I'll throw my thoughts, comments and an experience into the ring.
I wouldn't take my Ford F-350 to a Ferrari mechanic, not that the Ferrari mechanics aren't good guys, but they just don't know my F-350. So why take your E-A/B Humdinger 3000 to a mechanic at Big City Jetport FBO? You get the idea. Ask and discuss before having an unknown mechanic work on your plane.
I'm an A&P who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I think I get this.
I have a friend who owns a RV-4, very popular kit, shouldn't be a problem for any average GA mechanic. He took it to a local GA shop and dropped it off for an annual (oh cr*p I mean a condition inspection). A few weeks go by, the phone call comes, we have issues. Some are obvious, he says fix it, others squawks require further work/investigation. A few more weeks, they give him the full list, the estimate is something like $10,000+ to finish the airplane. The arguments start, he says no to some items, they say must fix to sign off the inspection (wrong), feelings get hurt, bad words, etc. Now I get the call, what to do he asks. I tell him to have all work stopped, assemble the aircraft and sign off the condition inspection with a list of discrepancies, we are coming to get the airplane.
$5,000 later he has an airplane sitting on a ramp with an expired condition inspection and a logbook entry with the squawks. I ferried it home. Here was the problem in my opinion. The mechanic was treating this as a certificated aircraft and either didnt have the knowledge of homebuilts or didn't want to put his name in the book, any case I now had to address this list of discrepancies that were put in the logs, which isn't the correct method either, but I digress.
14 items in all, two of the discrepancies really made me think. First classic was "aircraft not wired IAW AC 43.13-1B". How do I correct this in the log? I'm thinking "aircraft doesn't have to be wired IAW AC43.13-1b". However that basically is saying your wrong I'm right. The other was "fuel tanks not constructed IAW design plans", and they don't have to be!! On the wiring I assume he didn't like the routing and electical tape, the wire itself was aviation grade so were the terminals, so we cleaned up the routing and such. On the tanks he didn't like the the tanks had sloshing compound put over top of the pro-seal and call that "unairworthy". Vans aircraft actually suggested this construction method in the late 80's, but since has changed their methods. In either case the construction method used was approved by the FAA when the airplane got its experiment airworthiness certificate, so it really isn't an issue. I ended up referencing a service bulletin from vans that addressed the sloshing compound and we installed an inline fuel filter to catch any slosh that might ever break free (none had or has since)
In the end we had the airplane back in the air, with a fresh condition inspection, from me, for less than $300 in parts plus the owner did most of the labor.
The lesson to all involved is, if you're the mechanic learn to say "I'm not the guy for this" if it's something you either don't want to or can't do. For the owner of the airplane, stay involved, know your options and don't get bullied into fixing stuff that isn't broke.
I know the mechanic involved, he is a good guy, runs a respectable shop, this situation just got out of control. In the experimental world there is a lot of judgement and opinion what constitutes a condition for safe operation, discuss things early and cut bait if need be.
The other side, as mentioned in other posts, is sometimes a mechanic just plain doesn't want to work on something that he/she has to put their name to in a logbook. In that case a simple no thank you for the work will suffice, not snide comments about death traps.
Blue side up....... Sometimes,
Russell