How many of you keyboard commandos have taken the time to actually call and speak with an FAA rep, maybe your local FSDO?
I have, this morning. And that is where I got the info.
Yes, this is for the record.
But the first sentence in 91.417 seems to exclude altimeter and transponder tests from keeping records. The transponder installation record would be alteration and could be discarded after 1 year. (91.417(b))
This whole thread is a joke. It should have been titled "Help me get revenge through the FAA", and posted on one of the nastier sections of Reddit.
So, so much partial information, many hypotheticals, and repeated efforts to convince that this is some sort of altruistic fraud investigation, when it clearly isn't.
Still haven't asked the mechanic for his A&P license. "I can't find it online" and "it doesn't exist" are two separate cases.
Owner of the plane and logbooks in question wants nothing to do with this. The plane's owner is clearly not a friend since he can't get a hold of the owner. The owner also doesn't want to pursue any of this, yet he makes a call to the FSDO? That is not the action of a friend.
This is one guy with an axe to grind looking for help with his vengeance against either someone who did him some harm completely unrelated to this case, possibly the test pilot who crashed his plane is also the mechanic in question.
Some reading this might be confused because TXFlyGuy has recently posted two separate (and I presume totally unrelated) threads about problems that could result in FAA scrutiny... the first, in a different thread, the test pilot flying an aircraft with known defects without the owner's permission (TXFlyGuy's T-51), and the other, in this thread, an illegal signoff on somebody else's RV-8.
Without the owner pressing the issue, the FAA will not respond. They might keep watch; they might warn, but no direct accusation, they are not going to move. The FAA does not ramp check log books; will only enter hangars of business with certificates to be monitored. As long as no one calls the bluff to the FAA, the guy is off the hook. Until my old work got a 135, the FAA would not come in our hangar even though we were a commercial operator.
@TXFlyGuy, may I be direct (and hopefully respectful, factual, and utterly above board vis-a-vis the HBA code of conduct)?
You have started a series of threads related to your own project which were not entirely forthcoming with the facts in the original post, only revealing some relevant facts after a number posts. Some posts were shrouded in the term "hypothetical," although it became clear later they were not hypothetical at all, but quite real. Under those circumstances, it's hard to tell the difference between an actual situation, and one that may soon become rendered completely different based on a forthcoming post, reporting more facts or damage to your airplane. I don't relish those revelations (and I'm sure nobody does) but they tend to undermine credibility. Right or wrong, many folks will feel manipulated if they are asked for an opinion when it is later revealed that relevant facts were concealed.
In the posts regarding your own project--which is beautiful, and I wish you the best success, and I believe you will achieve it because you are determined in the best sense of the word--there have been a number of red flags suggesting it was not built in the majority by amateurs. Recently, some statements have seemed to suggest an artificial distinction between "manufacturer" and "owner," which in the E-AB world, are unequivocally one and the same. From an outside perspective, it reads like one--though with extensive experience in the world of professional aviation--is engaging experimental aviation with a "consumer" mentality. Alongside this perception of a consumer approach, the threads regarding the regrettable current situation with your aircraft have suggested a search for avenues to assign responsibility to the "manufacturer" (presumably the kit maker?), mechanics, or test pilots, perhaps with intent to recover damages from, or at the least exact some (legitimate) repercussions against, those who have maintained or flown your aircraft in a manner contrary to FARs. Right or wrong, that probably doesn't sit well with the grass-roots EAB crowd.
Now, in view of the two points above, please consider that this thread about a friend--given 1) the lack of detail provided initially, and 2) the suggestion of exploring how the "A&P" in question might be penalized--might be greeted with some skepticism.
Granting that this particular situation is indeed about a friend's RV-8, and not your own situation, several people said very early in this thread that an attorney or FSDO could clear this up in short order. Then, in post number one hundred and forty-two (one hundred and forty-two!) others are taken to task for offering opinions without consulting the FAA, as you now have. Respectfully, please consider how this comes across.
I do look forward to hearing of your success with the T-51 and I hope that your RV-8-owner friend will not be needlessly encumbered by the fraudulent entry.