. The owner told me that they said 'those caps aren't that bad.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter said he finally refused to fly the aircraft even though it was signed off by maintenance. The result was the loss of employment and subsequently his house. The FAA was notified of the condition of the aircraft and it was still flying. The issue of the waste gates, which are reported to be a known problem on this type aircraft, has been resolved per the manufacturer's recommendation, but the spar cap issue is still an open item. The reporter is not pleased with the level of concern shown by the local FAA in his area. When told about the FAA hotline he said he plans to call.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS A PA60-601P HAS MAJOR M3ECHANICAL PROBS THAT OWNER REFUSES TO HAVE REPAIRED.

Narrative: ACFT OWNER IS HOLDING CONTRACT ON MY HOUSE. I WAS ULTIMATELY FORCED TO FLY ACFT UNDER DURESS, BECAUSE ACFT OWNER WOULD NOT ADDRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT 'CRACKED AND STICKING' WASTE GATES AND SPAR CAPS THAT WERE AFFIXED TO THE WINGS. ACFT OWNER APCHED ME IN NOV/88 AND INFORMED ME OF THE FACT THAT HE WANTED A CPR ACFT, AND THAT HE WANTED ME TO HEAD UP HIS FLT CONCERNS AND MANAGE HIS AIRPLANE SO IT DID NOT COST HIM ANYTHING. IN ORDER TO CREATE REVENUE WITH THE PLANE HE WANTED ME TO OBTAIN AND MANAGE A SINGLE PLT 135 CERTIFICATE OR I COULD PURSUE A JOINTLY OWNED SCENARIO WHICH WOULD HAVE ME COLLECTING MGMNT AND FLT FEES. OWNER BOUGHT A 1978 PIPER PA60-601P AERO STAR. OWNER WOULD NOT PAY FOR A MECHANICAL PRE-BUY INSPECTION, BUT AT MY INSISTENCE WE PAID MY AERO STAR INITIAL INSTRUCTOR TO GIVE THE PLANE A ONCE-OVER. HE WAS THOROUGH AND BROUGHT THE SPAR CAPS TO MY ATTN. HIS PRE-BUY RPT WAS THAT THE PLANE WAS 'RODE HARD AND PUT AWAY WET,' BUT THAT IT WAS AIRWORTHY ACCORDING TO THE REGS AND SIGNED OFF AS SO. OWNER OF ACFT WANTED THE PLANE SO HE AND I AGREED THAT IF I COULD GET THE PLANE HOME WE WOULD COMPLETELY REFURBISH THE PLANE TO NEW SPECS SO AS TO PASS PART 135 CHKS. AFTER NEARLY A 99% REBUILD, THE WASTE GATES WOULD NOT WORK AND THE SPAR CAPS WERE NOT ADDRESSED. I PERFORMED TEST FLT AFTER TEST FLT. THE AERO STAR FACTORY SAID TO REBUILD THE WASTE GATES AND GET PAPERWORK ON SPAR CAPS (SPAR CAPS ARE WHY THEY DID NOT BUY PLANE). OWNER KEPT SAYING HE WOULD ALLOW ME TO FIX THE SPAR CAP PROB, BUT NEVER WOULD. I REFUSED TO ACCEPT A MISSION AND HE TOOK ACFT TO LCL MAINT CTR. THE OWNER TOLD ME THAT THEY SAID 'THOSE CAPS AREN'T THAT BAD.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR SAID HE FINALLY REFUSED TO FLY THE ACFT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SIGNED OFF BY MAINT. THE RESULT WAS THE LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY HIS HOUSE. THE FAA WAS NOTIFIED OF THE CONDITION OF THE ACFT AND IT WAS STILL FLYING. THE ISSUE OF THE WASTE GATES, WHICH ARE RPTED TO BE A KNOWN PROB ON THIS TYPE ACFT, HAS BEEN RESOLVED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE SPAR CAP ISSUE IS STILL AN OPEN ITEM. THE RPTR IS NOT PLEASED WITH THE LEVEL OF CONCERN SHOWN BY THE LCL FAA IN HIS AREA. WHEN TOLD ABOUT THE FAA HOTLINE HE SAID HE PLANS TO CALL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.