Hockeystud87 wrote:What about a scenario of a person who finds a frame or project plane with no paper work or #'s.

Can they buy logs off a person who's plane is scrapped and just apply those books to the new project plane so they can rebuild the new frame up as the one with purchased logs?

Just wondering if there was an easier way for a person to get a restored plane flying.

No you can’t just swap logs around. Every airplane has a serial number, which goes with the logs.

That said, you can create new logs for an abandoned airplane. The hard part may be to prove ownership, thus be able to register it. And, it’ll need a data plate as well.

Essentially, with a data plate, you can build a “new” airplane.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Hockeystud87 wrote:What about a scenario of a person who finds a frame or project plane with no paper work or #'s.

Can they buy logs off a person who's plane is scrapped and just apply those books to the new project plane so they can rebuild the new frame up as the one with purchased logs?

Just wondering if there was an easier way for a person to get a restored plane flying.

No you can’t just swap logs around. Every airplane has a serial number, which goes with the logs.

That said, you can create new logs for an abandoned airplane. The hard part may be to prove ownership, thus be able to register it. And, it’ll need a data plate as well.

Essentially, with a data plate, you can build a “new” airplane.

MTV

So, if you're going to buy logbooks from someone - make sure you get the data plate too

And the original airworthiness certificate.

I find it pretty interesting that the FSDO and the FAA fear monger people. They put the fear of God in people over log books or ramp checks to students. Here is the reality. You can do whatever you want. Engine swaps, tundra tires, dash upgrades.... it doesn’t matter. You can absolutely do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it for 2 years. They strictly obey their statute of limitations. FAA legal will not allow inspectors to pursue such concerns.

ii) Civil penalty actions within the FAA’s assessment authority have a time limit of two years from the date of violation for the issuance of a notice of proposed civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d).

Airfoil92 wrote:I find it pretty interesting that the FSDO and the FAA fear monger people. They put the fear of God in people over log books or ramp checks to students. Here is the reality. You can do whatever you want. Engine swaps, tundra tires, dash upgrades.... it doesn’t matter. You can absolutely do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it for 2 years. They strictly obey their statute of limitations. FAA legal will not allow inspectors to pursue such concerns.

ii) Civil penalty actions within the FAA’s assessment authority have a time limit of two years from the date of violation for the issuance of a notice of proposed civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d).

This post is misleading.

That regulation doesn’t mean that if you’ve modified your plane illegally and don’t get caught for two years they can’t take action.

What it says is, if you get caught, are violated by the FAA and the FAA hasn’t issued punishment within two years, the violation goes away.

Believe me, most violations are handled a lot quicker than two years, unless the accused appeals, in which case, this rule is irrelevant.

MTV

Either way they don’t chase down violators who aren’t caught after 2 years. If you violate, and make it 2 years you will not be prosecuted in civil courts. I’ve just been through this. I’ve been made very aware of it.

Airfoil92 wrote:Either way they don’t chase down violators who aren’t caught after 2 years. If you violate, and make it 2 years you will not be prosecuted in civil courts. I’ve just been through this. I’ve been made very aware of it.

Does the FAA need to take you to Civil court to revoke your ticket and ground your aircraft?

Bagarre wrote:

Airfoil92 wrote:Either way they don’t chase down violators who aren’t caught after 2 years. If you violate, and make it 2 years you will not be prosecuted in civil courts. I’ve just been through this. I’ve been made very aware of it.

Does the FAA need to take you to Civil court to revoke your ticket and ground your aircraft?

Nope. In fact, the FAA has their own judicial process. Doesn't go to civil courts.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Bagarre wrote:

Airfoil92 wrote:Either way they don’t chase down violators who aren’t caught after 2 years. If you violate, and make it 2 years you will not be prosecuted in civil courts. I’ve just been through this. I’ve been made very aware of it.

Does the FAA need to take you to Civil court to revoke your ticket and ground your aircraft?

Nope. In fact, the FAA has their own judicial process. Doesn't go to civil courts.

MTV

Kind of puts the teeth back into the issue as everything I'm worried about them doing to me, they can still do even after two years from when I did what I did to make them do to me what they want to do to me.
There is a country song in there some where.

mtv wrote:

Bagarre wrote:

Airfoil92 wrote:Either way they don’t chase down violators who aren’t caught after 2 years. If you violate, and make it 2 years you will not be prosecuted in civil courts. I’ve just been through this. I’ve been made very aware of it.

Does the FAA need to take you to Civil court to revoke your ticket and ground your aircraft?

Nope. In fact, the FAA has their own judicial process. Doesn't go to civil courts.

MTV

They sure do throw the word “ civil” around a lot for them not to go to civil court. This is not to argue about it. This is what fsdo told me and gave me in print.

“ii) Civil penalty actions within the FAA’s assessment authority have a time limit of two years from the date of violation for the issuance of a notice of proposed civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(d).

Civil penalty is money. Civil sanction is suspension or revocation. They prosecute and judge. The Administrator is the jury. In Administrative law, they investigate and make a decision. Having an AOPA lawyer makes a huge difference.

FARs are fair and except for the legalise straightforward. The judgement call, "careless and reckless" is usually added. If you did, you did. If you didn't, you didn't. It is not he said, she said, however. If he is an ATP and she is just a Commercial, she did it. As with accident investigation, mission number one is to make the FAA look good.

Airfoil92 wrote:...Here is the reality. You can do whatever you want. Engine swaps, tundra tires, dash upgrades.... it doesn’t matter. You can absolutely do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it for 2 years. They strictly obey their statute of limitations....

I find this hard to believe.
A flying violation, maybe, if no one was hurt.
But I can't believe that an unairworthy airplane will ever be legal,
no matter how long it's been flying.
"That V6 engine on my 182 is grandfathered in, Mr FAA Inspector...."
Nope, doesn't pass the smell test.

Yes, the FAA works in a “Civil court system”. My point was, that system is specific to and exclusive to the FAA proceedings. The FAA employs Administrative Law Judges to hear proceedings. No jury, and you don’t get to choose the judge.

You can appeal, and appeals go to a Board, whose decisions are final.

So, yes, cases are “civil”, but it’s a somewhat different process than the “normal” judicial system.

MTV

hotrod180 wrote:

Airfoil92 wrote:...Here is the reality. You can do whatever you want. Engine swaps, tundra tires, dash upgrades.... it doesn’t matter. You can absolutely do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it for 2 years. They strictly obey their statute of limitations....

I find this hard to believe.
A flying violation, maybe, if no one was hurt.
But I can't believe that an unairworthy airplane will ever be legal,
no matter how long it's been flying.
"That V6 engine on my 182 is grandfathered in, Mr FAA Inspector...."
Nope, doesn't pass the smell test.

The point is that an illegal modification to an airplane makes it no longer compliant with its Type Certificate Design, or approve supplements. So, it’s no longer “airworthy”. Waiting two years or forty doesn’t change that status. Only removing that illegal mod, and returning the airplane to compliance with its type design will make it “airworthy”.

Now, two years after the alteration, the FAA might not seek a violation on the person who did the mod. But the AIRPLANE is still unairworthy.

Which makes it a VERY expensive ramp decoration.

MTV

As always great information in this discussion, one thing I may add, if the buyer feels swindled with the purchase they could sue in small claims court. If the goal is to fix the aircraft and move on with life, you may be able to recoup some costs through small claims( I think it’s 10K in California). I owned a service station and motorcycle dealership and my experience most judges side with the individual over a buisness owner regardless of the facts.

I have a question for the group, if someone buys a182, and at some point, STC modifications were installed w/o log entries, ie belts, vg’s, some avionics upgrades does it just take an A&P sign off to bring it all in compliance? (Assuming it’s all installed correctly)

Thanks
Greg

ggehrke wrote:As always great information in this discussion, one thing I may add, if the buyer feels swindled with the purchase they could sue in small claims court. If the goal is to fix the aircraft and move on with life, you may be able to recoup some costs through small claims( I think it’s 10K in California). I owned a service station and motorcycle dealership and my experience most judges side with the individual over a buisness owner regardless of the facts.

I have a question for the group, if someone buys a182, and at some point, STC modifications were installed w/o log entries, ie belts, vg’s, some avionics upgrades does it just take an A&P sign off to bring it all in compliance? (Assuming it’s all installed correctly)

Thanks
Greg

My understanding is, if the modification required an STC then the STC needs to be acquired and properly filed once it's verified all work was done in accordance with yada yada.
If the STC requires 337 (not all do), you'd still need to submit the 337 to make it legit.

If a mod was made and no STC or other approved data is available, approved data needs to be generated and submitted.

Or, remove the mod.

ggehrke wrote:…..if someone buys a182, and at some point, STC modifications were installed w/o log entries, ie belts, vg’s, some avionics upgrades does it just take an A&P sign off to bring it all in compliance? (Assuming it’s all installed correctly)

I've bought airplanes that had undocumented mods, they can be a PITA to straighten out but it's not the end of the world.
First of all, figure out what the mods were.
Was an STC'd part installed, was an STC purchased & the mod done but never documented, or ?
Secondly, determine if the mod or change is in accordance with the STC or whatever means of approval is required..
Third, get (buy) the STC, the service letter / service kit, or whatever that approval basis is, then do whatever paperwork is required.
Minor alterations require just a logbook entry which an A&P can sign off, anything requiring a 337 needs an IA.
The usual logbook / 337 entry for this includes "....previously installed by persons unknown, in accordance with STC #..." or similar.

Interesting discussions here. I have a question as a new IA..

I was looking at a 182 for sale then Googled the N number and found an NTSB report showing the aircraft had been substantially damaged in an accident over 40 years ago.

Upon contacting the owner, he said he was unaware of the damage and there was nothing in the logs and no 337 for a major repair.

So the question is, where does that leave the aircraft/owner? Can the aircraft be made legally airworthy?

My opinion as an IA is that the aircraft is unairworthy since there's no way to verify it's in compliance with its type certificate (14CFR 3, definition of airworthy) due to the fact that no one knows what was damaged, how it was repaired, and with what materials/data.

So how does one move forward with such an aircraft? Is there any process for making it legally airworthy?

Thanks..

P.S. Please keep in mind here we're talking about legally airworthy and not flight worthy.

Trimetric wrote:Interesting discussions here. I have a question as a new IA..

I was looking at a 182 for sale then Googled the N number and found an NTSB report showing the aircraft had been substantially damaged in an accident over 40 years ago.

Upon contacting the owner, he said he was unaware of the damage and there was nothing in the logs and no 337 for a major repair.

So the question is, where does that leave the aircraft/owner? Can the aircraft be made legally airworthy?

My opinion as an IA is that the aircraft is unairworthy since there's no way to verify it's in compliance with its type certificate (14CFR 3, definition of airworthy) due to the fact that no one knows what was damaged, how it was repaired, and with what materials/data.

So how does one move forward with such an aircraft? Is there any process for making it legally airworthy?

Thanks..

P.S. Please keep in mind here we're talking about legally airworthy and not flight worthy.

* I was not the one to bring this back from the dead

Per the question, what logs do you even need to keep for an airplane?

Prove it’s airworthy, ok, so I got my annual, show compliance with ADs, pitot static/xpdr/elt/100hr as req.

Where does it state you even need to keep your old logs? Obviously it helps with the planes value and all, but much like a pilot logbook there isn’t a ton that needs to be legally kept compared to what most keep


“ § 91.417 Maintenance records.

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§ 91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

(c) The owner or operator shall make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In addition, the owner or operator shall present Form 337 described in paragraph (d) of this section for inspection upon request of any law enforcement officer.

(d) When a fuel tank is installed within the passenger compartment or a baggage compartment pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, a copy of FAA Form 337 shall be kept on board the modified aircraft by the owner or operator.”

If the plane comes with the above records it’s 100% airworthy

The damage reported by the NTSB, doesn’t mean much in this regard.

Lots of work could have been done that wouldn’t be required to be retained 40yrs later.

I know of planes with very old damage history. They were fixed, old logs lost, and went through a full import into another country, and even were re imported back into the US without issue

If you haven’t already I’d also request the FAA CD for the plane
https://aircraft.faa.gov/e.gov/ND/

Send it to a IA who has experience working/maintaining Cessna's for the Annual.
DENNY