Enforce logbook entry

  • Thread starter Questions on Prop strike
  • Start date
Q

Questions on Prop strike

Guest
Guy at my local field hit a pole. Propeller is only a little damaged but the RPM did reduce. He is saying that he'll get the prop dressed and sell airplane and not make entry in book (experimental). Is there a way to enforce this? I see this as a safety issue for the next owner who has no idea what he's buying into.
 
Questions on Prop strike said:
Guy at my local field hit a pole. Propeller is only a little damaged but the RPM did reduce. He is saying that he'll get the prop dressed and sell airplane and not make entry in book (experimental). Is there a way to enforce this? I see this as a safety issue for the next owner who has no idea what he's buying into.
Click to expand...

Rat him out. Tell him if he sells it you will find the new owner, tell him, and be a witness when he takes his lowlife, lyin azz to court
 
I think Wings knows how to handle it.

Don't buy the plane, STFU, and...

 
Questions on Prop strike said:
Guy at my local field hit a pole. Propeller is only a little damaged but the RPM did reduce. He is saying that he'll get the prop dressed and sell airplane and not make entry in book (experimental). Is there a way to enforce this? I see this as a safety issue for the next owner who has no idea what he's buying into.
Click to expand...

Skipping the moral aspect. From a legal:
What are the rules in experimental? I do not know the log requirements in experimental; but I know that experimental logging requirements are a lot looser. I just do not know how much looser.

Tim
 
If "he'll get the prop dressed" means that someone else will do it, then there will be a record, even if it's not in the airplane logs. I q-tipped a prop (still have it!); the mechanic put on a replacement, signed it off as good (no crank runout), then I flew it back to home base for a complete TDI anyway.
 
tspear said:
What are the rules in experimental?
Click to expand...
You have to log the condition inspections and that you completed phase 1. Period.

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION
43.1 (b) This part does not apply to—
(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;

Thus, 43.9 Maintenance record entries, and 43.12 Maintenance records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration do not apply.

The original builder of my ride recorded only the condition inspections - nothing else. I do know that there were, at some point, some significant repairs that are not in the books.

As far as the the original post goes, there is no requirement to log the prop strike or repair.

Personally, while I dutifully record all maintenance and alterations just because I think it is an appropriate thing to do, I generally consider log books for any aircraft (experimental or type certificated) to be a work of historical fiction at best.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Sort of like standing by and watching an assault take place when you could intervene and put and end to it because it's not you being assaulted?

You sound like an absolute gem of a human.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing!
 
EdFred said:
Sort of like standing by and watching an assault take place when you could intervene and put and end to it because it's not you being assaulted?

You sound like an absolute gem of a human.
Click to expand...

So do you hang out at the local car lot? I mean, hey, if one of your neighbors trades in his car with some hidden damage, maybe you want to warn the potential buyers?

:eek:

Oh, the assault analogy? LOL :rolleyes:
 
[QUOTEI "Doc Holliday, post: 2770878, member: 29601"]So do you hang out at the local car lot? I mean, hey, if one of your neighbors trades in his car with some hidden damage, maybe you want to warn the potential buyers?

:eek:

Oh, the assault analogy? LOL :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Well i am a highly expeeienced body-man, I see plenty of clean cars for sale without damage history. But on flip side i have also done plenty of repairs off books, as far as clipping, and no damage history, im just an hourly employee working under the table, I was taught old ways, and will rebuild any vehicle, as long as its SAFE! I turned down 2 this year, as couldnt do repairs and be safe, and owners refused to spend money to replace severly rusted suspension components. But also I have seen it all in automotive and motorcycle world, the good, bad, ugly. Seen engines "restamped" i have seen engines with part cut away to rebuild, to change bearing styles to make engine correct to correspond to new numbers on case. No matter what people think, there is always people working around the rules. Then there is the govt saying when a car is rebuilt, it needs to meet current laws, but its mainly to tax owner instead of say a 1965 vehicle, they want it now reconstructed 2019 vehicle, if the feds would go 1 time to Barret Jackson, start pulling titles, it may shake up industry. My last body gig, I built around 10 vehicles that went through Barret Jackson auctions.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So do you hang out at the local car lot? I mean, hey, if one of your neighbors trades in his car with some hidden damage, maybe you want to warn the potential buyers?

:eek:

Oh, the assault analogy? LOL :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I dont knowingly associate with people who are inclined to do such things so you may as well ask me when I stopped beating my wife.
 
:rolleyes:
old_biker said:
[QUOTEI "Doc Holliday, post: 2770878, member: 29601"]So do you hang out at the local car lot? I mean, hey, if one of your neighbors trades in his car with some hidden damage, maybe you want to warn the potential buyers?

:eek:

Oh, the assault analogy? LOL :rolleyes:

Well i am a highly expeeienced body-man, I see plenty of clean cars for sale without damage history. But on flip side i have also done plenty of repairs off books, as far as clipping, and no damage history, im just an hourly employee working under the table, I was taught old ways, and will rebuild any vehicle, as long as its SAFE! I turned down 2 this year, as couldnt do repairs and be safe, and owners refused to spend money to replace severly rusted suspension components. But also I have seen it all in automotive and motorcycle world, the good, bad, ugly. Seen engines "restamped" i have seen engines with part cut away to rebuild, to change bearing styles to make engine correct to correspond to new numbers on case. No matter what people think, there is always people working around the rules. Then there is the govt saying when a car is rebuilt, it needs to meet current laws, but its mainly to tax owner instead of say a 1965 vehicle, they want it now reconstructed 2019 vehicle, if the feds would go 1 time to Barret Jackson, start pulling titles, it may shake up industry. My last body gig, I built around 10 vehicles that went through Barret Jackson auctions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Anything used is buyer beware, and potential buyers need to use their resources to make sure what they are buying is up to their expectations.

I wonder how many guys show up at BJ to warn potential buyers of these problem cars? :rolleyes:
 
tspear said:
Skipping the moral aspect. From a legal:
What are the rules in experimental? I do not know the log requirements in experimental; but I know that experimental logging requirements are a lot looser. I just do not know how much looser.

Tim
Click to expand...
This one sounds like it is less about FAA logging requirements than state law disclosure/misrepresentation issues (and those vary state by state).
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You have to log the condition inspections and that you completed phase 1. Period.

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION
43.1 (b) This part does not apply to—
(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;

Thus, 43.9 Maintenance record entries, and 43.12 Maintenance records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration do not apply.

The original builder of my ride recorded only the condition inspections - nothing else. I do know that there were, at some point, some significant repairs that are not in the books.

As far as the the original post goes, there is no requirement to log the prop strike or repair.

Personally, while I dutifully record all maintenance and alterations just because I think it is an appropriate thing to do, I generally consider log books for any aircraft (experimental or type certificated) to be a work of historical fiction at best.
Click to expand...

So then, what about the various provisions of Part 91 Subpart E?
 
Perhaps the owner is deciding to experiment with the durability of engines which had a forced RPM issue?

Still, a new owner deserves to know. It’s very material to how he wants to fly his experimental.
 
So once again we have an anonymous poster writing about something that is one sided and dubious at best. And now we have forum members ready to go for the jugular of this perceived wrong.

Recently we had a new poster, using his first forum post to smear and libel a DPE using what was a dubious story. Many forum members jumped in and piled on, with some posting the DPE’s name. This DPE has his named maligned and smeared and his reputation tarnished over an unverified story. And oh, BTW, this is a respected DPE.

The OP story here is dubious, and there is more to it than he wants you to know.

Go ahead, feed into it, that’s the reaction the OP is looking for.

Oh, and here’s something to look up, Tortious interference.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So once again we have an anonymous poster writing about something that is one sided and dubious at best. And now we have forum members ready to go for the jugular of this perceived wrong.

Recently we had a new poster, using his first forum post to smear and libel a DPE using what was a dubious story. Many forum members jumped in and piled on, with some posting the DPE’s name. This DPE has his named maligned and smeared and his reputation tarnished over an unverified story. And oh, BTW, this is a respected DPE.

The OP story here is dubious, and there is more to it than he wants you to know.

Go ahead, feed into it, that’s the reaction the OP is looking for.

Oh, and here’s something to look up, Tortious interference.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's YOUR reaction I'm he's looking for knowing how predictable you are. "Every poster is a liar and full of crap." Well, if it's every poster...

I also like how you were at he field in question, and the check ride in question to know all the facts.

At least some of us are willing to put our names behind what we say instead of just being some anonymous blowhard.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So once again we have an anonymous poster writing about something that is one sided and dubious at best.
Click to expand...
Is "Doc Holliday" your real name, or are you an anonymous poster complaining about anonymous posters?

...Recently we had a new poster, using his first forum post to smear and libel a DPE using what was a dubious story. Many forum members jumped in and piled on, with some posting the DPE’s name. This DPE has his named maligned and smeared and his reputation tarnished over an unverified story. And oh, BTW, this is a respected DPE....

Oh, and here’s something to look up, Tortious interference.
Click to expand...

The name of the suspect in this thread has not been posted.
 
@Doc Holliday

I agree with you far more often than I disagree with you. You have a better understanding of how aviation works or is supposed to work than do many on here. The DPE thread you mentioned is a good case in point. The op and responding masses were way out of line.

However I disagree with you on this one. I believe if someone is selling a plane with a known to him safety issue but does not disclose it to the buyer that a third party in the know has a moral obligation to step forward. Caveat emptor has no place in this industry. The risks are simply too high.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So then, what about the various provisions of Part 91 Subpart E?
Click to expand...
Which ones?

The annual doesn't apply to experimentals; 91.409(c)(1) says so in coordination with 43.1(b). But that a condition inspection substitutes for the annual, doesn't mean, for example, that an experimental may fly IFR without meeting the altimeter/pitot-static tests required by 91.411.

And check out 91.327 - the regulatory operating limitations for experimentals. Although 43.1 does not apply generally to experimentals, notice that 91.327(b)(7) incorprates the recordkeeping requirements in 43.9(d). A
 
1RTK1 said:
That would be really F’d up to not disclose a prop strike to the potential buyer. Wonder if he would feel bad if the engine grenaded and the new owner died.
Click to expand...
Setting aside for a moment the morality of whether a 3rd party should step in to the transaction or not, suppose the engine did grenade and the new owner did die in the ensuing accident. Could the cause of the failure be traced back to the prop strike? And would the seller be liable for it? If so, what would be the penalty?
 
SkyDog58 said:
@Doc Holliday

I agree with you far more often than I disagree with you. You have a better understanding of how aviation works or is supposed to work than do many on here. The DPE thread you mentioned is a good case in point. The op and responding masses were way out of line.

However I disagree with you on this one. I believe if someone is selling a plane with a known to him safety issue but does not disclose it to the buyer that a third party in the know has a moral obligation to step forward. Caveat emptor has no place in this industry. The risks are simply too high.
Click to expand...

Wow, civility. That’s refreshing to see on this forum. ;)
 
EdFred said:
Or maybe it's YOUR reaction I'm he's looking for knowing how predictable you are. "Every poster is a liar and full of crap." Well, if it's every poster...

I also like how you were at he field in question, and the check ride in question to know all the facts.

At least some of us are willing to put our names behind what we say instead of just being some anonymous blowhard.
Click to expand...

Yep, the “forum tough guy” routine. o_O

So others aren’t allowed to have an opinion that may differ from yours?
 
SkyDog58 said:
You have a better understanding of how aviation works or is supposed to work than do many on here.
Click to expand...
I take it you’ve verified his legitimacy?

No offense - But I have yet to see much credible evidence that he has a better understanding of aviation than many here, other than a slew of boisterous, belittling statements.
 
asicer said:
Setting aside for a moment the morality of whether a 3rd party should step in to the transaction or not, suppose the engine did grenade and the new owner did die in the ensuing accident. Could the cause of the failure be traced back to the prop strike? And would the seller be liable for it? If so, what would be the penalty?
Click to expand...

That would be extremely difficult to litigate. And extremely expensive.
 
asicer said:
Setting as for a moment the morality of whether a 3rd party should step in to the transaction or not, suppose the engine did grenade and the new owner did die in the ensuing accident. Could the cause of the failure be traced back to the prop strike? And would the seller be liable for it? If so, what would be the penalty?
Click to expand...

While I believe all engine stops should be reported, I dont think simple repairs should have to in many examples. I am all for safety, whether or not I believe in bending non safety rules, depending on issues
 
Doc Holliday said:
That would be extremely difficult to litigate. And extremely expensive.
Click to expand...
I would actually disagree.

A simple teardown inspection would reveal that sudden stoppage had occurred in the engines life cycle if it was extensive enough. Would you be able to conclusively prove that the engine failure was a result of that? Maybe - Maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
Yep, the “forum tough guy” routine. o_O

So others aren’t allowed to have an opinion that may differ from yours?
Click to expand...

If you're going to call people out for being anonymous and pound your chest about it, at least own up to it as a non-anonymous person..

No forum tough guy here, people actually know in person who I am.

But since you state things as facts (there's more to the story) please share with us who you are, so it can be corroborated you in fact were there for both cases and KNOW what went on.

Talk about the tough guy routine...at least when I call people out, they know who it is.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top