Missing Log Books

For me it would need to be a fire-sale price. If the value were say 50k with logs it would need to be around 15k. There is just way too many planes for sale. Just my 2cents.
 
Tom-D said:
So even tho the AWC is no longer valid because the terms and conditions have not been met you want to call it airworthy? I don't believe any ASI would agree.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying the plane is safe to fly one day, but not the next, because some piece of paper and a regulation says so?
 
And we still don't know what kind of plane this is. Best I can tell is that it's a 1975 something.
 
Ravioli said:
Haven't you people learned anything from Airplane Repo?

The log books are half the value of the plane. They state that "fact" in most every episode.
Click to expand...

Heck, we can't even learn anything from previous threads on POA or from the FAA regulations and guidance. How can we learn anything from a silly tv show?
 
Ventucky Red said:
So the owner lost the logs, sold the plane, found the logs, and tried to recoup some of the money but at a kings ransom when he found them...

What a tool.... I can see a couple of grand, but $30K...?????
Click to expand...
That’s basically what the owner at the time told him!
 
N659HB said:
So, you're saying the plane is safe to fly one day, but not the next, because some piece of paper and a regulation says so?
Click to expand...
Airworthy is a bit more than "safe to fly." But say you're definition is correct. Part 91.7 states: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition." No mention of annual or any other reference. Now based on your definition everyone should be able to fly without an annual or other requirements. So why do you suppose most people don't fly without a valid annual inspection?
 
Bell206 said:
Airworthy is a bit more than "safe to fly." But say you're definition is correct. Part 91.7 states: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition." No mention of annual or any other reference. Now based on your definition everyone should be able to fly without an annual or other requirements. So why do you suppose most people don't fly without a valid annual inspection?
Click to expand...

Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. I'm not arguing legality. I'm just saying a piece of paper or an arbitrary date doesn't render the plane unusable, except from a regulatory standpoint. Now, about that burned out anti-collision light...
 
N659HB said:
Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. I'm not arguing legality. I'm just saying a piece of paper or an arbitrary date doesn't render the plane unusable, except from a regulatory standpoint. Now, about that burned out anti-collision light...
Click to expand...
Yes it does, because with out it we can't have a safe system.
 
What about this..
  • Radio Station License (international flights only)
CFR 91.9:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft -

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by § 21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in § 121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by § 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.
 
Tom-D said:
Yes it does, because with out it we can't have a safe system.
Click to expand...

Well if you're talking about the lowest common denominator, this is true, the lower to put the bar the more "rules" you have to have.
 
N659HB said:
I'm just saying a piece of paper or an arbitrary date doesn't render the plane unusable, except from a regulatory standpoint
Click to expand...
Well "useable" and "airworthy" are not even in the same solar system. As they say, the devil is in the details. Sure the aircraft is "useable." But in order to use it, it needs to be regulatory. However, that never seems to stop a number of users.
 
Ventucky Red said:
So the owner lost the logs, sold the plane, found the logs, and tried to recoup some of the money but at a kings ransom when he found them...

What a tool.... I can see a couple of grand, but $30K...?????
Click to expand...
What if the owner had sold the plane at a $30K discount due to the missing logs?
 
Palmpilot said:
What if the owner had sold the plane at a $30K discount due to the missing logs?
Click to expand...

That’s what I bet happened. The guy took a $30k discount due to the missing logs, then once they were found he offered them for sale to the purchaser for the same $30k.

I know another guy who had the same thing happen. Plane was listed for sale and a price agreed on. Then the logs couldn’t be found. The guy bought it anyway, a fresh annual and AD compliance was completed. Six months later the logs were found and offered to the guy who bought the plane for the same price that the original discount was. This guy ended up buying the logs simply to restore the value of the plane since he doesn’t plan on keeping it long term.
 
Do the logs belong to the plane, the owner of the plane or to whomever has them in possession.??

Can someone that sold the plane with lost log books legally hold the logs for ransom if they are found later.??
 
Zeldman said:
Do the logs belong to the plane, the owner of the plane or to whomever has them in possession.??

Can someone that sold the plane with lost log books legally hold the logs for ransom if they are found later.??
Click to expand...
Are you intimating that if the airplane was sold for, say, $30,000 less than its value due to lost logbooks, that the seller should provide the logbooks free of charge if he finds them?

He's not "holding them for ransom", he's merely offering to sell something that the owner chose not to buy the first time around. If the buyer already spent the money to document past ADs, mods, etc., those logbooks pretty much become worthless...its therefore a case of a sale of logbooks that's not going to happen because the buyer and seller don't put the same dollar value on them.
 
In the absence of specific terms to the contrary in the purchase contract, I would assume that if the buyer knowingly bought the plane without complete logs, then the (formerly) missing logs would remain the property of the seller.

Of course, like it says in my sig line, I'm not an attorney.
 
Zeldman said:
Do the logs belong to the plane, the owner of the plane or to whomever has them in possession.??

Can someone that sold the plane with lost log books legally hold the logs for ransom if they are found later.??
Click to expand...
Yes, They are not required, but when you want them, you pay.
 
Zeldman said:
Do the logs belong to the plane, the owner of the plane or to whomever has them in possession.??
Click to expand...
If any of the records held by the seller fall under 91.419 then he must transfer them to the buyer. There are several legal methods available to the buyer to ensure he gets them if the seller pursues that game. Now if these specific records do not exist for whatever reason, the buyer then assumes the responsibility to the FAA for them after purchase.
 
Ravioli said:
Haven't you people learned anything from Airplane Repo?

The log books are half the value of the plane. They state that "fact" in most every episode.
Click to expand...

Current logbooks or historical?

Lots of airplanes don't have every record of every thing going back to day one. Mine does, but even then there are lots of cryptic entries that makes you wonder.
 
Last edited:
The logs should be part of the contract for sale. If the seller can’t find them, it should state in the for sale contract that they will be provided to buyer if they are located. This way there are no surprises after the sale.
 
JAWS said:
Current logbooks or historical?
Lots of airplanes don't have every record of every thing going back to day one. Mine does, but even then there are lots of cryptic entries that makes you wonder.
Click to expand...

Was the satirical nature of my post not clear?

giphy.gif
 
.

EminiTrader said:
For me it would need to be a fire-sale price. If the value were say 50k with logs it would need to be around 15k. There is just way too many planes for sale. Just my 2cents.
Click to expand...

.

A seventy percent reduction? It's a single engine airplane, not a business jet. What information in the logs is so critical? The fact it has a current annual indicates compliance with ADs has been reviewed, and a good inspection will reveal any issues with poorly done repairs and corrosion. If the engine is considered as a runout, deduct for that and a reasonable amount for the lack of logs and obsolete avionics, fly it, and make an offer.

.

Tom-D said:
Because they (airworthiness directives) had to be complied with at last annual.

Let's get real, it is in annual now, it is in good condition, who gives a rat's patoot what the previous logs say, as long as it does not have life limited parts, but even if it does, they can be changed.
Click to expand...

.

I know Tom's opinions bothers quite a few posters here, but what he says makes sense. It wouldn't take all that much to inspect the aircraft for defects. The OP stated compressions are good and that the aircraft has been flown regularly for several years. The shop that performed the annual is on the airport and has confirmed ADs have been complied with. It's not likely the A&P is falsifying the records to make a few bucks on an annual, is it?

It's not voodoo or mystery, a single engine aircraft isn't that complicated.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
What if the owner had sold the plane at a $30K discount due to the missing logs?
Click to expand...

I see the point but the guy that had the logs is being a real schmuck... Stood his ground for $30K and ended up with nothing... he a few maybe five grand possibly 10. He is the one that lost them... guess it ended up being a $30K lesson..

Getting back to my original post, we looked a the plane today, as my plane buying mentor noticed, this plane either has way more hours than what the current owner is stating, or it has been pretty neglected over the years... or both!!!! We're walking... too many "ifs".
 
Ventucky Red said:
I see the point but the guy that had the logs is being a real schmuck... Stood his ground for $30K and ended up with nothing... he a few maybe five grand possibly 10. He is the one that lost them... guess it ended up being a $30K lesson.
Click to expand...
If the next annual was completed properly, those logs aren't even worth $10k. Not even close.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If the next annual was completed properly, those logs aren't even worth $10k. Not even close.
Click to expand...

While I think missing logbooks on a 182 or similar aircraft ain't a big deal, when we're talking about a Conquest and $40K hot section inspections it's a different animal. The guy was a bit of a jackass for trying to hold up the new owner at gunpoint.
 
3393RP said:
While I think missing logbooks on a 182 or similar aircraft ain't a big deal, when we're talking about a Conquest and $40K hot section inspections it's a different animal. The guy was a bit of a jackass for trying to hold up the new owner at gunpoint.
Click to expand...
I don't see him as holding up the new owner at gunpoint...it's simply a case of buyer and seller not coming together on a price. Happens every day.

The buyer bought the airplane at a price that he felt was worth the added expense of any maintenance that would be required without them. Clearly the logbooks aren't required anymore if the airplane is flying, and as the OP indicated, the airplane was worth walking away from on its own merits (or lack thereof).

If paying $30k for logbooks negated $40k of hot section inspection, that changes the equation, and the new owner is an idiot for not paying for the logs.
 
Last edited:
Ventucky Red said:
I see the point but the guy that had the logs is being a real schmuck... Stood his ground for $30K and ended up with nothing... he a few maybe five grand possibly 10. He is the one that lost them... guess it ended up being a $30K lesson..
Click to expand...
My opinion is that whether he was being a schmuck or not would depend on whether or not the selling price was reduced by $30,000 because of the logs. However, even if it was, once he found out that the buyer was not willing to pay that, if the seller refused to negotiate on the price for the logs, that was not a smart decision.
 
Let's say you're looking at a 1971 182, and it's missing all logs before 2000. The engine and prop have been overhauled since then. How much does that take away from the value of the airplane?
 
Groundpounder said:
Let's say you're looking at a 1971 182, and it's missing all logs before 2000. The engine and prop have been overhauled since then. How much does that take away from the value of the airplane?
Click to expand...

Very little, if any, especially if the 337s that were done for any major repairs or alterations were sent to OKC.
 
Groundpounder said:
take away from the value of the airplane?
Click to expand...
There's no set discount. It's whatever value you decide plus whatever the IA on your next annual will charge if he needs to research more. So long as the records stated in 91 are transferred at the time of sale then it's legal.
 
Bell206 said:
There's no set discount. It's whatever value you decide plus whatever the IA on your next annual will charge if he needs to research more. So long as the records stated in 91 are transferred at the time of sale then it's legal.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen any one prosecuted for violation of this ?
91.419 Transfer of maintenance records.
Any owner or operator who sells a U.S.-registered aircraft shall transfer to the purchaser, at the time of sale, the following records of that aircraft, in plain language form or in coded form at the election of the purchaser, if the coded form provides for the preservation and retrieval of information in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

Seeing as many aircraft without maintenance records, I never have.
 
Tom-D said:
Have you ever seen any one prosecuted for violation of this ?
Click to expand...
Yes. And assisted in helping those who were.
Tom-D said:
Seeing as many aircraft without maintenance records
Click to expand...
It's not "maintenance records" in general as your unfinished quote implies. But the specific records in 91.417 as required by 91.419. However, it's 91.419(b) and 91.417(c) that most get caught on... and usually after a future issue that brings the violation to light. Regardless, as a new owner of an aircraft, the minute the ink dries on the bill of sale you now are responsible for 91.417(c) on that new aircraft. It can get rather messy at times especially when the buyer wrecks the plane picking it up from the seller.
 
Bell206 said:
Yes. And assisted in helping those who were.

It's not "maintenance records" in general as your unfinished quote implies. But the specific records in 91.417 as required by 91.419. However, it's 91.419(b) and 91.417(c) that most get caught on... and usually after a future issue that brings the violation to light. Regardless, as a new owner of an aircraft, the minute the ink dries on the bill of sale you now are responsible for 91.417(c) on that new aircraft. It can get rather messy at times especially when the buyer wrecks the plane picking it up from the seller.
Click to expand...
You're talking about not making the records available to the Administrator / NTSB. ?

If so, that's a bit different than not passing the maintenance records to the purchaser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top