Oh it was YOUR hired mechanic that called the spar attachment a failure? LOL Oh brother. Let that be a lesson to the seller not to allow a buyer to separate the spar attachment hardware on account of every tom dick and harry that wants to get an eddy current inspection done on the premise of that mythical AD proposal that has been pending in excess of a year. Figdeties are gonna fidget. People have absolutely lost their bearings about this wing spar attachment business. Tons of bonehead interactions these days when it comes to it, on an issue that hasn't even been published as an SB, let alone an AD.
What I would have done as a seller is, as the poster above alluded to, take a look at the logs and figure out if the service factor time would have included my Arrow. If the answer is no, I'd tell your relative to take a hike if he insisted on messing with my wing attachments (the eddy current inspection of this area is destructive in nature). No way I let people bring some hired Magoo to go clank around my spar attachment holes. What a mess.
Here's why the seller is bringing in another mechanic. It's likely your mechanic doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd be inclined to dye inspect it now that the hardware has been messed with. There's even the possibility your hired mechanic damaged the attachment in the process of removing the bolts, but now the seller won't have the proof that the damage was induced by the removal, which HAS happened in the past btw. Hopefully for the seller the attachment comes out ok with the dye penetrant and a second look, and he can just eat the cost of the new bolts R/R, and put this behind him.
Worst case, he's in for a new wing (quickest fix, since these are readily available everywhere as a whole unit) around 11 grand with labor more than likely. I'd just as likely repair it (if required) and re-list the airplane to someone else, with the inspection as advertised. But that's me who isn't under financial duress to sell my Arrow; I can't speak for this seller's financial situation.
People do airplane buying hard. I'm not trying to be flippant; I fly with my most precious investment onboard and have just as much a desire for self-preservation as the next guy. But reading these ensnarled anecdotes that resemble a bad faith housing transaction is enough to remind me why I'll probably just keep the damn thing until an easy going buyer comes along, and just float two airplanes at this juncture in my life, than deal with the likes of these "housing-style" buyers. Paying for too many assurances in life that don't exist when buying as-is 50 year old contraptions. Thankfully there are still people like me and
@pigpenracing who prefer simpler transactional dynamics, even if the gallery considers that behavior too risky.
Good luck to both the seller and your relative going forward. Here's the irony of it all: Chances are, based on your relative's out of pocket penalty, he'll actually be less likely to expend on pre-purchase kabuki to the same degree as he did on this one, on the airplane he
actually ends up buying. And he'll likely won't die taking it home. How you like them apples. But I digress.
