At first annual, have found illegal engine modifications

[ArtVandelay]

Most log entries I’ve see are fairly generic. It seems the damages are fairly low (cost of new hose(s)). I’d fix it and move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Ftlausa said:

 

And no, I would never take a case like this on a contingency unless it was a slam dunk.    

• And, folks, there you have it! 

[FloridaMan]

When someone decides to sell their airplane there will almost always be something that’s not done. Take any experienced IA and have them look over a Mooney that has left a MSC and they will find an issue. That one hose isn’t good, and I would never do something like that, but at some point it had to have been replaced and it doesn’t look that old. The correct hose is not cheap. That particular fuel line is rated for 50psi with burst pressure of 250psi. Your max fuel pressure is 30psi and automotive fuel pressure often is in excess of 50psi, hence the placarding. The fuel line is not for aviation use, which should be the concern. Our aircraft fuel injection systems are more like Bosch K-Jetronic constant flow systems that have more in common with carburetors than they do modern pulsed injector automotive systems. 

I’m not saying that fuel line is acceptable, by any means, but my guess is someone didn’t want to spend the time and/or money for the correct one and took a liberal approach on the “owner produced part” exemption. 

So long as the wing isn’t corroding away and it’s otherwise airworthy, fix what you need to and move on. Every plane I’ve bought has cost me a couple thousand dollars in the first couple months to address one issue or another, regardless of who did the maintenance and PPI. 

[jetdriven]

15 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

As an A$P, did you change the cable end to the new style rod end when the SB was issued, Byron, or was this the older ball and socket older planes had originally installed that failed? I remember back when I had my 70 F, I saw this SB and thought "oh, that wont end well if it happens" and had mine changed out. While not mandatory in Pt 91 ops, some of these SB's are very worth considering doing. Some are written in blood.

I wasn’t an A&P then but I did instal the old style ball trapped by the plug style think on the mixture when we changed engines. After it came apart you better believe I scoured the net and found the SB and applied it. I didn’t know about it before.  
yes I agree many of these SB and such are not mandatory per se but should be strongly considered.  

[cujet]

18 hours ago, FloridaMan said:

When someone decides to sell their airplane there will almost always be something that’s not done. Take any experienced IA and have them look over a Mooney that has left a MSC and they will find an issue,,,Every plane I’ve bought has cost me a couple thousand dollars in the first couple months to address one issue or another, regardless of who did the maintenance and PPI. 

Exactly! 

I'm Director of Maintenance for a high end corporate flight department. I performed my own careful pre-buy which included interior removal, I found a large number of items, which reduced the price by $12K thereby making the purchase attractive. Even so, after I got into the project an impressive number of additional squawks were found. From cracked brackets, to wrong hoses, to automotive parts installed last century! How many items were missed by my multi day pre-buy? I'd say that in the end, it exceeded 50%. 

Many people really don't understand that older aircraft do tend to accumulate hidden problems. Short of complete disassembly, many of those issues will remain hidden until they can't be missed. A good example is an aluminum fuel line with internal corrosion. 

[CaptainOveur]

On 8/6/2019 at 9:06 AM, M20F said:

The bill of sale is going to protect the seller in all likelihood.  Everyone I have ever seen will have a clause covering this.  

You then have to prove what would have been reasonable to find on a PPI.  The prop governor hose looked good in my cursory inspection.  Given it was not an annual inspection, I did not review to the level required of one to note it was an automotive part.  

This is why several people (and I agree and post this all the time). You always do a pre-purchase annual.  You also generally ask the seller to cover airworthy items.  AOPA has a sample of this language on their website.  Now you know exactly what the reasonable finds were because they are clearly defined under law no less. You also have a signature by a certified AI warranting the inspection.  Now you have teeth. 

So I see little recourse here for the buyers poor decision making.  I hope others learn from it, people purchase an asset for $10’s if not $100’s of thousand dollars and can’t  be bothered to sink a couple grand into an annual  

Caveat emptor.  

Mike Busch/Savvy have an exemplar Pre-Buy agreement on their website and do a lot of this work.  Unlike an "annual" or "100 hour," "Pre-Buy" is not really a defined term.  It can mean whatever is defined in the scope of work, if there is one.  So it is not clear there is any recourse based on these facts, since it is not clear what the inspector was engaged to do.  Of course, if it was "determine airworthiness" and the inspector pronounced it "airworthy," and it was clearly not, that may be a different story.  Hard to know without all the facts.

[CaptainOveur]

On 8/6/2019 at 2:29 PM, Ftlausa said:

If the log book says they used an FAA approved part, and they didn't that would seem pretty easy to prove.  If the log book didn't document a repair or modification that was done to the plane, that would also seem pretty easy to prove.  If the log book said a SB or AD was complied with and it wasn't, again that seem pretty easy to prove.  

Log book entries list who did the repair or modification, so you have a road map to your witnesses.  I see a clear path to proving a misrepresentation or fraud -- probably more so than in many other breach of contract cases.  If you don't see it as clearly, I hope it never happens to you.  

This will conclude my commentary on this subject.  I have to get back to paying clients who value and pay for my advice.  : - )

Seems to me if the log entry was other than right before the buyer took possession, the involved A&P would just say "the airworthy part was on there when it left MY shop."  It would be pretty tough for the new buyer to prove definitively that an airworthy part installed a year ago, or five years ago, had not been R+R'd with a now-unairworthy part.  That would require the seller's cooperation (and indeed every owner/operator since the offending log entry).  This is why people hate lawyers, but don't hate the players, hate the game...