Elliott Aviation

[Daneshgari]

I rarely leave negative reviews, but my experience was significant enough that I believe future aircraft buyers should be aware of it. I hired Elliott Aviation to perform a pre-buy inspection on a 2004 King Air 200B that I was considering purchasing. The purpose of the inspection was to identify airworthiness issues and significant maintenance concerns before closing on the transaction. Based on the findings from that inspection, approximately $86,000 of discrepancies were identified and the seller agreed to reduce the purchase price accordingly. After the purchase closed, Elliott Aviation began a Garmin G1000 NXi upgrade along with autothrottle and emergency autoland installation. During that process, additional airworthiness and maintenance issues continued to be discovered. Ultimately, the additional costs exceeded $440,000 and resulted in approximately four months of unexpected downtime. One of the most troubling aspects of this experience was that a major inspection issue was not identified during the pre-buy review, despite being documented in the aircraft records. Had this issue been discovered before closing, I would not have proceeded with the purchase under the terms that I did. As a result, I have incurred substantial unexpected repair expenses, significant downtime, and ongoing ownership costs while the aircraft was unavailable for use. My purpose in writing this review is not to criticize individuals but to encourage prospective buyers to clearly define the scope of any pre-buy inspection, verify exactly what records and logbooks are being reviewed, and obtain written confirmation regarding what is and is not being evaluated. In my experience, the pre-buy process did not identify issues that ultimately had a major financial impact on the transaction. Others may have had different experiences, but based on my own, I would exercise considerable caution and conduct extensive due diligence before relying solely on a pre-buy inspection to make a purchasing decision.

 

[bbchien]

That is a really complex situation. Did you specify in your inspection that you were going to upgrade?
"What is in" a prebuy inspection is totally without definition, My view is that you annual the aircraft instead of prebuy. A bit more $$s upfront would have meant that the required airworthiness would have been addressed.

I have owned seven aircraft. College of hard knocks.

 

[Daneshgari]

Yes everything was clear at the onset. They just missed it and are not owning up to it. Glad to see a pilot that has owned many aircraft. I have owned 48.

 

[Bell206]

One of the most troubling aspects of this experience was that a major inspection issue was not identified during the pre-buy review, despite being documented in the aircraft records.

Landing gear 6-year inspection?

 

[MountainDude]

Thank you for sharing. It's not clear to me how to protect ourselves if a prebuy misses something expensive. Are you suggesting to have a contract with the prebuy company that they will pay for such misses?

 

[Daneshgari]

No it was The 30 month/2400 RH/LH nacelle and aux. fuel cell and probe inspection is most of the cost. Which the previous shop Yuma-Sutter in CA missed and Elliott did not catch. Cost $440,000

 

[Daneshgari]

Thank you for sharing. It's not clear to me how to protect ourselves if a prebuy misses something expensive. Are you suggesting to have a contract with the prebuy company that they will pay for such misses?

I am not sure if I have an answer for that. I hire a broker to help my buy the plane and he has been working really hard to catch everything. But, I think we need to have some kind a clause to protect us from the shops that miss items in the prebuy.

 

[Chris Mixon]

Wow, Glad I don't own a Turbine Twin....close to 1/2 mil for a recurring inspection!

 

[DJTorrente]

$440,000 in damages isn't enough to interest a commercial litigation attorney?

 

[Bell206]

No it was The 30 month/2400 RH/LH nacelle and aux. fuel cell and probe inspection is most of the cost.

Wow. Its been forever since I pulled the nacelle tanks, but I wouldn’t think the cost got that high without some structural or corrosion issues to go with it. Seems even the 6-year gear inspection would need other issues to make that kind of repair bill. Best of luck.

 

[Brad Z]

$440,000 in damages isn't enough to interest a commercial litigation attorney?

I’m thinking legal action is really his only avenue for relief.

 

[Daneshgari]

That was my original thought as well. But I have found through my 40 years of flying that only attorneys win in these cases. Unless I can fined one that word with a contingency.
Perry

 

[Doc Holliday]

I’m thinking legal action is really his only avenue for relief.

And what was the scope of the prebuy? Did it specify an in depth research of aircraft records?

One of the most troubling aspects of this experience was that a major inspection issue was not identified during the pre-buy review, despite being documented in the aircraft records. Had this issue been discovered before closing, I would not have proceeded with the purchase under the terms that I did. As a result, I have incurred substantial unexpected repair expenses, significant downtime, and ongoing ownership costs while the aircraft was unavailable for use.

My purpose in writing this review is not to criticize individuals but to encourage prospective buyers to clearly define the scope of any pre-buy inspection, verify exactly what records and logbooks are being reviewed, and obtain written confirmation regarding what is and is not being evaluated. In my experience, the pre-buy process did not identify issues that ultimately had a major financial impact on the transaction. Others may have had different experiences, but based on my own, I would exercise considerable caution and conduct extensive due diligence before relying solely on a pre-buy inspection to make a purchasing decision.

The FAA does not define a prebuy inspection, that's left up to the buyer to decide with the individual/company performing the inspection. Yes, one could employ a lawyer, claim negligence and hope to get a settlement.

But as mentioned above by the OP, typically the only winner will be the lawyer.

 

[FrequentPilot]

I’m thinking legal action is really his only avenue for relief.

Yes, but legal action can also cost you hundreds of thousands, which is why it doesn't always make sense to sue a giant corpo with its own in-house counsel and plenty of cash to burn. Besides, prevailing on a claim of negligence is one of the hardest claims to prevail on and typically requires a ton of billable hours. Not always worth it.

 

[Brad Z]

Yes, but legal action can also cost you hundreds of thousands, which is why it doesn't always make sense to sue a giant corpo with its own in-house counsel and plenty of cash to burn. Besides, prevailing on a claim of negligence is one of the hardest claims to prevail on and typically requires a ton of billable hours. Not always worth it.

Agreed.

 

[Daneshgari]

Agreed.

I may try that. But I know the outcome. I have to pay the total bill plus the attorney cost and waste of a lot of valuable time to train the the attorney as he is billing me $1000 an hour.

 

[4RNB]

stuff happens.
Were you present at the prebuy?
Did you read the logs?
Did the firm represent themselves as some expert?
Was Savvy involved? Why not?
Their site says they do things according to amongst other things, customer specifications. What specification was communicated that was not followed?
The site looks like they know their stuff.

I've bought two planes. For both, I did as much research as I knew to do before the prebuy. I was present for both prebuys and had reviewed all the records myself.

You rarely need negative reviews? Like rarely since you joined here on June 17 2026...

I've heard to budget 10% of purchase price towards first annual to fix the stuff that made the owner sell. How close was this, even with your issues?

 

[DJTorrente]

stuff happens.
Were you present at the prebuy?
Did you read the logs?
Did the firm represent themselves as some expert?
Was Savvy involved? Why not?
Their site says they do things according to amongst other things, customer specifications. What specification was communicated that was not followed?
The site looks like they know their stuff.

I've bought two planes. For both, I did as much research as I knew to do before the prebuy. I was present for both prebuys and had reviewed all the records myself.

You rarely need negative reviews? Like rarely since you joined here on June 17 2026...

I've heard to budget 10% of purchase price towards first annual to fix the stuff that made the owner sell. How close was this, even with your issues?

Yep, bad things happen to bad people... If something this bad happened OP must have done something -- by comission or omission, that you surely wouldn't have done -- to deserve such misfortune. It couldn't possibly be that you just got lucky twice. That's a good story to tell yourself.

If paying clients don't have recourse for the negligence of FAA-certificated maintenance technicians they hire, who does?

If paying clients don't have recourse for the negligence of FAA-certificated maintenance technicians they hire, why the hell to we bother with the whole A&P certification system in the first place? If it's going to be like the wild west and everyone has to take their chances and pay whatever is asked, why not just let owners and pilots chose any old shade tree mechanic (or heaven forfend, DIY!) since they are at risk without recourse anyway?

 

[4RNB]

Yep, bad things happen to bad people... If something this bad happened OP must have done something -- by comission or omission, that you surely wouldn't have done -- to deserve such misfortune. It couldn't possibly be that you just got lucky twice. That's a good story to tell yourself.

If paying clients don't have recourse for the negligence of FAA-certificated maintenance technicians they hire, who does?

If paying clients don't have recourse for the negligence of FAA-certificated maintenance technicians they hire, why the hell to we bother with the whole A&P certification system in the first place? If it's going to be like the wild west and everyone has to take their chances and pay whatever is asked, why not just let owners and pilots chose any old shade tree mechanic (or heaven forfend, DIY!) since they are at risk without recourse anyway?

I'm not making any moral judgements on this, just things do happen.
For example, the OP describes getting into some form of a panel upgrade. Perhaps some portion of the issues were uncovered after removing old gadgets. Can a prebuy be blamed if that was the case? In other words, if some problems were encountered based upon the work being performed, is there someone to blame such as the prebuy firm? I'm not telling myself any stories.

Stuff like that happened with both my planes. My 2 yo pitot static tube had an excessive leak yesterday, do I have recourse against the firm that installed it?

I've made no comment on legal recourse.

I have however asked the OP some questions that would help to determine if this is an online whiner vs responsible adult. My money is that they will disappear into the bowels of the internet once they get this rant over with. It's why they joined after all, isn't it?

 

[FrequentPilot]

I may try that. But I know the outcome. I have to pay the total bill plus the attorney cost and waste of a lot of valuable time to train the the attorney as he is billing me $1000 an hour.

I would encourage you to consult with a contract lawyer because this ultimately appears to be a contract dispute. They don't have to be knowledgeable in aviation because they'll probably have to hire an AMT expert if they wish to proceed with the case.

However, I wouldn't hold my breath because this seemingly boils down to the classic legal example where "I bought a used car, I did a Pre-Purchase Inspection on it, the car passed, the mechanic missed some important issues, now the car needs a ton of work. I obviously, wouldn't have bought it if I knew about the damage, now who is going to be responsible for all of this damage?" The answer is, usually nobody but you, unless you can prove one of the following elements:
1. The mechanic didn't just do a bad job, they were negligent and missed issues that a reasonable and prudent mechanic would never miss.
2. The vehicle was not sold "as is" or the seller took extra steps to hide damage or deceive you about the vehicle's condition.
3. You were coerced into purchasing the vehicle.
4. The contract you signed with the mechanic included specific protections for you in the event that the issues went unnoticed by them during the inspection.
5. Your state or county has specific protections for buyers who find themselves in these situations.

You're probably thinking that element 1 can be proven quite easily, but it's probably one of the most difficult elements to prove even with an expert AMT. Remember, the cost of the repair is irrelevant. You're talking about how missable the issue actually is during an inspection. All the company has to prove is that the issue, while very serious, is highly missable and they are not required to go through the aircraft records to determine the aircraft's condition. Negligence always has an extremely difficult bar to prove, that's why these cases have to be extremely clear cut, which this case doesn't appear to be on the surface.

Elements 2, 3, and 5 are also unlikely to prevail in these cases, but I assume you're not placing the majority of the blame on the seller since they are not mentioned in your posts. This just leaves element 4, which is usually the easiest element to prove in these cases. However, this element is also rare because typically these contracts are not written in a way that is generous to the buyer. They would have to literally include a clause in there about what happens if they do a bad job, which is very rare and is especially uncharacteristic of big corpos. I've never even seen a contract like this that includes these types of protections.

I genuinely believe that this case lives or dies on the contract, which is probably what your attorney will say if this piques their interest. Unfortunately, "I would have never bought this if I knew about the true its true condition" isn't a valid legal excuse for situations like this. Sure, the other parties acted in a very unethical way, but whether they acted in an illegal way is a totally different bar and one that is usually unreachable.

Definitely consult with some attorneys and best of luck!

 

[Bell206]

why the hell to we bother with the whole A&P certification system in the first place?

The same can be said for attorneys, especially when one hears only one side of a 2 or 3 sided story and goes scorched earth with zero facts.

 

[Daneshgari]

I would encourage you to consult with a contract lawyer because this ultimately appears to be a contract dispute. They don't have to be knowledgeable in aviation because they'll probably have to hire an AMT expert if they wish to proceed with the case.

However, I wouldn't hold my breath because this seemingly boils down to the classic legal example where "I bought a used car, I did a Pre-Purchase Inspection on it, the car passed, the mechanic missed some important issues, now the car needs a ton of work. I obviously, wouldn't have bought it if I knew about the damage, now who is going to be responsible for all of this damage?" The answer is, usually nobody but you, unless you can prove one of the following elements:
1. The mechanic didn't just do a bad job, they were negligent and missed issues that a reasonable and prudent mechanic would never miss.
2. The vehicle was not sold "as is" or the seller took extra steps to hide damage or deceive you about the vehicle's condition.
3. You were coerced into purchasing the vehicle.
4. The contract you signed with the mechanic included specific protections for you in the event that the issues went unnoticed by them during the inspection.
5. Your state or county has specific protections for buyers who find themselves in these situations.

You're probably thinking that element 1 can be proven quite easily, but it's probably one of the most difficult elements to prove even with an expert AMT. Remember, the cost of the repair is irrelevant. You're talking about how missable the issue actually is during an inspection. All the company has to prove is that the issue, while very serious, is highly missable and they are not required to go through the aircraft records to determine the aircraft's condition. Negligence always has an extremely difficult bar to prove, that's why these cases have to be extremely clear cut, which this case doesn't appear to be on the surface.

Elements 2, 3, and 5 are also unlikely to prevail in these cases, but I assume you're not placing the majority of the blame on the seller since they are not mentioned in your posts. This just leaves element 4, which is usually the easiest element to prove in these cases. However, this element is also rare because typically these contracts are not written in a way that is generous to the buyer. They would have to literally include a clause in there about what happens if they do a bad job, which is very rare and is especially uncharacteristic of big corpos. I've never even seen a contract like this that includes these types of protections.

I genuinely believe that this case lives or dies on the contract, which is probably what your attorney will say if this piques their interest. Unfortunately, "I would have never bought this if I knew about the true its true condition" isn't a valid legal excuse for situations like this. Sure, the other parties acted in a very unethical way, but whether they acted in an illegal way is a totally different bar and one that is usually unreachable.

Definitely consult with some attorneys and best of luck!

Thank you for taking your time and making some great suggestions. I certainly will follow up on your recommendations.

 

[4RNB]

I would encourage you to consult with a contract lawyer because this ultimately appears to be a contract dispute. They don't have to be knowledgeable in aviation because they'll probably have to hire an AMT expert if they wish to proceed with the case.

However, I wouldn't hold my breath because this seemingly boils down to the classic legal example where "I bought a used car, I did a Pre-Purchase Inspection on it, the car passed, the mechanic missed some important issues, now the car needs a ton of work. I obviously, wouldn't have bought it if I knew about the damage, now who is going to be responsible for all of this damage?" The answer is, usually nobody but you, unless you can prove one of the following elements:
1. The mechanic didn't just do a bad job, they were negligent and missed issues that a reasonable and prudent mechanic would never miss.
2. The vehicle was not sold "as is" or the seller took extra steps to hide damage or deceive you about the vehicle's condition.
3. You were coerced into purchasing the vehicle.
4. The contract you signed with the mechanic included specific protections for you in the event that the issues went unnoticed by them during the inspection.
5. Your state or county has specific protections for buyers who find themselves in these situations.

You're probably thinking that element 1 can be proven quite easily, but it's probably one of the most difficult elements to prove even with an expert AMT. Remember, the cost of the repair is irrelevant. You're talking about how missable the issue actually is during an inspection. All the company has to prove is that the issue, while very serious, is highly missable and they are not required to go through the aircraft records to determine the aircraft's condition. Negligence always has an extremely difficult bar to prove, that's why these cases have to be extremely clear cut, which this case doesn't appear to be on the surface.

Elements 2, 3, and 5 are also unlikely to prevail in these cases, but I assume you're not placing the majority of the blame on the seller since they are not mentioned in your posts. This just leaves element 4, which is usually the easiest element to prove in these cases. However, this element is also rare because typically these contracts are not written in a way that is generous to the buyer. They would have to literally include a clause in there about what happens if they do a bad job, which is very rare and is especially uncharacteristic of big corpos. I've never even seen a contract like this that includes these types of protections.

I genuinely believe that this case lives or dies on the contract, which is probably what your attorney will say if this piques their interest. Unfortunately, "I would have never bought this if I knew about the true its true condition" isn't a valid legal excuse for situations like this. Sure, the other parties acted in a very unethical way, but whether they acted in an illegal way is a totally different bar and one that is usually unreachable.

Definitely consult with some attorneys and best of luck!

Interesting insight.

The OP has now taken the time to complain about another company, claimed fraudulent maintenance logs.

The OP has utilized the legal process before and won suit after purchasing a company, claimed the sellers did not disclose everything.

 

[Kitch]

I have owned 48.

I know how much I learned after buying 1 airplane... if I didn't have it pretty well figured out after 47 I would forget aviation and go play golf.