Just learned my C is junk

[Lood]

Not sure if this is the case in the US, but a valuable lesson that I've learned over here in South Africa, is that a PPI doesn't really mean much.

Although not nearly as severe as this, I have paid a lot of school fees and should I ever again be fortunate enough to buy another airplane, I will take it for a full MPI at the most reputable AME.

PPI's probably differ, depending on who actually does it, but I've found that an MPI will always reveal things that are mostly not picked up during a PPI.

 

Sorry about your setback and good luck.

[ArtVandelay]

Not sure if this is the case in the US, but a valuable lesson that I've learned over here in South Africa, is that a PPI doesn't really mean much.

.

They don't mean much here either, I had a PPI, both landing gear and muffler passed inspection, both needed to be overhauled, which I found out during transition training

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[orionflt]

The problem with a PPI is it is not an in depth inspection, It is a basic or cursory  inspection of major airworthiness items. almost half the time is spent reviewing logbooks for a maintenance history and verifying that all AD have been completed the rest of the time is a general look over the aircraft trying to hit on the known problem areas of that make and model. several panels get pulled but there is no guarantee that it will be the one exposing a bad corrosion area but the thought is that if there is a major corrosion problem it will show up in multiple areas. most PPI take around 5 hours total compared to an annual inspection (32-40 hr) it is not much time to find some of the hidden stuff. I feel bad that you have this problem and I hope we at mooney space can help you find a solution that you can afford that will keep you flying, I will make the recommendation to anyone buying an airplane not to do a PPI but to do an annual.... or set up the that if the initial look passes muster that the inspection continue as an annual. this gives the IA more time to find some of the hidden thing. It may cost you more up front but can potentially save you down the road. that being said it still does not mean that the inspector will catch everything on the first inspection, that is why I recommend having a different IA do your annual once every two years. a fresh set of eyes is always good.

 

Brian

[mike_elliott]

So Sad. I hope for the best for you on this. Good luck

[chrisk]

 I will make the recommendation to anyone buying an airplane not to do a PPI but to do an annual.... or set up the that if the initial look passes muster that the inspection continue as an annual. .

 

+1   It is exactly what I did last time when I bought my M20K.  And it is what I did when I sold my 172.  --I can also tell you, It's nerve racking to send your bird off to an unknown IA.  

[TWinter]

Can't add to much that has not been said. Wish you luck with the repairs ( I think it could be salvaged), but regardless of what you decide I hope you are in the air again soon. It's does put some fear of the unknown for those looking to purchase or trade in the future. Might make some folks think twice knowing what they have is good and the possible hidden issues of our older fleet of available planes on the market. Good luck.

[AmigOne]

Not sure if this is the case in the US, but a valuable lesson that I've learned over here in South Africa, is that a PPI doesn't really mean much.

 

 

I have come to the conclusion long time ago that the only thing that a PPI gives you is a false sense of security.  There are many things that you can learn about the airplane and the owner even before thinking about committing to purchase.  One example on a taildragger I am buying.  The owner had some wing tip damage which required removing the fabric, repairing and recovering.  He did not want fabric patch work on the wingtips so he decided on having the entire covering removed and complying with the AD on the spar ahead of time.  Another benefit was the ability to inspect the whole spar in a much better way.   That is an owner I like, besides the airplane looks spotless, he just got a quadruple bypass that is why he is selling it.

[aaronk25]

If you have a good mechanic that is very detailed this is why it probably pays to pay travel expenses to have him go and look at the plane or have the prospect plane flown to his/her shop. I didn't do this when I bought my plane but I will next time. The 1-3AMUs spent can as we are seeing now be chump change compared to flipping the coin. I learn so much from this forum but I'm very sorry many times it's at the expense of others.

[DaV8or]

Terrible news! An owner's worst nightmare come true. There is an option that I'm not sure has been thrown out there yet. Nearly all the expense of the needed repairs is labor, not parts. If you have a hangar, consider doing the repairs yourself with an IA sign off. It would be a lot of work and big learning curve, but you might actually like the project. You can join the EAA and learn to buck rivets and the tools you need aren't that expensive. If it turns out that part way through the project is just too much, well you're no worse off than now and you can still part it out. First thing I would do now is open up everything on the plane and look everywhere for corrosion. Try to determine if this plane is worth fixing, or just a basket case. Taking all the panels off and interior out is just part of the parting out process anyhow, right?

 

FYI, LASAR has good wings for sale if you want to go that route.

[bonal]

Another thing you might do is if there is another C in your area that has a flown out motor and prop but solid airframe you might patner up and make one solid bird. Could be a win win or both owners.

[Guest]

As some have pointed out, there is no standard as to what is or should be involved in a PPI, just as there are no real standards as to what is involved in an annual inspection. Every maintainer and every owner has a different view of how involved the process should be.

We've all heard and read the horror stories here and elsewhere. I've been told that my version of complete disassembly and removal of every panel for inspection is crazy and too expensive.

Going to a shop or a mechanic who has insurance is equally important. Aviation as we all know cost money, sometimes lots of it.

Clarence

[tonyk628]

Had a '62 C this happened too as well.  When faced with the options 1. replace/repair the wing to the tune of $15-20k(adds no value at all) +paint or or scrap the $40k bird with a runout engine for $18k in 2004... we chose scrapping the plane... good luck!

[jetdriven]

Flew in the back or flew as PIC?

[Alan Fox]

I parted out a 63 C last year with about 1 eighth the corrosion in the spar under the tank sealant.... The feds are not going to grant a ferry permit , I have been through it , That is real bad corrosion....I personally would not fly it......That being said moving forward .... You can sell the engine fairly quickly for about 12 K , if it has the new style hub , you can get about 5 K for the prop , there are about 2000 dollars worth of cores you can sell to Lasar , and walk away without any debt......If there is that much corrosion on that wing , there is probably that much more in other places well hidden that you cant see......This is not the type of repair that you would attempt yourself , I don't care what any one else says , structural sheet metal is an ART , if you don't do it for a living , you cant do a good job.....There is no room for error in this type of work.......  Also If you decide to part it out , don't pull the engine until it is sold.....It is an advantage to selling an engine if the buyer can come and run it....... 

[MooneyPTG]

This may be helpful

http://www.ageingaircraft.com.au/files/2012_pres/Rees%2025th%20S6%20P12.pdf

[carusoam]

Wow, that is a nice presentation!

VH registration = Australia

Best regards,

-a-

[orionflt]

As some have pointed out, there is no standard as to what is or should be involved in a PPI, just as there are no real standards as to what is involved in an annual inspection. Every maintainer and every owner has a different view of how involved the process should be.

We've all heard and read the horror stories here and elsewhere. I've been told that my version of complete disassembly and removal of every panel for inspection is crazy and too expensive.

Going to a shop or a mechanic who has insurance is equally important. Aviation as we all know cost money, sometimes lots of it.

Clarence

I have to disagree with you a little Clarence, There are standards put out by both Mooney and the FAA concerning annual inspections, these standards are considered the minimum acceptable to certify an aircraft as airworthy, but as you point out every owner and maintainer has a different view of the process. it sounds like you and I have the same views when it comes to inspecting aircraft, but the cost constraints can make it difficult.  

 

I do have to admit that if i had done a PPI (not an Annual) on his aircraft I may have missed the corrosion unless there were indicators in other locations. Because of time limitations on a PPI I look at the tubing, exposed spar area (did not remove back seat), and in a couple of wing and tail panels. Now it looks like i will be modifying what I look at.

 

Brian

[mike_elliott]

I have to disagree with you a little Clarence, There are standards put out by both Mooney and the FAA concerning annual inspections, these standards are considered the minimum acceptable to certify an aircraft as airworthy, but as you point out every owner and maintainer has a different view of the process. it sounds like you and I have the same views when it comes to inspecting aircraft, but the cost constraints can make it difficult.  

 

I do have to admit that if i had done a PPI (not an Annual) on his aircraft I may have missed the corrosion unless there were indicators in other locations. Because of time limitations on a PPI I look at the tubing, exposed spar area (did not remove back seat), and in a couple of wing and tail panels. Now it looks like i will be modifying what I look at.

 

Brian

 

The pics show missing rivet heads and corrosion in the wheel well on the spar. A PPI of any substance should have caught this, IMO. This is a known area to look at on Mooney's, and should be looked at every annual at a minimum by all owners, regardless of how dry they think the state they hanger in is.

[orionflt]

Mike, 

the PPI was conducted 18mo ago, I agree the corrosion should have been caught on the annual but you are making the assumption that the rivet heads were missing during the PPI. corrosion is also a funny thing, depending on the environment it can act very slowly or very aggressively with the right catalyst. if I understand it correctly the aircraft was located in AZ (desert environment) but was moved to washington state (damp wet environment close to the coast). when the PPI was done there may have been some smaller spots(or it could have been bad enough to catch) that were overlooked but over the next 18 months the corrosive process could have been accelerated by the damp conditions and the dirt, grime, salt and any other chemicals it may have picked up. I flew P-3's in the Navy for 20yrs and If we did not remove the salt that would build up from flying over the water we could see corrosion starting with in days, we also had areas where corrosion had started but never grew (we were unable to take that aircraft out of service to repair) because we treated and monitored it on a daily basis until it could be repaired. 

[DaveL]

The airplane is at least 50 miles from the nearest salt water (Puget Sound) with some foothills in between. I doubt there's a salt issue, but there's certainly a damp issue. You may have a point about the corrosion accelerating, but I find it hard to imagine that much exfoliation happening in a few years  much less eighteen months.

 

Just looking in the wheel wells the corrosion is immediately obvious if one knows where to look. After that it takes only minutes to pull the rear seat bottom and pop the screws from a couple access covers to see the rest. I feel like I paid for the PPI just for this type of thing. I was up front with the previous owner that I was paying his full price, which was a little on the high end, for a solid airframe - not the avionics (it has an original very basic panel without even a working VOR). Yep, I'm pretty upset right now. I'll likely have an attorney send letters to both the A&P who did the PPI and to the  previous owner (for all the good it'll do).

 

Dave

[DaveL]

This may be helpful

http://www.ageingaircraft.com.au/files/2012_pres/Rees%2025th%20S6%20P12.pdf

I found that too and noted that he was able to accomplish the repairs without removing the wing. It's difficult to see how much of the underwing panels he had to remove - I wish he had more photos of his work!

[orionflt]

Dave,

I'm not trying to say that it wasn't there or that it shouldn't have been found, I'm just saying 18 months ago it might not have been that obvious, if it was you might have seen it. I would definatly go into the log books and talk to the A&P that had been maintaining the plane before you bought it and see what he has to say about the corrosion, if he knew it was there and the owner did not disclose it then you will have a great case to sue. I have a early 62 C myself and I am constantly worried i'm going to find corrosion i missed during a previous inspection, in fact after looking at your pics I will be going back to relook at those areas again just to make sure i haven't missed anything.

 

Brian 

[Alan Fox]

No offense , but no way in hell the seats are not pulled in a PPI....if not why even bother......

[orionflt]

here is some good info put out by the FAA on corrosion

 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/media/FAA-8083-30_Ch06.pdf

 

http://avstop.com/maint/corrosion/ch2.html

[orionflt]

No offense , but no way in hell the seats are not pulled in a PPI....if not why even bother......

Alan, Just out of curiousity how much time do you feel should be spent inspecting the aircraft on a PPI?