Bagarre wrote:Then call the FAA and take it up with them.
You asked for opinions, you got opinions. Sorry they don't match what you wanted to hear.

It’s not what I did or didn’t want to hear. I’m
Just surprised that the opinions are that the FAA doesn’t care about GA. Guess I misread who they were and what they enforce, or don’t.

Airfoil92 wrote:

CenterHillAg wrote:If the new owner was flying around for 2 months with a screwed up registration, it’d be best for him to keep his mouth shut and not run to the FSDO. Get the registration figured out, have a trusted mechanic go over the plane, and chalk it up as a learning experience.

He hasn't been flying it. He's trying to find out what to do. I think its had a prop strike and bigger issues than trying to get it registered. It sounds like most everybody doesn't care much about the FAR's and legal aspects of aviation. Perhaps the FAA doesn't care either. I guess I worry too much about putting 8.50's on my AC without an STC. I didn't for that reason. It sounds like I can put a 180HP upgrade, big tires, and prop and there is no legal issues. I would think the FSDO would help with the registration. I wonder what they will do on the prop strike/gear repair without documentation. Buyer beware doesn't supersede fraud. Sure he could have done more due diligence, but he assumed an IA wouldn't break federal law so blatantly I guess.. It'll be interesting.

Oh, you could probably do all that and more, and as long as nothing bad happened, nothing bad would happen. BUT, do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

The prop strike, if documented and not checked, is problematic for certain, and the feds aren’t going to be pleased with that, no doubt. That right there equals “unairworthy”. So, at the very least, the current owner needs to get someone comply with the prop strike protocol. Then, the plane will need a thorough annual inspection to verify airworthiness. Anything not airworthy is gonna need to be fixed prior to flight.

Owner can do all that with his mechanic. Bring in the feds, and same thing, only you’ll have the feds looking over the mechanics shoulder.....not a happy time.

If the owner just wants vengeance, tell him to go to the FSDO and lay out the evidence. They may in fact take certificate action against the previous owner. But, that won’t get him any closer to flying, which is why you buy a plane.

You said the IA never registered it. How does your friend know he actually owned it? Are there liens on the plane, preventing registration, or??? This can be scarier than prop strikes. What proof did the former owner have that he owned it, and does your friend have proof of that, as in papers?

This sounds like a total can of worms. If your friend wants to be compensated, he’ll need to file civilly. Sounds like the previous owner may or may not have any $$$.

So, if he just wants to punish the IA, make DAMN sure he’s got ALLthe documentation he needs to register it, register it, THEN go to the FSDO, a long and messy process.

When all he wanted to do was fly. Me, I think I’d get the prop strike inspection, an annual, register it, and go fly.

MTV

Some folks avoided the Feds, back in the day. I flew, crashed, and flew again Pawnees that had absolutely nothing but annual inspection sign offs. Cleanest logs I have ever seen. I also flew pipeline Cessnas with problems that were not cleaned up until annual. It is not a financially sound practice to buy aircraft without having your own IA go over aircraft and paperwork. My Army primary flight school instructor was a former crop duster who explained pre-flight as, "We're not looking to buy it, we're just looking to fly it." Buyer beware.

Airfoil92 wrote:Ok... here is the scenario.
IA buys a plane
IA flew and crashed the plane out of annual and not registered NTSB- substantial damage, ripped the gear off it.
NTSB lists it as "Substantial damage" Gear ripped off and prop strike
IA owns and fixes the aircraft over 25 years
IA never logged or submitted anything stating the damage
IA put 2 hours total time on the aircraft over 25 years. He wrecked it and parked it. Then fixed it and sold it.

New owner looked it over and bought it. Then 2 months go by and the new owner can't register it. During the search for the new owner finds an NTSB report about the crash. The prop has 2 hours on it since new as well.

Here is the sequence of events.
IA buys, flys and crashes his new toy
IA puts a new prop on it and fixes the damage.
IA never logs the damage, new prop (according to logs he did log that part), repainted the aircraft etc
IA sells the airplane
New owner can't register it.
New owner digs around for previous owner info for registering. New owner finds the NTSB report and no signs of repair, has logs since new. All accounted for

I feel bad for this guy but I don't know much legal recourse he has at this point. Its obvious the IA crashed and covered up his damage. It's interesting the IA flew and crashed it out of annual and unregistered as well. Going to be interesting to see how it works out.

Like a lot of discussions on BCP, this one is mixing a few apples and oranges and the end result is somewhat fruity and therefore not very satisfying for the OP. Let's assume this plane was bought by this pilot and is in his possession but he is now unhappy with his hindsight discoveries.

Does he want to get his money back and return the plane to the seller? Then get a lawyer and pursue the manner through the court system which then may trigger the FAA getting more involved than they already are. Not much more help can be provided here at BCP if this is the route he is going.

However if he has decided to keep the a/c and untangle this mess then here is what I would do.

1. Forget about the FAA's and the IA's regulatory issues. Not his problem and it will make it much more difficult to move forward on making the a/c airworthy

2. Work on getting the airplane registered. If it has no liens, leases or security issues then I can't see what is preventing the a/c from getting reregistered. If the N number was reissued to another a/c then a new number would need to be issued. Since the registration has apparently expired, the airworthiness certificate also needs to be renewed. The two documents go hand in hand and the local FSDO agent the owner deals with will be the best person to clarify the process. The a/c does not have to be airworthy to be registered or have a valid airworthiness certificate.

3. Once the above is complete the plane can be readied for flight. If the owner needs to move it to another location for an annual inspection/repairs then he could disassemble and trailer it or if an A&P determines it safe for flight he could get a oneway ferry permit.

4. Engine: If it had a known prop strike and does not have a documented disassembly, inspection and was reassembled per the manufacturers guidelines, then he needs to do that or overhaul or replace the engine with another airworthy engine. If torn down and inspected/repaired, then log that work and sign off as airworthy. If overhauled, then start a new log as is done in many instances. Different engine will include it's own log and the old engine log goes away with the old engine.

5. Prop: As I understand the situation a new prop was put on the airplane and flown 2 hours or maybe not at all?. If it has a log than do a standard annual inspection and comply with all the usual A.D.s. No log?, then do an overhaul and start a new log.

6. Airframe: Do an annual inspection and look at every thing in great detail, which should be done at each annual anyway. Once the inspection/repairs/maintenance is complete, make a detailed log entry stating everything the was done and a description of what knowledge is known about undocumented repairs as it pertains to the maintenance and airworthiness of the a/c.

7. Cleanup the paperwork as part of the annual, like is suppose to be done on any a/c: Weight and balance, current equipment list, A.D. list, operators manual, etc.

8. Go fly!


Now on another note, I would wager that the FAA is already aware of the accident if there was a NTSB investigation/report. The IA may already be up to his eyeballs in legal issues pertaining to his IA, A&P and PPL. Does not prevent him from selling the a/c, and any fraud during the sale would not be something the FAA would be in charge of regulating I would think.

Hope the guy got a good deal on the purchase!

Skylarkin,

A couple points:

Airworthiness certificates and registration certificates are not related.....they dont “go hand in hand”. Two entirely different subjects there. An airworthiness certificate does NOT automatically become invalid if a plane’s registration expires. IF the plane was written off, the A/C should have been turned in, but that may not be the case here.

Second, propellers (and engines, for that matter) are not subject to “annual inspections”. There is no requirement for an “annual inspection” sign off in a propeller logbook.

Otherwise, we are pretty much on the same page.

MTV

Is a tear down inspection actually REQUIRED after a prop strike for Part 91 operators?

I know it's the prudent, smart thing to do and I wouldn't want to fly behind a motor with that kind of a question mark on it but... Does the FAA require any special action to be taken after a prop strike. If so, I would expect there to be an AD or other such FAA regulatory document stating but I don't know of any.

Or is this issue simply covered by a critical service bulletin by the manufacturer and as such not mandatory?
Or like the TBO on the engine, which 91 doesn't need to adhere to either.

If that's the case, all the IA would have been required to do is log the propeller change and possibly dial the crank if he wanted.

Its an honest questions as I don't know what regulation requires an inspection after prop strike.

The new owner should proceed with the mindset that the FAA isn’t going to be of much, if any, benefit to him. Like Lawyers, if the Fed’s get in the middle of things, everyone looses. It’s been my experience that even if the FAA pursues action, wither punitive or regulatory, it won’t benefit the buyer. (Except a small moral victory perhaps). Any fines imposed will end up the in the FAA’s coffers; any regulatory victories end up on the agents office wall.
My recommendation is that the buyer should do what is necessary to get the plane legal and flying, then get away from them both. Why first time Aircraft buyers continue to purchase planes without a full background and title search is beyond comprehension. I once had a customer purchase a Lear 31A, ferried to our facility, then asked us to perform a prebuy inspection. It wasn’t the cream puff he thought it was either.....
I now yield the soapbox.
JJ

MTV,

I did overstate the "hand in hand" a bit or at least did not go into as good of detail as I could have but if you have an expired registration it does affect the airworthiness certificate and renders it "ineffective" according to the FAA. Here is a quote from their website:

"Because an aircraft with an expired registration is not registered, its airworthiness certification would be considered ineffective. Without registration the aircraft is not authorized for flight. Once registration is restored, the airworthiness certificate not having been surrendered, revoked or terminated would become effective again provided the aircraft is otherwise compliant with maintenance, inspections, and any other requirements for an effective airworthiness. If you have further questions please contact an airworthiness inspector through your nearest Flight Standards District Office."


If I was the owner I would reach out to the local FSDO to help me through the process was my main point.




The Prop is considered part of the airframe and may or may not have it's own log book but in any event it is subject to an annual inspection. No I suppose you don't have to make a specific entry in the propeller logbook certifying an annual inspection but in this case it would probably be a good idea in order to clean up the paperwork. Maybe not?

Every aircraft engine I have ever worked on has had it's own logbook and that engine is subject to an annual inspection with a logbook entry noting that inspection and certifying it as airworthy. I am not sure why you would think otherwise but I'm all ears as I have been proven wrong more than once.

I usually don't share my opinions too much on the internet but I see from time to time people bogged down in aircraft issues like this one that really have fairly strait forward solutions so I share what little I know even if it's wrong. Lost logbooks are another one that a lot of people run away from when log books get lost from time to time but really has nothing to do with the airworthiness or condition of the aircraft. Pain in the butt to rebuild the paperwork but not the end of the world or the airplane. In fact if the logbooks got "lost" in this case it might make the whole process a little easier.

Aircraft "held hostage" by the mechanic is another one that if the owner knew the regulations would have an easy solution. A&Ps/IAs don't have that kind of authority although I've been around a few that thought they did.

Bagarre,

That is a good question about tear down requirements that I don't know the answer to either. I would do a tear down on this engine in this case, as well as most cases, for safety reasons rather than regulation reasons.

Prop strike inspection for Lycomings is AD 2004-10-14, only a service bulletin for Continentals.

To build on what MTV said, AIRCRAFT require an annual inspection with a maintenance entry indicating compliance only in the aircraft (airframe) maintenance records (log book), "aircraft" includes airframe, engine, and propeller. AIRFRAME, ENGINE, and PROPELLER require 100 hr inspection's with maintenance entries indicating compliance in each maintenance record (log book). That is why the entry says "This AIRCRAFT inspected in accordance with an ANNUAL inspection----", or "This AIRFRAME inspected in accordance with a 100 hour inspection----". Aircraft owners/pilots like to see annual inspection entries in engine and propeller records but it is not required and some FAA airworthiness inspectors will point out to IA's that it is not required nor appropriate to include the annual entry in the engine and propeller maintenance records.

Tim

SkyLarkin wrote:….Does he want to get his money back and return the plane to the seller? Then get a lawyer and pursue the manner through the court system which then may trigger the FAA getting more involved than they already are. Not much more help can be provided here at BCP if this is the route he is going.
However if he has decided to keep the a/c and untangle this mess then here is what I would do. …..

I agree.

SkyLarkin wrote:….. The a/c does not have to be airworthy to be registered or have a valid airworthiness certificate......

I thought that also.
But earlier this year I got a new tail number (actually the original number) for my airplane.
1) reserved the number 2) applied for the number 3) got the number 4) got new registration.
The final step, hidden in the fine print, was "contact your local FSDO to obtain a revised airworthiness certificate" with the correct new tail number on it.
When I made my appointment for my visit to the FSDO, they told me to bring my logbooks.
I asked why, I was told it was to show that your airplane is airworthy.
I didn't want to get into an argument,
so I took photocopies of the logbook entries from my most recent annual inspection
(along with a bunch of other stuff they asked for, that the FAA website didn't even mention).
That was good enough for them.

The visit to the FSDO is a whole story in itself.
Suffice it to say, you want to avoid having to do that--
esp if you have a short fuse and a bad temper.

bat443 wrote:Prop strike inspection for Lycomings is AD 2004-10-14, only a service bulletin for Continentals.

To build on what MTV said, AIRCRAFT require an annual inspection with a maintenance entry indicating compliance only in the aircraft (airframe) maintenance records (log book), "aircraft" includes airframe, engine, and propeller. AIRFRAME, ENGINE, and PROPELLER require 100 hr inspection's with maintenance entries indicating compliance in each maintenance record (log book). That is why the entry says "This AIRCRAFT inspected in accordance with an ANNUAL inspection----", or "This AIRFRAME inspected in accordance with a 100 hour inspection----". Aircraft owners/pilots like to see annual inspection entries in engine and propeller records but it is not required and some FAA airworthiness inspectors will point out to IA's that it is not required nor appropriate to include the annual entry in the engine and propeller maintenance records.

Tim

Thanks, that’s a better explanation than I could have generated quickly, but was precisely what I was hating at.

Obviously, an airplane with an Airworthiness certificate, but no current registration is not “airworthy”, but the A/W certificate is not canceled or otherwise invalid. Same case would be a plane out of annual, not airworthy, but A/W certificate is still “valid”. Register the plane, get an annual done, and voila, the A/W certificate is once again “useful”.

MTV

Both MTV and bat43 are probably right on the whole logbook issue and I have no real reason to disagree or argue. It has been my experience as a mechanic and currently as a aircraft owner that both the aircraft and engine logs have annual inspections documented, perhaps unnecessarily. When I go to Part 43 it makes it about as clear as mud and is open to interpretation for either method IMO. If nothing else it is food for thought.

(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

](1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.

(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service.

(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof.

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”


I already quoted the FAA statement on the Airworthiness Certificate being "ineffective" if the registration expires and only becomes "effective" when the registration is current. I had a similar situation to HotRod 180's experience when I purchased my 170. It had not been registered or annualed since 2002 and I did a bunch of repairs to qualify for a Special Flight Permit and get it closer to home. I was issued the permit and after I flew home and contacted the FAA inspector to inform him of the flight, I was told to bring in my old airworthiness certificate and have a new one reissued, which I did. When I asked why this was necessary he stated because the registration had lapsed too long and was no longer valid. His words not mine. I didn't really care even though it seemed a little odd at the time.

In any case I think we are splitting hair on these couple of issues but it does point out that many of us do care about complying with the regs as best as we can and are not just willy nilly putting things on our aircraft or doing repairs without proper documentation as was suggested in an earlier post.

Prop and engine logs are signed off as a 100 hour inspection. Airframe is only “annual inspection”.

Yes, seriously.

MTV

mtv wrote: Prop and engine logs are signed off as a 100 hour inspection. Airframe is only “annual inspection”. ...

I did annuals with one IA that did that. He explained the rational behind it.
Every other IA I've done annuals with logged an "annual inspection" in all three logbooks.
Actually, since it is an "annual inspection" and not a "100 hour inspection",
it is probably legit not to have any entry at all in the engine & prop books--
which is how one IA I know does it.
But technically required or not, , I prefer to have an "annual inspection" entry in all three of my logbooks,
and as long as that's not in violation of the regs, I expect the IA I'm paying to do accommodate me.

One other thing to add, and this is worth exactly what you paid for it, or $0.00.

Engines do not necessarily need to be torn down, it is up to the guidance of the manufacturer. On a Frank it states to dial indicate and if with in a certain tolerance that is all that is needed.

Read the documentation and guidance from the manufacturer, if there is an type of action, civil or otherwise, that will be where they start.

BTW that is the same with OSHA, FAA or any other federal regulatory agency.

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote: Prop and engine logs are signed off as a 100 hour inspection. Airframe is only “annual inspection”. ...

I did annuals with one IA that did that. He explained the rational behind it.
Every other IA I've done annuals with logged an "annual inspection" in all three logbooks.
Actually, since it is an "annual inspection" and not a "100 hour inspection",
it is probably legit not to have any entry at all in the engine & prop books--
which is how one IA I know does it.
But technically required or not, , I prefer to have an "annual inspection" entry in all three of my logbooks,
and as long as that's not in violation of the regs, I expect the IA I'm paying to do accommodate me.

A 100 hour inspection can be done at any time......no requirement to actually have flown 100 hours. If you prefer to have incorrect entries in your logbooks, so be it......you get what you pay for.

MTV

I’ve heard distinctions made between “prop strike” and “sudden stoppage”. Anybody here that can expand on that? Prop hits a glass runway light, smashes the light, engine hardly misses a beat, small nick in the prop that is easily dressed out. That’s a prop strike, but the engine was not stalled by the strike, so it’s not a sudden stoppage. I wouldn’t think this is an incident that requires a tear down any more than picking up and flinging a pebble with a prop. Where is the line drawn? When a propeller is no longer field repairable? No longer repairable at a prop shop? What about a wood prop that is ruined, but the engine wasn’t stopped by the incident? Where exactly is the line drawn?

Transport CANADA offers some ambiguous guidance about 2/3 don on this page:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 5g-509.htm

Pinecone wrote:I’ve heard distinctions made between “prop strike” and “sudden stoppage”. Anybody here that can expand on that? Prop hits a glass runway light, smashes the light, engine hardly misses a beat, small nick in the prop that is easily dressed out. That’s a prop strike, but the engine was not stalled by the strike, so it’s not a sudden stoppage. I wouldn’t think this is an incident that requires a tear down any more than picking up and flinging a pebble with a prop. Where is the line drawn? When a propeller is no longer field repairable? No longer repairable at a prop shop? What about a wood prop that is ruined, but the engine wasn’t stopped by the incident? Where exactly is the line drawn?

Transport CANADA offers some ambiguous guidance about 2/3 don on this page:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 5g-509.htm

Basically it comes down to what the AME decides in Canada. And what we are comfortable with liability wise. If we think it wasn't a big impact and the prop flange dials straight then we technically dont need a tear down. Theres an AD out for lycomings that requires the crank gear/bolt/locking tab replaced in case of a prop strike, bit nothing for conti.
It's amazing how bent a prop can be and the flange still dial straight. A quick LPI of the flange may be prudent to ensure theres no cracks.

Pinecone wrote:I’ve heard distinctions made between “prop strike” and “sudden stoppage”. Anybody here that can expand on that? Prop hits a glass runway light, smashes the light, engine hardly misses a beat, small nick in the prop that is easily dressed out. That’s a prop strike, but the engine was not stalled by the strike, so it’s not a sudden stoppage. I wouldn’t think this is an incident that requires a tear down any more than picking up and flinging a pebble with a prop. Where is the line drawn? When a propeller is no longer field repairable? No longer repairable at a prop shop? What about a wood prop that is ruined, but the engine wasn’t stopped by the incident? Where exactly is the line drawn?

Transport CANADA offers some ambiguous guidance about 2/3 don on this page:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 5g-509.htm

The biggest issue with this is liability and the potential consequences. In the instance posed, the FAA is likely (guaranteed?) to call that an “incident”. How the owner and his/her mechanic deal with it is pretty much up to the mechanic.

So, the mechanic dresses out the blade, and signs off with return to service. A year later, the airplanes propeller blade departs the plane (substitute: “engine suffers catastrophic failure of crankshaft” if you prefer). Pilot finds no pretty places to park, and the result of the forced landing is the death of the owner, his oldest child, and child’s buddy.

That sign off in the logbook is going to be a HUGE target for NTSB and every attorney involved.

If I were a mechanic, and someone brought in that sort of deal, I’d tell em to tear down the engine. Put the liability on someone’s else, or “conduct due diligence” for the lawyers.

Not to say that’s the “right” answer, of course.

MTV