The FAA/ Wag-Aero debacle (was Re: Is EAA still Experimental???)
G A Venkatesh
>In article <1993Aug6.1...@walter.bellcore.com> ve...@heron.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>>
>>Being linked to the FAA/Wag Aero debacle didn't exactly endear the
>>organization to the aviation related industries either.
>
>Errr... which debacle is that? I think this predates my entry into
>aviation.
>
Several people have asked for more details.
I am just going to post a published article about the debacle as it appeared in
the US Aviator magazine, since I have no way of verifying the second-hand
accounts that I have heard. Permission to distribute this article to the
aviation community has been granted by James R. Campbell to Art Bianconi,
Vice President Local EAA chapter 238.
I have no opinion on and no experiences with Wag Aero. From what I have
heard through personal sources, I can assert that the sport aviation
association referred to in the article is indeed the EAA :-) It is true that
the USAviator is not fond of the FAA but it seems quite clear from
all accounts that this operation was outrageous from the start and apparently
there is some congressional pressure mounting to get the FBI to investigate
the roles of FAA, DOT and the US customs. Whether the involvement of the
EAA occurred due to an honest attempt from its officials based on what they
believed about Wag Aero or whether it was linked to the whistle-blowing
in the "EAA scandal" referred to in the article is still open to speculation
although there are strong opinions on either side.
However, the community and the industry must assume Wag Aero to be innocent
unless proven guilty and the involvement of the EAA in such a debacle
is, to say the least, embarrassing.
venky
FAA, Customs & DOT Gang Up On A Sport Aviation Icon
US AVIATOR - MARCH 1993
A Special Report By James R. Campbell, Publisher
It's getting very weird out there in bureaucracy-land, boys and girls; weirder
than you could possibly know. This may be a bumper crop year for Stupid Fed
Trix... and it isn't just the FAA who's pulling them off. It seems that all
kinds of federal, state, and local bureaucracies are getting their heads wedged
"where the sun don't shine" and ascending to new heights of aero-idiocy.
The worst case I've seen so far is that which is currently be-deviling the
folks at Wag-Aero. It seems that the FAA, DOT, and the US Customs Service got
interested in the fact that Wag Aero, a well-known sport/general aviation
retailer with a good history of customer service, imports a number of radios,
material, gadgets and instruments from overseas... not. all of them destined
for certified aircraft (hence they are "uncertified", though they may, in fact,
meet the appropriate specifications).
For some time, Customs and the FAA were apparently investigating Wag-Aero for a
number of questionable reasons (not all of them even known at this point ... ).
The legal documents we've received, through a number of sources, showed that
Custom/DOT put Wag-Aero under surveillance for quite the while, tapped some
phones, bugged business conversations, and then pulled off a surprise raid a
few months ago in which many hundreds of thousands of dollars of their
inventory and quite a bit of paper work (customer and employee records, among
other things) was seized.
On this day, Wag-Aero's staff was terrorized, questioned, and treated like
criminals for the better part of a long day before the feds left. Interest-
ingly, this "Customs" raid was also staffed by members of the FAA and DOT, who
appeared to be on their own fishing expedition while working under the
jurisdiction of a Customs Service Operation.
The search warrant was issued secretly, by a US Magistrate Judge, Robert L.
Bittner, whose order to issue this warrant, secretly, was later ruled
"erroneous" and the order was eventually set aside. Of course this was
accomplished several months after it was actually served in the aforementioned
raid. Information contained in the request for the warrant appears to have been
based on a number of inaccurate items and a number of allegedly false and
misleading statements
One of the matters that the FAA and Customs were trying to build a case out of,
is the fact that Wag-Aero stocks a number of instruments and gadgets which have
not met certain specifications (usually a "TSO") normally needed for use ONLY
in certified aircraft. Many of these items are built in China. Since these
items were destined for homebuilt or other non-Certified uses, the usual FAA
certification is not required. The paperwork and certification process can be
costly (But hey... it keeps all the goobermint pencil pushers "gainfully"
employed, donchaknow ... ), so those persons not needing such documentation
can often reap considerable savings by resorting to the use of non-TSO'd
compo-nents... even though many of them are actually made by companies that
build certified gear, as well, and may even be subject to the exact same tests.
It was one of Customs/FAA's many confusing contentions that Wag-Aero was trying
to defraud the public, or circumvent the law, by selling these items for use in
certified aircraft. Where this particular argument really goes astray, though,
is the legal transcript of a specific conversation between a Wag-Aero employee
and a customer (recorded secretly by your friendly feds ... ) in which an
WagAero employee specifically and properly explains that using non-certified
parts in a certified aircraft is not a legal pursuit... this staffer said
things like "they haven't been run through the tests... they just haven't been
approved... as far as sticking them in a certified aircraft, you need TSO'D
instruments...... This person actually explains the difference between
certified and non-certified instruments, explains what "TSO" stands for, and
takes great pains to make sure that the "customer" understands that certified
instruments must go in certified airplanes.
The entire conversation took place (as listed in Special Agent Robert Becker's
Affidavit) as follows between Wag- Aero employee "Bobby" and customer Garry
Wells. On March 24, 1992, Wells telephonically contacted WagAero. The
conversation was monitored and record by the government with Wells' prior
consent. Bobby (last name unknown], a Wag-Aero sales representative, answered
the telephone.
Garry: Yes, this is Garry Wells at Scotia and I placed an order with you folks,
uh, in January and I received some flight instruments and I'm having some
difficulty with them. I was wondering if I could uh, talk to somebody about
them as far as uh, sticking them in an aircraft. My mechanic is having some
difficulties with 'em.
Bobby: Okay, are you looking for certified instruments or.. ?
Bobby: Bobby.- Okay, you were looking for a set of flight instruments?
Garry: Well no, I purchased a uh, some instruments in January and uh, to go on
a Super Cub and my mechanic says that uh; he's having some difficulties
uh, finding the appropriate paperwork for them and he says that uh, he
doesn't know if they are at the right estimates for the aircraft. I was
wondering.... I wanted to talk to somebody there that could tell me if
these are the right instruments, if I can stick them in an aircraft?
Bobby: Okay, as far as sticking them in a certified aircraft you need TSO'd
instruments.
Garry: Okay
Bobby: Okay, um... do you know what that stands for?
Garry: Well..
Bobby: It's technically service ordered, in other words, um, or technically
standard ordered.
Garry: Uh huh.
Bobby: That's um, the FAA has certain tests that instruments must be run
through and some are run through and some are not. That's where the TSO
and non-TSO comes in. The TSO'd ones are FAA approved.
Carry: Okay...
Bobby: The non-TSO'd ... the TSO'd means it's been run through the tests put
out by the FAA. The non- TSO'd are instruments that have not been run
through the tests. There are some instruments that are designed for but
have not actually been run through the tests.
Bobby: "Manufactured to" means that they are manufactured to meet the require-
ments but they have not actually been tested.
Garry: So they are not legal to put...
Bobby: They're not... no they're not TSO'd.
Garry: Okay, what.... I cannot put them in a certified aircraft, is that what
you are saying then?
Bobby: Probably not (laughing).
Garry: Probably not (laughing)?
Bobby: I would say no (laughing). You could do it but the FAA might not approve
of it.
Garry: Oh, okay.
Bobby: Chances are they won't (laughing).
Garry: Okay, well are those parts uh, FAA approved then, or what do those parts
go into if you can't put them into a certified airplane?
Bobby: There are aircraft out there that are not certified, such as experi-
mentals....
Garry: Uh huh.
Bobby: Those are not certified.
Garry: Okay. But these would be FAA approved.. they would be FAA approved for
that type of aircraft then huh?
Bobby: Right.
Bobby: They're the same part. There is just some that have been run through
tests and some that have not.
Bobby: So, in some instruments there is a difference, but in most of them it's
just the fact that they've been run through the tests.
Carry: Yeah, has anybody ever stuck these in their certificated airplanes and I
mean... ?
Bobby: Oh I'm sure...
Carry: They are the same instrument?
Bobby: I'm sure there has been people that do that.
Garry: Uh huh.
Bobby: But, I guess sooner or later the FAA always comes back to you.
Garry: Uh huh, So they just...
Bobby: But some people just, you know, they don't, they don't mind it you know,
they'll just put it in there.
Garry: So they're as good a product but they just haven't been tested by the
FAA?
Bobby: Right. They just haven't been approved.
Garry: Uh huh.
Bobby: They haven't been run through the tests.
Bobby: Some instruments are exported some are um, are imported rather. Some are
built right here in the U.S. It varies from instru-ment to instrument.
So... where was the problem with all that? What crime was committed when the
company openly and properly explains the rudiments of the law? Nowhere in any
documentation, catalogs or brochures have I found anything that proves that
Wag-Aero was trying to offer non-certified instruments for certified use. The
legal document that includes the above mentioned conversation also includes a
summation that indicates that pretty much confirms what we've just repeated...
but somehow tries to cast additional aspersions that are a bit more negative by
repeating a statement this same employee made about being "sure" that some
customers ille-gally installed non-certified instruments in their certified
aircraft (specifically: "I'm sure there has been people that do that"... this
was in response to a question from the "customer" put to her as "has anybody
ever stuck these in their certified airplanes... ?"). Despite the fact that the
caller may have been trying to entrap the W-A employee, there is no part of the
conversation that can be remotely construed as being an endorsement of that
concept. Once again... where is the illegality here?
Customs has also suggested that Wag-Aero was not paying the proper duty for
items imported from overseas, yet their own documentation proves that in many
cases, Wag-Aero was actually PAYING TOO MUCH duty for items like galvanized
cable and stainless steel cable. As a matter of fact, Wag-Aero may be due
refunds from Customs for these over-payments! There is, apparently, a
legitimate question about whether or not the Navcom radios are, indeed,
duty-free, but this sole question does not seem to need the resources of the
FAA nd DOT as well as a full scale customs raid to reach a conclusion.
The wild nature of this situation came to light after US AVIATOR received a
surprise survey form (done under the guise of an airworthiness review being
conducted under the authority of FAR 91.417) from the FAA that indicated that
"Our (their)" records showed us to be in possession of a Wag-Aero ICS nav-com,
a nifty little unit that we've had for review (on loan) for a few months. This
questionnaire was a bit frightening in that it definitely gives the impression
that we were expected to return it quickly (it told us to return a response
"WITHIN TEN DAYS" -in the same bold capital letters we just used... get the
picture?), that Wag-Aero is somehow doing dishonest business and that the user
might be in big trouble. The questionnaire specifically baits the trap by
asking a number of questions (somewhat repetitiously) that tend to suggest some
kind of fraud or less than honorable conduct on the part of WagAero and seems
to suggest that there is some kind of problem (with the equipment or company)
that they are searching for throughout the document.
Every person who has received this document, and who has also contacted us, has
pretty much had the same reaction..."what the hell is the FAA trying to do to
Wag-Aero?". One respondent incensed at the "obvious witch hunt" told me he
planned to send this questionnaire to the FAA marked "none of your damned
business". Particularly questionable is the fact that the FAA actually tells a
serious falsehood in the opening portion of this questionnaire... specifically
stating that they are referring to "Our (FAA's) records". They are not. The
records that they are using are Wag-Aero's and they are some of the same
records seized in the June raid that appears to have been quite illegal in
nature. Crazy.
Worse; a number of the people who got this document became afraid, after
reading it, that the FAA was trying to tell them that Wag-Aero sold unsafe, or
illegal parts and that they may themselves, either come under the scrutiny of
the FAA, be in danger, or may be forced to remove these items from their
aircraft. Crazier still; the FAA did not survey the records to filter out
duplicates and obvious unwanted addresses... Wag-Aero, itself, received dozens
of questionnaires on its own units that were listed on its own records as being
in their own possession. Several customers who bought a number of items from
Wag-Aero also got a number of these surveys. It scared the hell out of quite a
few of them. Hatchet job, or not, someone did a pretty shabby job of putting
together this questionnaire - -or did they?
Strangely enough; though the property seized in the raid by Customs was taken
over 6 months ago, no charges have since been filed... nor have the items, with
a value of over a million dollars (retail) been returned. As a matter of fact,
Customs hasn't really had much to say about this whole mess... one gets the
impression that they wish it would all go away. As a matter of fact, a source
in Customs reported that "the service really screwed the pooch on this one... a
bunch of unsupervised cowboys went ape-shit... set their own agenda". Even more
mysterious, because of the volume of import/export business Wag-Aero does, they
had to file a bond of some $50,000 in order to accomplish business overseas...
yet that bond has not been touched nor have any claims on it been made by
Customs... which one would assume they'd do if something truly wrong had taken
place.
There are a number of other bizarre details surrounding this story.
F'rinstance.. Why did a staffer of a major sport aviation association feel it
necessary to call a large regional aviation publication to tell them about the
raid at Wag- Aero (obviously embarrassing the company in the process)? Why have
people in the FAA (we have agreed to protect their names) referred to staff and
members of that same association as some of the sources that led to the
actions described above? Why was the FAA given access to the records seized in
a Customs exercise? Why did the FAA send out the questionnaire that obviously
seeks to get dirt on Wag-Aero... and why did they do such a lousy job of it?
How does FAR 91.417 give the FAA the authority to conduct the aforementioned
survey? Several aviation lawyers indicate that the justification for such a
move is quite questionable. We've looked forward and backward through FAR
91.417 which covers a number of record keeping chores that the FAA feels has
some importance... but nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, do we find any credible
authority for the FAA to send out mass mailings requesting info about non-
certified or even certified components. Finally; if the FAA was definitely out
to destroy Wag-Aero's credibility and defame it (as it appears to have done),
why did it do so and who really started this mess?
The status of all this? At this time, Wag-Aero has filed suit against Customs,
the FAA, DOT and all other associated parties for the obvious violation of
their rights, the theft of their property, the illegal search and seizure of
their offices and the damages done their company and its reputation. More
importantly, they are taking the difficult step of trying to bring the
individuals responsible for this bizarre series of actions to light to be held
publicly responsible for their own actions. "This is still America!' says
Wag-Aero's Dick Wagner "It would probably be easier to just settle this thing
and let them think they won.... but heaven help the rest of us the next time
they go out of control and try something like this. I can't let that happen".
Wagner has filed suit against the government and the individual officials
involved in this sordid affair.
What of Wag-Aero? Well... to tell the truth, we think rather highly of them.
We've made surreptitious calls about the airworthiness and legality of non-
certified instruments and never been given anything but the truth (on 5
different calls so far), and our records indicate a high degree of customer
satisfaction and a low complaint ratio. I've known Dick Wagner, Wag-Aero's
President, for quite a while and have come to find that he has a very low B.S.
threshold and seems to be a pretty sharp, ethical guy.
Further; my sources (some pretty good ones) in both the FAA, Customs, and DOT
can offer no evidence that this was a credible, warranted action. None. Zilch.
Nada. This has been a very reputable business for many years with a reasonably
good reputation for customer service and fair play. As a matter of fact, Dick
Wagner's only recent "problem" seems to be the fact that he came into some
disrepute and controversy after being one of several people who reluctantly
blew the whistle on that EAA scandal that occurred a few years ago... a
situation that certainly did him no good other than to get what he considered
to be "the truth" out into the open. We do not know if that action had any
bearing, whatsoever, on his current dilemma.
It's certainly going to get more interesting, folks. The situation seems to be
nothing more than a combination witch- hunt/abuse of power/kangaroo court on
the part of various parts of the federal government. Wag-Aero's law suit is
sure to shake the trees a bit but I truly feel that nothing less than a
congressional investigation is required. I have two friends working as
Senate/Congressional Aides and am in the process of seeking their assistance in
pursuing this aim. Something stinks... and the aviation world is the one that
is getting the short end of the stick. The Customs Service, DOT and FAA
declared war on a pivotal member of our embattled community... and I for one,
am not prepared to see this situation wither away and die quietly so that it
can be done again to the next innocent victim. Stay tuned... much more to come.
* * * * * * * * * *
Note from Art:
Our special thanks to Jim Campbell for permission to reprint this article.
Subscriptions to US Aviator are available from Airedale Press, 3000-21st
Street, Winterhaven, Florida 33881 (813) 294-6396. The photographs associated
with the story were omitted because of technical considerations. Where necess-
ary, the captions to those photos were incorporated into the main body of text.
Charles K. Scott
ve...@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
> As a matter of fact, Dick
> Wagner's only recent "problem" seems to be the fact that he came into some
> disrepute and controversy after being one of several people who reluctantly
> blew the whistle on that EAA scandal that occurred a few years ago...
Venky, what was the scandal with the EAA alluded to here? Do you know?
Corky Scott
Robert Withrow
ve...@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
(Quoting a US Aviator article)
| ``As a matter of fact, Dick
| Wagner's only recent "problem" seems to be the fact that he came into some
| disrepute and controversy after being one of several people who reluctantly
| blew the whistle on that EAA scandal that occurred a few years ago...''
What scandal what that?
--
Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: wi...@rwwa.COM
R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Del Armstrong
Rather then answer the question myself, using the magic of uncompress,
here's (some of) what the net had to say about the Wagner .vs. EAA
controversy, and Wagner in general.
Notice that these posting were made 3 years ago. I've included part of
the headers to help provide context for the postings.
(Just goes to show that old postings will follow you around for the
rest of your life!).
Del Armstrong
------------------------------------------------------------
-> >From: tan...@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mike Tanner)
-> Newsgroups: rec.aviation
-> Subject: EAA and Poberezny (was Re: AOPA, ...)
-> Message-ID: <TANNER.90J...@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>
-> Date: 18 Jun 90 14:17:06 GMT
-> References: <18...@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
-> Organization: Ohio State Computer Science
-> Lines: 30
-> In-reply-to: fin...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU's message of 14 Jun 90 18:31:46 GMT
->
-> In article <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> fin...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Sharon R
-> Fine) writes: (actually Bill Robie)
->
-> > Write to the E.A.A. ... Poberezny has ALWAYS
-> > shown himself to be an honorable person....
->
-> This seems to have been questioned recently. Anybody see the write-up in
-> Aviation Consumer this month? Charges that Paul Poberezny has not conducted
-> himself as admirably as one would hope -- airplanes donated to the EAA museum
-> finding their way into the hands of his girlfriend (who sold them), other
-> museum airplanes becoming Poberezny's private planes, Poberezny forcing the
-> people rebuilding the Ford to buy an engine from him when one was available at
-> half the cost elsewhere, Poberezny supposedly has a drinking problem and often
-> flies under the influence, etc. All in all it sounded pretty nasty. These
-> charges were not coming from random people, but included (Dick?) Wagner,
-> Wag-Aero, and others. EAA did an investigation and found, not surprisingly,
-> no problems. Members got a letter from them saying this, but not saying what
-> the charges were. Their response in Av Consumer mostly consisted of denials.
-> I now wonder if his "retirement" wasn't partly forced as a result of these
-> claims. The truth may not come out soon since it seems people on the inside
-> are afraid to speak out.
->
-> I guess it would be surprising if an organization that is so closely
-> identified with one man for so long did not have some problems: either with
-> the man not being the saint the organization claims he is or people in the
-> organization being resentful enough of his authority to generate false claims
-> of impropriety. But this is the first I've heard of anything like this in
-> EAA. Anybody else know anything or have any opinions?
->
-> -- mike
->
->
-> >From: fin...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Sharon R Fine)
-> Newsgroups: rec.aviation
-> Subject: Re: EAA and Poberezny (was Re: AOPA, ...)
-> Message-ID: <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
-> Date: 18 Jun 90 19:04:20 GMT
-> References: <18...@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <TANNER.90J...@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>
-> Reply-To: fin...@jhunix.UUCP (Sharon R Fine)
-> Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
-> Lines: 83
->
->
-> If Mike's reports from Aviation Consumer (re: Paul Poberezny) are
-> true, I am, indeed, disappointed. Before I condemn Mr. Poberezny I
-> would certainly like to hear all the facts from another source than
-> Aviation Consumer and would like ***ESPECIALLY*** to have other
-> sources than Dick Wagner on whom to depend for information! I* very
-> carefully did not mention this individual's company in a previous
-> posting, but now wish to relate a story regarding WAG AERO (run by
-> Dick Wagner);
->
-> Several years ago - when I was first rebuilding the Champ - I ordered
-> a wood kit from this company advertised to be complete and, in so many
-> words, "legal" for installation on a certificated aircraft. There were
-> some other claims, such as an indication that the wood was treated
-> with varnish (or some other coating) and ready to install. When the
-> kit arrived, some of the stuff looked pretty good (but not varnished
-> or coated in any way). The floor boards and formers were what I would
-> have expected. The rest looked like ... excuse me ... shit! The
-> window frames were of VERY low-quality construction plywood. They had
-> large gaps of laminations missing and those were shoddily smeared with
-> wood putty in an attempt to hide the flaws. The worst things were the
-> stringers. They were made of cheap yellow pine and had very coarse
-> grain with grain deviations as great as 1:4.5 (1:11 is the recommended
-> max for structural aviation wood). I called Wag Aero several
-> times and got nobody who knew how to say anything until I finally got
-> in touch with Wagner. He told me the stuff was OK and to try to
-> install it. Against my better judgement, I DID try to install it. As
-> luck would have it, the first stringer snapped as I pulled it into the
-> first curve ... I turned around to see the AI's reaction to this (he
-> was watching at the moment because he, too, was leary of it) only to
-> see that he had just been joined by the Fed. Inspector from the local
-> GADO on an unannounced visit!! The inspector looked at the stuff and
-> frowned at the AI (who said he was not going to sign it off, but
-> wanted me to see for myself that it was the afore-mentioned sh**).
-> When the inspector found out the stuff was ordered from W-A and saw
-> the catalog advertisement and its claims, he got on the phone to his
-> office. He advised me NOT to use any of the stringers, the window
-> frames, and some others of the pieces.
->
-> I called Wagner back (not mentioning the inspector's visit) and told
-> him I had problems. He said to ship the stuff back and he would look
-> at it. I did this. A couple of weeks passed and no word from Wagner.
-> I finally called him and asked if he received the material ... he said
-> he had. I asked what he was going to do about it and he proceeded to
-> explode into a tirade over what a &**&*&^(&* I was and how people like
-> me were the worst thing that ever happened to aviation, etc.. He said
-> that he was NOT sending me any new parts, was NOT going to give me a
-> partial refund, and, before he slammed the phone down, said that I was
-> down in North Carolina, HE was up in Wisconsin, and what the (*&(*&^
-> was *I* going to do about it???
->
-> Later I found out that our local GADO guy called the Milwaukee GADO
-> and they sent someone out to W-A's wood shop on a surprise visit....
-> the result was that they closed the shop down for a time! I was also
-> told by the FAA guy that, at the same time, the Attorney General of
-> Alaska had an action against them for some problems with items (I
-> believe it was snow skis) sold to residents in that State. The company
-> was also (among other things) advertising Aeronca Nose Bowls that were
-> fibre glas, rather than aluminum (they now advertise them as COPIES ..
-> but the ads used to imply they were original or original substitute).
-> Since then I have talked to SEVERAL other pilots who felt materials
-> they ordered from this company were misrepresented in their catalog. I
-> have talked to others who were happy with their purchases, but these
-> were people who had bought things like altimeters that were not
-> manufactured by, or under contract to, W-A.
->
-> My dealings with this man and his company are true as I report them to
-> you. I dont have confirmation of the other items, other than what I
-> was told is what I was told. I personally consider this individual to
-> be a lousy source of information. For me, the fact that he is in
-> opposition to Mr. Poberezny *may* even be more reason for me to
-> believe the man who did so much for the E.A.A..
->
-> Oh ... and as for "what [I am] going to do about it?" This is part of
-> what I am going to do and have been doing for years ... telling this
-> account of one example of how Mr. DICK Wagner and Wag-Aero like to do
-> business.
->
-> Bill Robie
-> (the opinions here are mine, but are shared by dozens of airplane
-> owners and restorers I have met since this incident)
->
-> By the way ... I will be glad to tell you the names of some really
-> GOOD suppliers I have dealt with over the years, too!
->
->
-> From uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!wanttaja Thu Jun 21 07:52:30 EDT 1990
-> >From: want...@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja)
-> Newsgroups: rec.aviation
-> Subject: Re: Wag-Aero (was Re: EAA and Poberezny)
-> Summary: A few more data points
-> Message-ID: <34...@ssc-vax.UUCP>
-> Date: 19 Jun 90 03:01:32 GMT
-> References: <18...@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
-> Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA
-> Lines: 36
->
-> In article <55...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, fin...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Sharon R Fine) writes:
-> >
-> > ... Before I condemn Mr. Poberezny I
-> > would certainly like to hear all the facts from another source than
-> > Aviation Consumer and would like ***ESPECIALLY*** to have other
-> > sources than Dick Wagner on whom to depend for information!
-> >
-> > Several years ago - when I was first rebuilding the Champ - I ordered
-> > a wood kit from this company advertised to be complete and, in so many
-> > words, "legal" for installation on a certificated aircraft.
-> > Since then I have talked to SEVERAL other pilots who felt materials
-> > they ordered from this company were misrepresented in their catalog.
->
-> Wagner is still doing it. Look at the ads for the Lotus inflatable
-> floats... they show them installed on a Cub, and say "Fits Piper J-3 and
-> PA-18". But the Cub is actually a Wag-Aero Sport Trainer (experimental
-> category) and the floats are NOT legal on any certified aircraft! They
-> *fit*, yes. But they aren't PMA parts, they don't meet TSO, and there's
-> no STC available. (Ahh, acronym heaven). Just because something will bolt
-> in place doesn't mean it's legal.
->
-> When researching the book, I went to the local aircraft welder to find out
-> how much it'd cost to get a tack-welded fuselage finished. He quoted a
-> price range, then mentioned that Wag-Aero's finish-welded fuselages have
-> very poor workmanship. Sure, they're his competitors, in a sense. But
-> he's a guy who has more work than he can handle in the first place, and he
-> does cheap/low coast work for EAAers.
->
-> PLUS add the fact that Wag-Aero parts arere badly overpriced... Aircraft
-> Spruce is almost always 20% cheaper. I've only bought from Wagern once;
-> a pair of Champ rudder pedals for the Nieuport. They seemed all right.
->
-> Otherwise, what I've heard confirms Bill's statements.
->
-> Ron Wanttaja
-> (ssc-vax!wanttaja)
->
->