Just learned my C is junk

[DaV8or]

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

 

Seriously, save the money you'll waste on attorneys and put it towards fixing the plane, getting another one, or at least your retirement. You won't get anywhere, your lawyers will get richer and you poorer as your blood pressure goes up. A year later, you'll be out another $10,000. I would let this one go. 

[KSMooniac]

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

I'm not Alan, but in my mind the minimum PPI should involve a test flight to test rigging & performance, and functionality of all installed equipment.  Figure 30-45 minutes tops.  The airframe inspection should involve de-cowling and a cursory inspection of the engine and prop to assess general condition of hoses, mount, baffling, etc. and compare the engine data plate to what is in the logs.  Perhaps do a compression check and maybe cut the oil filter.  The belly panels should be removed to assess corrosion and lubrication state of everything under the plane.  Wheel wells should be inspected, and the condition of the gear structure, rod ends, and lubrication at that point.  Tailcone access panel should be removed to visually check for corrosion.  Some wing panels should be opened to check for corrosion, and the bottom of the wing checked for evidence of fuel leaks.  Inside the plane, at least one side panel and rear seat should be pulled to check for corrosion and SB-208 compliance and fuel leaks.  Assess the condition of the windows and look for water leaks.  Look under the carpet for corrosion.

 

Assuming all of that checks out, then I would proceed with a review of the logs to get a general sense of how often the plane was flown and maintained.  IMO, though, the prospective purchaser should have done this before it got to the PPI, and maybe completed an AD check as well and present those findings to the PPI inspector.  Of course you can pay for the PPI inspector to go through the logs too.

 

I figure that is somewhere between 4-8 man hours to accomplish all of that.  The smart thing to do is look for show-stoppers first and stop the process if major corrosion or damage is found.  Assuming not, then dig as deep as time allows or until the prospective buyer is satisfied.  Possibly turn it into an annual inspection if desired.  It certainly doesn't require a 40 hr annual inspection to find corrosion if you try to find it first.

 

That is my opinion on how it should go.  (and my vast experience consists of one PPI 7 years ago.  )

[DaV8or]

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 

 

The A&P didn't log it, so why would he say anything now? The corrosion makes the plane unairworthy, and he signed the logs stating it was airworthy, why would he willingly put himself up for FAA enforcement actions and possibly a law suit?

[Alan Fox]

As far as a PPI , you should be spending about 500.00 for an inspection...... It should take about 6 Hours , 1 hour in the logbooks , while a helper is pulling inspection panels , and interior panels , another hour to pull plugs and do a compression check , 3 hours for actual inspection , using flashlights , mirrors , scopes , etc etc ,and an hour to reassemble , and to ops check all the systems.......  No time should be wasted tidying up the "little things" that will waste your time, its not your airplane.....All time should be spent on inspecting and assessing.....The lower splice is a common area for corrosion , as is the exposed rear spar in the wheel wells ...... I personally do not believe that there was no evidence of extensive corrosion on this airframe from the pictures....     Unless this aircraft was parked next to charging batterys or had some type of electrolytic fluid spilled in the back seat , That corrosion took years to acquire.....  A cursory look at an airframe is what you use to decide to warrant a PPI , it is not a PPI ......  The thing that really BOTHERS me is the complete lack of accountability of the previous owner ....... That airplane is NOT safe to fly....... Not even close.........

[orionflt]

The A&P didn't log it, so why would he say anything now? The corrosion makes the plane unairworthy, and he signed the logs stating it was airworthy, why would he willingly put himself up for FAA enforcement actions and possibly a law suit?

Dave,

he may not have logged it, and when he looked at it the aircraft could have been airworthy but the corrosion needed attention (noted but not corrected) just because there is corrosion doesn't make the aircraft unairworthy, just means it needs to be treated. if the IA told the owner he needs to take care of it before it becomes a problem and the owner turned around and decided to sell it instead of addressing the issue.....well you have a good idea of what can happen...and when corrosion gets to the point where it is starting to exfoliate the damage grows exponentially. what could have been a clean and treat becomes a wing spar. I know there are mechanics out there that pencil whip inspections but i think you will find that most of us are conscientious of the work we perform and would not put a bird in the air unless we are willing to fly in it.

 

Brian   

[orionflt]

I'm not Alan, but in my mind the minimum PPI should involve a test flight to test rigging & performance, and functionality of all installed equipment.  Figure 30-45 minutes tops.  The airframe inspection should involve de-cowling and a cursory inspection of the engine and prop to assess general condition of hoses, mount, baffling, etc. and compare the engine data plate to what is in the logs.  Perhaps do a compression check and maybe cut the oil filter.  The belly panels should be removed to assess corrosion and lubrication state of everything under the plane.  Wheel wells should be inspected, and the condition of the gear structure, rod ends, and lubrication at that point.  Tailcone access panel should be removed to visually check for corrosion.  Some wing panels should be opened to check for corrosion, and the bottom of the wing checked for evidence of fuel leaks.  Inside the plane, at least one side panel and rear seat should be pulled to check for corrosion and SB-208 compliance and fuel leaks.  Assess the condition of the windows and look for water leaks.  Look under the carpet for corrosion.

 

Assuming all of that checks out, then I would proceed with a review of the logs to get a general sense of how often the plane was flown and maintained.  IMO, though, the prospective purchaser should have done this before it got to the PPI, and maybe completed an AD check as well and present those findings to the PPI inspector.  Of course you can pay for the PPI inspector to go through the logs too.

 

I figure that is somewhere between 4-8 man hours to accomplish all of that.  The smart thing to do is look for show-stoppers first and stop the process if major corrosion or damage is found.  Assuming not, then dig as deep as time allows or until the prospective buyer is satisfied.  Possibly turn it into an annual inspection if desired.  It certainly doesn't require a 40 hr annual inspection to find corrosion if you try to find it first.

 

That is my opinion on how it should go.  (and my vast experience consists of one PPI 7 years ago.   )

pretty close Scott, 

I don't always get to do a flight test (wish i could) and I take a look at the logs first, with in about 15 minutes of looking at the logs I can usually tell the buyer if the aircraft is a good candidate to continue or not. I will put anywhere between 1-2 hours reviewing the logs, AD's and 337's before i look at the plane. from looking at the longs and knowing the aircrafts problem prone areas I will start my inspection. everything else you said was basically correct, the normal pre buy is usually takes 5-6 hours, if I get the logbooks ahead of time i put in a little more, the big problem is most buyers do not want to spend $800-1000 dollars for a pre buy so you are time limited with what you can inspect. I always recommend to anyone buying a plane to do a cursory pre buy.....hit the highlights, if they look good turn it into a full annual. most mechanics will be happier doing this because it gives them more time to inspect the plane and les of a chance that the new owner will come back upset because something was missed.     

[mike_elliott]

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.

 

Yes I am. The amount of the corrosion present and the amount of exfoliation tells quite a story here. This has been neglected for sure.

 

 

corrosion is also a funny thing, depending on the environment it can act very slowly or very aggressively with the right catalyst.

 

In normal operating environments, this didn't happen entirely since the last annual, or less than one year. Somebody didn't look or didn't care., IMO

 

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. 

 

Salt will eat them for sure, but 50 miles inland should mitigate the theory that salt was the super catalysis. I maintain my plane in a coastal environment and it is corrosion free, but I am also very proactive to keep it that way. I have seen neglected, abandoned planes that just sit at KCLW (right on the coast of Fl.) for over 3 years not nearly as corroded as this, hence my belief this didn't happen since the last A$P looked at it, nor did it happen all since the PPI.

 

[orionflt]

Mike, 

we are arm chair quarterbacking here, there are a lot of factors we don't know here, for instance was a mouse or varmint nest removed from the spar area under the seat before the aircraft was sold or even during the first annual?... mice or birds setting up housekeeping somewhere in the airframe leave behind deposits which eat away aluminum at an alarming rate. do I believe there was some poor maintenance here...definitely,  even if it was masked or just overlooked on the PPI it should have been caught on the annual. I feel bad for Dave and wish that he wasn't going thru this, but you can't just bash all the mechanics involved based on the pictures we see now. 

 

Brian

[Mooneymite]

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

 

Absolutely, correct.

 

Pulling the back seat and looking at the spar is probably the very first thing done on an inspection.  If corrosion is found, there's no sense in doing any other lookin'.

 

You're done.

[Guest]

Just finishing a "PPI" on a very nice low time J model. We have more than a few hours into the job and so far have a snag list nearing 100 items. We have pulled EVERY panel with a screw, the cowl, prop spinner, two cylinders, and the interior. When finished it will be signed of as a 100 hour inspection per Mooney and current regulations. Next years Annual will be a mere formality by comparison this years PPI.

We have found missed ADs, SBs and SIs, missing logs, missing STCs, missing W&B reports, missing C of R, original 1984 hoses through out, incorrectly installed engine, worn out brake discs, rusting flight control rods, metal in the filter, worn parts, broken parts and on and on it goes, I had to order a new pen!

The purchaser is happy, the seller not so much, he is having to adjust his expectations to complete a sale. This all on an aircraft maintained to current regulations, with many different interpretations.

Clarence

[KSMooniac]

Ugh.  Glad to hear it will get a new life instead of turning into parts.

[WardHolbrook]

Just finishing a "PPI" on a very nice low time J model. We have more than a few hours into the job and so far have a snag list nearing 100 items. We have pulled EVERY panel with a screw, the cowl, prop spinner, two cylinders, and the interior. When finished it will be signed of as a 100 hour inspection per Mooney and current regulations. Next years Annual will be a mere formality by comparison this years PPI.

We have found missed ADs, SBs and SIs, missing logs, missing STCs, missing W&B reports, missing C of R, original 1984 hoses through out, incorrectly installed engine, worn out brake discs, rusting flight control rods, metal in the filter, worn parts, broken parts and on and on it goes, I had to order a new pen!

The purchaser is happy, the seller not so much, he is having to adjust his expectations to complete a sale. This all on an aircraft maintained to current regulations, with many different interpretations.

Clarence

The higher up the "aircraft ladder" you go, the more important the aircraft's maintenance pedigree becomes. By the time you get to business jets, it's not just that the various inspections were performed, but also who performed them. There really is value in having one of the well-known shops or factory service centers take a hard look at your airplane from time to time. It's a lot like avoiding a visit to the doctor because you're afraid of what he might tell you. 

 

I hope he can find a way to salvage the situation. My advice would be to relax, take a few deep breaths, then put a pencil to it and simply do the math. Hopefully, he'll be able to salvage/recoup his investment. I expect that he should be able to at least come pretty close if he plays his cards right. There's still a lot of value there. 

[Wakeup]

I had my plane inspected today after reading your post. I think the FAA should get involved and look into the previous annuals done and why in the hell did they miss this corrosion and out them on a "do not go to" mechanics list. It's sad that this had been over looked for years and you have the burden now. I feel terrible for you and hope for the best for you. Troy

[N33GG]

I have had mechanics offer to give me an annual for $200. I declined the offers. You makes your picks, and you takes your chances.

Be careful out there. There are no absolutes.

[mike_elliott]

Mike, 

we are arm chair quarterbacking here, there are a lot of factors we don't know here, for instance was a mouse or varmint nest removed from the spar area under the seat before the aircraft was sold or even during the first annual?... mice or birds setting up housekeeping somewhere in the airframe leave behind deposits which eat away aluminum at an alarming rate. do I believe there was some poor maintenance here...definitely,  even if it was masked or just overlooked on the PPI it should have been caught on the annual. I feel bad for Dave and wish that he wasn't going thru this, but you can't just bash all the mechanics involved based on the pictures we see now. 

 

Brian

Brian, I too hate like heck to call out anyone on their professionalism and understand your not wanting to throw a fellow A&P under the bus, but seriously, this is more of a case of 20/20 hindsight than it is arm chair quarterbacking. A mouse would have to pee vertically to get to where some of the corrosion is that is depicted in the pics, and would have to repetitively do it for months. In other words, no way. This corrosion should have been identified in the PPI and also in the annual. That is why one does a PPI and why we are required to do annuals. Don Maxwell would have caught it, so would have Clarence, and so should have any one that was conscientious  IMO. I hope all turns out financially ok in the long run, but we do need to self police our professionalism at times as this case so illustrates. Someone could have been seriously hurt. Bruce Jaeger, former owner of WIllmar Aviation Services, gave a very sobering presentation on this very topic at the Mooney Summit in Feb.

[DaveL]

I'm glad my experience is getting others to check their planes at least.

 

Here's my plan at present:

 

As I am friends with many attorneys I'm going to aggressively go after the previous owner and in particular the A&P who did the PPI. Meanwhile I'm going to begin disassembling the interior and belly panels and try to remove the stub spar without removing the wing (like the guy in Aus did in a previous link). If I continue to find corrosion worse than what I'm seeing I'll make the decision to scrap the plane. If not and it looks salvageable, it turns out I've got a friendly A&P IA on my home field who is an aircraft structural engineer type who is willing to assist with the repair. I'll call Mooney to get a current price on the stub spar next week and start drilling rivets in my spare time.

 

Since the annual doesn't expire until the end of the month, today I'll make my final flight in it to get it back to my home field (a 15  min flight). In the last year and a half I've put over 100 hours on this plane, and the entire time it had this damage, so I'm not too worried about a 15 min flight.

 

In the meantime I guess I'll rent 172s to keep my currency up.

[Steve65E-NC]

Dave,

 

Sounds like a winning strategy.  I agree with you about the relative safety of an additional short flight.  I also thought the photos of the sub-spar replacement were great and I filed that article.  Congrats on finding a licensed mechanic to assist you.  Please keep us informed.  If it works out he or you all might want to set up a business.

 

Steve65E-NC

[flyingvee201]

There must be a quota that the FAA have to adhere to this year.

We got a call from the FAA saying they want to "see" our plane. Unfortunately, this is related to another Mooney member that colorfully explained his saga with the FAA when his plane got Ramp Checked a few weeks ago in Lexington, KY.

I guess the mechanic that did his annual also did mine. The mechanic is being investigated by the FAA.

 

Well, this FAA "visit" will be this Wednesday.

[scottfromiowa]

I had my plane inspected today after reading your post. I think the FAA should get involved and look into the previous annuals done and why in the hell did they miss this corrosion and out them on a "do not go to" mechanics list. It's sad that this had been over looked for years and you have the burden now. I feel terrible for you and hope for the best for you. Troy

There you go Wakeup. The FAA is "on the case"...

Awesome.

[scottfromiowa]

I'm glad my experience is getting others to check their planes at least.

 

Here's my plan at present:

 

As I am friends with many attorneys I'm going to aggressively go after the previous owner and in particular the A&P who did the PPI. Meanwhile I'm going to begin disassembling the interior and belly panels and try to remove the stub spar without removing the wing (like the guy in Aus did in a previous link). If I continue to find corrosion worse than what I'm seeing I'll make the decision to scrap the plane. If not and it looks salvageable, it turns out I've got a friendly A&P IA on my home field who is an aircraft structural engineer type who is willing to assist with the repair. I'll call Mooney to get a current price on the stub spar next week and start drilling rivets in my spare time.

 

Since the annual doesn't expire until the end of the month, today I'll make my final flight in it to get it back to my home field (a 15  min flight). In the last year and a half I've put over 100 hours on this plane, and the entire time it had this damage, so I'm not too worried about a 15 min flight.

 

In the meantime I guess I'll rent 172s to keep my currency up.

Or look in the mirror. Many state the owner is responsible, end of story. Any accountability in what you see?

[DaV8or]

I'm glad my experience is getting others to check their planes at least.

 

Yes. Thank you. Sharing here is how a site like this becomes valuable.

 

 

As I am friends with many attorneys I'm going to aggressively go after the previous owner and in particular the A&P who did the PPI.

 

If your friends will work for free, sure go for it. Unless the previous owner made the explicit claim that the plane was corrosion free, or something, he will just throw the mechanic under the bus. He will claim that he only knew what he was told and that the mechanics said it was just fine. As to the guy who did the PPI, he did a crappy job and gave you his poor opinion. He made no legal claim to the airplane's actual airworthiness. He is not legally bound and liable for the airplane's airworthiness. The best you can hope for and I do hope this slacker does the right thing here, is your money back you paid him.

 

The A&P who did the last annual is another story. He is liable. However it's more an FAA enforcement action than it is he wronged you per se. The previous owner might be able to sue, but he has no loss since he sold the plane, so I'm not sure what he'd sue for. In any case, most mechanics don't have a lot to sue for. So I personally wouldn't put any money into this thing. If you want justice, make sure the FAA knows all about this story and they will go put some hurt on the A&P who did the annual.

 

 

Meanwhile I'm going to begin disassembling the interior and belly panels and try to remove the stub spar without removing the wing (like the guy in Aus did in a previous link). If I continue to find corrosion worse than what I'm seeing I'll make the decision to scrap the plane. If not and it looks salvageable, it turns out I've got a friendly A&P IA on my home field who is an aircraft structural engineer type who is willing to assist with the repair. I'll call Mooney to get a current price on the stub spar next week and start drilling rivets in my spare time.

 

Way to go! Like the fighting spirit. I would likely tackle this job too. However, before you start drilling rivets, I would inspect everywhere else on the plane first. Every inspection panel, all interior out, inside the tail cone, etc. I would do the SB 208 inspection even if it was done in the past. A) Because if it was done a number of years ago, based on the corrosion you see now, it may not mean much and if it was done in the last year or so, it was likely done by the same slacker bozo that did the annuals and you can't trust it.

 

Get the price for the new spar, but also get some prices on a used wing from a reputable source. If you are good with tools, willing to learn and patient, I personally would not shy away from this job if you have the time. Unless you already have experience, I would suggest maybe joining the EAA and have some of those guys show you all about sheet metal and rivets. Maybe your local A&P that does the sign off could do it too, but it will likely cost you money then.

 

 

Since the annual doesn't expire until the end of the month, today I'll make my final flight in it to get it back to my home field (a 15  min flight). In the last year and a half I've put over 100 hours on this plane, and the entire time it had this damage, so I'm not too worried about a 15 min flight.

 

Be careful here. I would have no real concerns about flying the plane home either, but the FAA does. Technically, you have to get a ferry permit. However, as long as whoever was doing your annual didn't actually log anything and is willing to say he never saw your airplane before, maybe you can get away with it. The problem with asking for the permit is, the FAA will then officially be aware of the problem and if they say no, you're stuck with pulling the wings and trucking it.

 

 

In the meantime I guess I'll rent 172s to keep my currency up.

 

I would recommend Cherokee/Warrior/Archers instead. Arrow if you can swing it. The Pipers are much more like a Mooney in the landing phase and also the sight picture.

[Steve65E-NC]

I bet the "local A&P" who did the pre-buy is feeling pretty bad about this. And, he may be concerned for his livelyhood. Wonder if you thought creatively, and maybe worked through a mediator, you could find some common ground. For example, many bent wings probably have clean sub-spars*. Maybe he would contribute time and labor to pull one of those from a wing that you found (pretty cheap for the bent wing I bet) and deliver it to you cleaned primed and ready to install. He might even volunteer to kick in other amentities up to and including some of the cash costs just to keep you happy.

*If new subspars are drilled in place this does not count and you will have to be more creative.

[MB65E]

Nice outta the box thinking! I'm sure I would bend over backwards if I missed somthing this cost consuming. I'm sure he feels bad, wants to make it better, and doesn't even want to read a nasty letter from a law firm. Maybe ask for X portion of labor contribution.

But really the prior IA is the one I'd be frustrated with!!!

I know I didn't look under our rear seats during PPI. But at the annual I did the following year.

-Matt

[WardHolbrook]

I hate to be a party pooper, but I do not believe that the airplane can be flown legally at this point without a ferry permit and I doubt if any mechanic would put his signature on the form stating that the aircraft would be safe to complete the proposed flight - regardless of the length. Having a current annual does not guarantee airworthiness any more than having a current flight physical guarantees that you are physically for flight. I think that attempting a flight in that aircraft would be deemed to be exercising very poor judgement at this point. 

[rob]

I agree. Flying the aircraft now would open you up to liability issues and also possible action from the FAA. Especially since you've posted it here on the Internet; there's no going back from that.