Just learned my C is junk

[Alan Fox]

You wont get a ferry permit.......

[DaveL]

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

I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm not responsible for the corrosion to the airframe. I'm not responsible for taking money for a PPI from a customer brand new to general aviation and aircraft, I'm not the one who's job it was to be a paid professional inspecting an aircraft to make sure something like this wasn't going on. Ultimately since I'm the one who took out the loan and must pay it back I guess I'm accountable to the bank.

 

I'm doing my best to not throw a fit and wring my hands in the air. I'm investigating options and weighing financial benefits and making plans to move forward to solve the problem.

 

However when I do work for someone I'm held to a standard and responsible for my work product. Should I ask less of the person(s) I paid to do a job outside my area of expertise? I look in the mirror and see a guy who's not going to give up and who is going to try to keep his flying dream alive. Because I'm not well to do I can't just open my wallet to solve the problem.

 

In closing I'd like to thank all of you who have expressed support for me in my plight and who have offered positive suggestions - it means a lot.

[scottfromiowa]

I hear you. You have my utmost sympathy for your plight. I have read on other posts where many have put it on the owner for the ultimate judgement go/no go on airworthiness of your aircraft. I too am relying on the judgement and expertise of those servicing my plane and "signing off"...My post was to those that say it is OUR responsibility as owners...the buck stops with us...I do not share this view although it may be the official view of the FAA.

That said...When I look in the mirror I have regret for I did not have the knowledge I now possess (learning all the time) about my airframe...and did Not use a Mooney Service Center for my PPI. I know a lot of the refurb expenses I have undertaken over the last decade have been MY FAULT for not doing the proper due-diligence PRIOR to purchase. I point the finger at ME first.

[scottfromiowa]

Caveat Emptor...

[Alan Fox]

I am sure that Dave does not need a history lesson on his mistakes , they are in the past.... The point here is to help out and give advise to help him.... MOVING FORWARD...... Dave unless you are a litigator , legal action will not be satisfying , and it will be financially prohibitive....F.A.A. enforcement will give a temporary warm fuzzy feeling , but it will be only temporary , repairing the wing yourself is not a realistic option.....replacing the wing is the only real option to saving the airframe.....Before you do anything on the repair end you better make dam sure that there are no other corrosion issues in the cage and remaining structures.....  And DONT fly it , its not even close to airworthy ,

[scottfromiowa]

Rolling my eyes...

I have been there. My thought was NEVER to "Sue" for what I believe was MY mistake for NOT EDUCATING MYSELF PROPERLY PRIOR TO PURCHASE.

History lesson over.

[Guest]

If the ultimate responsibility for maintenance lies with the owner operator, why does the FAA violate mechanics?

Clarence

[1964-M20E]

If the ultimate responsibility for maintenance lies with the owner operator, why does the FAA violate mechanics?

Clarence

If I as the owner is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of my airplane, I do not dispute or argue this, however, why am I not allowed to maintain the plane myself if I am the one responsible it's maintenance.  Just a thought and statement an is not intended to sidetrack the current discussion.

 

By the way I'm sorry for your discovery.  I'd probably try to fix it if you have the inclination, desire, space and time to do it yourself and a willing A&P/IA.  It could be a good learning experience for you.  I'm not sure if the plane is at your home base or another airport but I'd pursue a ferry permit to get it where you can deal with it easier.

 

Best of luck

[Alan Fox]

The owner is responsible to have the aircraft maintained , not to perform the maintenance , Dave entrusted (and contracted) a so called professional to perform this maintenance , Dave was defrauded by the contractor because the contractor did not perform the maintenance that he was paid to do.......Yes there is a case here , but it will cost 40K to get a 25 K judgment........against a party , that probably has few assets........the math doesn't work , the damage is done.......  

[DaV8or]

The owner is responsible to have the aircraft maintained , not to perform the maintenance , Dave entrusted (and contracted) a so called professional to perform this maintenance , Dave was defrauded by the contractor because the contractor did not perform the maintenance that he was paid to do.......Yes there is a case here , but it will cost 40K to get a 25 K judgment........against a party , that probably has few assets........the math doesn't work , the damage is done.......  

 

Actually, as I read it, Dave entrusted and contracted a so called professional to preform a pre purchase inspection. He paid to get an opinion. No maintenance was actually done. Nothing was logged. Dave got what he paid for, an opinion. Turns out, it was a crappy opinion, but there really is nothing to sue for at all. A PPI is not maintenance. It is not legally binding in any way unless there was some sort of contract. Not really any different than paying your mother in law to give her opinion for $20.

 

This "A&P" should do the right thing and refund Dave his money. Other than that, all Dave can do is give a really bad Yelp review.

[Alan Fox]

Yes and an agreement , and subsequent payment constitutes a contract , and gross negligence constitutes fraud.... A PPI is not an opinion , it is an inspection , not an opinion , Also , if the party that did the PPI has liability insurance , you may have a claim.....but still probably not financially lucrative.....

[Alan Fox]

Yes and an agreement , and subsequent payment constitutes a contract , and gross negligence constitutes fraud.... A PPI is not an opinion , it is an inspection , not an opinion , Also , if the party that did the PPI has liability insurance , you may have a claim.....but still probably not financially lucrative.....

 

[mike_elliott]

If the ultimate responsibility for maintenance lies with the owner operator, why does the FAA violate mechanics?

Clarence

because they can. We owners have to use people they "approve and certify" to be qualified to work on our "approved and certified" aircraft. It makes them and their certification process look like a sham when it doesn't work. That doesn't sit well with them, therefore, they have this huge appetite to violate someone non faa that still fogs a mirror for something that happened. In a lot of ways this is good, and just as many, not so good. But as a failsafe to have a whippin' boy that doesn't get a gubbermint paycheck, the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner. Break that down in a courtroom and the football of responsibility never lands in FAA territory. 

[Marauder]

because they can. We owners have to use people they "approve and certify" to be qualified to work on our "approved and certified" aircraft. It makes them and their certification process look like a sham when it doesn't work. That doesn't sit well with them, therefore, they have this huge appetite to violate someone non faa that still fogs a mirror for something that happened. In a lot of ways this is good, and just as many, not so good. But as a failsafe to have a whippin' boy that doesn't get a gubbermint paycheck, the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner. Break that down in a courtroom and the football of responsibility never lands in FAA territory.

I think it is the classic American Justice system; "Guilty by Association". Since the regs are written to cover "safety" responsibilities as all inclusive, all involved who are ensured with "safety of flight" are nailed. Gotta love it...

[DaV8or]

Yes and an agreement , and subsequent payment constitutes a contract , and gross negligence constitutes fraud.... A PPI is not an opinion , it is an inspection , not an opinion , Also , if the party that did the PPI has liability insurance , you may have a claim.....but still probably not financially lucrative.....

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't know what deal the OP had with this PPI A&P, but when I did mine, I had to sign a waiver with them that stated that they were in no way making any claims about the airplane's airworthiness or ultimate condition. That they were just giving an opinion based on a cursory inspection and that they would not be held liable for anything found down the road. I have paid for two PPIs and in both cases I had to sign something like this.

 

Maybe the OP's situation was just a handshake kind of deal, I don't know. Either way, unless the A&P made a written guarantee, or some sort of certification of the airplane's worth and value, or possibly that he advertises himself as a Mooney expert, I don't see how fraud was committed. The OP paid for an inspection followed by an opinion and he got just that. Turns out it was crappy. Unless it was specified by written contract exactly where, how and the level of inspection, I just don't see a case.

 

I would ask for my money back and let this one go.

[DaV8or]

In closing I'd like to thank all of you who have expressed support for me in my plight and who have offered positive suggestions - it means a lot.

 

I really do wish you luck and thank you for sharing. I totally understand if you might want to take this problem "off line" for now. Hopefully you can let us know how it all turns out in the end though. Particularly if you do get it repaired and airworthy again. That will be a great story!

[Piloto]

Dave

 

Don't give up yet. I have seen it much worse and repairable. I remember seen worse corrosion at toilet stations on airliners were I was surprised the passengers were not flushed out the plane when the chain was pulled.

 

This may easily be repaired by just replacing a few structural components with 6061-T6 or 2024-T3 material that you can get at Wag-Aero or material supplier. Get in touch with an experienced AP on structural repair with a positive attitude. Also with amphibious owners like the Lake Aircraft, they know everything about corrosion in planes. 

 

José 

[ArtVandelay]

Dave

 

Don't give up yet. I have seen it much worse and repairable. I remember seen worse corrosion at toilet stations on airliners were I was surprised the passengers were not flushed out the plane when the chain was pulled.

The question is "is it worth it".  Only OP can make that decision.

[Piloto]

The question is "is it worth it".  Only OP can make that decision.

That is exactly the question you are going to get from the Obamacare when it comes to an organ transplant.

 

Damage could have been worse by golf ball hail or belly landing. And those get repaired routinely.  

 

José 

[chrisk]

Actually, as I read it, Dave entrusted and contracted a so called professional to preform a pre purchase inspection. He paid to get an opinion. No maintenance was actually done. Nothing was logged. Dave got what he paid for, an opinion. Turns out, it was a crappy opinion, but there really is nothing to sue for at all. A PPI is not maintenance. It is not legally binding in any way unless there was some sort of contract. Not really any different than paying your mother in law to give her opinion for $20.

 

This "A&P" should do the right thing and refund Dave his money. Other than that, all Dave can do is give a really bad Yelp review.

 

I agree with the above statement.  I however have a different opinion on the AI who previously inspected the plane.  I assume this should have been uncovered in a normal annual.  It wasn't and I'd be pissed at him.  As to legal action, it may be difficult to prove the corrosion was present when the plane was inspected.  And others have mentioned, you were not the owner when it was inspected, so he hasn't actually done you harm.

[cujet]

Here in South Florida, corrosion is always a problem. Corrosion X, ACF-50, AV-30, Max-Wax and other products are lifesavers here. 

 

The other part of the equation is that there are some incredibly qualified and capable sheet metal guys here. For example, located in a crusty hangar at Lantana Airport, there is a sheet metal man that is without equal (Robbie) . He does corrosion related repairs on a daily basis. I've used him on our Pilatus PC-12 (yup, it corroded a rib) and the result was perfection. The cost was very reasonable also. I'd use him before I'd attempt such a complex repair myself. And, I'm a qualified A+P, with sheet metal tools and occasional bouts of significant sheet metal experience. 

 

I'd guess the airframe could be repaired for a reasonable cost, if the right guy was located. 

[ArtVandelay]

Here in South Florida, corrosion is always a problem. Corrosion X, ACF-50, AV-30, Max-Wax and other products are lifesavers here.

I'd guess the airframe could be repaired for a reasonable cost, if the right guy was located.

Is there a preference in the above treatments or an discussion you can point me to on the pros and cons of each?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cujet]

Is there a preference in the above treatments or an discussion you can point me to on the pros and cons of each?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Corrosion-X and ACF-50 are thin oils that will GENERALLY, but not always go into tight areas. ACF "claims" to have more corrosion inhibiting additives (ACF's other claims I discount from experience) and it certainly seems to have solids that settle to the bottom of the bottle over time, I suspect these solids actually do something worthwhile. Corrosion-X does not seem to have solids that settle. Both work well in the short term and are good choices for application on assembled parts. 

 

AV-30 is my absolute favorite product. It goes on about the thickness of motor oil and dries waxy and stops corrosion dead. Regardless of claims on the can, it really does not "wick" very well. But, it can be thinned with MEK or other solvent and will "wick" into tight areas quite well. I did this on my Cessna with great results. I generally use a heat lamp array to keep the AV-30 "application area" hot and the AV-30 thin until it goes where I want it. Pilatus uses it on the PC-12 as the major method of corrosion control. 

 

In this picture, you can clearly see that the thinned AV-30 came out the other side, and it's also on the outside of the fuselage seam here. I used heat lamps. 

 

 

Corrosion-X's "Max-Wax" is much like AV-30. Dries tough and won't attract dirt or dust. Lasts forever. Has an amber tint so you can determine how much, and where it has been applied. (believe it or not, this is very important)

 

Corrosion-X's "Heavy Duty" is a very thick oily film that does not dry. It's perfect for preventing corrosion on components that must move, such as rod ends and things that rub. Interestingly, "Heavy Duty" eventually releases it's oil and drips out of my wing all year long. YUK. But does not wick well otherwise. It just flows downhill. Note: Think of "wicking" as capillary action. Thin oils will climb into very tight areas. You can see this when placing a threaded bolt tip in the fluid. It will climb up. 

 

LPS-III is a thick waxy substance that dries to a waxy film, but does not "wick" at all, and forms a weak surface that eventually goes away under use. It's "old school" I don't like it and no longer use it. 

 

There are many other products too. Aircraft Spruce sells quart of "Par-al-Ketone" a thick, waxy, cosmoline type product that's been around forever. It works very well, can be thinned, sprayed when thinned, and hardens into a relatively dust resistant, moderately tough, waxy surface. It's the cheapest of all the options, and the most cost effective. It's also probably the most versatile. However, it has a distinct, but mild odor and I try to avoid using it inside small aircraft. I'd NEVER use it inside a "cabin class" aircraft, such as a Gulfstream G550, as the odor would be forever there. 

 

 

Lastly, I'd like to talk about Boeshield. It's a thin product that sprays nicely. Can be used nearly anywhere, "wicks" fairly well, dries to a waxy film and is nearly 100% clear (at least initially) and it's nearly impossible to tell if a part has been coated or not. Over the years, it turns slightly milky, and eventually starts to flake or "sluff off" for lack of a better term. If applied liberally, it will protect a flat surface better than Corrosion-X or ACF-50 (as it's waxy) . I suspect, (but don't know) that it may not wick as well, with this stuff, you just can't tell. Heat lamps work with this stuff too. I like Boeshield very much, but I generally don't use it often due to the lack of visible film and questionable lifespan in some EXPOSED applications such as landing gear and wheel wells (its fine inside a wing) . For example, I applied it to my motorcycle engine. Imagine my surprise when it was mostly gone after a year. (when dry, you can scrape it with a fingernail) 

[ArtVandelay]

It sounds like that 2 applications are necessary for max coverage, a oily application to get wicked, follow by a wax application, is this ever done or for some reason not possible?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cujet]

Is there a preference in the above treatments or an discussion you can point me to on the pros and cons of each?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

It sounds like that 2 applications are necessary for max coverage, a oily application to get wicked, follow by a wax application, is this ever done or for some reason not possible?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have tried this approach. Does not work all that well. Better to thin AV-30 and use heat lamps to ensure wicking, as in the picture above. Once a part is coated with a waxy, hard coat film, thin oils won't penetrate. They will only soften the AV-30. So, you could easily end up with a sealed seam that has no corrosion inhibiting compound inside (over time, Corrosion-X and ACF simply disappear)