Volkswagen engine. External inspection reveals that the exhaust stubs are corroded through and the push-rod tubes have been mangled in order to gain easier access to the spark plugs. Spark plug caps need replacing due to cracked rubber. A fair amount of corrosion externally. I’ve been told my my new inspector not to stress about it too much as even if something does turn out to be gravely wrong when the engine is run up, parts are cheap – which is true.
I suspect the inspector looked in the logbooks and made his own assessment of the seller who owned the aircraft for several decades and was evidently heartbroken to part with it, rather than actually looking at the thing. My own assessment of the seller was that he probably was genuinely upset to sell it, but so what? Spies on the airfield tell me that many of the logbook entries are fictional, which is good because when this is your idea of maintenance, less is more:
I have no intention of suing my original LAA inspector, but I wonder what form of indemnity an inspector of certified aircraft might carry for a pre-buy inspection?
Anyway, Happy Christmas to all.
Criminal. That “inspector” should have his license revoked. Period.
When I perform a PPI, I request that the buyer be present and they are 90% of the time.
I work off a detailed Check-list, type-specific for most Cessnas, Beech, Piper & Mooney. If not, a 100H Inspection check-list used.
Photos are taken of all issues as well as logbooks. A written report is submitted.
I try to avoid making judgments like “that’s a great plane, buy it!” and prefer to stick to an analytical assessment of cost & difficulty of righting issues, as well as assessing the risk of potential issues that may not be visible, ie. bad camshaft, etc
—
On this Christmas Day, let me offer this true story :
WARNING, KIDS, DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME: A few years back I bought a 1947 Cessna 140 that was listed on Barnstormers. No PPI, didn’t even see the plane that was 6,000 miles away, just called the seller and a couple of hours later, wired the funds.
Man, was I surprised when it showed up 6 weeks later – it was BETTER than I anticipated ! 
Santa Clause DOES EXIST and here’s the proof :
What is required to become an “LAA inspector”? I’ve met a few and I suspect I know the answer. I know one chap who has never worked in the maintenance business.
Spies on the airfield tell me that many of the logbook entries are fictional
You don’t need spies to tell you that It’s endemic throughout GA, certified or not. That is why a proper prebuy is (in terms of what is visually inspected) similar to a full Annual.
And, in the case of a Lyco engine, the only way to have any clue as to the engine condition is to do a short flight, drain the oil, get it analysed, check the oil strainer and cut open the oil filter, while hoping that this has not been done by the seller an hour or two before you did it. And check the compressions and valve travel. Alternatively you discount the price by the cost of an overhaul (which may provoke a strong reaction in the seller )
I wonder what form of indemnity an inspector of certified aircraft might carry for a pre-buy inspection?
If he does it as a friend, none. That is why nobody should do it “as a friend” unless they are 100% sure the buyer is 100% decent and won’t take a different view of the friendship if problems are found later.
If he does it as a business, he should have insurance cover. But there will be disclaimers – there must be. So much stuff will be hidden.
We once had an inspection done on a King Air, and the engineer travelled all the way to the USA for us and didn’t notice that the logs showed that the aircraft (importantly the engines) had done 250 hours or so more than the specification said. That equates to quite a lot of money. We got nowhere looking for financial recognition of the mistake by either seller or inspector.
the engineer travelled all the way to the USA for us and didn’t notice that the logs showed that the aircraft
With e-mail and digital cameras everywhere, that need not happen.
Logbooks can be scanned or photographed and sent anywhere in the world in a few minutes, so there is NO reason they can’t be scrutinized before getting on an airplane and spending money.
All the formal ‘inspector’, ‘qualification’ and ‘insurance’ nonsense isn’t worth much for a pre-buy, and its your money. What you need to do is study the type beforehand, and the plane itself with you own eyes as the mechanic looks it over. Grill him and the owner yourself with every good question that comes to mind, and study the logbooks yourself for AD compliance and clues for accident repairs (“repaired wind damage”!) – which is mainly what you’ll get from the logbooks because the rest is often casually contrived platitudes. A mechanics ‘overhaul’ logbook entry may mean little unless there is other documentation – yellow tags for the parts on an N-registered plane or similarly a work order from a good source listing all the new parts and all machine work done on reworked parts, individually. Also, for an N-registered plane you can order the CD with the entire FAA record, or if you know a friendly DAR they can download it directly in a few minutes and email it to you. You can’t tell the condition of the plane in any meaningful sense by studying the logbooks, they are just one small point of reference.
Kwlf, what I would do now (and I’d imagine its what you’ve already decided) is go through the plane and sort everything out, one system at a time. Its really par for the course with an old ultralight, and likely won’t that big a deal – they are usually pleasantly simple devices. You’ll surely be happy to know the plane inside and out when you’re finished, and I think that’s a lot more important than what an owners logbook said going in. Its also a lightweight plane that by its nature that will require regular, simple, hands-on work to stay airworthy… so you may as well start now.
VW engine parts are indeed inexpensive, which is wonderful. Make sure to use the better varieties and maybe avoid the least expensive parts. Years ago when my dad built and flew a VW powered plane he used to joke about going broke spending $300 on a complete set of four cylinders and pistons instead of $200…
Pretty 140!
We paid RGV around £500 for a PPI on our TB20, which immediately got £3000 off the asking price for spotting that many hoses were time-expired. They also picked up on a number of smaller technical issues, and some logbook issues. One lady must have spent at least half a day going through the logbook and all the AD/SBs, and several engineers had the inspection panels off and the aircraft on stands to check the gear etc. Money well spent, though seeing in person is also advisable.
Are there really £3000 of hoses on a TB20?
I think my plane has six significant flexible hoses, and not being part of ‘continued airworthiness’ they’re replaced based on condition: three fuel hoses, three brake hydraulic hoses. There’s also the brake fluid reservoir hose but that’s just an auto parts store hose attached with hose clamps ($5 total, and entirely appropriate because the reservoir is a car part). I’ve replaced the carb hose and sleeve – my A&P made it up and the parts cost was about $50 with fittings. The other two fuel hoses were replaced with Aeroquip stuff a decade ago and will go a lot longer. I guess there are also pitot static hoses, and the scat tube hoses from the heat muffs… but those are trivial in cost.
Are there really £3000 of hoses on a TB20?
Don’t underestimate how expensive parts and labor are in Europe, on an aircraft like that, if using a proper “shop”.
they’re replaced based on condition
Even though, to be honest, “on condition”, for hoses, is a bit of a gamble. Depending on the type of hose, it is almost impossible to evaluate their condition (i.e. how far it is from developing a leak or outright breaking) by visual inspection.
With e-mail and digital cameras everywhere, that need not happen.
Logbooks can be scanned or photographed and sent anywhere in the world in a few minutes, so there is NO reason they can’t be scrutinized before getting on an airplane and spending money.
It need not happen now, I agree.
Unfortunately in 1993 when this occurred email, scanners, and digital cameras were not in common usage in the same way they are today. In any case the engineer had to go to the USA to actually inspect the aircraft, it was not unreasonable to expect him to check the logs at the same time!
Neil
