jkhirsch

It's a Mooney Service Center. Update: Called AOPA legal services on Thursday, took my cell and said they'd return my call, so I'm just waiting on that.

Does anyone have any knowledge of how the process of "totaling" a plane works through the insurance company, and if you can subsequently buy it back from them--similar to autos?

I worked as a Systems Administrator and a Help Desk Manager for the past 6 years, I finished my degree in Finance and Econ last year. I'd love to work on Wall Street at some point, but it's a tough road for a Midwest kid, with a Midwest education. (Always knew I should have gone to William and Mary)

I'm looking for the solution which puts me back into the air fastest, I generally fly more than 150 hours per year so this is a nightmare. The only reason that it's drug on like this is because I have been all over the country since May looking for a full time job. What makes me sick is that '4-8 feet of foil tape and contouring foam to the airfoil' makes the plane safe to fly in the eyes and words of Mooney engineers, but there doesn't seem to be a solution that reflects that. I think the next step is to contact some of these "magic dent removal shops" and see what they have to say.

Here is the update, at this point the airplane might as well be "totaled" take the insurance money and let the son of a bitch rot somewhere just like "the bastards" want...take some more freedom away. I'm going to be in contact with AOPA Pilot Protection Services this afternoon or Monday and try to sort all of this out. I may also forward this quote to Stacey Ellis and see what he thinks about it. Attached is the quote from Muncie Aviation.

Nice paint bad camera: 231AE Edit: I figured that didn't upload right from my phone...

I had to drive because the work isn't done yet, plus I wasn't crazy about renting a car for 3 (now 4) weeks. Eating at the Hangar right now. Looking out at 231AE.

Just thought I would throw it out there that I am on a contract position in Tampa for about 3 more weeks. If anyone wants to get lunch or play tennis or golf or show off your plane or whatever send me a message and we'll see if we can get together. Jeff

Park right in front of the FBO

The plane is currently sitting at Muncie Aviation, I spoke to Don yesterday and should have the quote from them today or tomorrow.

Very, very glad to hear that this is being pursued.

Yeah cheers to the TBM, but I think that's a bit beyond the scope of price/cabin class of what the original 301 was designed to be. I guess for somewhat of clarification, it seems to me that the exact specs delivered on that page are a bit of a white whale and/or a missing link in aviation.

I'll bring a up "stupid question" here. If someone could buy the rights to this design and produce airplanes with the specifications at the bottom of this page (http://www.mooneyevents.com/Mooney301.html) don't you think it would be the "iphone" of general aviation? There would be a strong argument for trying to make it a diesel engine, and I don't think anyone would argue against that, other than the possible additional cost. Even still, the reported fuel burn of 20 gph (avgas) and a full fuel payload of 1000lbs with pressurization and 245kts cruise in the FL, plus a climb of 1400fpm. (or 20 minutes to FL250 ~1250fpm) You are really talking about a white whale here in my opinion. I would even argue that with modern technology that those specs could easily be met, possibly exceeded.

The Aerostar looks terrific, when I opened the thread I didn't realize that's who Brian was. I have heard him mentioned multiple, multiple times for designs. Definitely sorry for him family and those of you who knew him personally.

I would be attending at Indy and would be glad to offer my plane for display--even though it's not much to look at--if it weren't for another little knagging thread.

I didn't know that Donald Sterling was a CBP officer in his spare time.

I saw this this morning while I was junk sciencing it up, regardless of whether or not this is the real deal, it would certainly make more sense--to me--for the plane to be there...

Bored at work...up until now I hadn't put any thought into the Flight 370 deal, but I just did some basic caluclations based on the information I could find. I have heard that the "range" of the 777 that took off from WMKK was "7 hours," at a "typical cruise speed" cruise speed of 490kts would be a range of 3430nm. According to the wikipedia page for Flight 370 the range was 5,300km which translates to only a difference of say.....~568nm! When I started looking around for actual information an not the nonsense that the media presents to us it appears to be actually difficult to find. I'm not calling conspiracy, but it just amazes me in 2014 how little hard facts are actually released to the public. Also just for kicks I threw it on the great circle mapper, and radius around a point to be more "exact" from the last point of contact with ATC. I'm somewhat skeptical of military radar reports. I assumed a 30 minute difference in fuel from the "last ATC contact point." ~245nm. I'm not saying the plane has landed somewhere, but no one has presented any real information on why the "engineers" decided that the plane went south into the middle of nowhere. I do understand they've mapped up satellite pings and whatnot, but I haven't seen any of the science behind it. I think a hidden plane is impossible, unless they somehow got to Africa and literally have no contact with the rest of the world/depressurized the cabin and killed everyone. I mean let's be honest about how a plane flies into the middle of nowhere: Complete electronic failure and the pilots were lost? The pilots were dead, and the plane flew itself there? I just think it's interesting, and I love information, even if it leads to junk science.

Well you've done it Vic! You've made the old F just too fast...you're simply out of trim.

Ok St. Peter, I offered a full explanation of why I never thought the damage was an issue and you either were too lazy to read it, or chose to disregard it so that you could continue trolling. I even said, 'I would be glad for you to question any details in my line of thinking' and you failed to provide a valid response to the post. Also, since you chose to dodge the questions in the previous post that were directed towards you, I'll restate them here: (feel free to answer them all in general or specifically related to this situation) (but please do contribute something, so far you've failed to provide your opinion, criticized the opinions of others, and called me a liar) 1) Do you think CFI who did my insurance check out is an idiot for flying in my plane with me after his pre-flight? 2) Would you ever contacted Mooney directly and have them tell you if your plane is safe, or your mechanic? 3) Do you even acknowledge that Mooney is not a disinterested party? 4) In general, don't you think it would be in the best interest of a mechanic to cover his ass above everything else? 5) Secondarily, don't you think by covering his ass it may also lead to the fattening of his wallet if got to do the work? Wouldn't that be a motivator? 6) Do you think I'm lying by clearly stating that the FAA is taking no action against me and that the inspector told me it was the mechanics responsibility?(which is why they are taking no action against me) 7) In general, do you honestly think Mooney has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to cover their ass? 8) In general, do you honestly believe the FAA has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to keep their jobs?

Yeah, I pretty clearly answered your question on the line of thinking. And no I'm not shifting the blame, that's what the FAA inspector told me.

Pete or Peter, My thought process has been pretty straightforward: (And I'm happy for you to question any part of it, and we can have a discourse about) (Trust me, these are very, very abridged versions of my actual lines of thinking) I bought the airplane from an ATP that lived on the West Coast, he told me about the damage upfront, and that it had been inspected. (Ok I'm skeptical.) The plane was in a partnership with 3 total contributors. (Ok it's cheaper for everyone so they've probably maintained the plane doing everything the right way, to the best of their knowledge) (After all, they ponied up for an STEC-30, why would they shirk a safety issue) I know for a fact that the ATP flew his family (with small children) all over the West Coast in the plane. (Could he be lying about the timeline of the damage sure, assuaging point to follow) He was willing to deliver the plane on a 10-12hr flight, over mountains (and all those extra wind conditions). (I think had the damaged just occurred and they were trying to dump the plane quickly, I don't think an ATP likely would take that risk.) (I was told the reason for selling was that all 3 partners had partnered in [new] different planes) You guys can argue all you want about whether a pre-purchase inspection has value or not, but the FAA inspector told me that to them it's just as valid as an annual, regardless of log entry, they actually requested the work order from my pre-purhase inspection. We agreed to have the pre-purchase inspection done by a mechanic of my choosing, and they were willing to fly the airplane there and make all the logistical arrangements of dealing with that. (Due to distance it was not feasible to have it done anywhere near me.) The pre-purchase inspection report did not even mention the damage. (Wouldn't he have the incentive to cover his ass? i.e. 'hey Jeff it may need some work') (anecdote: the PPI mechanic got concerned because the interior was redone and he couldn't find the paperwork that it was fireproof, and contacted me and told me that he would have to do a burn test) (contacted one of the partners and they were able to provide it) (So I'm thinking the guy is pretty thorough) Once the plane was delivered I had to do an insurance check out with an instructor. During 2 separate pre-flights he never once mentioned, 'Jeff what do you know about this damage.' He was pilot in command, he was responsible for his decision to fly the plane. Do you think he's an idiot too? I had the first cylinder replaced in May/June of last year and the plane was sitting in a large shop's hangar for no less than 30 days with 5-8 different mechanics walking past it everyday and at least 3 different mechanics contributing to the cylinder replacement. (I understand they were not tasked with doing an annual on the plane or an inspection) But everyone's argument seems to be that this damage is SO EGREGIOUS that anyone with eyes should have questioned it. (The FAA spoke with this shop about it.) Later in the summer I had another cylinder replaced by a completely different mechanic because I wanted to be involved in the process to see for myself. Never one was there a mention of the damage and we manually pulled the plane in and out of a small hangar twice, he definitely saw the damage. (He also does sheet-metal work on Blackhawks for the army.) (Again, he wasn't tasked with doing an annual or an inspection, but that didn't stop the FAA from also meeting with him about it.) Immediately after the second cylinder it was time for the annual. I found a mechanic who was recommended by an MS member, and spoke to him. Even though they are not an MSC both the mechanics, and the MS member said they had been doing ton of Mooney work, and one of them is also and ATP in addition to his IA. Never once during the 2-3 weeks they had the plane for the annual did they say, 'hey Jeff what about this damage?' Again, you really need to take some introspective time, if you think that I walked into that shop or any and said, 'hey just get me back in the air ASAP don't sweat details.' From what I understand, you are saying that as a pilot I should not have believed anyone of these professionals who never made mention of it, not to mention the conglomerate effect of none of them mentioning it. Do you expect me to believe that you would have contacted Mooney directly and have them tell you if the plane is safe? Do you even acknowledge that Mooney is not a disinterested party? Don't you think it would be in the best interest of a mechanic to cover his ass first of all? Second of all to maybe line his pockets with the work coming his way? I don't have any problem with you questioning the situation, what I've said here can't possibly provide a full picture of the situation. It would be impossible for to disclose every single event that has taken place and how it has affected my thought process at a given time in the past. What I do have a problem with is your holier-than-thou attitude, I don't come to the boards and assume people are lying. You have made it very clear that you think I'm lying for whatever reason you've concocted in your head. I have no problem publicly disclosing information because I have nothing to hide, and I have done nothing wrong. The bottom line is that the circumstances surrounding the damage have lead me to a reasonable conclusion, which the FAA inspector agrees with: A mechanic should have caught it. The mechanic was responsible, not me. Therefore the FAA is pursuing no action against me at this point in time. Are you so warped in your thinking that you think I would lie about any sanctions brought against me? It is clear that all the mechanics thought it was safe and airworthy at the time because they signed their named to it. (including the holy Don Maxwell) Do you honestly think Mooney has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to cover their ass? I don't, Mooney has every incentive to say that the plane is not airworthy, I don't care how many engineers they had look at the pictures. Do you honestly believe the FAA has your best interest at heart? Or do you think they want to keep their jobs? I don't, the FAA doesn't have any incentive to say my airplane is airworthy. If they go out and find only airworthy planes they risk losing their job. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, they go out looking for problems and they find them.

TO BE CLEAR ONCE AND FOR ALL, NO MECHANIC HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS TO ME, if they had this never would have happened. (And if you think I'm so petty to lie about this on a forum with a bunch of people who I don't know--to make myself look good or whatever you think, you really need to get a life.) 'Jeff I'm not sure about that elevator damage, and those dents on the wings, or that hole or the left wingtip. We'll have to do some research and see if they any of this is an issue. We may need to contact Mooney or a MSC and worst case have to reskin or replace some parts of this to get your plane in order. Also it looks like your data plate has been painted over, it's seems pretty ridiculous that a paint shop did this but they did, do you want me to take some paint thinner to it and see if it cleans right off? If the FAA ever sees that they'll tel you to fix it.' __________ (insert any response here) 'Jeff, to be honest I don't think the plane is not going to fall out of the sky, but if I don't investigate this stuff and tell you what I find out the FAA will come after me.' I also want to be clear that I am not making updates to the thread to start or perpetuate arguments, only to update those interested in "following the story" and those who are just curious, or bored at work. (I know personally I hate reading through a thread and suddenly it ends, and I don't get to hear the rest of the story.) Plus if any of this information helps anyone in the future I'm glad for it.

It's sitting, I don't have the money to write a check and walk away from it right now.

My CPA is an Enrolled Agent, and is directly responsible for my taxes based on the information I provide. I'll quote the FAA inspector here, "if your plane was in that condition when a mechanic had it to inspect and didn't "catch" or "address" these issues he is responsible along with everyone other mechanic who "signed it off" as airworthy." Which is why they are pursuing more than just the mechanic who did the last annual. Again, those aren't my words, those are the words of an FAA inspector.