Wednesday, November 06, 2019

Piper PA-46-310P Malibu, N567KC

HUNTINGTON, West Virginia — A Huntington attorney is suing Triad Aviation Inc. for failing to fix his aircraft after it was contracted to do so.

H&H Propeller Services Inc. was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

R.R. Fredeking II owns a Piper PA-46-310P Malibu (N567KC) — a single-engine aircraft powered by a Continental TSIO 550c engine using a variable pitch Hartzell propeller, according to a complaint filed October 25th in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Fredeking claims he contacted Triad Aviation Inc. to discuss a needed overhaul of the engine and propeller of his Piper PA-46-310P Malibu and a required annual inspection, including the repair and/or replacement of any components which Triad Aviation Inc. determined needed repair or replacement.

Because of the complexity of the systems of the plane, Fredeking entered into a contract with Triad Aviation Inc. and Triad informed it would take six weeks to complete the work on the plane, according to the lawsuit.

Fredeking claims Triad's affiliate, H&H Propeller Services Inc., was also to repair the plane and that the defendants failed to complete the work within the agreed-upon six weeks.

Triad Aviation Inc. did not complete the work until August 2nd and the plane was delivered on August 15th, according to the lawsuit.

Fredeking claims he was returning to Huntington on his plane and approximately two hours after his departure, while on his final approach to Tri-State Airport (KHTS), Huntington, West Virginia, the propeller governor failed to perform its essential function and he was unable to determine the exact amount of overspeed because the tachometer "pegged" at its 3,300 RPM display maximum.

Fredeking had to replace the engine and other components, according to the lawsuit.

Fredekin is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. He is represented by William L. Mundy of Mundy & Associates.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Case number: 3:19-cv-00777

Original article can be found here ➤

March 01, 2016: Aircraft on landing blew out a tire and sustained minor damage. Tri-State Airport (KHTS), Huntington, West Virginia.

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Charleston

Date: 01-MAR-16
Time: 20:55:00Z
Regis#: N567KC
Aircraft Make: PIPER
Aircraft Model: PA46
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Minor
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
State: West Virginia


  1. This will be interesting. Components fail all the time. You cannot predict it.

  2. Moral of the Story: Never work on a plane owned by an attorney.

  3. "Never work on a plane owned by an attorney."
    Lawyers = Toxic Customer/Client.
    Charge the pain-in-the-ass high repair hourly labor rates and top dollar for materials/parts.
    Have very, very clear contracts and engagement letters.
    Fire the lawyer/aircraft owner.

  4. "Never work on a plane owned by an attorney."
    Lawyers = Toxic Customer/Client

    Not only that, but lawyers are directly responsible for why general aviation is out of reach of most as far as ownership. Never mind the sharks were responsible for Cessna ceasing production of light singles like the 152-172-182 for years after 1985 (same with Beechcraft and Piper).

    All because families successfully sued them for the loss of their loved ones in a crash even if the cause was deemed pilot error. This website is only one of many where we continue to see needless crashes by idiots who should have never gotten their ticket in the first place (including those who never HAD a ticket in the first place).

    I have no problems with lawyers in general because everyone needs access to defense representation in a free republic when accused of something or offense representation when we are wronged. That includes businesses and corporations as well. My problem is the ambulance chaser scumbags who feed on the grief of families and pin the blame on the manufacturer, not the moron behind the controls. Usually the result is a settlement out of court because the manufacturer chooses to not go to an even more expensive public trial. This is what hurt Cessna & Co. dearly.