During my prepurchase inspection the mechanic squawked...

[1980Mooney]

6 minutes ago, steingar said:

My buyer did just that, though the mechanic gave a rather negative report, I think he thought I was trying to pull a fast one.  I am a bit insulted, as I try hard to be up front about whatever squawks I know, and the buyer will hear how a mechanic squawked the bladders. I don't want anyone to feel cheated ever.  

I suspect there is something more going on with my buyer, as he doesn't answer his phone and the messages are full.  He might have been deployed (military contractor) or something else could have happened.  I don't think he just "walked away".  All that said, I think I will get a deposit next time.  And I agree, airworthiness stuff is on me, other stuff on the buyer.  I'll happily take an airworthiness squawk off the asking price.

There is no reason to feel insulted. There are any number of reasons why someone might have second thoughts about buying a plane which don’t have anything to do with something you said, your specific plane or you personally. Let’s face it - flying carries risk and buying a plane is one of the largest nonessential financial commitments one can make. 

Maybe:

- He spoke to his insurance agent

- Maybe his partner (potential co-owner) said “No fricking way and It’s the Mooney or me”

- Maybe he is stretching financially and the realization that the plane could need expensive repairs sooner than later (like the bladders) was a “wake-up call” that he can’t afford a plane after all. 

[1980Mooney]

27 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

At that point, the buyer hasn't paid for the pre-inspection yet, and can easily get the deposit back, so yes.  That would be very annoying if the seller just made arrangements to have the plane moved to the shop.

I am getting lost in these hypotheticals. Per the example AOPA Purchase Agreement above, in order to trigger the process to get the escrow back there has to be an inspection. 

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

My buyer did just that, though the mechanic gave a rather negative report, I think he thought I was trying to pull a fast one.  I am a bit insulted, as I try hard to be up front about whatever squawks I know, and the buyer will hear how a mechanic squawked the bladders. I don't want anyone to feel cheated ever.  

I suspect there is something more going on with my buyer, as he doesn't answer his phone and the messages are full.  He might have been deployed (military contractor) or something else could have happened.  I don't think he just "walked away".  All that said, I think I will get a deposit next time.  And I agree, airworthiness stuff is on me, other stuff on the buyer.  I'll happily take an airworthiness squawk off the asking price.

 

Frankly, the bladders were a bullshit squawk.  

[jaylw314]

13 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Frankly, the bladders were a bullshit squawk.  

Yeah, either the guy's inspector didn't clarify what he meant, or the buyer was simply looking for an excuse to bail out.  

[EricJ]

6 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Yeah, either the guy's inspector didn't clarify what he meant, or the buyer was simply looking for an excuse to bail out.  

I think another thing that happens is the mechanic is trying to demonstrate that they're actually doing something, whether it makes sense or not.

There was one other person that looked at my airplane before I bought it, and they brought a mechanic with them.    The guy that had showed the airplane said it seemed like the mechanic was just doing everything he could to keep the guy from buying the airplane...a lot of the complaints quoted have not made any sense since I've had it.   Granted, it wasn't in the best shape, but the complaints didn't seem to correlate with the actual condition or value of the airplane.   I still feel like a got a deal on it.

[Hank]

23 minutes ago, EricJ said:

There was one other person that looked at my airplane before I bought it, and they brought a mechanic with them.    The guy that had showed the airplane said it seemed like the mechanic was just doing everything he could to keep the guy from buying the airplane...a lot of the complaints quoted have not made any sense since I've had it.   Granted, it wasn't in the best shape, but the complaints didn't seem to correlate with the actual condition or value of the airplane.   I still feel like a got a deal on it.

Some people should not fly airplanes; many wash out of training, but some can hold it together and pass the checkride, but still should not be flying. The A&P may have been trying to keep the first man alive by preventing the purchase.

[jaylw314]

34 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I think another thing that happens is the mechanic is trying to demonstrate that they're actually doing something, whether it makes sense or not.

There was one other person that looked at my airplane before I bought it, and they brought a mechanic with them.    The guy that had showed the airplane said it seemed like the mechanic was just doing everything he could to keep the guy from buying the airplane...a lot of the complaints quoted have not made any sense since I've had it.   Granted, it wasn't in the best shape, but the complaints didn't seem to correlate with the actual condition or value of the airplane.   I still feel like a got a deal on it.

LOL, well that was nice timing for you  

[jaylw314]

10 minutes ago, Hank said:

Some people should not fly airplanes; many wash out of training, but some can hold it together and pass the checkride, but still should not be flying. The A&P may have been trying to keep the first man alive by preventing the purchase.

That's an ominous thought 

[MikeOH]

39 minutes ago, Hank said:

Some people should not fly airplanes; many wash out of training, but some can hold it together and pass the checkride, but still should not be flying. The A&P may have been trying to keep the first man alive by preventing the purchase.

Interesting theory but how would the A&P have enough knowledge of the pilot to know? I’ve been working with one A&P for 5 years and he’s never seen me ever fly! Taxi up is about it!

[mike20papa]

Al Mooney knew better from the get go.  Why he designed the M20 with removeable aluminum tanks.  Next time, buy a wood wing with genuine stand alone removeable serviceable aluminum fuel tanks.  Rubber, like the shock disks and the motor mounts, the tires  and the duck in your bath tub have a "service life" due to elements in the atmosphere. .   Wood and aluminum,  not so much.  But aluminum is oxidizing as we speak.  

Edited January 6, 2023 by mike20papa

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Interesting theory but how would the A&P have enough knowledge of the pilot to know? I’ve been working with one A&P for 5 years and he’s never seen me ever fly! Taxi up is about it!

In some cases seeing one taxi is all it takes.

[A64Pilot]

22 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I am getting lost in these hypotheticals. Per the example AOPA Purchase Agreement above, in order to trigger the process to get the escrow back there has to be an inspection. 

Is what defines an inspection clearly defined? Otherwise an inspection could be looking at pics on the internet.

All it takes to back out is “My Wife didn’t like the interior”, or anything really.

I’m no Lawyer, but I doubt you can force a person to buy unless they have signed a contract without any stipulations, and even then it’s likely to cost you more money in Lawyers and pain than it’s worth.

Buyer is out more money than the seller if it gets to a pre-buy anyway, so they are usually motivated to complete the sale, but some will always back out, just like selling a house or anything else. 

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Is what defines an inspection clearly defined? Otherwise an inspection could be looking at pics on the internet.….

Buyer is out more money than the seller if it gets to a pre-buy anyway, 

True. In this other current topic a “Fritz1” comments that he would pay as much as $5,000 to do an inspection that is more comprehensive than an Annual. And he will pay a Seller $1,000 to bring the plane to his hangar for the inspection. 

So the potential Buyer is out a lot of money if he doesn’t buy. And if he buys he is out potentially less if the inspection identifies discrepancies that the Seller agrees to repair.   

 

[A64Pilot]

I can’t imagine the numbers you guys are quoting what you pay for Annuals, inspections etc.

As an example the $5,000 pre-buy, it’s pure labor, no materials or parts, maybe an oil filter, but if one assumes $100 an hour, that’s 50 hours of labor.

Maybe I’m a fool, but I feel sure that in one 8 hour day I can inspect for every showstopper and give a buyer a very strong opinion on whether or not the aircraft is worth pursuing. I won’t have a list of every discrepancy, but there should be no showstoppers found after day 1.

Day one your not checking engine timing, flight control rigging etc., your primarily looking for hidden damage, corrosion, improperly done or not documented repairs etc.

So I think for $400 you should get either I think it’s a really good airplane, or average airplane, or run, don’t walk away opinion from the inspector, which I think should be an IA.

But then I also think you should be there working under his or her supervision, pulling panels etc. and present so you can be shown in person anything found.

[chriscalandro]

A deposit wouldn’t have done anything for you. Not with a fallout like replacing bladders. 
 

I’m sure there was more than that. Post the entire list. 

[A64Pilot]

30 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

A deposit wouldn’t have done anything for you. Not with a fallout like replacing bladders. 
 

I’m sure there was more than that. Post the entire list. 

If I was told the bladders needed replacing, that would have been enough for me, what’s the cost for that?

What really astonished me was that when I was looking at 201’s two years ago there was very little difference in pricing based on engine hours since overhaul. Nearly run out aircraft seemed to be asking about the same for those with low time engines.

I still don’t understand that unless there are more inexperienced buyers than I thought.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

What really astonished me was that when I was looking at 201’s two years ago there was very little difference in pricing based on engine hours since overhaul. Nearly run out aircraft seemed to be asking about the same for those with low time engines.

I still don’t understand that unless there are more inexperienced buyers than I thought.

More likely unrealistic sellers. 
 

It is not surprising that sellers will generally argue that the plane is just fine as it is - that is why these “grey area” discrepancies have not been repaired prior to sale. The inspection may identify “near end of life” items which a new/inexperienced/non-savvy buyer may not have noticed visually or in the logs. It’s like your example of dry rot in old tires - they will get you home but don’t expect them to last.  

Here on MS it is consistently said that the first Annual after a purchase is a big dollar one as a new set of eyes are on the plane - bigger than expected.  And it is generally more than the squawks found in the pre purchase inspection. 

[chriscalandro]

Near end of life could also mean they’re showing signs of cracking and … being toward the end of their useful life. 

[jetdriven]

Did he actually open up the wing and inspect these bladders or is he just inventing something from whole cloth? Also. The bladders are in the log book. If you're gonna make declarations based on age you don't need the plane in front of you to do that.  Why wait until it's on jacks in the shop?

[1980Mooney]

31 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Did he actually open up the wing and inspect these bladders or is he just inventing something from whole cloth? Also. The bladders are in the log book. If you're gonna make declarations based on age you don't need the plane in front of you to do that.  Why wait until it's on jacks in the shop?

The OP said “The mechanic said they were at the end of their service life at 25 years old (maybe even a bit older).”  I think your point is that if you are going to dispute a squawk based on age then one should know the actual age.  A bit older?….30 years old? 35?  The OP should know exactly from the logs. 

[Marauder]

I just pulled up my original STC (SA2277CE) for the O&N bladders in F & J models. SA2350CE is the STC for short bodies and for some reason the G (probably because it has a carburetor).

Under the “Limitations and Conditions” section, there is NO time limit specified. Under the Brentwing Engineering, Inc. FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement, there are NO time limit specified. (I think Brentwing Engineering was contracted to write and get the FAA approval of the supplement).

Under A.D. 24-25-04 which was issued on 1/21/2005 to address several issues with the bladder installations, there was NO mention of inspecting the bladders for age related concerns while executing the A.D.

I would still check with Grigg’s but I think you are being provided service from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Marauder]

I would also add that the original STC was generated in 1986. If there was a concern over an age issue, I would expect a service bulletin, mandatory bulletin or and A.D. to be issued.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[MikeOH]

It's pretty clear to me that this guy just decided he didn't want to buy this plane...any excuse was all he needed to walk; and, my bet is he would have walked regardless.  "Got cold feet" nothing more.

[A64Pilot]

Everything, especially rubber products like say hoses has a useful life.

That doesn’t mean that they need an AD requiring their replacement at X number of years, do the tires come with a max life stamped on them, what about donuts in our landing gear, is there a retirement date for them? But most of us do recognize the reality that rubber does deteriorate with age, fuel hoses and donuts don’t last forever.

They are a condition item, not a calendar item, but deterioration due to age is why you change hoses, they don’t wear out, they age out, but the FAA doesn’t mandate a replacement interval, they recognize I guess that different conditions do change how long they last.

Would most think 25 years is old for donuts or fuel hoses or tires? I would point that out to a prospective buyer. I believe they are requesting my opinion of potential issues, not just what’s not airworthy. Armed with the knowledge that say the fuel and oil hoses are nearing their end of life that may affect my decision to purchase or what the airplanes worth.

Some, many actually have unrealistic expectations on condition of used aircraft too. One potential buyer of my Maule was concerned about the “water damage” to the headliner in the baggage compt. It did get wet once in heavy rain and that did leave a small stain as Maules have fabric head liners, but was so insignificant in my opinion, but they were concerned with it or acted like it anyway.

Entire interior was about three years old too with Oregon Aero seats etc. 

I’m no boat expert, so I hired a surveyor prior to purchasing one, I would meet with them and tell them their job is to talk me out of buying this boat. First boat I had a purchase agreement on was for a three yr old Hunter, Surveyor found wet decks. I thanked him and bought his Lunch, he saved me a whole bunch of money. Boat was seaworthy, but the deck was going to need expensive repairs, the longer you wait, the more expensive.

I think whoever you hire to do a pre-buy should point out everything, it’s your job to determine their significance

There will be another buyer soon, if it’s priced right it will sell.

[skykrawler]

The fact is, buyers are assuming all the risk in the transaction.  Many buyers are not experienced aircraft owners and rely on a pre-buy inspection which is often a complete crap shoot.    25 year bladders sounds like a consideration - ask a Beech owner.