You need intelligence first on the FSDOs relationship with the owner. The FAA is a political organization and the interests often do not follow facts and logic.

The FSDO may be looking for a case to hang them with. Or you may find yourself the pawn between people who have a long standing relationship.

Nope. Proposed product for a citation I don't own

There is zero satisfaction to be found at the courthouse.

Would you be happy winning the case but still losing more than the 25k in expenses?

If yes; then go for it.

Nothing good can come from involving the FAA. You don't know which direction they will start looking at things and it can backfire.

This is a civil matter. Keep it that way. If you want expert testimony then find retired FAA folks.

Mark,

Can you get me the EXACT wording of how the last engine and airframe inspections were signed off?

Bill

What winnings? The winning here is putting some hurting on the other guy.

What do lawyers call two emotionally invested adversaries?

Money.

Figure out if this is really about the money or the emotion. It isn't wrong either way, but you need to be honest with yourself which it is so you can fairly judge the chance of "success", however that is defined for you.

Mike C.

Agreed.

But something good might come from the (perhaps implied) threat of involving the FAA.

An opinion from a reputable engine shop stating the engines are not airworthy also helps.

First step in all these battles is to collect ammunition with as little effort and cost with the implication you can use them if an agreement isn't reached.

When the defendant realizes the downsides exceed the ups, then there will be movement.

Mike C.

Would you put up 20% of the legal fees for 20% of the winnings?

On the amount of money this is, I find that after months of paying legal fees, and you know it will be months, are you still going to be pissed? I have found I can not stay that mad that long and still front the costs of being pissed. If I put that much energy in my business as I did being pissed I would have made it back double. And my wife hates to hear it every month I'm mad because I just received another bill for legal costs. I end up in arbitration and that's where I should have gone from the beginning and then I'm pissed that I just pissed away all that money, for what? A big pissing match.

This is about as classic as it gets...

Truth!

You need intelligence first on the FSDOs relationship with the owner. The FAA is a political organization and the interests often do not follow facts and logic.

The FSDO may be looking for a case to hang them with. Or you may find yourself the pawn between people who have a long standing relationship.

What winnings? The winning here is putting some hurting on the other guy. :bat:

Mark,

Be cautious with this. Remember you as the operator are responsible for determining the airworthiness of the aircraft. The local FSDO here will hang you for this. I had a STC done years ago with a missing signature. They threatened to fine me and/or suspend my license if I flew that airplane. I had to ground it until some parts could be replaced and a new signature applied. All it needed was a signature but the company had a new IA that refused to sign it, so they made it right by installing new parts and getting a new signature. Case closed.

When you deal with the government, it is all about paperwork and rules.

In a different story, a friend of mine had an engine overhauled in North Carolina by some experts. Engine lasted 1.5 hours in a Stinson. Oil everywhere. Turned out they used car parts (had stampings from a company that never made aircraft parts) and pistons that were way out of spec and were rubbing the cylinders which filled the engine full of metal. FAA got involved. No action, no fines as the overhauler was not an FAA certified shop and they did not violate any particular FAR's. I witnessed this all happen first hand in total disbelieve.

No joke. Apparently there is no FAR which makes it illegal to put together a junk engine with car parts? sad, but true. Final conclusion from FAA "Inconclusive". They will no longer talk with my friend about the case.