prebuy or annual?

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, midlifeflyer said:

Yes. That is exactly what I meant. I guess it did need clarification  

Well, that is troubling...I always figured when it came time to sell, I'd let the buyer use an A&P of his choice (within a reasonable distance), but NOT provide the real logs, NO annual, and PPI money up-front by the buyer so my plane isn't held hostage.  Now, it looks to me like an unscrupulous buyer and a co-operating mechanic can ground my aircraft, away from home, in order to beat me down on price.  Not pleasant.  Now, I know why some sellers said bring your mechanic to my plane; it isn't going ANYWHERE!

[RobertGary1]

19 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, that is troubling...I always figured when it came time to sell, I'd let the buyer use an A&P of his choice (within a reasonable distance), but NOT provide the real logs, NO annual, and PPI money up-front by the buyer so my plane isn't held hostage.  Now, it looks to me like an unscrupulous buyer and a co-operating mechanic can ground my aircraft, away from home, in order to beat me down on price.  Not pleasant.  Now, I know why some sellers said bring your mechanic to my plane; it isn't going ANYWHERE!

I wouldn’t fly my plane to a sellers mechanic unless it was a very respected place like a service center. Otherwise the mechanic can come here. 
 

-Robert 

[midlifeflyer]

23 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Now, I know why some sellers said bring your mechanic to my plane; it isn't going ANYWHERE!

Could be.  Even if not selling, you fly to a distant airport and the fuel guy notices something wrong with your airplane. He has no status whatsoever but if the airworthiness issue is brought to your attention, you have, at the very least, an interesting decision to make. 

So, it doesn't need to be a conspiracy to defraud. I think at least with smaller aircraft the PPI is usually done at seller's location. Of course, buyer and seller might also agree on a specific person or shop based on a trustworthy reputation or, with larger purchases, a manufacturer Authorized Service Center.

[jaylw314]

5 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Could be.  Even if not selling, you fly to a distant airport and the fuel guy notices something wrong with your airplane. He has no status whatsoever but if the airworthiness issue is brought to your attention, you have, at the very least, an interesting decision to make. 

So, it doesn't need to be a conspiracy to defraud. I think at least with smaller aircraft the PPI is usually done at seller's location. Of course, buyer and seller might also agree on a specific person or shop based on a trustworthy reputation or, with larger purchases, a manufacturer Authorized Service Center.

It seems pretty common to allow for a PPI to be done within a "reasonable" distance of the seller's home base (up to 1 hour flight?).  That would be a reasonable compromise, since as a buyer I wouldn't allow the PPI to be done by a mechanic who's recently worked on the seller's plane. I would expect the buyer to split the cost of the fuel and pay the full cost of round trip transportation for the owner or ferry pilot to and from the PPI site.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

It seems pretty common to allow for a PPI to be done within a "reasonable" distance of the seller's home base (up to 1 hour flight?).  That would be a reasonable compromise, since as a buyer I wouldn't allow the PPI to be done by a mechanic who's recently worked on the seller's plane. I would expect the buyer to split the cost of the fuel and pay the full cost of round trip transportation for the owner or ferry pilot to and from the PPI site.

Seen both and more. They are choices like so many other things in aviation. Some have very low risk tolerance and see an unacceptable risk in allowing the airplane to travel. Others have higher risk tolerance and do not. 
 

Having seen a nasty result of one I would never recommend allowing a seller mechanic to do a PPI in the absence of special circumstances.

[gsxrpilot]

Airworthiness is rarely definitive or black and white. There have been many discussions about how any IA or FSDO could probably find cause to ground any airplane on the ramp, given a close enough look. Of course it seems like every guy walking across the ramp thinks himself to be the expert on airworthiness. But much like the Constitution or the Bible, there are as many interpretations as there are people to give them. 

If the airplane has a current annual in the log book, then it's up to me, the PIC to determine if the plane is airworthy or not. No shop is going to ground my airplane as long as the annual is current. Granted I might have difficulty explaining myself to a FSDO or Insurance company if it came to that. And in the worst case, I might have to put the panels back on myself. But as PIC, I'll determine if the plane can be flow or not.

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Airworthiness is rarely definitive or black and white. There have been many discussions about how any IA or FSDO could probably find cause to ground any airplane on the ramp, given a close enough look. Of course it seems like every guy walking across the ramp thinks himself to be the expert on airworthiness. But much like the Constitution or the Bible, there are as many interpretations as there are people to give them. 

If the airplane has a current annual in the log book, then it's up to me, the PIC to determine if the plane is airworthy or not. No shop is going to ground my airplane as long as the annual is current. Granted I might have difficulty explaining myself to a FSDO or Insurance company if it came to that. And in the worst case, I might have to put the panels back on myself. But as PIC, I'll determine if the plane can be flow or not.

It’s the old responsibility and accountability going hand in hand. something that seems to be on its way out today. 
 

-Robert

[thinwing]

On 10/18/2020 at 3:35 PM, Parker_Woodruff said:

And the one you've got now according to your profile info is sure different than the previous ones...

which i think i saw on beech talk is now for sale!!!

[thinwing]

On 10/20/2020 at 5:46 PM, KLRDMD said:

Not this one either.

 id say ok you want to renegotiate due to nonairworthy squawks?...Like the paint chipped off inspection screws?you didnt notice,tires half worn,brake pads at 30% life,paint worn off intrument knobs,some cracks in the royalite interior panels,faded lettering on placards,no yearly prepaid data service,rust on landing gear parts,a couple minor oil engine seeps.....etc...sounds like normal wear and tear...so the price is the same minus airworthy items...ok no deal...thanks for the deposit!!!

[steingar]

How can a mechanic declare an airplane that is within its annual inspection term unairworthy?  They can note what they feel are deficiencies, but like Paul said, the final say is with us.

I actually think an annual inspection for purchase is overkill.  A decent mechanic should be able to spot show stoppers with a PPI, which is really what you're looking for. There are few airplanes that don't have at least a couple squawks.  I don't expect the seller to deliver me a perfect airplane, just an airworthy one.

 

[Guest]

I’d think that if a maintainer pointed out something like a corroded wing spar, he or she would be right to say it’s unairworthy.  Could they ground your plane? I’m not sure, but they certainly have an obligation to point it out.

Clarence

[gsxrpilot]

41 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I’d think that if a maintainer pointed out something like a corroded wing spar, he or she would be right to say it’s unairworthy.  Could they ground your plane? I’m not sure, but they certainly have an obligation to point it out.

I had a very similar situation with 252AD but not during a pre-buy. The A&P looking at the plane found corrosion, said it was on the spar and said the plane was grounded and needed a new wing. I went to the shop, and flew the plane home and to another shop for a second opinion. I had to close up the wing panels, and install the left seat myself. But as it turned out it wasn't spar corrosion, it was on the spar cap, and it wasn't nearly as bad as was suggested. The fix was not a new wing but a little cleaning and a very small doubler. 

So at least here in the US under FAA rules, I was confident to say that he couldn't ground the plane no matter his opinion to the contrary.