This is in responds to your letter dated 4/wherein a complaint form [redacted] was outlined An aircraft fuel pump was sent to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, Incof West Palm Beach with the request to overhaul and return on P.ONumber *** dated 2/17/ The pump was overhauled under our Work Order Number [redacted] and returned on 2/21/A short time later we were notified by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc, that there was a problem with the fuel pump, their customer, [redacted] , could not hear the fuel pump run on low speedWe assured them that if the fuel pump would run on high speed that it was running on low speed The fact that Mr [redacted] could no longer hear the fuel pump run on low was understandable do to the improvements that were made to the pump when it was overhauledWe gave Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inca number of troubleshooting items to check which would confirm that the pump was running when the proper voltage was applied to itThey did confirm that the fuel pump was working properly, but Mr [redacted] was still unhappy because he could not hear it run on low speed, so we offered to adjust it so he could hear it The pump was returned to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc under P.ONumber dated 3113/with the comment" Returning pump per customer's instructions to be set to mfg's spec."Since the pump was already set at the manufacture's specifications, we adjusted the speed of the pump to make it louder under work order number MWe now found that the pump exceeded the low limits and informed Mr [redacted] that it would have to be noted on the Work Order that the pump had been adjusted per the owner's requestMr [redacted] said that he could not accept this and to just return the pump and he would send it to Dukes, the pumps OEM (Original Equipment Manufacture) for overhaul On 3/18/we removed our parts that were installed during the overhaul and returned the disassembled pump, "Red Tagged as Commended" which we are required to do by the FAA, along with a full refund, check # *** to Aircraft Maintenance Specialist IncThe reasons for returning the pump disassembled are as followings: Safety - We can not have a fuel pump with malfunctioning parts being put back into service, which from subsequent Emails is what Mr [redacted] intends to doThis is the same reason that the FAA requires us to Red Tag the pump as Commended Documentation - We can not have a fuel pump with OEM parts installed when Mr [redacted] has the Work Order Number Mwith the Return To Service Approval showing that our parts had been used in the overhaul According to Mr [redacted] the pump was being returned to the OEM (Dukes) for overhaul and they would install their own parts to replace the malfunctioning onesWe have no idea why Mr [redacted] doesn't send the pump to the OEM for overhaul, as he told us he was going to do Emails from Mr [redacted] has stated that he has a lawyer, so any communication will have to be through his attorney If you need anything else, please let me know Sincerely: [redacted] General Manager
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below It is true that Mr [redacted] agreed to refund my money however he returned my pump completely dismantled with missing partsHe deliberately dismantled my pump prior to returning itWe furnished him with a fully assembled operating pumpIt is our opinion that his actions were not justified and uncalled forIt would be one thing had he disassembled my pump and found it not repairable however this was not the caseONCE AGAIN I OFFER AEROMOTORS LLC AND MR*** A REASONABLE SOLUTION TO SIMPLY REASSEMBLE MY PUMP AS HE/THEY HAD RECEIVED IT Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Paragraph 1,Opening statement from Business starting with the words "This is" I have no comment Paragraph 2,We agree in substance Paragraph 3,...We agree in part however Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, hereinafter AMS agreed with me that the pump was not working correctlyBoth AMS and I could not hear the pump running on low speed because it was not runningAMS verified this by removing the inspection plate that housed the pump and confirmed the pump would not run on low speedMr [redacted] asked us to check the voltage coming from the aircraft battery source as well as the voltage at the wire connections at the pumpMr [redacted] admittedly installed his own resistors that would only allow the pump to start when volts are appliedThese were not the resistors recommended by the original pump manufactured by "Dukes"The resistors should have been sized per to OEM specsMr [redacted] had said both to me as well as AMS on separate phone calls that he actually corrected the original design of the pump and "made it better"We did not ask Mr [redacted] to "make the pump better" and that he had no right or authority to make those changesNo record can be found that Mr [redacted] or any one representing Aeromotors LLC ever called Dukes pumps for proper size of resistorsAeromotors LLC had no right to make these changes on there ownMr [redacted] talks about the operation of the pump when "proper voltage was applied to it"He is correct when he states that the pump will operate when volts is applied however the low boost pump is only used to start the aircraft and this airplane only puts out volts when the plane is running with the alternator turned onHad a representative of Aeremotors researched this by calling called Mooney tech support (Mooney is the plane manufacturer) or Dukes Pumps, (the pump manufacturer) they would of learned that they installed the wrong size resistorsThe last sentence of paragraph Aeromotors suggest that I asked them to make the pump louderThis is not correct! As I stated earlier AMS confirmed that the pump as overhauled by Aeromotors was not running when the low speed button was toggled hence no one could hear the pump run because it was not running Paragraph 4,...We disagreeAeromotors states that the pump was "set to manufactures specs"We do not believe Aeromotors ever had the Manufactures specs because if they did they would learn that they installed the wrong size resistorsThe Mooney was designed with a volt systemThe voltage at the pump wire is between & voltsIts easy to understand why the pump would not start with resistors sized higher than the voltage reading at the pump leads, which was the case after Aeromotors overhauled our pump Paragraph 5,...We agree that Aeromotors did in fact disassembled our pump prior to sending it back to us however they make it sound that it is a required by the FAA to do soThis is not true! They would be obligated to red tag the pump however nowhere is it written that they must disassemble it prior to returning it to the customerIn our opinion this was willful and deliberate damage to my propertyBy Aeromotors own documentation (see attachments) they sent me in an email will prove that we sent them a fully assembled operating pump with a very intermittent problem with a request to repairMr [redacted] stated in a phone conversation that he could not duplicate the problem that I stated I was having and I told him the problem was very intermittent and I would feel better knowing it was overhauled(The funny thing is the problem I was having with the pump was no where connected to the problem as described in this complaint)The original OEM resistors installed in the pump worked fineThe problem we were having was with a dead spot where periodically the pump would not operate without a tap on the side of it Paragraph 6,..."Safety" I never said I intended to put this pump back into serviceWhy would I have removed it and sent it to Aeromotors for overhaulI find it interesting that Aeromotors states in this paragraph that I intended to put it back in service while in another paragraph they state that I intended to send it to the original manufacturer for overhaul Paragraph 7,..." Documentation" Aeromotors could of simply issued a superseding work order with the returned red tagged pumpThere was no need to dismantle the pump and there are no requirements by the FAA to do soIt is the opinion of all involved as well as others that this was done vindictively Paragraph 8,....#3....We opted to purchase a new pump as we needed our plane back in service and could not take the additional weeks to have the pump evaluated in its dismantled state Paragraph 9,....I have consulted with a lawyer and will consider a law suit if this is not resolved however it is in my opinion that we should be able to work this out and spare us both the grief and expense My conclusion,....I have asked Mr [redacted] of Aeromoters LLC to consider reassembling my pump with its original parts so that it will operate as it did when he initially received itI have stated in a prior email that he can keep the red tag on it as I have no intentions on placing this pump in service without an OEM overhaulIf I have an assembled pump it becomes an acceptable core and it can be traded in against a new one or sent in for overhaulIf Aeromotors agrees to this I will seek nothing further and will look forward to putting this behind meI ask you again to consider my offer to settle Regards, [redacted]
This is in responds to your letter-dated 4/16/wherein Ed *** stated that our previous responds did not resolve his complaint
From Mr*** lengthy review, it appears to us that he is attempting to use the Revdex.com as a means of discovery for a pending lawsuit.
Emails from Mr*** have stated that he has a lawyer, so any communication will have to be through his attorney
Mr*** has his pump with a full refundAs for the pump being disassembled, it is not uncommon for overhaul/repair shops to receive items that are disassembled
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
It is true that Mr. [redacted] agreed to refund my money however he returned my pump completely dismantled with missing parts. He deliberately dismantled my pump prior to returning it. We furnished him with a fully assembled operating pump. It is our opinion that his actions were not justified and uncalled for. It would be one thing had he disassembled my pump and found it not repairable however this was not the case. ONCE AGAIN I OFFER AEROMOTORS LLC AND MR. [redacted] A REASONABLE SOLUTION TO SIMPLY REASSEMBLE MY PUMP AS HE/THEY HAD RECEIVED IT.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Paragraph 1,... Opening statement from Business starting with the words "This is" I have no comment.
Paragraph 2,... We agree in substance.
Paragraph 3,...We agree in part however Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, hereinafter AMS agreed with me that the pump was not working correctly. Both AMS and I could not hear the pump running on low speed because it was not running. AMS verified this by removing the inspection plate that housed the pump and confirmed the pump would not run on low speed. Mr. [redacted] asked us to check the voltage coming from the aircraft battery source as well as the voltage at the wire connections at the pump. Mr. [redacted] admittedly installed his own resistors that would only allow the pump to start when 28 volts are applied. These were not the resistors recommended by the original pump manufactured by "Dukes". The resistors should have been sized per to OEM specs. Mr. [redacted] had said both to me as well as AMS on separate phone calls that he actually corrected the original design of the pump and "made it better". We did not ask Mr. [redacted] to "make the pump better" and that he had no right or authority to make those changes. No record can be found that Mr. [redacted] or any one representing Aeromotors LLC ever called Dukes pumps for proper size of resistors. Aeromotors LLC had no right to make these changes on there own. Mr. [redacted] talks about the operation of the pump when "proper voltage was applied to it". He is correct when he states that the pump will operate when 28 volts is applied however the low boost pump is only used to start the aircraft and this airplane only puts out 28 volts when the plane is running with the alternator turned on. Had a representative of Aeremotors researched this by calling called Mooney tech support (Mooney is the plane manufacturer) or Dukes Pumps, (the pump manufacturer) they would of learned that they installed the wrong size resistors. The last sentence of paragraph 3 Aeromotors suggest that I asked them to make the pump louder. This is not correct! As I stated earlier AMS confirmed that the pump as overhauled by Aeromotors was not running when the low speed button was toggled hence no one could hear the pump run because it was not running.
Paragraph 4,...We disagree. Aeromotors states that the pump was "set to manufactures specs". We do not believe Aeromotors ever had the Manufactures specs because if they did they would learn that they installed the wrong size resistors. The Mooney was designed with a 24 volt system. The voltage at the pump wire is between 22.5 & 23.5 volts. Its easy to understand why the pump would not start with resistors sized higher than the voltage reading at the pump leads, which was the case after Aeromotors overhauled our pump.
Paragraph 5,...We agree that Aeromotors did in fact disassembled our pump prior to sending it back to us however they make it sound that it is a required by the FAA to do so. This is not true! They would be obligated to red tag the pump however nowhere is it written that they must disassemble it prior to returning it to the customer. In our opinion this was willful and deliberate damage to my property. By Aeromotors own documentation (see attachments) they sent me in an email will prove that we sent them a fully assembled operating pump with a very intermittent problem with a request to repair. Mr. [redacted] stated in a phone conversation that he could not duplicate the problem that I stated I was having and I told him the problem was very intermittent and I would feel better knowing it was overhauled. (The funny thing is the problem I was having with the pump was no where connected to the problem as described in this complaint). The original OEM resistors installed in the pump worked fine. The problem we were having was with a dead spot where periodically the pump would not operate without a tap on the side of it.
Paragraph 6,..."Safety" I never said I intended to put this pump back into service. Why would I have removed it and sent it to Aeromotors for overhaul. I find it interesting that Aeromotors states in this paragraph that I intended to put it back in service while in another paragraph they state that I intended to send it to the original manufacturer for overhaul.
Paragraph 7,..." Documentation" Aeromotors could of simply issued a superseding work order with the returned red tagged pump. There was no need to dismantle the pump and there are no requirements by the FAA to do so. It is the opinion of all involved as well as others that this was done vindictively.
Paragraph 8,....#3....We opted to purchase a new pump as we needed our plane back in service and could not take the additional 2 weeks to have the pump evaluated in its dismantled state.
Paragraph 9,....I have consulted with a lawyer and will consider a law suit if this is not resolved however it is in my opinion that we should be able to work this out and spare us both the grief and expense.
My conclusion,....I have asked Mr. [redacted] of Aeromoters LLC to consider reassembling my pump with its original parts so that it will operate as it did when he initially received it. I have stated in a prior email that he can keep the red tag on it as I have no intentions on placing this pump in service without an OEM overhaul. If I have an assembled pump it becomes an acceptable core and it can be traded in against a new one or sent in for overhaul. If Aeromotors agrees to this I will seek nothing further and will look forward to putting this behind me. I ask you again to consider my offer to settle.
Regards,
[redacted]
This is in responds to your letter dated 4/112014 wherein a complaint form [redacted] was outlined.
An aircraft fuel pump was sent to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, Inc. of West Palm Beach with the request to overhaul and return on P.O. Number...
[redacted] dated 2/17/2014.
The pump was overhauled under our Work Order Number [redacted] and returned on 2/21/2014. A short time later we were notified by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc, that there was a problem
with the fuel pump, their customer, [redacted], could not hear the fuel pump run on low speed. We assured them that if the fuel pump would run on high speed that it was running on low speed.
The fact that Mr. [redacted] could no longer hear the fuel pump run on low was understandable do to the improvements that were made to the pump when it was overhauled. We gave Aircraft Maintenance
Specialist Inc. a number of troubleshooting items to check which would confirm that the pump was running when the proper voltage was applied to it. They did confirm that the fuel pump was working properly,
but Mr. [redacted] was still unhappy because he could not hear it run on low speed, so we offered to adjust it so he could hear it.
The pump was returned to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc under P.O. Number 36737 dated 3113/2014 with the comment" Returning pump per customer's instructions to be set to mfg's spec.". Since the pump was
already set at the manufacture's specifications, we adjusted the speed of the pump to make it louder under work order number M1403100. We now found that the pump exceeded the low limits and informed Mr. [redacted]
that it would have to be noted on the Work Order that the pump had been adjusted per the owner's request. Mr. [redacted] said that he could not accept this and to just return the pump and he would send it to Dukes, the
pumps OEM (Original Equipment Manufacture) for overhaul.
On 3/18/2014 we removed our parts that were installed during the overhaul and returned the disassembled pump, "Red Tagged as Commended" which we are required to do by the FAA, along with a full refund, check # [redacted]
to Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc. The reasons for returning the pump disassembled are as followings:
1. Safety - We can not have a fuel pump with malfunctioning parts being put back into service, which from subsequent Emails is what Mr. [redacted] intends to do. This is the same reason that the FAA
requires us to Red Tag the pump as Commended.
2. Documentation - We can not have a fuel pump with OEM parts installed when Mr. [redacted] has the Work Order Number M1402121 with the Return To Service Approval showing that our parts had been
used in the overhaul.
3. According to Mr. [redacted] the pump was being returned to the OEM (Dukes) for overhaul and they would install their own parts to replace the malfunctioning ones. We have no idea why Mr. [redacted] doesn't
send the pump to the OEM for overhaul, as he told us he was going to do.
Emails from Mr. [redacted] has stated that he has a lawyer, so any communication will have to be through his attorney.
This is in responds to your letter dated 4/wherein a complaint form [redacted] was outlined An aircraft fuel pump was sent to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, Incof West Palm Beach with the request to overhaul and return on P.ONumber *** dated 2/17/ The pump was overhauled under our Work Order Number [redacted] and returned on 2/21/A short time later we were notified by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc, that there was a problem with the fuel pump, their customer, [redacted] , could not hear the fuel pump run on low speedWe assured them that if the fuel pump would run on high speed that it was running on low speed The fact that Mr [redacted] could no longer hear the fuel pump run on low was understandable do to the improvements that were made to the pump when it was overhauledWe gave Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inca number of troubleshooting items to check which would confirm that the pump was running when the proper voltage was applied to itThey did confirm that the fuel pump was working properly, but Mr [redacted] was still unhappy because he could not hear it run on low speed, so we offered to adjust it so he could hear it The pump was returned to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc under P.ONumber dated 3113/with the comment" Returning pump per customer's instructions to be set to mfg's spec."Since the pump was already set at the manufacture's specifications, we adjusted the speed of the pump to make it louder under work order number MWe now found that the pump exceeded the low limits and informed Mr [redacted] that it would have to be noted on the Work Order that the pump had been adjusted per the owner's requestMr [redacted] said that he could not accept this and to just return the pump and he would send it to Dukes, the pumps OEM (Original Equipment Manufacture) for overhaul On 3/18/we removed our parts that were installed during the overhaul and returned the disassembled pump, "Red Tagged as Commended" which we are required to do by the FAA, along with a full refund, check # *** to Aircraft Maintenance Specialist IncThe reasons for returning the pump disassembled are as followings: Safety - We can not have a fuel pump with malfunctioning parts being put back into service, which from subsequent Emails is what Mr [redacted] intends to doThis is the same reason that the FAA requires us to Red Tag the pump as Commended Documentation - We can not have a fuel pump with OEM parts installed when Mr [redacted] has the Work Order Number Mwith the Return To Service Approval showing that our parts had been used in the overhaul According to Mr [redacted] the pump was being returned to the OEM (Dukes) for overhaul and they would install their own parts to replace the malfunctioning onesWe have no idea why Mr [redacted] doesn't send the pump to the OEM for overhaul, as he told us he was going to do Emails from Mr [redacted] has stated that he has a lawyer, so any communication will have to be through his attorney If you need anything else, please let me know Sincerely: [redacted] General Manager
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below It is true that Mr [redacted] agreed to refund my money however he returned my pump completely dismantled with missing partsHe deliberately dismantled my pump prior to returning itWe furnished him with a fully assembled operating pumpIt is our opinion that his actions were not justified and uncalled forIt would be one thing had he disassembled my pump and found it not repairable however this was not the caseONCE AGAIN I OFFER AEROMOTORS LLC AND MR*** A REASONABLE SOLUTION TO SIMPLY REASSEMBLE MY PUMP AS HE/THEY HAD RECEIVED IT Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Paragraph 1,Opening statement from Business starting with the words "This is" I have no comment Paragraph 2,We agree in substance Paragraph 3,...We agree in part however Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, hereinafter AMS agreed with me that the pump was not working correctlyBoth AMS and I could not hear the pump running on low speed because it was not runningAMS verified this by removing the inspection plate that housed the pump and confirmed the pump would not run on low speedMr [redacted] asked us to check the voltage coming from the aircraft battery source as well as the voltage at the wire connections at the pumpMr [redacted] admittedly installed his own resistors that would only allow the pump to start when volts are appliedThese were not the resistors recommended by the original pump manufactured by "Dukes"The resistors should have been sized per to OEM specsMr [redacted] had said both to me as well as AMS on separate phone calls that he actually corrected the original design of the pump and "made it better"We did not ask Mr [redacted] to "make the pump better" and that he had no right or authority to make those changesNo record can be found that Mr [redacted] or any one representing Aeromotors LLC ever called Dukes pumps for proper size of resistorsAeromotors LLC had no right to make these changes on there ownMr [redacted] talks about the operation of the pump when "proper voltage was applied to it"He is correct when he states that the pump will operate when volts is applied however the low boost pump is only used to start the aircraft and this airplane only puts out volts when the plane is running with the alternator turned onHad a representative of Aeremotors researched this by calling called Mooney tech support (Mooney is the plane manufacturer) or Dukes Pumps, (the pump manufacturer) they would of learned that they installed the wrong size resistorsThe last sentence of paragraph Aeromotors suggest that I asked them to make the pump louderThis is not correct! As I stated earlier AMS confirmed that the pump as overhauled by Aeromotors was not running when the low speed button was toggled hence no one could hear the pump run because it was not running Paragraph 4,...We disagreeAeromotors states that the pump was "set to manufactures specs"We do not believe Aeromotors ever had the Manufactures specs because if they did they would learn that they installed the wrong size resistorsThe Mooney was designed with a volt systemThe voltage at the pump wire is between & voltsIts easy to understand why the pump would not start with resistors sized higher than the voltage reading at the pump leads, which was the case after Aeromotors overhauled our pump Paragraph 5,...We agree that Aeromotors did in fact disassembled our pump prior to sending it back to us however they make it sound that it is a required by the FAA to do soThis is not true! They would be obligated to red tag the pump however nowhere is it written that they must disassemble it prior to returning it to the customerIn our opinion this was willful and deliberate damage to my propertyBy Aeromotors own documentation (see attachments) they sent me in an email will prove that we sent them a fully assembled operating pump with a very intermittent problem with a request to repairMr [redacted] stated in a phone conversation that he could not duplicate the problem that I stated I was having and I told him the problem was very intermittent and I would feel better knowing it was overhauled(The funny thing is the problem I was having with the pump was no where connected to the problem as described in this complaint)The original OEM resistors installed in the pump worked fineThe problem we were having was with a dead spot where periodically the pump would not operate without a tap on the side of it Paragraph 6,..."Safety" I never said I intended to put this pump back into serviceWhy would I have removed it and sent it to Aeromotors for overhaulI find it interesting that Aeromotors states in this paragraph that I intended to put it back in service while in another paragraph they state that I intended to send it to the original manufacturer for overhaul Paragraph 7,..." Documentation" Aeromotors could of simply issued a superseding work order with the returned red tagged pumpThere was no need to dismantle the pump and there are no requirements by the FAA to do soIt is the opinion of all involved as well as others that this was done vindictively Paragraph 8,....#3....We opted to purchase a new pump as we needed our plane back in service and could not take the additional weeks to have the pump evaluated in its dismantled state Paragraph 9,....I have consulted with a lawyer and will consider a law suit if this is not resolved however it is in my opinion that we should be able to work this out and spare us both the grief and expense My conclusion,....I have asked Mr [redacted] of Aeromoters LLC to consider reassembling my pump with its original parts so that it will operate as it did when he initially received itI have stated in a prior email that he can keep the red tag on it as I have no intentions on placing this pump in service without an OEM overhaulIf I have an assembled pump it becomes an acceptable core and it can be traded in against a new one or sent in for overhaulIf Aeromotors agrees to this I will seek nothing further and will look forward to putting this behind meI ask you again to consider my offer to settle Regards, [redacted]
This is in responds to your letter-dated 4/16/wherein Ed *** stated that our previous responds did not resolve his complaint
From Mr*** lengthy review, it appears to us that he is attempting to use the Revdex.com as a means of discovery for a pending lawsuit.
Emails from Mr*** have stated that he has a lawyer, so any communication will have to be through his attorney
Mr*** has his pump with a full refundAs for the pump being disassembled, it is not uncommon for overhaul/repair shops to receive items that are disassembled
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
It is true that Mr. [redacted] agreed to refund my money however he returned my pump completely dismantled with missing parts. He deliberately dismantled my pump prior to returning it. We furnished him with a fully assembled operating pump. It is our opinion that his actions were not justified and uncalled for. It would be one thing had he disassembled my pump and found it not repairable however this was not the case. ONCE AGAIN I OFFER AEROMOTORS LLC AND MR. [redacted] A REASONABLE SOLUTION TO SIMPLY REASSEMBLE MY PUMP AS HE/THEY HAD RECEIVED IT.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Paragraph 1,... Opening statement from Business starting with the words "This is" I have no comment.
Paragraph 2,... We agree in substance.
Paragraph 3,...We agree in part however Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, hereinafter AMS agreed with me that the pump was not working correctly. Both AMS and I could not hear the pump running on low speed because it was not running. AMS verified this by removing the inspection plate that housed the pump and confirmed the pump would not run on low speed. Mr. [redacted] asked us to check the voltage coming from the aircraft battery source as well as the voltage at the wire connections at the pump. Mr. [redacted] admittedly installed his own resistors that would only allow the pump to start when 28 volts are applied. These were not the resistors recommended by the original pump manufactured by "Dukes". The resistors should have been sized per to OEM specs. Mr. [redacted] had said both to me as well as AMS on separate phone calls that he actually corrected the original design of the pump and "made it better". We did not ask Mr. [redacted] to "make the pump better" and that he had no right or authority to make those changes. No record can be found that Mr. [redacted] or any one representing Aeromotors LLC ever called Dukes pumps for proper size of resistors. Aeromotors LLC had no right to make these changes on there own. Mr. [redacted] talks about the operation of the pump when "proper voltage was applied to it". He is correct when he states that the pump will operate when 28 volts is applied however the low boost pump is only used to start the aircraft and this airplane only puts out 28 volts when the plane is running with the alternator turned on. Had a representative of Aeremotors researched this by calling called Mooney tech support (Mooney is the plane manufacturer) or Dukes Pumps, (the pump manufacturer) they would of learned that they installed the wrong size resistors. The last sentence of paragraph 3 Aeromotors suggest that I asked them to make the pump louder. This is not correct! As I stated earlier AMS confirmed that the pump as overhauled by Aeromotors was not running when the low speed button was toggled hence no one could hear the pump run because it was not running.
Paragraph 4,...We disagree. Aeromotors states that the pump was "set to manufactures specs". We do not believe Aeromotors ever had the Manufactures specs because if they did they would learn that they installed the wrong size resistors. The Mooney was designed with a 24 volt system. The voltage at the pump wire is between 22.5 & 23.5 volts. Its easy to understand why the pump would not start with resistors sized higher than the voltage reading at the pump leads, which was the case after Aeromotors overhauled our pump.
Paragraph 5,...We agree that Aeromotors did in fact disassembled our pump prior to sending it back to us however they make it sound that it is a required by the FAA to do so. This is not true! They would be obligated to red tag the pump however nowhere is it written that they must disassemble it prior to returning it to the customer. In our opinion this was willful and deliberate damage to my property. By Aeromotors own documentation (see attachments) they sent me in an email will prove that we sent them a fully assembled operating pump with a very intermittent problem with a request to repair. Mr. [redacted] stated in a phone conversation that he could not duplicate the problem that I stated I was having and I told him the problem was very intermittent and I would feel better knowing it was overhauled. (The funny thing is the problem I was having with the pump was no where connected to the problem as described in this complaint). The original OEM resistors installed in the pump worked fine. The problem we were having was with a dead spot where periodically the pump would not operate without a tap on the side of it.
Paragraph 6,..."Safety" I never said I intended to put this pump back into service. Why would I have removed it and sent it to Aeromotors for overhaul. I find it interesting that Aeromotors states in this paragraph that I intended to put it back in service while in another paragraph they state that I intended to send it to the original manufacturer for overhaul.
Paragraph 7,..." Documentation" Aeromotors could of simply issued a superseding work order with the returned red tagged pump. There was no need to dismantle the pump and there are no requirements by the FAA to do so. It is the opinion of all involved as well as others that this was done vindictively.
Paragraph 8,....#3....We opted to purchase a new pump as we needed our plane back in service and could not take the additional 2 weeks to have the pump evaluated in its dismantled state.
Paragraph 9,....I have consulted with a lawyer and will consider a law suit if this is not resolved however it is in my opinion that we should be able to work this out and spare us both the grief and expense.
My conclusion,....I have asked Mr. [redacted] of Aeromoters LLC to consider reassembling my pump with its original parts so that it will operate as it did when he initially received it. I have stated in a prior email that he can keep the red tag on it as I have no intentions on placing this pump in service without an OEM overhaul. If I have an assembled pump it becomes an acceptable core and it can be traded in against a new one or sent in for overhaul. If Aeromotors agrees to this I will seek nothing further and will look forward to putting this behind me. I ask you again to consider my offer to settle.
Regards,
[redacted]
This is in responds to your letter dated 4/112014 wherein a complaint form [redacted] was outlined.
An aircraft fuel pump was sent to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist, Inc. of West Palm Beach with the request to overhaul and return on P.O. Number...
[redacted] dated 2/17/2014.
The pump was overhauled under our Work Order Number [redacted] and returned on 2/21/2014. A short time later we were notified by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc, that there was a problem
with the fuel pump, their customer, [redacted], could not hear the fuel pump run on low speed. We assured them that if the fuel pump would run on high speed that it was running on low speed.
The fact that Mr. [redacted] could no longer hear the fuel pump run on low was understandable do to the improvements that were made to the pump when it was overhauled. We gave Aircraft Maintenance
Specialist Inc. a number of troubleshooting items to check which would confirm that the pump was running when the proper voltage was applied to it. They did confirm that the fuel pump was working properly,
but Mr. [redacted] was still unhappy because he could not hear it run on low speed, so we offered to adjust it so he could hear it.
The pump was returned to us by Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc under P.O. Number 36737 dated 3113/2014 with the comment" Returning pump per customer's instructions to be set to mfg's spec.". Since the pump was
already set at the manufacture's specifications, we adjusted the speed of the pump to make it louder under work order number M1403100. We now found that the pump exceeded the low limits and informed Mr. [redacted]
that it would have to be noted on the Work Order that the pump had been adjusted per the owner's request. Mr. [redacted] said that he could not accept this and to just return the pump and he would send it to Dukes, the
pumps OEM (Original Equipment Manufacture) for overhaul.
On 3/18/2014 we removed our parts that were installed during the overhaul and returned the disassembled pump, "Red Tagged as Commended" which we are required to do by the FAA, along with a full refund, check # [redacted]
to Aircraft Maintenance Specialist Inc. The reasons for returning the pump disassembled are as followings:
1. Safety - We can not have a fuel pump with malfunctioning parts being put back into service, which from subsequent Emails is what Mr. [redacted] intends to do. This is the same reason that the FAA
requires us to Red Tag the pump as Commended.
2. Documentation - We can not have a fuel pump with OEM parts installed when Mr. [redacted] has the Work Order Number M1402121 with the Return To Service Approval showing that our parts had been
used in the overhaul.
3. According to Mr. [redacted] the pump was being returned to the OEM (Dukes) for overhaul and they would install their own parts to replace the malfunctioning ones. We have no idea why Mr. [redacted] doesn't
send the pump to the OEM for overhaul, as he told us he was going to do.
Emails from Mr. [redacted] has stated that he has a lawyer, so any communication will have to be through his attorney.
If you need anything else, please let me know
Sincerely:
[redacted]
General Manager