I watched it last night and don’t have the opportunity to watch it again right now, but didn’t he say he had work done on the part and reinstalled it himself? Then a few minutes later specifically said it was his own fault for the improper installation for not installing the pin on the castle nut? That doesn’t seem to leave much room left to assuming.

He fell on the proverbial sword himself and was willing to take full financial responsibility for his actions.

Sounds like the drunk driver who wakes up in the hospital and it "dawns" on him that he attempted to drive home with 0.16 % BAC ...

Whatever.

Not here....he definitely has an axe to grind, assigning criminal intent and all, based on a YouTube video.

Absolutely : I am shocked at the complete disregard for CFR § 43.3 " Persons authorized to perform maintenance " exhibited by so any owners.

This is particularly offensive when it's broadcasted to thousand's of viewers .

I've said it before :

A non-pilot takes a plane up and ends up in a smoking hole (there are many in Crash Talk) and everyone on the forum takes their pound of flesh, admonishing such reckless actions and how we pay for it through the bad press and higher insurance.

O T H :

A non-certificated mechanic performs maintenance on a critical system and the plane ends up in a smoking hole and everyone on the forum .... just writes it off as a non-event, "nothing to see here, move along".

Please explain to me what is different between these two scenarios ?

Absolutely : I am shocked at the complete disregard for CFR § 43.3 " Persons authorized to perform maintenance " exhibited by so any owners.

This is particularly offensive when it's broadcasted to thousand's of viewers .

I've said it before :

A non-pilot takes a plane up and ends up in a smoking hole (there are many in Crash Talk) and everyone on the forum takes their pound of flesh, admonishing such reckless actions and how we pay for it through the bad press and higher insurance.

O T H :

A non-certificated mechanic performs maintenance on a critical system and the plane ends up in a smoking hole and everyone on the forum .... just writes it off as a non-event, "nothing to see here, move along".

Please explain to me what is different between these two scenarios ?

Non-event??? Well that’s quite the mischaracterization! He fessed up and was willing to suffer the consequences, vs keep quiet because no one would have ever found out otherwise. He apparently took a $250k hit on it, and that was the best case outcome. Some non-event!!!

You have no idea his intent. You said he deliberately violated FAR’s. Prove it, apparently the FAA decided they couldn’t or wouldn’t. Did he know his mx was not preventative? Do you know no one assisted or supervised? Of course he said non-airworthy in the video after the fact; but do you think he knowingly took a non-airworthy plane airborne vs making that statement with the benefit of hindsight?

There’s a difference between characterizing what he did as wrong and assigning guilt of a crime, which you so readily have done.

Two thoughts:

1. I do very little maintenance (none) on my C421C. I leave that to the experts. I’m very mechanically inclined, but that is not my wheelhouse. I’ll stick to flying.

2. I do not post YouTube videos. Way too much risk.

But that’s just me.


Chris C.

You would be surprised (or not) the crap I have found on mine, previously repaired by "experts"