Doorpost Repair

[sharp]

I am a relatively new member who was excited to be joining the ranks of 170 owners on this website. Last year on my new planes trip home to California the plane was ground looped and suffered severe damage. Since that day, repairs and insurance struggles have slowed the progress of the completion of the repairs. Now when all seemed to be coming to closure and returning the 170 to airworthy status, the final repair ...the bellyskin replacement.........more damage. Damage from 20 years ago that was improperly repaired and signed off on worthless annuals, to the doorpost and adjacent bulkhead. The repairs are sooo bad that the shop that has it of course wants no part of doing anything but fixing it correctly. With over $ 11,000 in repairs now needed in addition to a portion of the original repair I am nearly out of money and I am wishing I had bought a boat!! I am looking for options or opinions on this as to how to move forward. It has been suggested that I find a qualified individual who was looking for some extra cash and would not have to charge me the $ 85 hour shop rates! I am in a nothern California town near Sacramento. I am also curious as to how 20 years of inspections can ignore this and nobody have any responsibility for signing this off, but my guy is worried about his liablility for ignoring it like those before him!
I of course would like it all fixed and be perfect but without a single hour of logged flight time my hourly rate here is insane!! Is there not some rules or "grandfather" clauses on repairs done and OK'd for 20 years!! Or is this just one of the horror stories about plane purchases?? I know there is alot of wisdom and experienced pilots of these old planes out there so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

Phil

[HA]

Each new set of eyes that sees a plane has a new perspective, and will find different things. If the repair was done internally, and thus hard to see unless properly inspected (and there are plenty out there who don't really work hard enough to see all the nooks and crannies that really need to be looked at, which is why an annual is only good as a summation of inspections and eventually overall the right work is done), then it isn't hard to see how it was passed on over the years. If there is a 337, then you would assume (we all know about that word) that enough thought went into it to make it a legal, safe repair.

BUT, the paperwork doesn't improve the craftsmanship which is apparently what your shop found when things were opened up enough to see it clearly. It is a safety issue, a pretty serious structural point that needs to be right as a lot of the landing loads pass through there. Your shop cannot just pass it on to the next guy, and in fact it will cost more to fix if covered up again when somebody else does have the morals to stop it.

so, I can't give you any words of encouragement other than to say that since you're getting things made right anyway, small potatoes to get this (related area) other thing fixed correctly too. Not easy to swallow, it is hard to give owners like you more bad news heaped on top of your obvious disappointing experiences so far but it is their job to do it right and safely. I've been on both ends of this situation and it is hard, but if you don't have confidence in your plane you won't enjoy taking your family or friends up in it, and then what good is it?

[zero.one.victor]

Another thought: have you had the defective area pointed out to you & eyeballed it yourself? Every so often, and not just in aviation, we hear of someone getting horn-swoggled by a mechanic, shop, or contractor who discovers some problems needing some high-dollar repair work. when in reality the only thing in need of high-dollar repair work is that mechanic's bank account. No offense -- maybe your airplane is unairworthy, but then again maybe not. i'd be getting some second (& third) opinions.
Also get some quotes/bids for the rebuild job if really necesary-- like you say, $85 an hour adds up quick. Then again, you can't expect a craftsman to work too cheap, either. I would guess that there's probably someone in your region who specializes in rebuilding taildragger Cessna's-- maybe get some information from your insurance outfit as to who bids on buying salvage rights to "totalled" airplanes. whereabouts are you located?

Eric

[N2865C]

Phil,
Check your inbox.
jc

[Jr.CubBuilder]

I'd see about another opinion, and I wonder, if it was such shoddy work done over two decades ago why did it hold up all these years?

I feel for you, ouch that really sucks. If all you've put into it money wise so far has been the insurance company's cash, my suggestion would be to get an enclosed trailer long enough for the fuselage and fabricate some racks for the wings inside. At least then you have options, you can bring the works home, you could get it out of the $85 per hour shop, you could take it somewhere else, or sell it to someone else who wants a project. If it's causing more pain than pleasure with no end in sight I would get out from under it. My best friend got himself into a "white elephant" boat that was a money-pit for repair/refurbishment reasons, sort of like your situation, then eventualy he sold it for a little less than he had into it moneywise (forget all the labor) and he's never regretted it. Life is too short to give yourself ulcers over stuff like that.

[Walker]

Just out of curiosity, did the plane have the parking brakes in working condition when the last accident occured?

[GAHorn]

How much do they estimate to repair the doorposts?
How much more to the purchase price you paid for the airplane, does that add?
I'd get another opinion, and then consider what my total out-of-pocket expenses are for the "acquisition" of this aircraft. Only then would I consider not finishing the repairs and offering it as a project.



(BTW, did you get an inspection prior to purchasing this aircraft? Does that inspector have anything to say regarding the doorposts? Was it an annual inspection? If so, then you have recourse against him/her. If not, then you probably don't, but you may against the previous annual inspector, and you certainly do against whoever improperly repaired the doorposts in the past, if you can identify that person. This may not be a solution to your immediate problem, but it may help you find solace in the repair costs.)

Keep in mind that the shop making the ground-loop repairs may not have jurisdiction over the condition of your doorposts, unless the groundloop also caused doorpost damage. (Tell 'em to repair the groundloop damage, and sign off their work, and take your airplane to someone else (or back to the previous inspector/owner) for any additional work, if you so decide.) Just because they don't like your doorposts does not give them authority to revoke your aircraft's airworthiness certificate or "ground" your aircraft. Only you or the FAA can do that.
If, on the other hand, the doorposts WERE damaged by the groundloop, then that becomes part of the insurance job, regardless of their suspected condition prior to the groundloop.
(This opinion is worth what you paid for it.)

[zero.one.victor]

Yeah, everybody knows the doorpost structures ALWAYS suffer damage during a groundloop. That must be when yours were damaged.
George, what would be the recourse re: the IA(s) who've signed off the annual(s) since the bogus repair? Yeah, you can rat them out, but as far as monetary compensation goes I believe you'd be s*** out of luck. Unless it could be proved that they were in cahoots with the seller to defraud the buyer. Same if you had a pre-buy inspection or even an annual done as a pre-buy. At best, you could rat the IA out, or else force him to rescind his airworthiness sign-off-- and what good would that do? Get him in hot water, & make you feel better-- which is sure better than nothing, I'll admit! But you'd still be in the same boat with regards to the airplane.Or try to get a refund from the seller, claiming an attempt to defraud-- in which case, he'd claim that he too was duped by the IA's signing the thing off as airworthy. It's sort of a vicious circle that goes nowhere.

Eric

[GAHorn]

I submit that may be the case, Eric. But I'll also suggest that there are some people around that feel a sense of responsibility and duty to make things right. I once either failed to tighten lock-nuts or failed to tighten them with sufficient torque on some mechanical rocker-arms in a customer's engine. (This was back when steam engines were just going out of style.) The thing loosened up in service and dropped the pushrod out of alignment and shattered it. Metal went all thru that engine. The customer was pretty fed-up with what he thought was a lemon engine of course, when he brought that thing back into the shop knockin' and hammrin' away.
When I took the cover off it was apparent what had happened and the only fix was to completely drop the pan and try to find all the pieces of that rod and see if any other damage had occurred. I could have denied culpability and claimed a bad design, or I could have told the customer anything at all. (He wouldn't have known any better, but I felt responsible for it.) So my labor was free to him, and I paid for the gaskets, oil, and new pushrod to fix it up.
That's what I'd hope for by locating the party that did the previous bad repair.....a person who would feel responsibility to correct their error. I'd give the person a chance to show what kind of person they really are and allow them the opportunity to make it right. And if they're not so inclined....then at least have the pleasure of looking him in the eye and letting him know that I know.
As for "ratting" out a missed inspection item I'll offer the following:
The threat of telling the feds is far more influential than the actual telling. If you truly have a dangerous/expensive situation then the shop will be busy spending their money defending their license and will be less able/anxious to actually cure the defect. After all, the defect will already be known and there will be less money the shop has to fix it. Therefore, I'd be very careful not to involve the feds except in the most egregious of circumstances where I felt that the public was endangered by the shop. I'd be more inclined to confront them with my complaint, and if no satisfaction results, then have an attorney contact them with his plans for suit.
I'd not lay down and sell off my airplane and console myself with my losses.
Anyone who's read my report about my generator failure in Las Vegas during the 2003 convention and the sorry service I received at the hands of Ron's Aircraft Service at VGT (a genuine Cessna Service Center) will be famiar with such transactions. No, Ron never fully admitted his and his shop's error. But without any threat of legal action ...he DID have enough conscience to refund the portion of my repair bill which involved the faulty work. No it did not compensate me for the time or frustration. And I still had to do the work myself all over again. But at least he had enough self-respect to not charge me for his defective work.
If I'd never confronted him, I'd have simply been SOL.

[sharp]

Thanks for all the input so quickly on this. To give a little more info on the topic the recent ground loop did not do any gear or doorpost damage. All of the damage now in question in the doorpost area was done over 20 years ago and done by the owner/IA at the time.
The previous owner has been pretty helpful up to this point and I am not counting him out of making good on this issue or at least helping me out with it, as the airplane was sold with the personal guarantee that the plane was problem free. He of course was unaware of the extent of damage and poor workmanship so I also feel for him in this scenario. It had a fresh annual but again it appears as this is meaningless and that getting a few people in hot water will not fix my plane.
As for a project plane if I cut my losses now I would need over $ 55,000 to break even, and that seems unlikely. That is the other area that I will be working with the previous owner on as I paid $ 49,000 for what was suppose to be a "10" and everything current and legal. This is just something I will take up on a personal level but it still does not sit right about the annual situation. If I have the current shop seal up the current repairs and just move forward to find another shop or individual to sign off on the plane that does not sit well either now that I know about the damage. Is it safe..........as pointed out by another post..... the repair has lasted this long and would appear strong enough, just not correctly done according to Cessna. I am not qualified to make that call and it is why I rely on the professionals to determine what is safe and correct. I would not like to be flying an unsafe aircraft nor would my family and friends who may be passengers.
I do plan to get some 2nd opinions but with Cessna's dissapproval and the current shops view I do feel as there is a problem. I just wish it wasn't me who had to discover it!
Thanks again to all those posting.

Phil

[mvivion]

Phil,

Sorry to hear about your dillema. Unfortunately, I hear about quite a few of these types of horror stories nowadays. This should be a good learning experience for us all, to ensure that we get a super extensive buyer's inspection done prior to purchase. As another poster noted, I'd make certain that an annual was done prior to purchase, preferably by the most anal and knowledgeable IA I could find.

Airworthiness items should be deal killers, and the previous owner's purported ignorance of prior damage doesnt' let him off the hook, especially if, as you noted, he's an IA as well. If he's an IA and he sold you a "10" airplane with doorpost damage, I'd sure have a talk with him, and as George says, maybe he'd help make it right. That could involve partial refund, assistance with labor fixing the damage, or ?????

I agree with George on turning mechanics over to the FAA. If the guy knowingly hid some repairs, or there is obvious fraudulent paperwork, yes. If it appears the guy just missed something, talk to him, not the FAA. If he offers to do some repairs, and you need to move the plane to do so, get a ferry permit. As you say, its' been that way for 20 years, so it should hold up for a ferry flight.

I have a friend who bought a 180 and has been through absolute hell with it, with illegal parts, undocumented modifications, and some no joke hidden illegal repairs. He opted to turn the guy in to the FAA. They'd already suspended the guys certificate. So, my friend is struggling through a massive rebuild, and still has to buy an engine, which he knew was at tbo when he bought a "clean airframe with a high time engine".

Sorry again to hear of your plight, but if its any consolation, this is becoming more and more common, I'm afraid. Either that or airplanes and repairs are becoming so expensive that we're hearing about it a lot more.

Too bad.

Mike Vivion

[Jr.CubBuilder]

Phil, just out of curiosity, and if you wouldn't mind telling, what is wrong with the doorpost? Is it the front, back, top etc.? Were the repairs blatently awefull like somebody just cobbled something together with sheetrock screws, or did they replace something with a part from another plane?

When I was shopping for a 170 I got real excited about nice looking candy apple red 170 that would qualify as a decent show plane. The seller told me it had some repairs done from a minor ground loop which "were properly repaired". It probably was repaired properly, but by chance I bumped into another 170 flyer a week later who just happened to land at the same airport right after the seller had crashed ripping the gear off one side. From his description it was anything but minor, ripping out the gear box and destroying part of the door frame. The fellow was asking top dollar for the plane ($65000 as I remember) so I kept on shopping.

I hope it all works out for the best.

[sharp]

The repair was done to the front portion of the doorpost above and below the floorboard. Doublers were used on cracked sections which appears to be a big no-no on the doorpost section. The riveting was done not per any approved method, too close to edges and multiples through varioius cracks. The area was not hidden as blue rivets were used to make it obvious. Unfortunately the work below the floorboard is the portion that was poorly done and not inspected too closely. The plane was given an annual the week of purchase and all log books brought current and all AD's etc brought current. I truly feel as if me and the previous owner believed everything to be "legal" as all logbook entries and prior inspections were documented and assumptions made. To an experienced pilot or me (now) I would know to question this and dig deeper into anything that may look questionable. Best to error on the side of over cautious. Life is a learning experience and this is just part of that experience that is less enjoyable!!

Thanks
Phil

[Jeff Palmer]

I talked this article over with my mechanic. He has a passion for the 170 and knows a lot about them. He is also the kind of guy who will work with you on your project. He usually will be able to tell how much it will cost and doesn’t come up with surprises half way into the job. His rate is way less than it should be and he involves you with each step of the project. He has a passion for aviation and loves working with people like us who share that passion. He said to post his name in case you guys would like to talk with him about this subject. His name is Larry Curtis. His phone number is 805-452-9296. You can e-mail to him at inspectorsoffice@yahoo.com . We are very lucky to have him here in Lompoc as our A&P / IA. Why, he even helps with the hay rides at our Piper Cub fly-in!

[GAHorn]

Hi, Jeff!
My wife Jamie and I were just in Lompoc the week following the TIC170A convention in Tehachapi. We spent a couple days there with my Aunt/Uncle before flying our 170B on up to San Francisco for a few days.
Sorry I didn't know we had a member in the area.
We really enjoyed the J-3 fly in that week.
Best regards,
George