Pencil Whipped Annuals

I now have the list that Danny prepared for us and the list is 55 items long.

Most of the items I believe should be buyer responsible items. Included in that is the IMHO URGENT item regarding the cabin heat door (potential for CO).

The items that should have been caught at annual and not signed off (as I understand airworthiness) include: AD 00-06-01 - fuel strainer, AD 08-10-02- Alt Static Air, AD-08-26-10 Alt Static Air, 3 items related to exterior lighting INOP, 1 item related to the fuel gauges, 2 items related to cowl reinforcement attachments (danger of them coming off during flight), an issue related to a broken brake caliper part, an alternator AD related to a broken shockmount.

The HIGH attention items that I believe are buyer responsible include: #6 & #3 cyl intake push rod tubes rusted.

I saw no notation regarding airframe corrosion, though there is some on exhaust studs, and control surface connectors/ hinges and electrical wiring.

There is missing paperwork (337s, static and transponder checks).

The compressions appear acceptable from 74 to 60 on the low end.

I'm going to see if we can get a fix estimate and perhaps ask for credit for the things that should have been rectified at annual, possibly to include the transponder - and we'll fix everything ourselves. If the numbers work out then we may go forward with this project pending the estimate.
 
Verbally, Danny also cautioned us regarding the Engine/ Prop overhaul and the fuel bladders. I'll speak with him and ask why they didn't make the report.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I now have the list that Danny prepared for us and the list is 55 items long.

Most of the items I believe should be buyer responsible items. Included in that is the IMHO URGENT item regarding the cabin heat door (potential for CO).

The items that should have been caught at annual and not signed off (as I understand airworthiness) include: AD 00-06-01 - fuel strainer, AD 08-10-02- Alt Static Air, AD-08-26-10 Alt Static Air, 3 items related to exterior lighting INOP, 1 item related to the fuel gauges, 2 items related to cowl reinforcement attachments (danger of them coming off during flight), an issue related to a broken brake caliper part, an alternator AD related to a broken shockmount.

The HIGH attention items that I believe are buyer responsible include: #6 & #3 cyl intake push rod tubes rusted.

I saw no notation regarding airframe corrosion, though there is some on exhaust studs, and control surface connectors/ hinges and electrical wiring.

There is missing paperwork (337s, static and transponder checks).

The compressions appear acceptable from 74 to 60 on the low end.

I'm going to see if we can get a fix estimate and perhaps ask for credit for the things that should have been rectified at annual, possibly to include the transponder - and we'll fix everything ourselves. If the numbers work out then we may go forward with this project pending the estimate.
Click to expand...

If I were your seller I'd tell you to take a hike, because that is why the price is $ 27k
 
Tom-D said:
If I were your seller I'd tell you to take a hike, because that is why the price is $ 27k
Click to expand...

After all, seller's got buyers knocking down his door to pay his ask, right? Right? ;)
 
Jaybird180 said:
AD 00-06-01 - fuel strainer, AD 08-10-02- Alt Static Air, AD-08-26-10 Alt Static Air,
Click to expand...

those 3 ADs can be complied with in about 10 minutes.

Are you certain there is no records of them being done? they may have been completed on a work order kept in the history records of the aircraft.

How do you know there are 337s missing? do you have the history record on CD from the FAA?
 
Tom....do you work outta your trunk (or El Comino) when performing annuals? :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
thank you for clearing that up.....I always wondered how that was done. :goofy:
Click to expand...

It's difficult to keep a good tool inventory when your tools are scattered in your trunk.

I had to buy a tool box because the Jeep doesn't have a trunk.

Besides,, owner assisted annuals they can use their own tools.
 
so....just to be clear, you do your inspections from the back of a Jeep?:yikes::hairraise::yikes:
 
Tom-D said:
If I were your seller I'd tell you to take a hike, because that is why the price is $ 27k
Click to expand...

My comments were that the buyer should pay for these items, except for the items that the IA pencil whipped as compliant. Do you disagree?
 
timwinters said:
I don't know, guys...

At every place I've ever been based at, and there have been many, one could always find the local "pencil whipper" if s/he chose to do so.

I choose not to do so but I have used a couple over the years unwittingly before gaining the local knowledge required to avoid them.

And they've all been "trunkers" except one.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that unethical mechanics do not exist but only that they are not nearly as prevalent as some would have you believe. In 35 years of aviation maintenance, I have worked with several hundred mechanics and truly unethical ones were very rare.

Often there are disagreements between owners/pilots and mechanics or between inspectors and mechanics and even between fellow mechanics on whether or not something is airworthy or not or whether the proper procedure was followed but that does not mean that unethical behavior or thought was involved. Yet often when this occurs, unwarranted accusations and name calling ensues. Some folks ride a mighty high horse.

There have been times when I considered something to be unairworthy, incorrect, flawed, etc. but the other guy didn't. Other times, it was the exact opposite, we were each on the other side of the argument. In neither situation would I have ever considered myself or the other person to be acting unethically. Believe it or not, there is gray in aviation maintenance and somethings are open to interpretation. It is not all black and white.

I will say that about the only times that I have seen the difference of opinion get really ugly were when it was pilot or owner vs mechanic rather than mechanic vs mechanic. The reasons for this I am sure are varied.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I'm not saying that unethical mechanics do not exist but only that they are not nearly as prevalent as some would have you believe. In 35 years of aviation maintenance, I have worked with several hundred mechanics and truly unethical ones were very rare.

Often there are disagreements between owners/pilots and mechanics or between inspectors and mechanics and even between fellow mechanics on whether or not something is airworthy or not or whether the proper procedure was followed but that does not mean that unethical behavior or thought was involved. Yet often when this occurs, unwarranted accusations and name calling ensues. Some folks ride a mighty high horse.

There have been times when I considered something to be unairworthy, incorrect, flawed, etc. but the other guy didn't. Other times, it was the exact opposite, we were each on the other side of the argument. In neither situation would I have ever considered myself or the other person to be acting unethically. Believe it or not, there is gray in aviation maintenance and somethings are open to interpretation. It is not all black and white.

I will say that about the only times that I have seen the difference of opinion get really ugly were when it was pilot or owner vs mechanic rather than mechanic vs mechanic. The reasons for this I am sure are varied.
Click to expand...

I once knew a guy that I thought for sure was unethical. As it turns out, he misunderstood the regs. The flaw was not of character, per se but of knowledge. But he did see it as a game to skirt the rules.
 
Tom-D said:
If I were your seller I'd tell you to take a hike, because that is why the price is $ 27k
Click to expand...

Exactly, it is what it is and priced accordingly. If you expect all that, you need to be looking at $60k 182s, because that's what he could get if he dealt with it all.
 
Jaybird180 said:
My comments were that the buyer should pay for these items, except for the items that the IA pencil whipped as compliant. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

He has already paid by lowering the price.

There is plenty of room to make this a legal flyer, between the price and what it will sell for.
 
A question for Jay..

If I were to buy this 182, restore it to better than new condition, would you pay me the $90K I spent?
 
Henning said:
Exactly, it is what it is and priced accordingly. If you expect all that, you need to be looking at $60k 182s, because that's what he could get if he dealt with it all.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you can restore a 182, to Jay's expectations for $60k
 
Jaybird180 said:
My comments were that the buyer should pay for these items, except for the items that the IA pencil whipped as compliant. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Your expectations are unrealistic. You want him to absorb the cost of bringing it into a condition it is not priced for.
 
Henning said:
I completely disagree. Your expectations are unrealistic. You want him to absorb the cost of bringing it into a condition it is not priced for.
Click to expand...

Wait...

It just had an annual last week. And it's found to be unairworthy.

Does "a fresh annual" not imply that it's airworthy? In my mind it does. What am I missing?

Should the seller not be responsible for the legitimate airworthiness issues?
 
The seller should just advertise it "As Is Where Is".
 
timwinters said:
Wait...

It just had an annual last week. And it's found to be unairworthy.

Does "a fresh annual" not imply that it's airworthy? In my mind it does. What am I missing?

Should the seller not be responsible for the legitimate airworthiness issues?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. An annual sign off just means the inspection was done. The IA could have presented the owner with a long list of squawks. Of course, the seller should make the buyer aware of this list and even present the buyer with a copy if the seller does not intend to correct them himself.
 
Jaybird180 said:
...The items that should have been caught at annual and not signed off (as I understand airworthiness) include: AD 00-06-01 - fuel strainer, AD 08-10-02- Alt Static Air, AD-08-26-10 Alt Static Air...
Click to expand...

200-06-01 only applies to aircraft that had the fuel strainer replaced with a specific part number manufactured between 2006 and 2007. If not the owner can dismiss that one himself. Similarly both 2008-10-02 and 2008-26-10 only apply to aircraft that had the alternate static selector valve replaced by a specific part number manufactured between a specific date range. If not then it is simply N/A, nothing to be "signed off"

I would say that Danny had to pad that list quite a bit to get to 55
 
timwinters said:
Wait...

It just had an annual last week. And it's found to be unairworthy.

Does "a fresh annual" not imply that it's airworthy? In my mind it does. What am I missing?

Should the seller not be responsible for the legitimate airworthiness issues?
Click to expand...

No, $27k is an "as is, where is" price. The plane is legal to fly for a year. You assume that these ADs have not been CW, but I see no evidence of that, nor the rebuttal from the IA who signed it off.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Not necessarily. An annual sign off just means the inspection was done. The IA could have presented the owner with a long list of squawks. Of course, the seller should make the buyer aware of this list and even present the buyer with a copy if the seller does not intend to correct them himself.
Click to expand...

How many times have we seen the owner get a list of discrepancies, and simply sell the aircraft rather than fix it.

Have we ever seen any one buy a mediocre aircraft learn to fly, then sell it as is, where is.

If you want to buy any 182 for 27k (about 50% of market) don't expect to fly it today.

When you want to fly your family today, your going to pay much more to do it safely.
 
timwinters said:
Wait...

It just had an annual last week. And it's found to be unairworthy.

Does "a fresh annual" not imply that it's airworthy? In my mind it does. What am I missing?

Should the seller not be responsible for the legitimate airworthiness issues?
Click to expand...

FAR 91.409

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had -

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter;

Buyers must educate themselves.
 
LOLZ

PEE PONK sounds like an engine about ready to take a dump to me!
Click to expand...

I needed a good chuckle today and that did it! More reason to shy away from C182 too many weird add ons. I stick to my non pee donkey planes!
 
Tom-D said:
How many times have we seen the owner get a list of discrepancies, and simply sell the aircraft rather than fix it. I've seen it.

Have we ever seen any one buy a mediocre aircraft learn to fly, then sell it as is, where is. Yes.

If you want to buy any 182 for 27k (about 50% of market) don't expect to fly it today. Probably would only ferry it home and quite possibly have to fly it under a special flight permit.

When you want to fly your family today, your going to pay much more to do it safely. Very likely true.
Click to expand...

But then supposedly there are miracle deals out there where you get a cherry aircraft for the price of a turd though I have yet to find one.
 
SkyDog58 said:
But then supposedly there are miracle deals out there where you get a cherry aircraft for the price of a turd though I have yet to find one.
Click to expand...

Who determines safe to fly? this aircraft has been annualed. it has been signed off as airworthy. you need only to determine if you believe it is safe to fly.

Yes I have found 1
 
Blueangel said:
I needed a good chuckle today and that did it! More reason to shy away from C182 too many weird add ons. I stick to my non pee donkey planes!
Click to expand...

There are several ways to put a 0-520 or an IO-520 in a 182, Steve Knopp's "Pee-Ponk" is but one. see his web page.

http://www.pponk.com
 
SkyDog58 said:
But then supposedly there are miracle deals out there where you get a cherry aircraft for the price of a turd though I have yet to find one.
Click to expand...

There are no "miracle deals' left, they all got sold out in 2008/2009. The rest of the market is relatively stable far below former values, and there is a new batch of neglected stuff at bargain basement, core value, prices never before seen on a plane that would fly.
 
Henning said:
There are no "miracle deals' left, they all got sold out in 2008/2009. The rest of the market is relatively stable far below former values, and there is a new batch of neglected stuff at bargain basement, core value, prices never before seen on a plane that would fly.
Click to expand...


Not true.

Lot of old guys losing medicals and their planes sit for a few years while they come to grips with their new reality.

Some of those planes can be really good deals.
 
I have a buddy that's been looking for a miracle deal for about 15 years. Every airplane he's interested in is already gone the day the add is publicized. Insiders get all the great deals.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Not true.

Lot of old guys losing medicals and their planes sit for a few years while they come to grips with their new reality.

Some of those planes can be really good deals.
Click to expand...

Show me one.

This type of barn find is more difficult than finding flees on a sheep.

The only reason I found 34V was it was kicked out of the hangar, the owner had to shi- or get off the pot.
 
GlennAB1 said:
I have a buddy that's been looking for a miracle deal for about 15 years.
Click to expand...

Ain't we all? -- still looking.

If you don't know what you are looking for, you'll not know it when you see it.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Not true.

Lot of old guys losing medicals and their planes sit for a few years while they come to grips with their new reality.

Some of those planes can be really good deals.
Click to expand...

Not really, because after they sat there for two years, they're now pretty much junk. That's why repos and seizures are never a good deal.

Just because someone lost a medical doesn't mean they should be expected to give their plane away below market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top