Need advice / sharing my concerns with someone

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, JWJR said:

Correct me if I’m wrong here. The panel was removed for the pre-buy inspection. Ok so the difference between discovery of the corrosion during the pre-buy and discovering the corrosion during the annual was an inspection mirror and 3-5 seconds of labor.( holding a mirror using a flashing and your eyes to see). Hmmm I wonder if it was the same mechanic for both inspections in that panel? If I’m correct then why did he remove the panel during the pre-buy if he was not going to do a proper inspection? It’s like taking the toilet paper off the roll but not wiping your ass? Half ass job

In 9 pages of this post I don't remember reading that the inspection cover had been removed on this airplane during the pre-buy, but I could be wrong. I know someone mentioned that's you look for it. But even if he did open it and it looked good I doubt that there are a lot of people, especially those who have never seen this problem before, that would have gone further. That may be something they do in every inspection spot on every annual inspection, but remember at this point they weren't getting paid for an annual inspection. There are a lot of inspection covers. I would not consider a 17 hour pre-buy a quick glance. Now I'm curious what airworthy discrepancies they did find that the Seller agreed to cover. . 

There's a strong argument that on older airplanes a pre-buy should be more thorough than an annual, but then how many people would be willing to pay $3000+ for that?

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

You aren't going to like this . . .  but here goes:

It's already been mentioned multiple times by those that work on Mooneys every day that a pre-buy is very unlikely to catch this unless unless by chance you would have known to have specifically asked them to look for it, which few people would have. I wouldn't have before this post on a Mooney this recent. All of us on this forum are learning at your expense. Going forward if someone wants to pay the hours required for this to be part of their pre-buy inspection at least it's out there for everyone to consider.

Here's the part you aren't going to like: In thinking about this over the last few days, the easiest thing in the world for that shop to have done would have been to ignore what they found if they felt that they should have caught it during the pre-buy. They didn't feel that they should have caught it but they still did have the integrity to tell you about it. Their life would have been easier for the next week or two if they hadn't told you. That wouldn't have been ethical but I'm sure it's been done at one point somewhere. It's not like they were trying to get the job for the repair. They don't even feel comfortable doing it. Knowledge is power. Knowing sooner is better. Yeah it would have been better to have known before closing, for sure. But at some point if it goes too long, it may have totaled the airplane. Would the next annual have caught it? Hard to say. Would any annual in the  next five have caught it? Did any of the last five annuals catch it?

So i would definitely give the shop some credit for informing you on what they found during the longer, more thorough annual inspection. Rather than having anger, regret, remorse at this point I would work on channeling that toward at least some gratitude that they told you about it and just concentrate on moving toward a solution. Try to work out something fair for both of you. 

Also not sure why you would need a ferry permit since it's still in annual until the end of February. 

So blame the customer instead of the prebuy shop. Who conveniently found the corrosion a couple days after the plane changed hands. They couldn’t  possibly find it  until they did.  MSC pedigree. Ok…

[JWJR]

I directly asked if it was removed for the pre- buy ( many posts ago) and RB relied yes in a post shortly thereafter.
I remember when I volunteered to assist for my first Mooney annual. I was handed a flashlight a mirror and a creeper to maneuver around on. I said ok once it’s open what am I looking for. I was told there’s some parts that needed lubed and they will take care of that. My job was to look all around with the mirror and see If a mouse has taken insulation from a seat bottom or behind the side panels and into the wing to build a nest. Old Jim said you’d be surprised where those rascals can hide and build a nest. I’ve never seen any in the Mooney however they ruined all the wiring on a Bonanza hangered on the field. Also found a nest in a Archer wing tip while installing a Skybeacon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[redbaron1982]

I think discussing who is to blame (if me or the shop) at this point has been already covered. I'm using AOPA services to guide me in possible solutions/compensations, but my main concern is getting the aircraft fixed and ready to fly again.

Just as more context info, I requested the shop to do a prebuy and following that a annual inspection. The point was to due all the "inspection" part of the annual as part of the prebuy, and complete whatever was remaining (for instance wheel bearing service due or service the spark plugs) after the purchase. In the annual inspection report they stated: "Finish Annual inspection after Pre-Purchase."

And also, at least verbally, they confirmed that during prebuy they opened or the inspection panels.

Anyway, it could be as @JWJR mentioned, maybe the annual was done by a different mechanich, and that's why it came up.

Also, I agree with @LANCECASPER that I have to value that they were honest in declaring the corrosion and also in saying that they are not able to repair it. So, at the end, they are not gaining anything with this. Also, they are helping me get the quotes from Don Maxwell and dugosh.com. Ando also they offered to help with the ferry permit.

I'm not mad at them, nor I want to take advantage of the situation. I just want to try to come to an agreement that is fair. In my view, it is not fair for me to absorb all the cost of this.

Anyway, if at the end there is no agreement and no legal way of getting a compensation of this, I will just move the page forward, enjoy the new aircraft, be 15k poorer but feeling confident with a safe airplane.

[Smiles201]

This is a hazard for all aircraft. If there would have been no problem seen now, there is a good chance that the problem would have developed later. Check the rest of the airframe closely, with an eye towards spotting the next trouble area.  Checked inside the fuel tanks?

Edited January 13, 2022 by Smiles201

[Ragsf15e]

On 1/11/2022 at 3:02 PM, LANCECASPER said:

Ok, I stand corrected.

https://resources.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2012-03_how-to-flunk-an-annual-inspection.pdf

Yeah I made the same mistake about 3 pages earlier in this thread.  Guess I learned something from this saga like you indicated.  Mine goes in for annual next week and we’re gonna have a look at that spar for sure.

[Ragsf15e]

On 1/11/2022 at 5:05 PM, Andy95W said:

Where in the FARs is that written?  Or is there a legal interpretation letter of clarification?

It’s in that Mike Busch article that is linked, but I don’t think there’s a FAR reference. I thought it was airworthy until the old inspection expired as well, but it looks like it’s not.  We should find the far reference.

[Ragsf15e]

On 1/11/2022 at 5:05 PM, Andy95W said:

Where in the FARs is that written?  Or is there a legal interpretation letter of clarification?

I found this in the FAA’s guide for IAs.  It’s not explicit but seems relatively clear the the airplane is unairworthy until repaired.

[Andy95W]

@Ragsf15e- Thanks for researching and posting.

In 25 years of being an A&P and almost 20 years of being an IA, I had never heard what corn flake said:  “Aircraft is considered no longer airworthy when an annual inspection begins” until Mike Busch said it- and that doesn’t mean it’s correct.  And I have never seen nor heard of a reference or justification of that statement.  And I figure at some point in 20 years of IA renewal training someone, somewhere, would’ve said it.

I mean, it seems fairly ridiculous that if an IA removes one inspection panel screw for the purpose of an annual inspection the airplane is unairworthy until that inspection is completed.

And the bottom portion of Rags’ post entitled “Incomplete Inspection” is the proof of what I’m saying.  Nowhere does it say the airplane is unairworthy, just that the IA must note what work was accomplished and if any discrepancies were discovered.

So in regards to the original posting, with almost 2 months remaining on last year’s annual inspection, the IA of the shop could note the work that was accomplished, note that corrosion was found which renders the aircraft unairworthy, and date and sign the logbooks.  The previous annual inspection is still valid until 12 calendar months have expired.

I don’t know why Mike Busch said what he did, but it might have been a misinterpretation of something that is regulatory, in that an annual inspection must be uninterrupted or it cannot count as an annual.  Basically, you can’t do part of an annual inspection, go fly the airplane, then finish it later.

EDIT:  I will readily admit my knowledge isn’t perfect, and if someone has information to the contrary, I’d love to hear it so I can learn and improve.

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Andy95W

[Ragsf15e]

1 minute ago, Andy95W said:

@Ragsf15e- Thanks for researching and posting.

In 25 years of being an A&P and almost 20 years of being an IA, I had never heard what corn flake said:  “Aircraft is considered no longer airworthy when an annual inspection begins” until Mike Busch said it- and that doesn’t mean it’s correct.  And I have never seen nor heard of a reference or justification of that statement.  And I figure at some point in 20 years of IA renewal training someone, somewhere, would’ve said it.

I mean, it seems fairly ridiculous that if an IA removes one inspection panel screw for the purpose of an annual inspection the airplane is unairworthy until that inspection is completed.

And the bottom portion of Rags’ post entitled “Incomplete Inspection” is the proof of what I’m saying.  Nowhere does it say the airplane is unairworthy, just that the IA must note what work was accomplished and if any discrepancies were discovered.

So in regards to the original posting, with almost 2 months remaining on last year’s annual inspection, the IA of the shop could note the work that was accomplished, note that corrosion was found which renders the aircraft unairworthy, and date and sign the logbooks.  The previous annual inspection is still valid until 12 calendar months have expired.

I don’t know why Mike Busch said what he did, but it might have been a misinterpretation of something that is regulatory, in that an annual inspection must be uninterrupted or it cannot count as an annual.  Basically, you can’t do part of an annual inspection, go fly the airplane, then finish it later.

 

I agree with you about how they could document it in the forms, but wouldn’t the fact that they document corrosion on the spar as unairworthy make the airplane unairworthy?  It does say they need to document any discrepancies.

That section could work if say they started an inspection, but stopped for some reason before finding an airworthiness concern.  They could just document starting the inspection with no discrepancies.

Once they say, “found significant corrosion on aft spar”… well you’re right, it’s not explicit, but it seems that it’s unairworthy?

[Andy95W]

Oh, absolutely, the airplane in question is unairworthy and needs to be either repaired or get a ferry permit.

My point was specifically in regards to the statement that Mike Busch and corn flake gave, that once any annual inspection starts that airplane is unairworthy until completed.

[carusoam]

The rules about annual inspections…

Is why we have PPIs…

With a PPI… it can be stopped at any time, and put back together… and the owner isn’t left with an incomplete annual… And Nothing is recorded in the logs…

Often PPIs can get flaky… new potential owners have the right to flake for any reason they want… you wouldn’t want their flakiness in your log book.

 

Then there is the ethics part…

If the PPI finds an AW issue that the owner isn’t aware of…

Is it proper to ignore what was found, put the covers back in place… and not mention anything to anyone…?  (How do mechanics document these findings, a note to the owner?)

unfortunately in this case… the AW issue wasn’t discovered until after the PPI was finished… so this ethics issue wasn’t involved…

 

Possible different ethics issue that could be considered…

1) What should have been found, wasn’t…  (expected to be found)

2) Somebody new it was there and was hiding it… (failed to mention it)

These are ethics issues found in aviation in general… not related to this particular event…

PP thoughts only, not a lawyer…

-a-

[Austintatious]

Man, this thread blew up...

I have a few thoughts on The PPI issues...

I get that if Mechanics were held liable for not finding a big problem as we see with the OP,  that no mechanic  would want to even do a PPI... That being said, if the average Joe cannot be confident in a PPI, then why would they ever buy a used aircraft or bother with the PPI to begin with?   There HAS to be a happy medium in there where mechanics are safe from liability if they do a good PPI and the owner is confident that a PPI is a good measure to use in deciding to buy an older aircraft. 

I tend to try to figure out how I will operate in the future with the knowledge I have accrued.  In this case I have a sort of silly idea, but one might be a good way to increase the likelihood that  I wont get saddled with an expensive problem that went undetected as with the OP.   I'm thinking for the next PPI I have done, I will be very very specific about what I want done... and I will also tell the mechanic that does the PPI that if he finds any "showstoppers" (anything that would make the aircraft unsafe to fly) with the aircraft, that I will give him $1000.00 in cash as a bonus.  Certainly that will get him looking really carefully at everything.  If he finds something like in the OP, then I am out another 1000.00 but at least I wont end up with a 20k repair bill.  If he finds nothing, I can be pretty confident that the aircraft is in good shape.

I may also insist that In addition to a PPI, a fresh annual is completed at my cost.  The seller is responsible for airworthiness items anyway, so what is the problem?   If a seller balks at that, then I'll just walk.  Simple as that.  He can sell to the next sucker.  If they are OK with it, then perhaps I have some recourse should I still have something major fall through the cracks... because the shop signed the aircraft off as airworthy.

Savvy Aviation would hate me for this if they were representing the seller.

 

The MSC issue I don't know what to say.  I will reiterate that I have not been impressed in the least by the 2 MSC's  I have been to.  And when I say that, I don't mean to say that I wont go to them again or that they will always do bad work... I just mean that I have not seen any real difference from the "random A&P's I have delt with.  Perhaps it was just my expectations that caused this.  I have certainly been to independent shops that did much better work and had nicer facilities.  I have also had the opposite of that experience.  Contrast this to when I take our Lexus or BMW to a dealership for work... they know the cars well and fix things right.. but take those same cars to an independent shop and they dont know them as well and the repair may or may not fix the problem correctly. 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Austintatious

[PT20J]

On 1/11/2022 at 6:20 PM, redbaron1982 said:

I think discussing who is to blame (if me or the shop) at this point has been already covered. I'm using AOPA services to guide me in possible solutions/compensations, but my main concern is getting the aircraft fixed and ready to fly again.

Just as more context info, I requested the shop to do a prebuy and following that a annual inspection. The point was to due all the "inspection" part of the annual as part of the prebuy, and complete whatever was remaining (for instance wheel bearing service due or service the spark plugs) after the purchase. In the annual inspection report they stated: "Finish Annual inspection after Pre-Purchase."

And also, at least verbally, they confirmed that during prebuy they opened or the inspection panels.

Anyway, it could be as @JWJR mentioned, maybe the annual was done by a different mechanich, and that's why it came up.

Also, I agree with @LANCECASPER that I have to value that they were honest in declaring the corrosion and also in saying that they are not able to repair it. So, at the end, they are not gaining anything with this. Also, they are helping me get the quotes from Don Maxwell and dugosh.com. Ando also they offered to help with the ferry permit.

I'm not mad at them, nor I want to take advantage of the situation. I just want to try to come to an agreement that is fair. In my view, it is not fair for me to absorb all the cost of this.

Anyway, if at the end there is no agreement and no legal way of getting a compensation of this, I will just move the page forward, enjoy the new aircraft, be 15k poorer but feeling confident with a safe airplane.

What seemed strange to me about this is why they found the problem during the servicing part of the annual rather than the inspection part which was also the pre-purchase  inspection. One would normally expect the corrosion to be evident in the wheel well since that is the side of the stub spar that is exposed to the elements. I don't know how many shops would remove that access panel during a pre-purchase inspection. Maxwell didn't remove those when they did mine. Maybe the shop removed them as they said; maybe not.

I looked in the service and maintenance manual and it states that these panels are for access to wing attach bolts (true) and for lubrication of control guide blocks (which is a mistake -- there are no control guide blocks there). But if the mechanic was going by the servicing chart in the manual, he/she/they may have removed the panels for lubrication and discovered the problem then. 

Anyway, it sounds like you are on your way to getting if fixed. Maxwell or Dugosh should be well equipped to take care of it.

Good luck!

Skip

[PT20J]

On 1/12/2022 at 8:34 PM, Andy95W said:

In 25 years of being an A&P and almost 20 years of being an IA, I had never heard what corn flake said:  “Aircraft is considered no longer airworthy when an annual inspection begins” until Mike Busch said it- and that doesn’t mean it’s correct.  And I have never seen nor heard of a reference or justification of that statement.  And I figure at some point in 20 years of IA renewal training someone, somewhere, would’ve said it.

I've heard this, also. I don't think it is correct and it doesn't match what is said in the document @Ragsf15e posted just before your post. An incomplete annual inspection would seem to render the airplane unairworthy only if the part of the inspection completed turned up an unairworthy discrepancy.

[jetdriven]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:41 PM, Ragsf15e said:

I agree with you about how they could document it in the forms, but wouldn’t the fact that they document corrosion on the spar as unairworthy make the airplane unairworthy?  It does say they need to document any discrepancies.

That section could work if say they started an inspection, but stopped for some reason before finding an airworthiness concern.  They could just document starting the inspection with no discrepancies.

Once they say, “found significant corrosion on aft spar”… well you’re right, it’s not explicit, but it seems that it’s unairworthy?

I think the FAA beaded guidance  says that you note that an annual inspection was performed, and a list of discrepancies given to the owner. You don’t write wjat the discrepancies are on the logbook, and you don’t write the word “Unairworthy” anywhere. Actually I think the pilot in command of the airplane determines if it’s  airworthy, the mechanic can state the Aircraft is in airworthy condition or he can say he did the annual inspection and gave a list of discrepancy to the owner.

Edited January 15, 2022 by jetdriven

[goodyFAB]

any update on this ?

how did the repair go ?

how did the shop do with the liability?

 

[PeteMc]

I'm obviously not an A&P or IA, but I do like these "who's on first" discussions.  So my first question is where does a 100 hour or progressive Annual fall into this discussion if the plane is unairworth the moment the first panel is removed?

But more important, I knew a senior FAA guy that always said you should NEVER interpret the Regs on your own.  You should never use "may" if it says "shall" etc., etc., and you follow what the Regs SAY until their is a change or the FAA releases a legal interpretation.  (Even if they seem bat crazy!)  So the Regs say an Annual is good for 12 months, not 12 months OR the beginning of the next Annual.  So short of someone coming up with an FAA Legal Interpretation, those sayings the Annual ends at the start of the next Annual are blowing smoke. 

Where are the lawyers we have here... curious if I'm misinterpreting?  (Sorry Mike B. )

Edited November 25, 2022 by PeteMc

[A64Pilot]

I don’t believe an aircraft becomes un-airworthy either at the beginning of an annual until because of parts removal or finding an un-airworthy discrepancy, just like any other inspection or servicing. An Annual and a 100 hour are identical, except the Annual must be performed by an IA, he can’t supervise an Annual, the IA must perform it.

 To me that means I must do the inspection, others can remove and clean the wheel bearings for instance, but I must inspect them, others may have different opinions.

I doubt many would argue an aircraft is airworthy with a wheel or plugs removed etc.

I have never done a list, but on the list if I ever do the first statement would be the following list of items render the aircraft no longer airworthy.  I’d date and sign it and have a signature block for the owner, should they refuse to sign, I’d annotate that on the list, I’m keeping a copy obviously.

Used to be a copy of the list was sent to FSDO, but in their quest to limit liability and reduce work that’s no longer the case.

[LANCECASPER]

On 11/24/2022 at 1:25 PM, goodyFAB said:

any update on this ?

how did the repair go ?

how did the shop do with the liability?

 

@redbaron1982 What's the latest? Please let us know how it turned out.

[redbaron1982]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

@redbaron1982 What's the latest? Please let us know how it turned out.

The latest (from mid December) is that Don Maxwell got the new aft stub spar and they are working on getting it install. I hope sometime during January it should be finished.

And then finger crossing that the engine is still in good shape after 12 months of almost not running.

If you guys have any suggestion on how to bring this Mooney back to service, please let me know. The engine does have TKS so that's another thing I'm worried about with 1 year of no use.

[rbp]

32 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

suggestion on how to bring this Mooney back to service

seems like Don Maxwell might have an answer for you

[EricJ]

+1 just ask Maxwells about getting it going again.  You're already at a place with top-notch advice.

[redbaron1982]

Thanks, I was asking mainly because I'm still trying to learn if GA shops are a "trust no one" thing or if there are "good people" that is not constantly trying to rip you off.

My experience so far, before taking it to Don, is that GA shops are always trying to rip you off. I hope I can start building some trust on shops like Don's.

[Ragsf15e]

3 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Thanks, I was asking mainly because I'm still trying to learn if GA shops are a "trust no one" thing or if there are "good people" that is not constantly trying to rip you off.

My experience so far, before taking it to Don, is that GA shops are always trying to rip you off. I hope I can start building some trust on shops like Don's.

He’s always been pretty reasonable with advice and good with his maintenance.  They are antique aircraft, so keep that in mind.  Each is a little different.  Don has maintained a solid reputation for a long time though.

If there was one place to have your aircraft, that’s it.