Narrative:

This letter is a claim for the refund of $xxy of my payment of $xyz to FBO, for engine damage resulting from negligence and poor workmanship on your part. On november a, 1995 I had an in-flight cylinder failure in my grumman AA5B, at which time I declared an in-flight emergency and landed safely at lee airport. I authority/authorized an inspection and indicated that I wanted engine repairs and/or replacement by the most qualified FAA a&P available. It was reported to me that your facility could perform any engine work required. Upon evaluation by you and/or your staff, it was determined that a sodium cooled exhaust valve in the lycoming O-360 had failed. Because the engine had only 1623.12 total hours, you recommended that replacement of a single cylinder head, valve & piston assembly would allow me to utilize the remaining engine time before the recommended 2000 hour tbo. I accepted your recommendation and you performed the work, along with the annual inspection, and I paid the bill. (It should be noted that I also specifically requested that the airworthiness directive regarding the wing bolts be complied with and you informed me that you had not done so and had only 'tightened the bolts.' it is not surprising that you did not record this in the airframe log. This is only another example of the quality of your work.) assuming that the repairs had been accomplished within the FAA standards of acceptability for a qualified a&P, on november C, 1995, I attempted the 14.5 NM flight from lee airport (anp) to my aircraft home base at suburban airport (W18). Within 5 mins after takeoff, with no diversion, I experienced another in-flight cylinder failure. I again declared an emergency, and landed safely downwind on runway 21. When the engine was inspected by the resident a&P, he found that a portion of the stem of the sodium cooled valve from the previous failure had induced this failure. (The parts are available for your inspection.) clearly this collateral damage was the result of your negligence, incompetence and poor work practices. Obviously, an inadequate or non-existent pre- and post-repair inspection had been performed. It is inconceivable that a prudent and competent, certified a&P maintainer could have missed a part of this size. This is clearly a 'safety of flight' issue and your lack of concern in this matter is frustrating. If this failure had occurred under virtually any condition other than in very close proximity to another airport, it could have resulted in the catastrophic loss of the aircraft and injury or fatality to myself. The NTSB and/or the FAA would have taken charge of the investigation and their inspection of internal FOD to the engine could have resulted in citations and/or revocation of your a&P license. Litigation for recovery of hull losses and/or wrongful injury/death would have also resulted. For these reasons I am demanding restitution and repayment for only my direct expenses and costs related to the engine. These are not extraordinary demands considering that you signed the aircraft off as 'airworthy' following the repairs and annual inspection. I am sure you have business liability insurance covering negligence and malpractice, but for obvious reasons may not want to claim them from your insurance company. However, in the absence of restitution, I will seek redress in the courts but with the consideration of 'punitive' damages. You may also be assured that I will also alert my general aviation colleagues as to the 'quality' of your services, should they seek my opinion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GRUMMAN CHEETAH HAS CYLINDER FAILURE INFLT. EMER LNDG. POOR REPAIRS, HAS SECOND FAILURE ON FLT AFTER REPAIR.

Narrative: THIS LETTER IS A CLAIM FOR THE REFUND OF $XXY OF MY PAYMENT OF $XYZ TO FBO, FOR ENG DAMAGE RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE AND POOR WORKMANSHIP ON YOUR PART. ON NOVEMBER A, 1995 I HAD AN INFLT CYLINDER FAILURE IN MY GRUMMAN AA5B, AT WHICH TIME I DECLARED AN INFLT EMER AND LANDED SAFELY AT LEE ARPT. I AUTH AN INSPECTION AND INDICATED THAT I WANTED ENG REPAIRS AND/OR REPLACEMENT BY THE MOST QUALIFIED FAA A&P AVAILABLE. IT WAS RPTED TO ME THAT YOUR FACILITY COULD PERFORM ANY ENG WORK REQUIRED. UPON EVALUATION BY YOU AND/OR YOUR STAFF, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A SODIUM COOLED EXHAUST VALVE IN THE LYCOMING O-360 HAD FAILED. BECAUSE THE ENG HAD ONLY 1623.12 TOTAL HRS, YOU RECOMMENDED THAT REPLACEMENT OF A SINGLE CYLINDER HEAD, VALVE & PISTON ASSEMBLY WOULD ALLOW ME TO UTILIZE THE REMAINING ENG TIME BEFORE THE RECOMMENDED 2000 HR TBO. I ACCEPTED YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND YOU PERFORMED THE WORK, ALONG WITH THE ANNUAL INSPECTION, AND I PAID THE BILL. (IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I ALSO SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE REGARDING THE WING BOLTS BE COMPLIED WITH AND YOU INFORMED ME THAT YOU HAD NOT DONE SO AND HAD ONLY 'TIGHTENED THE BOLTS.' IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT YOU DID NOT RECORD THIS IN THE AIRFRAME LOG. THIS IS ONLY ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE QUALITY OF YOUR WORK.) ASSUMING THAT THE REPAIRS HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THE FAA STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY FOR A QUALIFIED A&P, ON NOVEMBER C, 1995, I ATTEMPTED THE 14.5 NM FLT FROM LEE ARPT (ANP) TO MY ACFT HOME BASE AT SUBURBAN ARPT (W18). WITHIN 5 MINS AFTER TKOF, WITH NO DIVERSION, I EXPERIENCED ANOTHER INFLT CYLINDER FAILURE. I AGAIN DECLARED AN EMER, AND LANDED SAFELY DOWNWIND ON RWY 21. WHEN THE ENG WAS INSPECTED BY THE RESIDENT A&P, HE FOUND THAT A PORTION OF THE STEM OF THE SODIUM COOLED VALVE FROM THE PREVIOUS FAILURE HAD INDUCED THIS FAILURE. (THE PARTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR INSPECTION.) CLRLY THIS COLLATERAL DAMAGE WAS THE RESULT OF YOUR NEGLIGENCE, INCOMPETENCE AND POOR WORK PRACTICES. OBVIOUSLY, AN INADEQUATE OR NON-EXISTENT PRE- AND POST-REPAIR INSPECTION HAD BEEN PERFORMED. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT A PRUDENT AND COMPETENT, CERTIFIED A&P MAINTAINER COULD HAVE MISSED A PART OF THIS SIZE. THIS IS CLRLY A 'SAFETY OF FLT' ISSUE AND YOUR LACK OF CONCERN IN THIS MATTER IS FRUSTRATING. IF THIS FAILURE HAD OCCURRED UNDER VIRTUALLY ANY CONDITION OTHER THAN IN VERY CLOSE PROX TO ANOTHER ARPT, IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF THE ACFT AND INJURY OR FATALITY TO MYSELF. THE NTSB AND/OR THE FAA WOULD HAVE TAKEN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THEIR INSPECTION OF INTERNAL FOD TO THE ENG COULD HAVE RESULTED IN CITATIONS AND/OR REVOCATION OF YOUR A&P LICENSE. LITIGATION FOR RECOVERY OF HULL LOSSES AND/OR WRONGFUL INJURY/DEATH WOULD HAVE ALSO RESULTED. FOR THESE REASONS I AM DEMANDING RESTITUTION AND REPAYMENT FOR ONLY MY DIRECT EXPENSES AND COSTS RELATED TO THE ENG. THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY DEMANDS CONSIDERING THAT YOU SIGNED THE ACFT OFF AS 'AIRWORTHY' FOLLOWING THE REPAIRS AND ANNUAL INSPECTION. I AM SURE YOU HAVE BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERING NEGLIGENCE AND MALPRACTICE, BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS MAY NOT WANT TO CLAIM THEM FROM YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF RESTITUTION, I WILL SEEK REDRESS IN THE COURTS BUT WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF 'PUNITIVE' DAMAGES. YOU MAY ALSO BE ASSURED THAT I WILL ALSO ALERT MY GENERAL AVIATION COLLEAGUES AS TO THE 'QUALITY' OF YOUR SVCS, SHOULD THEY SEEK MY OPINION.

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.