How do you spell D A M A G E.

[michæl]

I'm interested to know what people generally consider "damage".

[C-GHIJ]

It's not a case of how much is damaged, but WHAT is damaged and how it's repaired.  A damaged rudder that has been replaced with a new unit wouldn't concern me at all but one that has had to be patched or re-skinned would be a different story.

[M20F]

Damage is like pornography, I know it when  I see it and what is pornographic to me might not be to another.  

[pinerunner]

My father did a fair amount of rebuilding and I bucked a bunch of rivets. I think a repair involving reskinning by by a top mechanic (at working with sheet metal) is as good as new. This is assuming he's done his home work and used the correct grade and thickness of sheet aluminum and that everything inside  has been well inspected and repaired as needed also.  I'd also not allow cherry rivets which we tried to stay away from in cases that mattered structurally; that's something you can check for your self when looking the plane over.  If the riveting were badly done its easy to see on visual inspection. I don't buy the idea that if a plane has any damage history followed by repair that it should just be written off.  I would want to get a look at how it was done. I'll also admit that I might be parroting opinions from thirty years ago and the original source is no longer available to speak for himself. 

[Yetti]

So the plane is basically hand built at the factory.   If the hands that repair the damage do as good or better a job as the hands at the factory...   Is it damaged?   I think of damage as wind moving over a surface.  Would the "damage" interrupt that wind flow in a negative way?   How negative of way?

[chrisk]

 

Damage is like pornography, I know it when  I see it and what is pornographic to me might not be to another.  

I don't think so.  Pornography is much closer to wine. I like some and can't stand others. 

Damage on the other hand means something has happen to the plane which requires repair.   And the problem with repaired damage is the lack of consistent quality.  When a plane comes from the factory, its been hand built.  There is however an expectation of quality, based on previous examples built by the factory.  When a third party repairs the damage, a future buyer doesn't have a clue if the plane has been returned to factory quality.    Now effort needs to be expended to determine if the plane has been returned to factory quality, and if not, is it acceptable quality.   --That said, one may find the repair exceeds the factory quality.  (think one piece belly after a gear up).  And in a similar way, this is what makes buying an experimental plane much harder than a certified plane.

 

 

[PTK]

 

Damage is like pornography, I know it when  I see it and what is pornographic to me might not be to another.  

It then follows that a damaged Mooney is like a hot porno star. Can't take your eyes off of her but "damaged" goods!!

[carusoam]

1) Damage and it's fixes, unlike beauty is not in the eye of the bee holder.  It is in the eye of the next buyer.

 

2) in other words, if you buy a plane that has been signed off for years by a single mechanic, it may not be signed off by the next mechanic in its new neighborhood.

3) If you need to get it fixed it could be very expensive.

4) If you need to sell it GOTO line 1)

5) If you are buying it, know what a PPI is and why a qualified person for performing it is important.

even small pieces of hangar rash or spar corrosion can be economically disastrous.  For some types of damage there may be acceptable limits printed in the MM.  Fuel leaks, corrosion and tube dents may be detailed in that respect.

this is from my private pilot knowledge category, not a mechanic.

Best regards,

-a-

[Mooneymite]

Unfortunately, "Damage" is generally what is reported in the logbook.  Unless one has access to outside information (like an NTSB report), damage is tough to define and can go undetected if it is not documented .

In my opinion, not all damage is all that damaging to an aircraft's value.  Some damage is repaired "better than new", while other damage, if reparied properly can't be found without the logbook.

My C had a gear up years ago.  Only someone very familiar with the belly of a Mooney would be able to detect the subtle signs that "some repair" had been done due to the primer not quite matching.  Technically "damage" history, but so what?

[midlifeflyer]

As a number have suggested, there isn't a clear, universal definition of what is considered damage or a damage history, at least when it comes to properly-made and logged aircraft repairs.

[michæl]

 

As a number have suggested, there isn't a clear, universal definition of what is considered damage or a damage history, at least when it comes to properly-made and logged aircraft repairs.

So, if this was the generally accepted understanding or "definition" of damage, then what type of logged repairs for damage would be acceptable for an aircraft listed as having "no damage history" ?

[midlifeflyer]

 

So, if this was the generally accepted understanding or "definition" of damage, then what type of logged repairs for damage would be acceptable for an aircraft listed as having "no damage history" ?

What "this" are you referring to? I said

 

there isn't a clear, universal definition of what is considered damage or a damage history

Is this a general informational question or something specific like trying to figure out what to say in a sales ad or how to respond to a post-sale dispute? If it is repaired and logged, the information is there in the logs for someone to  make his or her own decision. Carusoam said it well...

 

Damage and it's fixes...is in the eye of the next buyer.

 

[michæl]

I'm simply asking the question.  If an aircraft is listed as having "no damage history", what should a prospective buyer expect?

[Guest]

 

I don't think so.  Pornography is much closer to wine. I like some and can't stand others. 

Damage on the other hand means something has happen to the plane which requires repair.   And the problem with repaired damage is the lack of consistent quality.  When a plane comes from the factory, its been hand built.  There is however an expectation of quality, based on previous examples built by the factory.  When a third party repairs the damage, a future buyer doesn't have a clue if the plane has been returned to factory quality.    Now effort needs to be expended to determine if the plane has been returned to factory quality, and if not, is it acceptable quality.   --That said, one may find the repair exceeds the factory quality.  (think one piece belly after a gear up).  And in a similar way, this is what makes buying an experimental plane much harder than a certified plane.

 

 

Most of what you said could be applied to a Lycoming factory overhaul, just never as good as it was originally.

Clarence

[michæl]

The "this" I am referring to, is that "damage" is accepted to be subjective. If damage is merely a matter of opinion, then how should one interpret a "no damage history" representation on a for sale listing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Loogie]

Webster's Full Definition of damage

1. 1:  loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation

2. 2plural  :  compensation in money imposed by law for loss or injury

If something is repaired and the result is satisfactory as close to original condition, then it is "historical damage" because the loss or harm has been made well.  

Is the history relevant? I would say yes, so the repair can be inspected...

[Andy95W]

 

I'm simply asking the question.  If an aircraft is listed as having "no damage history", what should a prospective buyer expect?

At a minimum you should expect that no insurance company ever wrote the airplane off as a total loss.  At a maximum, the airplane just came out of the factory.  Any aircraft with more than 100 tach hours has damage, even if it is only a prop nick.

Everything in between is subjective.

I realize this isn't helpful.  Good luck.

[M20F]

 

I'm simply asking the question.  If an aircraft is listed as having "no damage history", what should a prospective buyer expect?

You could expect to find a plane with no damage history or a plane with a lot of damage history.  The logbooks can be an indicator but just because they look beautiful does not mean the plane is.  This is why a pre-buy is done examine the books and the plane. 

[Alan Fox]

Many aircraft have been written off as a total , sold at auction and rebuilt into an aircraft with damage history , As far as damage history not affecting value , that is total bullshit , If you have the choice between two identical aircraft , but one was geared up 12 years ago , which one do you want ?????   I thought so......Damage history is generally a repair that was not repaired by the replacement of a bolt on assembly , generally a sheet metal repair , involving rivets... 

[michæl]

I'm not new to this, but some people are. I apologize for the somewhat rhetorical nature of this post, but I thought it would be helpful to clarify this issue after having just been reminded as to how representations can be made that are clearly not consistent with one's reasonable expectations i.e. "damage history". This situation could affect a new buyer even more substantially if they entered into a contract with a damage disclosure contingency, only to find themselves losing their deposit because of the subjectivity of this term. Bottom line: don't ever give a deposit that is not fully refundable if all buyer expectations are not met - and NEVER provide a deposit directly - always use an escrow service and define the terms of refundability clearly. If the seller isn't agreeable to this, or is offering other feel-good diversions and a free "pre-buy" at their shop, you're going to get into trouble.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F]

 

Many aircraft have been written off as a total , sold at auction and rebuilt into an aircraft with damage history , As far as damage history not affecting value , that is total bullshit , If you have the choice between two identical aircraft , but one was geared up 12 years ago , which one do you want ?????   I thought so......Damage history is generally a repair that was not repaired by the replacement of a bolt on assembly , generally a sheet metal repair , involving rivets... 

More than likely the one that was damaged 12yrs ago for me.  Odds are it has a one piece belly, new antenna's, newer prop, an overhaul, etc.  The damage isn't the issue the quality of of the repair or lack thereof can be.  In almost all cases repair work done decades ago is a non-factor, and if it is documented it is very easy to determine if repairs were done correctly.

The challenge is most of the damage you really need to be concerned about is the damage which never finds its way into a logbook.  The idea as N1395W (Andy) says that a 40+ year old plane doesn't have some kind of damage on it, well I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if your interested.

[michæl]

Mike, it's not a matter of whether or not damage was repaired properly or even if it compromised the airplane somehow - it's a matter of what is represented to a buyer.  If a buyer is ok with certain damage history and is also understanding of the potential resale / value factors then it's straightforward and nothing is wrong with this.  However, if a plane is listed as "no damage history" and it has been damaged and repaired, this is a misrepresentation - although as people here can see, not everyone considers it a misrepresentation.  I'm with Alan, but it's not really a matter of opinion.  Planes go under contract and return to market all the time, and why?  Because the prospective buyer doesn't want the airplane with the damage history.  Sadly, the cost to the buyer to discover these things can be quite high and it could all be avoidable if the definition of damage was clear.  Let's be realistic, everyone knows what damage is and people who list their plane as a "no damage history" airplane know exactly what they are doing - especially when it's being sold with a "fresh annual" and a pre-buy with the seller's mechanic.    

[M20F]

 

Mike, it's not a matter of whether or not damage was repaired properly or even if it compromised the airplane somehow - it's a matter of what is represented to a buyer. 

As I said and agree with in my second paragraph above your post.

 

However, if a plane is listed as "no damage history" and it has been damaged and repaired, this is a misrepresentation - although as people here can see, not everyone considers it a misrepresentation. 

If I plane is listed with no damage history and has damaged and been repaired, yes of course it is a misrepresentation.  Nobody here has disagreed with that at all.

[michæl]

 

As I said and agree with in my second paragraph above your post.

If I plane is listed with no damage history and has damaged and been repaired, yes of course it is a misrepresentation.  Nobody here has disagreed with that at all.

I'm happy to hear this.  Unfortunately, there still seems to be a level of subjectivity with this issue in the industry that permits misleading contracts to be presented to buyers with consequences of deposit forfeiture.  It's not unrealistic that a buyer would sign a contract and make a substantial deposit with the understanding that they have an "out" in the event damage history is "discovered".  The problem is, the definition of damage history as we see, is arguably subjective (see several opinions posted above).  Sellers attempt to present damage as non-damage due to circumstances surrounding the occurrence or cause, or by the means by which it was repaired.  

Don't expect that a damage discovery contingency in your contract will ensure the return of your deposit if the seller doesn't accept your definition of damage.      

[N601RX]

Your going to find very few if any 50 year old planes that doesn't have some minor level of damage either repaired or not.