Shop withholds aircraft from owner

[jrenwick]

....There is NO SUCH THING as a "prebuy inspection"! The term "prebuy inspection" has NO LEGAL BASIS or DEFINITION. There is only an ANNUAL INSPECTION to determine the aircraft's airworthiness. ANNUAL inspections are what I recommend when considering any airplane for purchase.

I have one bit of experience with this philosophy. I was contacted by a fellow who had found a 170 out of state that he wanted to buy, and as an experienced 170 owner, would I help him evaluate it. I advised him to find a mechanic there who would give it an annual inspection, which he did. The mechanic looked at the airplane, noted that it had just had an annual inspection a couple of months before, and told the fellow that it was a good airplane, and didn't need an annual.

We went to look at it together. The first thing I saw was that the logbooks didn't have an AD list from the most recent inspection, which I thought made it unairworthy from the outset. The aircraft itself wasn't nearly as nice as it was represented to be, and in general was a big disappointment to the potential buyer. He asked for his earnest money back, got it, and we went home, poorer but wiser.

The fact that the mechanic, for whatever reason, wouldn't sign it off with a fresh annual was a red flag, and in hindsight, should have been a reason to postpone the trip, at least, until the buyer could find someone who was really willing to sign it off. George, I think your advice is spot on.

[DWood]

I don't understand why the pre-buy inspection is being so discredited. If I were going to look at a 170 to buy and it just came out of annual, (ONE EXAMPLE) I would pull the top plugs, conduct a leak down, and look at the plugs, I certainly wouldn't clean them, gap them, and inspect them. If they "looked" good and the airplane run up was good, why would anyone clean and gap perfectly good plugs? This is just one example, I also wouldn't want to add more lubrication to the pulleys as that might just gather more dirt. If they look recently lubricated and they turn freely, move on.
IMO there are times that an annual would waste time and money when only a pre-buy inspection is required. A pre buy is looking for reasons not to buy more than trying to get the airplane in perfect operating condition.
Of course there may situations where you will want to have an annual. Such as annual is due in a few months, you are going to fly it a long ways, or the famous "fresh annual upon purchase"

[GAHorn]

George,...If you would do some reading yourself and control your overly inflated ego you could acknowledge that we have had a few off channel (PM's) talks about your over confidence. Did'nt seem to get your attention.
...!

Lest anyone be mislead by minton's current rant, let me explain what he left out: Minton recently sent me a PM (which apparently he didn't intend to be truly private) in which he blew-steam about this forum offering advice to members on repairs.
MInton was angry that answers to members questions might be taken by owners to presume they might make such repairs themselves. Minton implied that only he and others like him are qualified to accomplish such work, and wanted me to quit telling folks how to fix their airplanes unless I referred them to an A&P for supervision.

I gave him a short response in which I said I"d think about it.

2) Why must you insist on LEGAL terms when any reader and the FAA, less yourself, knows what a pre-buy inspection is. And a pre-buy is plenty good to bring to any concerned potential buyers attention reason to go ahead with a purchase or not.

Then why don't you ask them to point out to us where that definition exists? Report back when you find it.

1) I did'nt imply in any form that any shop has the right to withhold an aircraft. If I did please point it out to me. If anything I recommended that the owner pay his bill and get the hell away from the place.
3) Never said a mechanic was'nt responsible for his work.

If you aren't taking exception to my statements ...then why are you so insistent on arguing?

Anyone studying psychology and needing a study-subject can click on mr. minton's user name and get all they want by perusing his past posts. One might start with: http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... 495#p62495

Meanwhile, minton, either stop the rants and personal attacks or do what you promised and be gone.

...I am now signing off for good...GOOD BYE!! ...

[jrenwick]

I don't understand why the pre-buy inspection is being so discredited. If I were going to look at a 170 to buy and it just came out of annual, (ONE EXAMPLE) I would pull the top plugs, conduct a leak down, and look at the plugs, I certainly wouldn't clean them, gap them, and inspect them....

There's a difference between maintenance that's done annually, and an annual inspection. I think you can do an inspection without doing any PM, if you know the PM has been done recently.

The important difference between a "pre-buy" and an airworthiness inspection (probably shouldn't call it an "annual") is the AI's signature in the logbooks. Without that, the AI doesn't really have a stake in the outcome. I've seen several pre-buys that were really just cursory glances, and wouldn't have found some serious issues because the mechanic didn't look deeply into the airplane. I'm sure there are mechanics who will do very thorough inspections without the signature, but how does the buyer know what he's getting? The signature is just some added assurance that a real inspection was done.

[DWood]

John:
I understand what youre saying and I agree. You're situation when you went with your friend was more closely a pre-buy inspection because I am sure you didn't sign off anything.
As far as the "legal" question, I have personally been involved with an engine inspection when I was a Product Manager for an aviation hose manufacturer. The aircraft owner claimed that a turbocharger lubrication hose failed causing an inflight failure. I inspected the disassembled engine and easily found a failed rod cap bolt. There was no indication of oil starvation. The company even with this knowledge, settled with the owner and bought the new engine since it was less expensive than fighting it in court. So, don't ever think that everything "legal" will make the final decision as there are many other factors that come into play. Mostly it is a financial decision.
Dan

[GAHorn]

Any work performed on an airplane must be described in the mx records (logs) and signed by the person performing the work. (See FAR 43.9) If a "prebuy" inspection (whatever THAT means) includes an oil-sample being taken from the oil screen...then that is WORK...and must be described and signed by the person performing it.

The difference between a "prebuy" inspection and an "airworthiness" inspection is up to speculation because NEITHER has any legal definition that will stand up in court.... it can be argued on and on about what the mechanic THOUGHT was important and what he overlooked because he didn't think it was important.

I'm sorry this thread as morphed into a discussion which has been so thoroughtly discussed elsewhere in these forums. Yes, this difference between the two types of inspection is my personal opnion. And yes, it's based upon many years as a person involved in aircraft maintenance from an aviation dept. manager's desk.

I'll tell this story once again, as an example:

About 20 years ago I was asked by a client to "prebuy" a Baron he wanted to purchase. It was before I knew the difference between a "prebuy" and an "annual". I called over to Birmingham, AL and talked to two of the best-known shops in town to ask what they would charge for a "prebuy" inspection on a Baron. The Beechcraft shop said they did not do "prebuy" inspections, they only do "annual" inspections, and they charge $1100 for that on a Baron. The AMR-Combs shop quoted me $600 for a "prebuy" inspection on a Baron.
Needless to say, I did not want to spend MY client's money giving a seller of an airplane we weren't sure we'd actually purchase, a FREE ANNUAL!... so I had the airplane delivered to AMR-Combs for their "prebuy" inspection.
Upon arrival, AMR's chief inspector wanted to know "exactly what" I wanted them to look at. I told them I'd been under the impression they already had their own inspeciton-forms and he said "yes" they did but that he wanted to know if there was anything I wanted to add to it. I looked it over and added a thorough review of logs, especially to look for any Form 337 which might pertain to a gear-up landing, as I'd already noticed both props and the belly antennas and belly strobe had all been replaced on the same day.
Their inspection form covered "general condition" of engines, airframe, avionces, landing gear, flight controls, and logs.
The opened the aircraft up and did the inspection and their report found nothing regarding major damage, alterations or repairs and there was nothing regarding a gear up landing. The seller claimed that a mechanic had accidentally taxied into a workbench and damaged the props and that was the reason for them both being replaced, and that the belly antennas and strobe were just coincidence.
I instructed AMR to make a log-entry that the inspection had been performed and that they found no evidence of damage or repairs to the fuselage which could be construed to be as a result of a gear up landing. (They had opened up the floor at my insistence and inspected all the belly skins, stringers, bulkheads, drains, etc etc. and they saw nothing that did not appear factory.)
We paid for the airplane and flew it to Texas. Three months later the airplane was placed with Page Aeromotive-AUS for a 100 hour inspection. On day two of the inspection, Page called me to say they'd found old evidence of a fire inside the left wing and wheel well and they wanted me to come take the airplane out of their shop as they did not wish to work further on it. They also condemned the elevators for internal corrosion.
I could not prevail upon them to continue with the inspection or to offer any suggestions as to how to inspect the airplane for fire damage. (They stated that the wing spar could be weakened from heat-damage and they were unqualified to determine it's condition, so they refused further work.) I looked at the evidence and found a lot of soot inside the wing and above the wheel well but no evidence of deformed metal. In fact, I pointed out that the paper labels on the fuel, hyd, pnuematic lines were undamaged and suggested that the soot was merely accumulated exhaust, perhaps from flooded starts, but not from an actual fire. Page refused to listen, convinced they'd discovered fire damage.
I called AMR-Combs to ask them how they could have overlooked such damage and they said they'd only offer an opnion if we brought the airplane to them.
Since it was a Part 91 airplane and it's annual was un-expired, I performed a preflight and flew it back to Birmingham. AMR-Combs said they'd need it for two weeks to inspect for fire damage.
HERE"S THE POINT: AMR-Combs said that a "prebuy" inspection only accomplished logbook reviews and general condition and that detailed inspections for airworthiness are not a part of the inspection. They further explained that the "prebuy" inspection forms they used were of their own creation and covered only those items their own opinion thought worth the time to ascertain relative aircraft value. NO ATTEMPT to determine airworthiness is made during a "prebuy" inspection.
When I read the fine-print of the forms....that is also exactly what is said on the forms.
The AMR-COMBS chief inspector specifically informed me that if I was interested in the aircraft's airworthiness....then I should have asked them to perform an ANNUAL INSPECTION...as that is the ONLY inspection which determines an aircraft's airworthiness. An annual inspection would have also detected the delamination inside the elevators which Page complained of. (Like Beechcraft across the field, they also charge $1100 for an annual inspection on a Baron.)
"But why would I want to pay for an annual inspection for a seller on an airplane I may not buy?"
Answer: An inspection is....an INSPECTION. It is not repairs or corrective action/work. If the inspection finds defects, the repairs of those defects are a separate matter entirely! The use of an annual inspection...for the purposes of a PREBUY DECISION... will tell you about the AIRWORTHINESS of the airplane. It does not FIX any problems discovered during the inspection. (Those become barganing points between buyer and seller.)

FINAlE: The wing had not suffered a fire. AMR used a process known as "Eddy Current" tests to determine that no structural changes had taken place in the spar or surrounding structure due to heat. The test-program was provided by Beechcraft engineering in Wichita. It cost my client the loss of use of his airplane for three weeks, the expenses of flying to/from BHM a second time, plus my expenses, plus the cost of the testing ($8600) plus the repairs to the foam-filled elevators ($5000).... all because I thought I'd save him $500 by performing a "prebuy" instead of an "annual" inspection while making the pre-buy decisions. My client would have been far better served if I'd simply allowed Birmingham Beech to perform the annual inspection they first suggested way back when. My client could have bargained the $13,500 spent on the fire inspection/elevator repairs with the seller, or he could have walked away from the airplane and saved the difference of at least $12,400!)
Further, once the annual inspection discovered the discrepancies, the seller would presumeably be more amenable to compromising with the buyer... after all....the seller now has an unairworthy airplane sitting in BHM, and he will need to accomplish repairs if he wishes to remain legal and/or avoid problems with future/potential buyers. (The logbooks would indicate that an annual inspection was accomplished and a list of discrepancies provided the owner.)

(removed impertinent comment)

[GAHorn]

I don't understand why the pre-buy inspection is being so discredited. If I were going to look at a 170 to buy and it just came out of annual, (ONE EXAMPLE) I would pull the top plugs, conduct a leak down, and look at the plugs, I certainly wouldn't clean them, gap them, and inspect them. If they "looked" good and the airplane run up was good, why would anyone clean and gap perfectly good plugs? This is just one example, I also wouldn't want to add more lubrication to the pulleys as that might just gather more dirt. If they look recently lubricated and they turn freely, move on.
IMO there are times that an annual would waste time and money when only a pre-buy inspection is required. A pre buy is looking for reasons not to buy more than trying to get the airplane in perfect operating condition.
Of course there may situations where you will want to have an annual. Such as annual is due in a few months, you are going to fly it a long ways, or the famous "fresh annual upon purchase"

If you pulled the plugs to perform a compression "leak down" test, and the plugs were clean (or even if they were NOT) since you are only performing a "prebuy"...then you are correct, you would not clean/gap them yet-again. Because that would be "repair" and you are only doing "inspection". If you found them nasty and worn out, you would also not do anything because the "prebuy" does not require you to return the aircraft to an airworthy condition. A "prebuy" does not require a statement by the inspector regarding airworthiness...or "approval" for return to service.
Next, if an annual were recently performed...would you accept the word of the guy who's been responsible for that airplane for the last several years to tell you, a newcomer-buyer, that his past work is all just-great! ? How will you know if his work is good as regards airworthiness? There's only one way....
In the case just mentioned by John, in my opinion, the second "prebuy" inspector who talked a buyer out of doing another annual inspection because one had been previously performed by another inspector so-recently... did that buyer no favors at all. He merely convinced a buyer to accept some seller's mechanic's word that his own work was good. That conversation in itself was a complete waste of time.

[GAHorn]

(In a post somewhat off-topc and moved to Members Issues)

.... There is nothing to say that if you requested an "Annual" that they would have see the un confirmed fire damage or the corrosion. Obviously that wasn't discovered in previous "inspections"....
Dan

Not so, Dan, and that is the point. AMR-Combs was adamant that their "prebuy" inspection techniques are not "in depth" as to airworthiness and the inspection was NOT for the purposes of determining airworthiness. I've since discussed this with many other shops who seem to agree with AMR.

Consider this: If a customer comes to you and asks for a "prebuy" inspection... do the FAR's require you to pronounce the entire aircraft as airworthy? (See FAR 43.9 (4)..."only for the work performed".) If that work was inspection only, and with regard to an undefined inspection of casually-considered components.... How does that inform a buyer of the airworthiness of the entire aircraft?

As for not being discovered in "previous inspections"... the "previous inspection"...WAS the PREBUY!
But perhaps you meant inspections previous even to the "prebuy"? In that case, ...so what? The point of the "prebuy" was to discover defect or damage! (It could have occured on the very flight which delivered the airplane to AMR! Or it could have occured years previous! So what? When I'm buying an airplane I don't want the previous inspectors opinion of his own work (which is what any signoff is...).... I want MY inspector's opnion....the inspector who IS OBLIGATED TO ME, financially, morally, and contracturally. The point of ANY buyers inspection of an airplane is to determine...airworthiness. Can anyone NAME an inspection process which, by definition, specifically determines airworthiness?

[GAHorn]

I failed to make a very important concluding statement regarding this post:

.... There is nothing to say that if you requested an "Annual" that they would have see the un confirmed fire damage or the corrosion. ...

If I had instructed AMR-Combs to perform an "annual" inspection, and if they'd missed the soot and elevator delamination/corrosion, the subsequent 100-hr at Page discovered the (theoretical) oversight by AMR during the annual. AMR would then be obligated to explain how they'd overlooked fire damage ...and be responsible to my client for his inconvenience (not to mention his safety on the flights already made!) AMR would also have had to explain why they overlooked the elevator delamination which is part of a Baron annual inspection and had obviously been present for quite some time (both items certainly predating the AMR inspection.) While AMR might successfully argue that the actual repairs are at the expense of the client, they would likely agree that the return-trip and additional expenses (which were considerable) were due to AMR's defective inspection (should that have been an annual inspection, of course.)

As I'd only asked for a "prebuy" which has no legal basis, AMR was completely off the hook, and my client paid too much for the airplane and too much for the repairs. And it was my fault. This particular experience is the primary reason for my opinion regarding "prebuy" versus "annual" inspections when evaluating an airplane for purchase.

How does this relate to the original topic of this discussion?...: The shop that is withholding the aircraft not only has performed the previous three annual inspections, but they also performed the member's original "prebuy". Does it make one wonder why they now want that airplane grounded?... instead of returning it to the owner?

[minton]

Some seem to miss the point of a pre-buy inspection. It probably originated due to buyers not wanting to "spend any more money". It is somewhat akin to a termite inspection or rat inspection. It's intended to detect glaring red flags that might cause a potential buyer to walk away from a deal. No work is accomplished so no logbook entries are required. And I might say that EVEN so I've seen people try to sue over the inspection not picking up some defect. Every buyer has the right to require a more comprehensive look (annual inspection) as they also would be right on to bring in their own guy. I might even recommend what the 135 guys call a conformity inspection as well. And you might even tear the whole craft down to a pile of nuts and bolts. At every juncture I have found surprizes. That is why I have narrowed my circle of clients because of such issues that have come into the lime light through this dicussion. I don't know if all members are aware of the meager wages that are paid inspectors and mechanics. In this area $16 - 22 dollars an hour. Now look at the diesel mechanic or auto mechanics wages not to mention his responcibility Again in this area $30 - 35 an hour. That "Shop rate" never tricles down to the workers. Do you think we as FAA certificated individuals are not aware of the legal climate? It's not worth my legal exposure to do buyers, pre buy, or annual inspections mostly because of buyers attitudes and the fact that I can't buy a good enough insurance firewall and still make the house payment.

I would also recommend that if you get a crappy (not a legal term George) inspection, bring it to the inspectors attention. If he refuses to make it right, Do report it to your FSDO.

remainer of post moved to Members Issues

Be sure to give it a look

[Indopilot]

Just wondering George. Since you were managing the inspection of the Baron for your client, and did not ask for a Annual insp. that you believe would throw all responsibility, morally and financially on the inspecting shop for any item missed or determined after the fact to be unairworthy.(judgement call items) How is it that you did not assume some of the financial resposibility for asking for the wrong inspection that caused your client a $13,000 loss? Again no personal attack just curious.

[GAHorn]

Just wondering George. Since you were managing the inspection of the Baron for your client, and did not ask for a Annual insp. that you believe would throw all responsibility, morally and financially on the inspecting shop for any item missed or determined after the fact to be unairworthy.(judgement call items) How is it that you did not assume some of the financial resposibility for asking for the wrong inspection that caused your client a $13,000 loss? Again no personal attack just curious.

That's exactly what I did. (And he's still a valued client, having asked me to manage his next three airplanes, as well as locating one presently. Needless to say, it will undergo an annual inspection* prior to purchase.)


*(for those unfamiliar, many turbine airplanes do not actually undergo "annual" inspections but they have equivalent phase inspections, to which I am referring.)

[voorheesh]

I think that if you buy an airplane from someone you do not know and trust, you should get an annual done by the IA you will be using to maintain it after purchase. Recently, I have heard of cases where the buyer paid a "local" IA to perform an annual on an airplane being purchased out of state and later found major problems when his own IA worked on it. If your IA does an annual before you buy the airplane you will identify problems you can resolve during the purchase and rest assured that future annuals will not have major surprises that should have been discovered years ago. You need to negotiate this with the seller and have an agreement on the following: Who will pay for the cost of the inspection. Who will pay for the cost of any repairs. Your right to walk away from the deal if you determine the condition to be unsatisfactory even if corrections are offered. Beware of the potential for "different standards". The seller may accuse your IA of being too picky. Try and come up with an agreement that is win win. An additional advantage to this approach is that it can give away a seller who is hiding something.
If you are buying an aging aircraft such as the ones we like (or any aircraft for that matter), you can fly away after a thorough annual and have a major problem crop up the next day. Its like getting your medical. Assuming he or she did a proper inspection, this might not be the IA's fault and it is a mistake to infer that an IA is unilaterally responsible for everything that happens after completion of an annual. Aircraft owners need to select their IA very carefully and they also need to learn and understand their own responsibilities in keeping these old airplanes airworthy and safe.

[GAHorn]

... it is a mistake to infer that an IA is unilaterally responsible for everything that happens after completion of an annual. ....

Agreed.

But here's an example I'll offer to assist in clarifying this point:
An airplane is submitted for an annual inspector and it has an unapproved model* of propeller installed. The IA approves the airplane for return to service.
Six months later the propeller has severe leading edge damage from erosion and FOD, and A) an FAA AWI sees it on the ramp and places a "condition tag" on the airplane.... or worse.... B) the propeller develops a vibration crack and six inches of one blade's tip departs the airplane, shaking the engine out of the mounts while in-flight....the severely out-of-C.G. airplane now plummets to the ground killing all occupants.

Who is responsible for the unairworthy condition of this aircraft?

I will suggest that several people are responsible.
1) The owner/operator is responsible because he is charged with that responsibility by FAR. In situation "A" he must repair or replace that propeller due to the erosion. He is also responsible for having operated an airplane with an unapproved propeller. His culpability in that error is not lessened by the previous inspector's oversight, but his liability in example "B" is lessened, or perhaps even completely overshadowed by it. In example "A", the previous IA who performed the annual inspection will likely escape responsibility if it continues to go unnoticed he'd overlooked the erroneous installation, and if a new, correct-model prop is installed. And he may reduce his exposure in example "B", if he can create doubts as to whether the cuasative factor was the prop or can create doubts that the propeller was on that airplane at the time of inspection. (It would help his case if his records show a different prop...a good reason for complete records by IA's.) He may be held Highly -responsible if the aircraft log entries document that prop on the aircraft at the time of inspection, however. (An excellent reason for owners to keep updated/current equipment lists and logs with serial numbers of installed equipment.)

2) The owner and the previous IA is/shares responsibility in situation "B" because of the overlooked/approved installation of an illegal propeller that was not approved for that aircraft (perhaps because it did not meet mfr's vibration allowances...or some other reason for non-approval.) * But the IA's responsibility for approving that airplane for return to service continues until another annual inspection or that propeller is replaced, whichever occurs first.

* There are several reasons a particular model propeller may not meet approval for installation on a particular engine/airframe combination. Vibration studies is only one. Blade length may also be critical. Performance issues, etc etc may be numerous.

The point is that continued airworthiness is the repsonsibility of the owner/operator. However airworthiness at the time of inspection is the responsibility of the inspector...and that responsibility does not end at the time of inspection in all cases, and especially so in the case of installed equipment.

[PilotMikeTX]

I'd like to point out that just because you have an annual inspection performed on an airplane doesn't make it airworthy as there are a lot of really crummy IA's out there. I like to have airplanes annualed in lieu of a "pre-buy inspection" (whatever that is--I'm on the same page as George). I like to negotiate the cost of the prebuy into the purchase price (seller pays, or seller comes off the price a certain amount) so I'm not out any money if I end up passing on the purchase. If the airplane is found to have discrepancies, well, the owner would have to have them fixed anyway, if the plane is in decent shape and has been maintained properly, then he need not worry about the bill going through the roof.

So when I bought my 170, I went through this process after I had inspected the airplane and logbooks myself and the plane was returned to service with a couple of minor discrepancies fixed. Fast forward one year and as I'm preparing to do the annual (I always do the grunt work--under supervision) I went to pull the exhaust and found that it had probably never been off the plane since it was installed. Long story short, the muffler on one side was more rust than muffler. An annual inspection is supposed to include an inspection of the exhaust system for leaks. I saw evidence of leaks as soon as the baffling came off. So between that and the plastic lawnmower battery box and a few other illegal parts I was out about $2K. Now if the IA who performed the last annual had been worth a damn, either the seller would have had to eat the cost, and/or I would have found another airplane. So my options were to either sue this IA in small claims court in another state, and/or rat him out to the FAA, or just chalk it up as a life lesson and move on. I eventually chose the latter, although at the time I was considering homicide as viable alternative to small claims court.

So in the future I think I will be present during the pre-buy/annual although that is going to limit my options for airplanes. Now I really see the appeal in homebuilt aircraft.