advice for handling A&P shop

[Pinecone]

Fact is there is no such thing as a "pre-buy" inspection, it's a made up thing. There is no regulatory guidance or stated procedures as to what it is supposed to encompass and in most cases it's nothing more than a short conversation between the prospective buyer and whoever he choses to do the look-see. In the OP's scenario what should have been done is an annual (or in this case conditional) inspection with an agreement between the parties that if passed the sale is made. Even if it does not pass there is still a logbook entry with a signature, the inspection is complete and not due for another calendar year and a list of discrepancies exists which the two parties can negotiate over.

I know this doesn't help the OP but people need to get this whole pre-buy nonsense out of their heads or at least understand that this entire concept of buying a machine like this (sight unseen) is a crapshoot and be prepared for the possible consequences.

To the OP: sorry, I don't mean to be harsh on you personally. You should have been told this beforehand. My only advice now is follow Bell206's advice - get it out of that shop, lick your wounds and regroup.

Why should I have paid for an annual that benefits the seller if I don't buy?????????????

I agree that a pre-buy should cover much of the same things, but it should not be an annual. The annual includes things like lubrication of things and checking and adjusting things that don't need to be part of a pre-buy.

But even then, there can be issues. There is a report floating around here about a guy who had the shop do a pre-buy, based on doing the annual inspection inspections, such that if he purchased the plane, they would finish the annual doing the lubing and adjusting that is part of it. They did the "inspection", gave the plane a clean bill of health, he bought it, THEN they found major corrosion.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

I feel badly for @traumamed , but that's just how it goes. The situation could have been the exact same had he gone and inspected it himself.

Buying sight unseen while at the same time asking for an optional upgrade on the other side of the country will throw enough bait in the water such that if there does happen to be someone on the other end who is less than honest they will absolutely see this for what it is. An opportunity for the less than honest.

For somebody who is a longtime lurker, there is enough collective information in these forums to clearly establish this was a bad idea from the start.

It is what it is. Any possible lesson take-away will almost certainly not be the same for each reader of the thread.

 

[Bell206]

The fact this post is about an E/AB aircraft adds another level to this discussion with minimal comparison to the TC world. And while prebuys have their place the one person that should be involved is the person or mechanic that will maintain that aircraft after the purchase as its their subjective opinion that will matter. Or buy at a level where a prebuy is not needed. Regardless there has to be a point where the OP begins to learn from this adventure and move on.

 

[steingar]

Buying remote is difficult, though not impossible. There just has to be someone in the mix who the buyer knows and trusts.

 

[Silvaire]

Why should I have paid for an annual that benefits the seller if I don't buy?????????????

If the inspection is signed off as unairworthy you're off the hook. You can negotiate over the discrepancies or the owner can rectify them but you don't get to the point of an agreement like this with a wishy-washy attitude that despite the aircraft passing the annual inspection you've changed your mind and decided not to buy it. The seller does not enter into an agreement such as this without a guarantee that having put everything on hold and turning away other offers the sale will happen if the terms are met.

As for the notion that the inspection might not be thorough or miss something - that's an entirely different subject. An annual inspection is just that and it is entered and signed in the logbook. A pre-buy inspection is nothing.

 

[Kristin]

One of the most persistent, and damaging, propaganda put out on the internet about buying airplanes to have an annual inspection done -- or conditional in the case of an experimental -- prior to buying the plane. The notion is complete bunk when it comes to complex aircraft and mostly bunk when it comes to common, simple aircraft. In the former it completely misses the point and in the later is pretty much just overkill and hence a great waste of money. The annual is a snapshot of whether a plane is at least minimally airworthy at that moment. For a run of the mill Archer or C-172, not too much more is needed, beyond making sure that the AD's have been complied with.

A complex, or even more so, a vintage complex aircraft, needs more. A proper pre-purchase inspection becomes more involved as the aircraft becomes more complex. The more vintage it is, the more a specialist in the type is needed. Not just any mechanic, is going to be able to guide a buyer when purchasing something like a vintage Bonanza, Navion, Comanche, etc. The pre-purchase process there should be forward looking, focusing on the costs and risks of buying a particular plane.

That there is no standard definition of a pre-buy inspection is a red herring. There can't be a standard as anything forward looking is about risk and whether the plane will meet the needs of the prospective buyer. The pre-purchase process needs to be, but rarely is, a collaborative process between someone who knows the type of aircraft being looked well enough to be able to forecast what maintenance issues are likely to arise in the future, etc.

While no inspection will catch everything, having some random mechanic perform a putative pre-buy inspection, is a recipe for disappointment in anything other than a simple, common aircraft that the mechanic is well familiar. When it comes to complex aircraft, most mechanics have no experience owning and operating the type of aircraft in question, or maybe any aircraft at all. If the mechanic doesn't know what a buyer needs to know from personal experience, and doesn't know what the operating issues are with a particular make and model. Looking over the aircraft for obvious deficiencies likely low compression or leaking fuel tanks, and the like items may be enough for a Piper Warrior, the more complex the aircraft, the more complex the pre-purchase process should be. Buyers that do their homework on a particular type will find out some of the background and probably find out who knows enough about the type to assist them in finding a good one. It is an investment of time and money upfront, but one that pays off for buyers in the long run.

 

[Pinecone]

Good advice, but sort of DUH.

Of course, you should involve someone who is very experienced and knowledgeable about your particular Make and even Model. But even then, things can go wrong. Reference the thread here about the botched pre-buy by a Mooney Service Center missing significant corrosion in a location they should have known to look.

 

[kyleb]

Good advice, but sort of DUH.

Of course, you should involve someone who is very experienced and knowledgeable about your particular Make and even Model. But even then, things can go wrong. Reference the thread here about the botched pre-buy by a Mooney Service Center missing significant corrosion in a location they should have known to look.

Seems to me the way to go would be to research the type you're interested in, identify as many trouble spots as possible, then work with (i.e. pay) a type expert to establish a list of things to examine on the pre-buy. If the expert shop can't do the the pre-buy, mandate that the shop you select will inspect, measure, whatever all of the items on your list AND send you pictures, measurements, expiration dates, etc. of said items. That severely limits the opportunity to completely pencil whip it.

 

[kmacht]

I’m curious. Since this is an experimental airplane and the A&P is doing a condition inspection and not an annual inspection what happens after it is signed off as unairworthy? Since the owner can do maintenance and repairs themselves on an experimental (even without the repairman’s certificate) can they fix the issues, document the repairs in the logbook as addressing the airworthiness concern and go fly again or does it need to be brought back to an A&P to sign off another conditional inspection first?

 

[Bell206]

what happens after it is signed off as unairworthy?

No requirement to sign off "unairworthy." Only write up needed on most E/AB is "condition for safe operation." Part 43 doesnt apply. So for the OP he could pick up his aircraft and simply look for another person to sign off that requirement. There are a lot of unknowns with this thread.

 

[Dana]

I’m curious. Since this is an experimental airplane and the A&P is doing a condition inspection and not an annual inspection what happens after it is signed off as unairworthy? Since the owner can do maintenance and repairs themselves on an experimental (even without the repairman’s certificate) can they fix the issues, document the repairs in the logbook as addressing the airworthiness concern and go fly again or does it need to be brought back to an A&P to sign off another conditional inspection first?

It needs another inspection. Unlike an annual inspection, a condition inspection cannot be signed off with discrepancies to be fixed afterward. The aircraft is either "in condition for safe flight" and the A&P signs it off as such, or it isn't, in which case he records what work, if any, he did during the inspection. Once the necessary work is done, another inspection is required (though it may well be a quicker inspection if it's the same A&P).

 

[Magman]

Comments?

I’ve done PB’s where Buyer #1 paid for the service but decided to pass on buying.

Later the Seller refers Buyers 2,3 and 4 to me for the results of the

survey/inspection. Free of course since I had already been paid.

My take is the Check was done per instructions of #1 and the results are his/ hers

to do with as they see fit.

Those later at the table seem to feel that explanations are gratis as well.

There is some amount of financial liability here as to what the scope of the PB

was and what they think it should have been.

Thoughts?

 

[Hang 4]

@Magman agree with your thoughts. As a buyer, I wouldn’t trust a PB that I didn’t pay for. I might ask for a discount on subsequent ones for hands on time, but would expect to pay for your time interpreting results and for your advice.

 

[traumamed]

I've been telling the potential buyers of my aircraft that:
All in all, I think it's actually OK. @traumamed is just out some money. I think about taking off in a new type in which the OP may not have experience, now taking off in a new type with some wicked build flaws, it sounds really dangerous. @traumamed can always make more money. We can't make a new @traumamed. Aviation is really unforgiving of mistakes. Better all this happened on the ground.

This. A couple of weeks ago, I went out there to do an in-person evaluation of what was going on. Jaws in the shop hit the floor when I walked in - they definitely did not expect to see me. Miraculously, the plane would now magically be ready the next day, so I called a local CFI who I had been planning to hire to help me get acclimated to the plane. Lucky for me, he also had availability the next day.

As it turned out, the next day is when things went from just happening on the ground to happening in the air. Every single repair that shop did, well they didn't do, or didn't do very well. We lost coms shortly after takeoff. They had done some work on the trim system, and we had trim issues, which made for a couple of interesting moments. Then, we had to guess at throttle and prop settings because the MP and tach suddenly started giving erroneous readings. We made a precautionary landing at a nearby field the CFI was familiar with, and on landing, one of the brakes failed. Fortunately, we did not have a runway excursion.

I made some connections at the new field, and an A&P there has confidence he can get the plane fixed up and safe pretty quickly. He also advised that I may want to consider contacting an attorney and has asked my permission (as a courtesy to me) if I'd be okay with him reporting the first shop to the FAA based on what he sees documented in the logbooks vs what he found on the plane. I really don't want to go either of those routes, but we'll see. For that reason, I should probably refrain from discussing this much more in a public forum until I have a resolution. Shop #1 is aware of what happened and the discrepancies between what they put in my logbooks vs what was found, and somewhat to their credit, they have been very contrite - but it's all lip service so far.

At the end of the day though, the money side of it feels kind of trivial considering what could have happened if my CFI and I had run off a runway at 90 kts.

Ultimately I will be moving away from this plane, it just isn't for me anymore after all of this. My experiment with experimentals is officially over. So in happier news, I picked up a nice, predictable, docile, albeit slower, but *certified* Arrow II. And yes, I saw this one in-person first. I have actually been flying it for a long time, I am very familiar with its history, its quirks, etc. The owner had been hemming and hawing about selling it for awhile and I talked him into letting it go. Queue the thread I'll probably start soon asking about whether to fix the old Autocontrol IIIb vs throw in a GFC-500, lol. Once I get some money back out of the experimental nightmare sitting on a tarmac out west, that is.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

I'll probably start soon asking about whether to fix the old Autocontrol IIIb vs throw in a GFC-500

You may be surprised at the level of experience and advice you would get if you post the entire panel and ask for comprehensive suggestions in advance of an avionics upgrade.