NEVER, NEVER, NEVER buy an aircraft without a prebuy done by a mechanic with NO ties to the aircraft or owner; on my purchase of a Commander 114 the prebuy showed cam and lifter spalling which necessitated an engine overhaul; the seller and I worked a compromise on the purchase price and I bought the plane...
Even the annual inspections done by the sellers can be pretty shoddy. Must’ve been one of those annual inspection with a sale deal, but we did a pre-buy on a T182T and we can tell a lot of the work was rushed, up to including the gascolator being filled with crud.
I worked for an airplane company in TX years ago. We formed a 'club' so employees could have a small plane to learn to fly in, as our inspector was also a licensed instructor. The plane was a 1947 Aeronca Champ and the plane seemed to be in good condition. The log said it had only been a few hours since a 'chrome major'. After a number of sort flights, with everything operating as advertised, the plan suddenly decided it wouldn't reach runup speed, so we decided to have our A&P mechanic check it out. After a brief compression check failure, he pulled the engine out and split the cases. The inside of the little 4 cylinder Continental engine had been painted with 'red lead' and the cylinders were indeed NOT chromed. We decided to absorb our losses and donate the entire plane to the adjacent tech school. They were happy to get the little plane and proceeded to completely rebuild it into a Citabria. Don't believe the logbook.
I reccomemd going to see plane yourself...for visual inspection. A lot can be told by seeing it before spending 1000+ on prebuy. Very Easy to check cables, airframe, engine, prop, spark plugs, avionics, wheels, filters, hoses brakes, even borescope is simple and cheap, etc. If your bit mechanical inclined....u can find a lot yourself. Before wasting 1000 bucks or more. Also Talk to and visit shop who did annual. You can tell lot by seeing shop and talking to them.
I strongly disagree that the duty of a mechanic lies strictly with the previous owner. His duty primarily resides with the FAA in assurance of aircraft airworthiness entrusted in him by his license and issuance of his certificate. Now the question of proving that failures took place brfore, not after his annual sign-off signature was slapped on the log book lies with expert witnesses (such as Lycoming mechanics and/or engineers) that the new owner will probably have to hire to make a case.
You’re confusing duty to be a good mechanic with legal obligations to clients. Both exist, but are different. He did wrong by the FAA and everyone, and he also did wrong by the plane owner, his client. Two different wrongs with two different scopes and remedies.
I agree. The purpose of the rules is to protect the public. The Feds did not write part 43, and appendix 'd', to benefit aircraft owners. Like somebody else said, the question is whether or not the problems existed at the time of the annual. In this case, it seems pretty clear that they did. I'm an A&P/IA. Shoddy annuals should have repercussions. I try to be thorough. Owners are sometimes resistant. The problem is the prior annuals. Pencil whipped...or full of "we'll take a look at that next year", year after year. Which are pretty close to the same thing. The mechanic's duty is to whoever flies in that aircraft, or buys it, or is going about life under it when it flies over. His job is not to please the current owner..worry about that after the more important requirements. Squawk lists might hurt their feelings.
What is the purpose of mechanic/shop having a license or certified to work on aircraft, if the shop/mechanic can pencil whip maintenance and be legal free? Perhaps, I am expecting that if a shop is certified to do anything that there are checks and balances to insure proper work is performed based on those certifications. In my opinion the certification held by mechanic or shop supersedes "duty" held to customer. The "duty" to the certification should be held at the highest standard regardless who or how a shop is hired. The buyer has the responsibility or option to seek a neutral shop for pre-buy inspection, but the seller or buyer goes to a certified shop for an annual, as in this case, the shop should be held responsible at least to the standard of the certification held. Meaning, if an annual was done then all standards shall be enforced of such annual, and if not the shop should be responsible with possible loosing their certification for the botched job. @Erinchillmusic Nicely said!
Me again...after thinking about it I chose to reply to my own comment and wanting to read my own typed words more than it need to be said. When a buyer cannot spend the money for appropriate inspections, or needs to buy now and not later should not be buying a plane. I want to get my PPL and one day own my own plane, so getting this information now before a plane purchase is critical to my or anyone's future purchase; or not to purchase. Looking for a cheap quick buy? You could find an expensive cheap ride!
A 1974 annual with NO squawks 🤔. Should have been the first clue at that point. Not saying they will always have airworthy squawks, but absolutely nothing wrong with the aircraft is a pretty far stretch. We dealt with a sale out of Texas with a rushed annual included in the sale- wonder if they are the same shop as this case. If an airworthy issue is found on a pre buy, it’s still the PIC’s decision to take it or not. A prebuy isn’t a determination of airworthiness in terms of any sign off. Sure, you may find things you would consider airworthy but your not signing a inspection logbook entry.
When this sort of stuff happens with a car purchase - you pull over and call Uber. When this happens with an airplane, you assume glide angle BRICK and crash, someone will call a whole lot of people - fire trucks, ambulances, FAA, etc. Not a good situation to be placed in as a buyer - do a pre-buy and don't fall in love with a plane.
I've enjoyed Mike's presentations for several years, but I'm going to have to disagree with his stance that reporting this shop to the FAA/FSDO is 'ratting' the shop out. The evidence presented by the engine and the condition of the cables are clearly something that had been developing over time and were not recent developments. If the shop was willing to do this on this aircraft, it calls into question every aircraft this shop was inspecting. Whether or not the FAA/local FSDO would choose to follow up is a separate matter, but the report would be on file should there be other issues related to this shop that came to the FSDO's attention. You can't complain about the FAA never doing anything about poor shops/incompetent IA/A&P if in the next breath you equate reporting such shops as 'ratting' them out. As far as the civil suit goes/insurance settlement, an FAA investigation (better yet a finding) would strengthen the case, not weaken it. Implying that the best option was to "keep it between the boys" still astonishes me.
I like the way you are thinking. IMO, this is criminal negligence. Have my A&P since 1980, did a strut changeout on a Piper and when I looked at the log book it said that the AD was no longer needed since the previous owner "took care of that" - NO HE DIDN"T! This is scary stuff - put his son, his CFI and himself in danger [unintentional]. It would take so long to investigate the shop and the mechanic - I'm not sure if this is even worth pursuing. The Piper is in a hanger and the plane next to it hasn't been flown for over 20 years! Need to keep that in mind.
Same could be said about some pilots, spent several hours on an airline job that could have been cut down to less than an hour had the pilot not stood there and literally told me “not my job” when I needed assistance running a test. All while passengers are waiting.
My mechanic did the prebuy on the plane I purchased 15 years ago. Best investment I made was the prebuy.
My first comment ever. But I have to say that Mike is the Dave Ramsey of aviation maintenance.
BS step 7 now. Saving for a plane.
Hunting for my first buy.... This was great and informative! Will be contacting you guys soon (hopefully) for the prebuy inspection.
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER buy an aircraft without a prebuy done by a mechanic with NO ties to the aircraft or owner; on my purchase of a Commander 114 the prebuy showed cam and lifter spalling which necessitated an engine overhaul; the seller and I worked a compromise on the purchase price and I bought the plane...
Even the annual inspections done by the sellers can be pretty shoddy. Must’ve been one of those annual inspection with a sale deal, but we did a pre-buy on a T182T and we can tell a lot of the work was rushed, up to including the gascolator being filled with crud.
Thank you for this excellent presentation.
Do you have a list of IA in South Florida who offer owner assisted annuals?
I worked for an airplane company in TX years ago. We formed a 'club' so employees could have a small plane to learn to fly in, as our inspector was also a licensed instructor. The plane was a 1947 Aeronca Champ and the plane seemed to be in good condition. The log said it had only been a few hours since a 'chrome major'. After a number of sort flights, with everything operating as advertised, the plan suddenly decided it wouldn't reach runup speed, so we decided to have our A&P mechanic check it out. After a brief compression check failure, he pulled the engine out and split the cases. The inside of the little 4 cylinder Continental engine had been painted with 'red lead' and the cylinders were indeed NOT chromed. We decided to absorb our losses and donate the entire plane to the adjacent tech school. They were happy to get the little plane and proceeded to completely rebuild it into a Citabria. Don't believe the logbook.
I reccomemd going to see plane yourself...for visual inspection. A lot can be told by seeing it before spending 1000+ on prebuy. Very Easy to check cables, airframe, engine, prop, spark plugs, avionics, wheels, filters, hoses brakes, even borescope is simple and cheap, etc. If your bit mechanical inclined....u can find a lot yourself. Before wasting 1000 bucks or more. Also Talk to and visit shop who did annual. You can tell lot by seeing shop and talking to them.
I strongly disagree that the duty of a mechanic lies strictly with the previous owner. His duty primarily resides with the FAA in assurance of aircraft airworthiness entrusted in him by his license and issuance of his certificate. Now the question of proving that failures took place brfore, not after his annual sign-off signature was slapped on the log book lies with expert witnesses (such as Lycoming mechanics and/or engineers) that the new owner will probably have to hire to make a case.
Exactly, duty of care is not just to who pays you. Not in the common law system. Dan should go to a lawyer and see what can be done.
You’re confusing duty to be a good mechanic with legal obligations to clients. Both exist, but are different.
He did wrong by the FAA and everyone, and he also did wrong by the plane owner, his client. Two different wrongs with two different scopes and remedies.
I agree. The purpose of the rules is to protect the public.
The Feds did not write part 43, and appendix 'd', to benefit aircraft owners.
Like somebody else said, the question is whether or not the problems existed at the time of the annual.
In this case, it seems pretty clear that they did.
I'm an A&P/IA. Shoddy annuals should have repercussions. I try to be thorough. Owners are sometimes resistant. The problem is the prior annuals. Pencil whipped...or full of "we'll take a look at that next year", year after year. Which are pretty close to the same thing.
The mechanic's duty is to whoever flies in that aircraft, or buys it, or is going about life under it when it flies over. His job is not to please the current owner..worry about that after the more important requirements. Squawk lists might hurt their feelings.
What is the purpose of mechanic/shop having a license or certified to work on aircraft, if the shop/mechanic can pencil whip maintenance and be legal free?
Perhaps, I am expecting that if a shop is certified to do anything that there are checks and balances to insure proper work is performed based on those certifications.
In my opinion the certification held by mechanic or shop supersedes "duty" held to customer. The "duty" to the certification should be held at the highest standard regardless who or how a shop is hired.
The buyer has the responsibility or option to seek a neutral shop for pre-buy inspection, but the seller or buyer goes to a certified shop for an annual, as in this case, the shop should be held responsible at least to the standard of the certification held. Meaning, if an annual was done then all standards shall be enforced of such annual, and if not the shop should be responsible with possible loosing their certification for the botched job.
@Erinchillmusic Nicely said!
Me again...after thinking about it I chose to reply to my own comment and wanting to read my own typed words more than it need to be said.
When a buyer cannot spend the money for appropriate inspections, or needs to buy now and not later should not be buying a plane. I want to get my PPL and one day own my own plane, so getting this information now before a plane purchase is critical to my or anyone's future purchase; or not to purchase.
Looking for a cheap quick buy? You could find an expensive cheap ride!
A 1974 annual with NO squawks 🤔. Should have been the first clue at that point. Not saying they will always have airworthy squawks, but absolutely nothing wrong with the aircraft is a pretty far stretch.
We dealt with a sale out of Texas with a rushed annual included in the sale- wonder if they are the same shop as this case.
If an airworthy issue is found on a pre buy, it’s still the PIC’s decision to take it or not. A prebuy isn’t a determination of airworthiness in terms of any sign off. Sure, you may find things you would consider airworthy but your not signing a inspection logbook entry.
When this sort of stuff happens with a car purchase - you pull over and call Uber. When this happens with an airplane, you assume glide angle BRICK and crash, someone will call a whole lot of people - fire trucks, ambulances, FAA, etc. Not a good situation to be placed in as a buyer - do a pre-buy and don't fall in love with a plane.
I've enjoyed Mike's presentations for several years, but I'm going to have to disagree with his stance that reporting this shop to the FAA/FSDO is 'ratting' the shop out. The evidence presented by the engine and the condition of the cables are clearly something that had been developing over time and were not recent developments. If the shop was willing to do this on this aircraft, it calls into question every aircraft this shop was inspecting. Whether or not the FAA/local FSDO would choose to follow up is a separate matter, but the report would be on file should there be other issues related to this shop that came to the FSDO's attention. You can't complain about the FAA never doing anything about poor shops/incompetent IA/A&P if in the next breath you equate reporting such shops as 'ratting' them out.
As far as the civil suit goes/insurance settlement, an FAA investigation (better yet a finding) would strengthen the case, not weaken it.
Implying that the best option was to "keep it between the boys" still astonishes me.
take the sale out for a second. An A&P did an annual inspection. the annual inspection was obviously bogus. The FAA doesnt care?
I like the way you are thinking. IMO, this is criminal negligence. Have my A&P since 1980, did a strut changeout on a Piper and when I looked at the log book it said that the AD was no longer needed since the previous owner "took care of that" - NO HE DIDN"T! This is scary stuff - put his son, his CFI and himself in danger [unintentional]. It would take so long to investigate the shop and the mechanic - I'm not sure if this is even worth pursuing. The Piper is in a hanger and the plane next to it hasn't been flown for over 20 years! Need to keep that in mind.
nothing but back scratching between the shop and seller. Absolutely horrid.
I wish mechanics are more polite.
Same could be said about some pilots, spent several hours on an airline job that could have been cut down to less than an hour had the pilot not stood there and literally told me “not my job” when I needed assistance running a test. All while passengers are waiting.