Should I bring tools?

[Guest]

If a seller truly believes that his plane is Airworthy he should have no fear of allowing a maintainer to open panels and look it over.  What's to hide?

Clarence

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

This is not unreasonable in my opinion.  As long as the seller allows you and your mechanic access, I understand a seller's reticence to ferry his plane "hither and yon".  A good PPI can take place in the owner's hangar; the buyer may have to pay more to make it happen.

Too many stories of airplanes being held hostage by the buyer's shop.

A ferry flight from one local airport to another, might work, but an hour cross country flight?  No way!

 

And does the seller supply all the tools and equipment?

As has been mentioned, the PP is NOT an inspection.  So no log book entries.

And if I shop holds a plane hostage, that is when you call the local police.

[ArtVandelay]

If a seller truly believes that his plane is Airworthy he should have no fear of allowing a maintainer to open panels and look it over.  What's to hide?
Clarence

Because not all maintainers are wrench worthy and you could end up with a defective airplane.
I would be happy to fly my plane to any airport within 150 miles, but I would require:
1. to see his certification
2. Provide only electronic copies of the logs which the buyer already would have.
3. He would sign a document stating this is not an inspection, but a buyers evaluation and the buyer alone is responsible for ALL expenses and the plane would be returned to service.

I’d also require it to be done the same day, because I would not leave the plane.

[Mooneymite]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

And does the seller supply all the tools and equipment?

As has been mentioned, the PP is NOT an inspection.  So no log book entries.

And if I shop holds a plane hostage, that is when you call the local police.

And does the seller supply all the tools and equipment? 

Depends on who has what.  This is a "discussion item".

And if I shop holds a plane hostage, that is when you call the local police.

The problem arises when there's a difference of opinion about what's airworthy.  Any owner would be reticent to fly his plane home after an A&P declares something "unairworthy".  The owner is stuck.  Calling the police won't help.  Keeping the plane in one's own hangar simplifies the process.

[Mooneymite]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

If a seller truly believes that his plane is Airworthy he should have no fear of allowing a maintainer to open panels and look it over.  What's to hide?

Clarence

I agree, completely.  As an owner, if a potential buyer finds "something wrong", how does that hurt anyone except an unscrupulous seller?

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

The problem arises when there's a difference of opinion about what's airworthy.  Any owner would be reticent to fly his plane home after an A&P declares something "unairworthy".  The owner is stuck.  Calling the police won't help.  Keeping the plane in one's own hangar simplifies the process.

In a general sense an A&P cannot ground an aircraft.   An IA can decline to declare an airplane airworthy as a result of an annual inspection.    "Airworthiness" of an airplane that is not out of annual is determined by the pilot, not an A&P servicing or repairing an aircraft.    Shops may hold an airplane hostage strictly for revenue generating purposes and may describe something to an owner as "unairworthy" in an attempt to ground it as part of that strategy, but, as mentioned, this should not be the result of a pre-purchase "evaluation".

Mooneyspace has seen a number of cases where an owner declined a shop's declaration of "unairworthiness" and just took it elsewhere for service or repair.

That said, the point of this whole scenario happening is a genuine risk element when an owner allows an aircraft to be taken to any shop, for a PPI or any reason, even if it isn't strictly per the regulations.   Legal or not, it can be a huge hassle to deal with if a shop claims an airplane can't leave because it is "unairworthy", which I think just highlights that the owner should have a say in where the aircraft is taken for a PPI.   It's a bit too much for an owner to demand it can't be taken out of the owner's hangar or anywhere other than the owner's regular shop, but likewise it's not okay for a buyer to demand a particular shop if the owner has reason to believe it's going to cause a problem.   

[N201MKTurbo]

7 minutes ago, EricJ said:

In a general sense an A&P cannot ground an aircraft.   An IA can decline to declare an airplane airworthy as a result of an annual inspection.    "Airworthiness" of an airplane that is not out of annual is determined by the pilot, not an A&P servicing or repairing an aircraft.    Shops may hold an airplane hostage strictly for revenue generating purposes and may describe something to an owner as "unairworthy" in an attempt to ground it as part of that strategy, but, as mentioned, this should not be the result of a pre-purchase "evaluation".

Mooneyspace has seen a number of cases where an owner declined a shop's declaration of "unairworthiness" and just took it elsewhere for service or repair.

That said, the point of this whole scenario happening is a genuine risk element when an owner allows an aircraft to be taken to any shop, for a PPI or any reason, even if it isn't strictly per the regulations.   Legal or not, it can be a huge hassle to deal with if a shop claims an airplane can't leave because it is "unairworthy", which I think just highlights that the owner should have a say in where the aircraft is taken for a PPI.   It's a bit too much for an owner to demand it can't be taken out of the owner's hangar or anywhere other than the owner's regular shop, but likewise it's not okay for a buyer to demand a particular shop if the owner has reason to believe it's going to cause a problem.   

Just to add to this, An IA can either declare the airplane airworthy, (no discrepancies) or Not airworthy. If he declares it Un-airworthy he has to state why. which is a list of discrepancies. At that point the inspection is over. Any A&P can correct the discrepancies and return the plane to service. If the plane needs to be flown somewhere with discrepancies, you will need a ferry permit. That's what they are for. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I don't know any mechanism where an A&P or IA can declare an aircraft un-airworthy outside of a required inspection. If the airplane is still in annual the operator is responsible for determining if it is airworthy. The FAA can declare an airplane un-airworthy, with a list of discrepancies. I've seen it once. Even with that any A&P can fix the discrepancies and return the plane to service if it is still in annual. Even with that said I would have a chat with the FAA inspector before flying it. 

[bcg]

So I went and looked at the plane this morning and the seller was super accommodating.  I didn't bring any tools but he had a screwdriver and opened everything we asked to see inside and then let both me and the CMEL/CFI I brought with me fly it briefly, even letting the CMEL/CFI land the plane, he probably would have let me land it also, I didn't feel comfortable with my low hours though.  I talked with him about a PPI and he's willing to bring it to my A&P of choice so I'm going to make an offer on it. 

This was my first time flying a Mooney and I have there is no comparison to the Cherokee, 172s and Champs I've flown in the past.  I really liked the seat configuration and how tight the controls are, it really felt like going from my F450 into my old BMW 335 with M3 suspension upgrade, just no comparison at all.  I'm really looking forward to learning this aircraft and building some time in it.  I'll probably add an EDM-900 to it and update the GPS but otherwise the avionics are serviceable for what I want to do with it.

[Guest]

For the entire time I’ve participated here on Mooneyspace, I’ve read these tales of airplanes being held hostage by a shop during a PPI.  Has anyone here experienced this first hand? Not read about or herd about at the airport coffee shop.

Can an IA really ground a plane and determine it “un airworthy”?  It seems to me the most he could do is write an entry in the log book stating his findings if he found something serious wrong.  Even then he can’t write in the log book as most here won’t surrender their logs to their maintenance shop.

In Canada a maintainer can’t revoke the C of A, only the regulator (Transport Canada)can.  I’m guessing that it’s the same in the US?  The only time a maintainer in Canada determines that the plane is airworthy is on application for a new C of A, and even then “airworthiness” isn’t used.  

When I complete and Annual inspection or any other maintenance, details of the work completed and details of any outstanding work are entered in the logbooks. The maintenance release I sign only attests to my having completed the maintenance correctly and in accordance with current regulations.  Any pilot before flying the plane is supposed to read the log book and determine if the plane can be safely operated with any of the listed outstanding items.  It’s the pilots responsibility not the maintainer’s.

Clarence

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, bcg said:

So I went and looked at the plane this morning and the seller was super accommodating.  I didn't bring any tools but he had a screwdriver and opened everything we asked to see inside and then let both me and the CMEL/CFI I brought with me fly it briefly, even letting the CMEL/CFI land the plane, he probably would have let me land it also, I didn't feel comfortable with my low hours though.  I talked with him about a PPI and he's willing to bring it to my A&P of choice so I'm going to make an offer on it. 

This was my first time flying a Mooney and I have there is no comparison to the Cherokee, 172s and Champs I've flown in the past.  I really liked the seat configuration and how tight the controls are, it really felt like going from my F450 into my old BMW 335 with M3 suspension upgrade, just no comparison at all.  I'm really looking forward to learning this aircraft and building some time in it.  I'll probably add an EDM-900 to it and update the GPS but otherwise the avionics are serviceable for what I want to do with it.

Glad to hear that the first step went so well.

There are as many varied opinions as to what you should do for an inspection the satisfy yourself that it’s a good airplane.  Almost any part can be unbolted and replaced, fuel tanks can be resealed.  Corrosion of wing spars and the steel tubular structure are far more serious and in some cases fatal to the plane and your wallet.

Pick a knowledgeable maintainer with experience on Mooney airframes for your inspection.

Clarence

 

[Mooneymite]

45 minutes ago, EricJ said:

That said, the point of this whole scenario happening is a genuine risk element when an owner allows an aircraft to be taken to any shop, for a PPI or any reason, even if it isn't strictly per the regulations.   Legal or not, it can be a huge hassle to deal with if a shop claims an airplane can't leave because it is "unairworthy", which I think just highlights that the owner should have a say in where the aircraft is taken for a PPI.   It's a bit too much for an owner to demand it can't be taken out of the owner's hangar or anywhere other than the owner's regular shop, but likewise it's not okay for a buyer to demand a particular shop if the owner has reason to believe it's going to cause a problem.   

So, as a seller, rather than take a chance, it is a simple thing to say, "Bring your A&P/IA/friend/whatever to my hangar and have a look.  If you can't do your PPI in my hangar, have a nice day."

As long as the airplane is in the owner's hangar, he's in control.  Once the airplane leaves the owner's hangar....not so much.

[bcg]

So, as a seller, rather than take a chance, it is a simple thing to say, "Bring your A&P/IA/friend/whatever to my hangar and have a look.  If you can't do your PPI in my hangar, have a nice day."
As long as the airplane is in the owner's hangar, he's in control.  Once the airplane leaves the owner's hangar....not so much.

I'll be honest, if a seller said that to me, I'd either want a SIGNIFICANT discount or I'd just walk away. It would make me think they're hiding something if they won't let me take it to a shop that has all the appropriate tools to fully inspect the plane. I would feel the same way if I was looking at a car and someone told me the only way a mechanic could look at it was if they came to the seller's garage, which doesn't have a lift.

I'm glad that wasn't the case with this one, we just agreed on a price that I think is very fair. This is going to be fun!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

14 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

When I complete and Annual inspection or any other maintenance, details of the work completed and details of any outstanding work are entered in the logbooks. The maintenance release I sign only attests to my having completed the maintenance correctly and in accordance with current regulations.  Any pilot before flying the plane is supposed to read the log book and determine if the plane can be safely operated with any of the listed outstanding items.  It’s the pilots responsibility not the maintainer’s.

Clarence

In the US the suggested maintenance record (e.g., logbook) wording for the results of an annual appear in FAR 43.11(4) and (5), specifically:

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”

(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement - “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”

The (insert type) field gets filled in generally with either "100-hour" or "annual".   For aircraft on Mooneyspace this will essentially always be an "annual" inspection, as 100-hour inspections are generally not required unless the aircraft is used for instruction or other passenger services.

So there is an expected statement of an "airworthy condition" at the end of a successful annual, or a list of "discrepancies and unairworthy items" is provided to the owner/operator.   The discrepancy list may not even appear in the log, only the statement from 43.11(5).   The list just has to be provided to the owner.

This can generate issues when an IA writes a statement in the logbook declaring the "aircraft" "unairworthy", as this is not according to the regs, which suggests only that there may be "unairworthy items".   It may be hairsplitting, but to some it may be important, especially if there is a later buyer who may think or have advisors that think that an "unairworthy aircraft" declaration in the logbook is a Big Deal.   A couple of annuals ago my alternator failed just before my annual, and I knew about it and let my IA know and that I'd be repairing it after the inspection.   That IA initially refused to complete the annual until it was repaired, but he's a hard guy to schedule and I didn't want to deal with delays in trying to track him down and leaving the annual hanging until he could be rescheduled, so I asked for a 43.11(5) entry and a discrepancy list instead.  He initially refused but eventually agreed to do so.  He wrote in my logbook that the aircraft was unairworthy and wrote the discrepancy list in the logbook, using wording other than that suggested in 43.11(5).  He is not my IA any more, not just because of this, but it was kinda the final thing that pushed me away. 

[Mooneymite]

36 minutes ago, bcg said:

I'll be honest, if a seller said that to me, I'd either want a SIGNIFICANT discount or I'd just walk away. 
 

Happily, in a free market, buyers and sellers can do as they please.  There's a lot more to a transfer of ownership than just the PPI.  If there's no agreement on how the PPI will be conducted, the other 700 steps probably won't go smoothly either.  Best that the owner keep looking for a buyer and the buyer keep looking for a seller.

Not every combination of Mooney lover works.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Mooneymite

[Mcstealth]

A crawler, if the surface is smooth enought to roll around on your back while inspecting the underneath. 

[Mcstealth]

There is a thread here a few months old, that tells the sad story of a pre-buy with a thumbs up, and then the first annual, with the same A/P, that found a lot of corrosion a few weeks or months after the pre-buy. 

A cautionary tale. 

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, bcg said:

I'll be honest, if a seller said that to me, I'd either want a SIGNIFICANT discount or I'd just walk away. It would make me think they're hiding something if they won't let me take it to a shop that has all the appropriate tools to fully inspect the plane. I would feel the same way if I was looking at a car and someone told me the only way a mechanic could look at it was if they came to the seller's garage, which doesn't have a lift.

I'm glad that wasn't the case with this one, we just agreed on a price that I think is very fair. This is going to be fun!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
 

Good luck!  If by "fun", you mean constantly explaining the additional checks coming out of your bank account, then welcome to the club! 

 

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just to add to this, An IA can either declare the airplane airworthy, (no discrepancies) or Not airworthy. If he declares it Un-airworthy he has to state why. which is a list of discrepancies. At that point the inspection is over. Any A&P can correct the discrepancies and return the plane to service. If the plane needs to be flown somewhere with discrepancies, you will need a ferry permit. That's what they are for. 

The way I understand it is that IA's or A&P's can't "declare" a plane unairworthy.  However, starting a required inspection automatically renders the plane unairworthy.  At that point, the IA decides whether to return the plane to service or not.  

 

[carusoam]

Hence… the value of the PPI…

not a required test of any airworthiness…

then move forwards from there…

-a-

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

And does the seller supply all the tools and equipment? 

Depends on who has what.  This is a "discussion item".

And if I shop holds a plane hostage, that is when you call the local police.

The problem arises when there's a difference of opinion about what's airworthy.  Any owner would be reticent to fly his plane home after an A&P declares something "unairworthy".  The owner is stuck.  Calling the police won't help.  Keeping the plane in one's own hangar simplifies the process.

 

Shop should not have the logs to make any entries.

It is NOT an inspection.  So there is no way for them to declare it not airworthy.  And remember, the ultimate responsibility for airworthy is the owner/operator.

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

There is a thread here a few months old, that tells the sad story of a pre-buy with a thumbs up, and then the first annual, with the same A/P, that found a lot of corrosion a few weeks or months after the pre-buy. 

A cautionary tale. 

That would get me a BIT peeved.

A pre-buy is not an annual, but it should not also miss any major issues.

[ArtVandelay]

That would get me a BIT peeved.
A pre-buy is not an annual, but it should not also miss any major issues.

You need to tell them what to inspect, there’s no standard for a PPI,
Just don’t throw them the keys.
And you do it in writing.

To me it’s all about corrosion, I don’t need a mechanic to tell me a light bulb is out. I can check this before I even make an offer. Also ask owner to fill the tanks before you look at it, and you can check for fuel leaks and should be able to check for surface corrosion.
You should have gotten a flight test, and so had a chance to verify the avionics work as well as the engine and it flys well. All this without any tools but a flashlight.

Tell the mechanic to pull lower interior pieces and inspection plates and inspect for corrosion of the main spar and metal cage.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Pinecone said:

 

Shop should not have the logs to make any entries.

It is NOT an inspection.  So there is no way for them to declare it not airworthy.  And remember, the ultimate responsibility for airworthy is the owner/operator.

During said inspection/ evaluation the oil filter is replaced, possibly the oil changed, the cylinder compression is checked, the airplane is opened, looked at/ inspected/ evaluated and closed.  These are maintenance activities requiring a log entry.

Suppose that during the the oil filter examination, lots of metal is found in the filter, the deal goes south and there is no log entry stating the plane was opened for a PPI/ PPE, and that the oil filter was replaced.  A new buyer comes along and takes it to his maintainer who check the filter and it’s got nothing in it.  He buys the plane and 50 hours later strangely needs a camshaft.  How fair is that to buyer #2?

Clarence

[larrynimmo]

The biggest “no deal” is corrosion….

easiest things to check

visable inspection of main spar at the bottom of back seats.

removal of the inspection covers just outboard of the landing gear. Clear oil residue is likely an anti corrosive . (Which is fogged in)

easy inspection in the wheel wells…you can see spar.

finally removal of pilots seat, pilots sidewall carpet and plastic wall.  This enables you to inspect steel tubing for corrosion, and signs of water leaking

[Pinecone]

33 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

During said inspection/ evaluation the oil filter is replaced, possibly the oil changed, the cylinder compression is checked, the airplane is opened, looked at/ inspected/ evaluated and closed.  These are maintenance activities requiring a log entry.

Suppose that during the the oil filter examination, lots of metal is found in the filter, the deal goes south and there is no log entry stating the plane was opened for a PPI/ PPE, and that the oil filter was replaced.  A new buyer comes along and takes it to his maintainer who check the filter and it’s got nothing in it.  He buys the plane and 50 hours later strangely needs a camshaft.  How fair is that to buyer #2?

Clarence

Those would be A&P work, son=lay need to signed off as done correctly.

Not IA that needs to be certified airworthy.