How does a pre-buy work for the seller?

[Kristin]

No where does it say you can't either, plus it doesn't say that list can't be in the maintenance records for that aircraft.

It doesn't specifically say you can't. However, if a vindictive owner sued you for diminution of value, your defense, and your PMI would get you no where. Unlikely, but why even take a chance where there is nothing in it for you unless you are on some sort of power trip.

Unscrupulous owners have been known to throw the lists of discrepancies away and have their unsafe to fly aircraft returned to service by signing off a minor discrepancy.

If you want to police aviation, go sign up to be an ASI with the FAA. That is their job, not yours as an IA.

My PMI at FSDO will back me up IF/WHEN I should ever place a safety discrepancy in the aircraft's records.

Most ASI's are rather ignorant of the regs, let alone civil law.

I also must CYA my certificates, IF / WHEN you as an owner refuse to comply with repairs for a safety discrepancies I'll simply walk away and not place any thing in your records./quote]

More than half the time the FAA won't get off their butt to do anything about it. Airworthiness if your opinion. You are one mechanic out of thousands. You say xyz needs to be repaired, and another IA says that they don't. The FAA doesn't much referee that kind of thing except in special circumstances, depending on the FSDO.

My next call is to FSDO who will then inspect your aircraft and if necessary remove your airworthiness certificates until you prove to them the discrepancies have been corrected.

You must be a god. I can't get the FAA off their butt when I can prove an AD was pencil-whipped.

Ever been thru a compliance inspection by FSDO? believe me it is a lot easier to deal with your friendly A&P-IA.

As a former DOM of a 135 operation, I have some familiarity with FAA inspections.

 

[Tom-D]

It doesn't specifically say you can't.

Correct, end of discussion, If you have problems with the FAA discuss it with them not us.

 

[Kristin]

Correct, end of discussion, If you have problems with the FAA discuss it with them not us.

I don't have any problem with the FAA. I have problems with aviation professionals who are arrogant and egotistical. IMO, they should not be anywhere near an airplane and don't get near any for which I am responsible. The FAR's are not the only laws in the world. There is no FAR against pouring buckets of pink paint on your car. There are other laws for defacing or damaging someone else's property. That includes someone else's aircraft logbooks.

 

[FORANE]

This thread highlights some of the sellers risks I see associated with an off site pre-buy. Possible mechanics lien clouding title, possible damage to the aircraft, possible dismantled aircraft far from home, possible damaging entries in the logs, possible lost logs... The list goes on. Almost makes me think I should just tell the prospective buyer to bring his mechanic to the plane, look it over in my presence and take it or leave it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It doesn't specifically say you can't. However, if a vindictive owner sued you for diminution of value, your defense, and your PMI would get you no where. Unlikely, but why even take a chance where there is nothing in it for you unless you are on some sort of power trip.

How many times has that lawsuit been brought and win because an owner didn't want to fix his airplane? The diminution of value isn't because of the logs, it's because of the airplane.

If you want to police aviation, go sign up to be an ASI with the FAA. That is their job, not yours as an IA.

Doesn't sound like policing aviation to me...sounds like someone hired him to do a job and he was not allowed to complete it legally...he's just policing himself.

 

[N747JB]

This thread highlights some of the sellers risks I see associated with an off site pre-buy. Possible mechanics lien clouding title, possible damage to the aircraft, possible dismantled aircraft far from home, possible damaging entries in the logs, possible lost logs... The list goes on. Almost makes me think I should just tell the prospective buyer to bring his mechanic to the plane, look it over in my presence and take it or leave it.

I wouldn't let just any shop do the pre-buy on one I am buying or selling, deal with reputable shops and it's not an issue. If you have a good airplane and know it's condition, it shouldn't be a problem, when I sold my 414A a local shop did the pre-buy and my shop fixed the squawks that they found, mostly little nit-pick stuff, but they fixed it and the buyer was happy. We still communicate 7 years later!

 

[midlifeflyer]

I only know how the FAA deals with leans. I also know that the insurance companies will pay the lean holder prior to the owner when they issue the insurance came check.

Generally speaking, the FAA doesn't really "deal with" aircraft liens. The FAA has a recording system but there is no federal statute or rule that creates a mechanics lien or requires recording to create or perfect one. The creation and perfection of a mechanics lien is based entirely on state law, although, if the state requires recording, the place of recording must include the FAA registry.

Some states require aircraft mechanics liens be recorded, in which case they must be recorded with the FAA. Some states say aircraft liens are purely "possessory" liens - if the mechanic does not maintain physical possession of the aircraft he has no lien at all - in those states, recording in FAA Registry without possession might even subject the mechanic recording it to liability for improperly messing up the owner's title and wrongfully interfering with the sale (actually, the FAA will generally reject mechanic lien recordings from the approximately 15 states that do not provide for recording of aircraft mechanic liens.

 

[Tom-D]

This thread highlights some of the sellers risks I see associated with an off site pre-buy. Possible mechanics lien clouding title, possible damage to the aircraft, possible dismantled aircraft far from home, possible damaging entries in the logs, possible lost logs... The list goes on. Almost makes me think I should just tell the prospective buyer to bring his mechanic to the plane, look it over in my presence and take it or leave it.

That's exactly the way I sell aircraft. They are what they are, where they are.

 

[Tom-D]

I don't have any problem with the FAA.

That's not what we gather from your other rant.

 

[hindsight2020]

This thread highlights some of the sellers risks I see associated with an off site pre-buy. Possible mechanics lien clouding title, possible damage to the aircraft, possible dismantled aircraft far from home, possible damaging entries in the logs, possible lost logs... The list goes on. Almost makes me think I should just tell the prospective buyer to bring his mechanic to the plane, look it over in my presence and take it or leave it.

That's exactly the way I sell aircraft. They are what they are, where they are.

Yup. +2. Never had a problem with it.

--break break--

I do have the luxury of that behavior by virtue of buying low selling low. I.e Most people are not affronted by it, since the price point is not high enough to make people that nervous about the gamble that is used airplane ownership.

Buying on my end was also done this way. I certainly have taken risks, but at my price point, liquidity of transaction has been more important than attempting to extract a feeling of certainty to outcomes you cannot guarantee.

But hey, I suppose if you're trying to dump a house sized price point on a toy, I wouldn't be affronted by the idea you want an insufferable house-styled protracted inspection and purchase transaction kabuki. I just get annoyed by the people who insinuate that I'm trying to push a knowingly unsafe aircraft because I don't subscribe to that transactional eyepoke for a piston toy. I simply value liquidity; adjudicating dishonesty on my part is unwarranted. Feel free to walk away and continue jousting at the windmills; I'm never that desperate to unload, the things aren't worth that much, and again I pursue that fact by design.

Some folks truly are a walking dichotomy. Willingly flying an underpowered, underequipped spam can through and under the bumpy cloudy convective sky, as sub-100 sortie a year non-professionals, but demand new car purchase assurances out of the conveyance. LOL

 

[Kristin]

How many times has that lawsuit been brought and win because an owner didn't want to fix his airplane? The diminution of value isn't because of the logs, it's because of the airplane.

How would I know. There are no databases that record that type of thing. Burn your log books and see what it does to the value of your plane? Of course the logs matter. It is the first thing that any competent person doing a pre-purchase inspection looks at.

Doesn't sound like policing aviation to me...sounds like someone hired him to do a job and he was not allowed to complete it legally...he's just policing himself.

He says he is trying to prevent owners from ignoring his opinion regarding airworthiness by adding it to the log books when the FAA specifically states when and how to notify an owner of discrepancies found on an annual/100 hour inspection and it is not by adding it to the log books.

 

[Tom-D]

How would I know. There are no databases that record that type of thing. Burn your log books and see what it does to the value of your plane? Of course the logs matter. It is the first thing that any competent person doing a pre-purchase inspection looks at.
What difference does maintenance completed 40 years ago have when the price is right?

He says he is trying to prevent owners from ignoring his opinion regarding airworthiness by adding it to the log books when the FAA specifically states when and how to notify an owner of discrepancies found on an annual/100 hour inspection and it is not by adding it to the log books.

That is only your perception, no one else sees it that way.
Do you really believe I have no responsibility to the safety of the future flyers of that aircraft when it is obvious that flying it with these safety discrepancies is a accident waiting to happen? Why do you think we have inspections ?
When I do pre-buys and find blatant safety issues my employer ( the buyer) will have been told this isn't the aircraft they should buy, and are no longer the issue. now it's me and the seller, and what they want to do.
They will have a choice, deal with the discrepancy or deal with the FAA.
The FAA didn't make A&P-IAs to ignore safety.

 

[MauleSkinner]

How would I know. There are no databases that record that type of thing. Burn your log books and see what it does to the value of your plane? Of course the logs matter. It is the first thing that any competent person doing a pre-purchase inspection looks at.

I'm not talking about burning logbooks. I'm talking about having the logbooks reflect the airplane condition. Unless the seller is trying to hide aircraft discrepancies, there should be no diminution of value.

He says he is trying to prevent owners from ignoring his opinion regarding airworthiness by adding it to the log books when the FAA specifically states when and how to notify an owner of discrepancies found on an annual/100 hour inspection and it is not by adding it to the log books.

All they have to do is take it to their own mechanic, spend 50 bucks, & have him return the airplane to service.

Should be no problem, since everyone knows Tom doesn't know anything about airplanes.

Just another thing that the seller needs to consider when authorizing a prepurchase inspection.

 

[Tom-D]

All they have to do is take it to their own mechanic, spend 50 bucks, & have him return the airplane to service.
I've found that mostly their mechanic is the underlying cause of the problem.

Should be no problem, since everyone knows Tom doesn't know anything about airplanes. .

Yeah in 60 years of doing this stuff, I haven't learned a thing. the old rules still apply, "the only thing in aviation that is cheap is owners"

 

[Tom-D]

Here is the scenario, I'm hired to do a pre-buy for a customer on a early 172 or a 170, I remove the upper forward corner of the head liner and the vent panel to expose the rivets that join the vertical door post to the horizontal forward spar carry thru. And when I place a flat blade screw driver at the head of these rivets and bump it with my hand the head falls off to expose the white powder that once was the rivet.
OK you take it from here, what's my responsibility? what should be my next action?

 

[Kristin]

That is only your perception, no one else sees it that way.

Have you polled everyone on the planet or just on this forum?

Do you really believe I have no responsibility to the safety of the future flyers of that aircraft when it is obvious that flying it with these safety discrepancies is a accident waiting to happen? Why do you think we have inspections ?

The issue isn't whether the plane should be inspected or whether you should be diligent and competent in your inspection. The issue is whether you have the authority to enter the discrepancy in the logbook.

When I do pre-buys and find blatant safety issues my employer ( the buyer) will have been told this isn't the aircraft they should buy, and are no longer the issue. now it's me and the seller, and what they want to do.
They will have a choice, deal with the discrepancy or deal with the FAA.
The FAA didn't make A&P-IAs to ignore safety.

Particularly in a pre-buy situation, this is fairly arrogant. You were hired by the buyer, not the seller. You put anything in the logbooks you are outside what the law allows. I don't know about you, but I don't find that every discrepancy is clearly a airworthy or not airworthy. Some of those are judgment calls. Some are obvious deficiencies. But when I do a pre-purchase inspection, when I find something, I notify the seller, and of course the putative buyer. I cover myself by making the notification in writing, usually be email and I save them. Most of the time, I don't know for sure if the seller fixes something or not. I have no right to enter anything in the logs. I would only report it to the FAA if it was completely obviously an airworthiness issue -- think cracked spar here -- and the seller told me he wasn't going to fix it and would continue flying it.

The problem with reporting to the FAA, they can only ground the plane, there is no violation for trying to sell an unairworthy aircraft and the FAA doesn't regulate fraud.

 

[Kristin]

I'm not talking about burning logbooks. I'm talking about having the logbooks reflect the airplane condition. Unless the seller is trying to hide aircraft discrepancies, there should be no diminution of value.

When was the last time you saw logbooks that listed every discrepancy and what was done to fix it?

Just another thing that the seller needs to consider when authorizing a prepurchase inspection.

I guess I can see why some sellers are picky about who does the pre-purchase. I wouldn't let anyone near my aircraft logbooks on a pre-buy that believed he/she had a right to make entries therein.

 

[Kristin]

Here is the scenario, I'm hired to do a pre-buy for a customer on a early 172 or a 170, I remove the upper forward corner of the head liner and the vent panel to expose the rivets that join the vertical door post to the horizontal forward spar carry thru. And when I place a flat blade screw driver at the head of these rivets and bump it with my hand the head falls off to expose the white powder that once was the rivet.
OK you take it from here, what's my responsibility? what should be my next action?

Advise your client, the putative buyer, email or provide in writing to the seller what you found. I also take pictures. Legal and moral duties fulfilled.

 

[Tom-D]

Have you polled everyone on the planet or just on this forum?

Let's not get stupid, as long as the FAA is good with you should be too.

issue isn't whether the plane should be inspected or whether you should be diligent and competent in your inspection. The issue is whether you have the authority to enter the discrepancy in the logbook.

You keep coming back to this, when it has been you've already admitted there is no rule against it

in a pre-buy situation, this is fairly arrogant.(only in your opinion) You were hired by the buyer, not the seller. You put anything in the logbooks you are outside what the law allows. I don't know about you, but I don't find that every discrepancy is clearly a airworthy or not airworthy. Some of those are judgment calls. Some are obvious deficiencies. But when I do a pre-purchase inspection, when I find something, I notify the seller, and of course the putative buyer. I cover myself by making the notification in writing, usually be email and I save them. Most of the time, I don't know for sure if the seller fixes something or not. I have no right to enter anything in the logs. I would only report it to the FAA if it was completely obviously an airworthiness issue -- think cracked spar here -- and the seller told me he wasn't going to fix it and would continue flying it.

The only FARs are applicable to maintenance records. and what you do is not the world standard. the FARs are.

problem with reporting to the FAA, they can only ground the plane, there is no violation for trying to sell an unairworthy aircraft and the FAA doesn't regulate fraud.

correct, they only pull the airworthiness certificate. Want to buy any aircraft with out an airworthiness certificate?

 

[Tom-D]

Advise your client, the putative buyer, email or provide in writing to the seller what you found. I also take pictures. Legal and moral duties fulfilled.

REALLY? I believe you need refresher training.

 

[MauleSkinner]

When was the last time you saw logbooks that listed every discrepancy and what was done to fix it?

been a long time...I tend to not hang out with people who don't fix their airplanes.

I guess I can see why some sellers are picky about who does the pre-purchase. I wouldn't let anyone near my aircraft logbooks on a pre-buy that believed he/she had a right to make entries therein.

I solve that problem by having a mechanic that I can trust to keep my airplane airworthy so I never worry about other mechanics seeing it. But everybody has their own system.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Here is the scenario, I'm hired to do a pre-buy for a customer on a early 172 or a 170, I remove the upper forward corner of the head liner and the vent panel to expose the rivets that join the vertical door post to the horizontal forward spar carry thru. And when I place a flat blade screw driver at the head of these rivets and bump it with my hand the head falls off to expose the white powder that once was the rivet.
OK you take it from here, what's my responsibility? what should be my next action?

If it was my airplane, your next action would probably be to repair it properly, collect payment from me, and return it to service for either me or the buyer to fly home.

 

[Tom-D]

If it was my airplane, your next action would probably be to repair it properly, collect payment from me, and return it to service for either me or the buyer to fly home.

That is a proper response from an owner.

 

[Kristin]

Let's not get stupid, as long as the FAA is good with you should be too.

You made the stupid claim.

You keep coming back to this, when it has been you've already admitted there is no rule against it
The only FARs are applicable to maintenance records. and what you do is not the world standard. the FARs are.

You seem to be unable to understand that other laws apply to aviation other than the FAR's.

 

[Kristin]

been a long time...I tend to not hang out with people who don't fix their airplanes.

I solve that problem by having a mechanic that I can trust to keep my airplane airworthy so I never worry about other mechanics seeing it. But everybody has their own system.

I see lots of entries for repairs. I see almost none that lists the discrepancy before the repair. But then I have only looked at thousands of logbook pages and most all have been for U.S. aircraft so maybe things are different in other parts of the world.

 

[Kristin]

REALLY? I believe you need refresher training.

You believe lots of things that don't appear to be true, so I am not surprised.

 

[Tom-D]

You believe lots of things that don't appear to be true, so I am not surprised.

How will your PMI feel when they find they have issued a ferry permit for an aircraft that you knew was unsafe to fly? How would you like to see a innocent ferry pilot killed because you said/did nothing after you knew an aircraft was unsafe to fly.

You have a responsibility. own it.

 

[Witmo]

That is only your perception, no one else sees it that way.

Once again Tom presumes to speak for everyone else. I happen to totally agree with Kristen.

Do you really believe I have no responsibility to the safety of the future flyers of that aircraft when it is obvious that flying it with these safety discrepancies is a accident waiting to happen? Why do you think we have inspections ?
When I do pre-buys and find blatant safety issues my employer ( the buyer) will have been told this isn't the aircraft they should buy, and are no longer the issue. now it's me and the seller, and what they want to do.
They will have a choice, deal with the discrepancy or deal with the FAA.
The FAA didn't make A&P-IAs to ignore safety.

An A&P is responsible for the work he performs, period dot. He is not a policeman or a nanny. It's not his "duty" to run to the FAA shouting SAFETY...SAFETY whenever someone disagrees with his opinion. A prebuy is not a defined inspection. It's not an annual and it's not a 100 hour. I do a preflight inspection prior to every flight and it doesn't get logged in the mx record and I am an A&P. It sounds like you go running to the nearest FSDO every time you walk across a ramp and see something you think is unairworthy. Good luck with that.

 

[Tom-D]

Once again Tom presumes to speak for everyone else.

There ya go making a presumption that isn't true.

And once again assume that a A&P has no responsibility to the aviation community or the pilots that may be hurt or killed by irresponsible owners.

How can anyone defend the dead beat owners that refuse to maintain their aircraft to a safe condition?

 

[Witmo]

There ya go making a presumption that isn't true.

And once again assume that a A&P has no responsibility to the aviation community or the pilots that may be hurt or killed by irresponsible owners

Do you even read what you write? You wrote and I quote: "That is only your perception, no one else sees it that way." Sure looks to me like you're the one doing the presuming by saying Kristen is alone in his opinion. I also don't presume to be a policeman or think it my duty to get into other people's business unless it's a blatant disregard for a safety of flight issue.

 

[FORANE]

It seems opinions differ.

I have had an old dry blue staining at a connection to a composite fuel tank in the lancair. It was less than 1 inch x 1/4 inches, and without any evidence of wetness or continued leaking. One mechanic declared the plane unairworthy. I had to get a ferry permit and fly it to a lancair specialist who just painted a little sealant on the spot and said that it shouldn't have been an issue.

How about the experimental owners who use automotive spark plugs, automotive oil filters, automotive alternators and regulators? Are those planes to be declared not airworthy?

 

[Kristin]

How will your PMI feel when they find they have issued a ferry permit for an aircraft that you knew was unsafe to fly? How would you like to see a innocent ferry pilot killed because you said/did nothing after you knew an aircraft was unsafe to fly.

You have a responsibility. own it.

You are using an extreme and unlikely scenario to justify a routine practice of writing your opinions in someone's logbook who did not even hire you. That is intellectually dishonest, but lets deal with the extreme.

IMX, any owner that is unconcerned about corrosion in the wing carry through, also likely doesn't care about ferry permits. They are likely to climb into the plane and fly it away, despite my showing him the damage.

Assuming an event where the owner is made aware of the problem, and desperately wants to get the aircraft to another mechanic so he can have it fixed by someone other than you, then he still has to get an A&P to sign off on the ferry permit, so the PMI is not on the hook. If I saw another mechanic or pilot about to ferry the aircraft, then I would mention what I had found. If they want to take the risk after that, it is their life to gamble.

You seem to have a lot of disdain for aircraft owners in general. I have run across my fair share of cheapskates, but have generally learned to spot them and avoid them. I also steer my clients away from aircraft being sold by sellers who are clearly cheapskates as those aircraft are always under maintained and will be a money pit for a few years.

Regardless, it is not your job to be the policeman of aviation. We have the FAA for that. There are certainly extreme examples which might call for extreme measures like calling the FSDO, but routinely writing in someone's aircraft logs the discrepancies is unwarranted, regardless of your personal angst against aircraft owners in general.

 

[Tom-D]

You are using an extreme and unlikely scenario to justify a routine practice of writing your opinions in someone's logbook who did not even hire you.

OH MY GOD who says it is routine. get a grip.

The rest of your post is just another rant.

And you avoided the question of how your PMI would feel

 

[Tom-D]

Do you even read what you write? You wrote and I quote: "That is only your perception, no one else sees it that way." Sure looks to me like you're the one doing the presuming by saying Kristen is alone in his opinion. I also don't presume to be a policeman or think it my duty to get into other people's business unless it's a blatant disregard for a safety of flight issue.

IOWs you'd allow some one to get hurt because you don't want to get involved? WHY in the world are you an A&P if you don't want to get involved.

 

[James331]

That is only your perception, no one else sees it that way.
Do you really believe I have no responsibility to the safety of the future flyers of that aircraft when it is obvious that flying it with these safety discrepancies is a accident waiting to happen? Why do you think we have inspections ?
When I do pre-buys and find blatant safety issues my employer ( the buyer) will have been told this isn't the aircraft they should buy, and are no longer the issue. now it's me and the seller, and what they want to do.
They will have a choice, deal with the discrepancy or deal with the FAA.
The FAA didn't make A&P-IAs to ignore safety.

No, they have a choices and decisions regarding if they agree with your assessment of the discrepancy, if they want to fix it at this time, and who they want to do the work.

It's not you and the seller, someone brings you along to look at a plane I have for sale, you got zero contract with me, you make your inspection for the buyer, you may start working on the plane after it transfers to the buyers possession, but I got zero need for you to do work that you BELEVE needs to be done, call the FAA, call the national guard, heck call the ghost busters for all I care, it's my aircraft and what gets done and who does what is non of your business.

 

[Tom-D]

No, they have a choices and decisions regarding if they agree with your assessment of the discrepancy, if they want to fix it at this time, and who they want to do the work.

It's not you and the seller, someone brings you along to look at a plane I have for sale, you got zero contract with me, you make your inspection for the buyer, you may start working on the plane after it transfers to the buyers possession, but I got zero need for you to do work that you BELEVE needs to be done, call the FAA, call the national guard, heck call the ghost busters for all I care, it's my aircraft and what gets done and who does what is non of your business.

It is a fact that what you do to your aircraft is your business, but when the FAA decides you can do with out your AWC you'll do with out it.

Think about what the ambulance chasers of this world will do when they find you knew, then denied that info to their client? do you own your house? you won't after they get done.

 

[Kristin]

OH MY GOD who says it is routine. get a grip.

The rest of your post is just another rant.

And you avoided the question of how your PMI would feel

You said it was routine for you to enter the discrepancies in the log when the owner didn't agree to fix the plane.

I don't care how the PMI feels. His/her emotional equilibrium is not my concern as long as I am following the law.

 

[Kristin]

It is a fact that what you do to your aircraft is your business, but when the FAA decides you can do with out your AWC you'll do with out it.

What FSDO do you deal with anyway? I have personal knowledge of four that have grounded aircraft and they did it with a red tag. They did not confiscate the Airworthiness Certificate. They in most cases, they didn't even ask that a repair sign-off be sent to them.

Think about what the ambulance chasers of this world will do when they find you knew, then denied that info to their client? do you own your house? you won't after they get done.

Now you are an expert in aviation litigation. In what state are you admitted to practice? No one said anything about not telling the parties that were involved. There is nothing in the law of negligence that requires that you notify the parties by altering their personal property or by calling the feds. Telling them to their face, handing them a written note, emailing them, texting them, etc, all constitutes notification and discharges your obligation.

 

[hindsight2020]

We have to be careful here. That pedantic stance on the part of a pre-buy mechanic may be construed as extortion, as their represented party has an economic incentive to strong arm and get into a "my opinion is legally superior" canard where a seller is misled into discounting his aircraft or be penalized with mx costs for not playing ball with the buyer that's trying to bully you into a purchase agreement.

I remember the mechanic that did a prebuy on my warrior on behalf of the buyer. Guy flew with me, opened up panels and did a compression check, the rest was just logbook reviews. All at my home drone. No issues. That was the extent I was comfortable allowing this stranger to tear stuff around my airplane. At the end of the day, money was exchanged (months later), I delivered it to the mechanic in question for the flip job the owner was intending on doing with it, and I went on my way.

Weeks later he's emailing me scathing lines about the condition of the fuel pump and engine (which was at 2200SMOH and they intended to take out from the get go) and how it was unsafe yada yada yada and my AP must be clueless or knowingly negligent. Ended with the typical "if I had had access to it I would have grounded...". I told him to stop right there and to go away.

The point is that even he didn't dare attempt to make entries on my logbook because he knew that it was not his place to do so. Imagine the storm that would have ensued if he had quarantined my airplane at his place and started second guessing my AP's work. No thanks. Unfortunately these people exist and they are dead set on believing they're right and that they are saving lives and fostering righteousness and thus we should be beholden to their mood swings. Eff that.

That's why I ensured the extent of the prebuy wasn't as invasive so as to create those opportunities, with the airplane staying in my home drone for said pre-buy. Way too many John Wayne strutting APs. I fly my airplane legally with my family on board, I don't need economically interested parties making adjudications on my conveyance for the sake of extorting me. Go away with that noise. Feel free to walk away from the transaction if the rules of engagement are not to your liking. But step the hell away from my business and property.

Everybody focuses on owners as these scheming sinner-by-omission criminals by default, but mechanics and their self-righteous behavior give GA a bad rep and create a combative, standoffish atmosphere new entrants frequently complain about on here. Some of it has to do with demographics and big-fish-little-pond dynamics, but curmudgeons come in all colors and sizes.

 

[Tom-D]

What FSDO do you deal with anyway? I have personal knowledge of four that have grounded aircraft and they did it with a red tag. They did not confiscate the Airworthiness Certificate. They in most cases, they didn't even ask that a repair sign-off be sent to them.



Now you are an expert in aviation litigation. In what state are you admitted to practice? No one said anything about not telling the parties that were involved. There is nothing in the law of negligence that requires that you notify the parties by altering their personal property or by calling the feds. Telling them to their face, handing them a written note, emailing them, texting them, etc, all constitutes notification and discharges your obligation.

I think your imagination has run away with your common sense. the red tag is use when they find a discrepancy during a ramp check, when the FAA has no contact with the owner/pilot.

When a ASI is notified there is an unsafe aircraft by a A&P-IA they will come out and investigate, when they are not satisfied the aircraft isn't being dealt with properly. they will confiscate the AWC.
If you don't believe me call your FSDO and ask.
Two occasions in the past I've been called in after the fact to deal with the repair, and getting the AWC re-instated. (not fun)
After reading your first rant about what the FAA will and won't do, I can understand you not knowing this.
When you get refresher training by FSDO at their yearly sessions you will understand the ASIs depends upon A&P-IAs input because they know they can't be every all the time.
Were you to inform your PMI that there is a safety issue with N--- and to not issue a special flight permit, they wouldn't.
ButI guess you and Witmo wouldn't get involved, you'd just let some ferry pilot get killed.