BeechTalk - BT - Factory Prebuy

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Apr 2024, 10:50

Username Protected wrote:

There were a couple of comments made once or twice that I'd like to dig a little deeper on. Paraphrasing here:

'people seek out the factory service center for the log book entry'.

'there is no guidance to the prebuy except for 'XX' models'.

I don't do jets. I have done some pre-buys. Done per a suggested guide (say the ABS survey) and common sense of what is seen on in-service aircraft.

Log entry? No formal defined (regulatory or manufacturer's) inspection, so an log entry would center on any repairs made, whether authorized by the seller, or buyer once the sale is consummated.

To the question of how any of the notes are to be interpreted: GA manuals are often gray, and require personal interpretation. I get that, and because I don't do jets, I have to ask if this is the same way in that world? I do know in any area where the 'book says' you have 'this tolerance', and that tolerance is exceeded, and using the term 'airworthy' in the pre-buy report is perhaps redundant, is there a loss of connection?

To dumb this down to what I work on: A customer is looking to buy an A36, wants the spar carrythough inspected for cracks. A previously undocumented 2" crack is found in a radius in one corner, buyer passes on the completion of sale, Is this an airworthiness concern? Not according to AD, which references the original service bulletin. When inspecting it in accordance with the revised bulletin, it is. However, the original bulletin (as well as the AD) call for monitoring at reduced time interval. I would supply a logbook sticker to the seller noting such, and the seller should put it in the logbook.

I would think this would extrapolate to the jet world, no? Or is it simply 'a crack was found, up to you to determine if it is an airworthy item'?

This thread primarily applies to turbine aircraft and the factory owned service centers. I’m not sure if pistons are involved, I don’t recall hearing about prebuys of Bonanzas and Barons at Textron, but I’m sure it happens, obviously there are no piston prebuys at Dassault, Bombardier or Embraer.

I do wish that Jeff would split Brand X into piston and turbines because they really are two different worlds.

To answer your question, in the jet world it is much more clean, the maintenance manuals are less ambiguous and though disagreements arise between parties about what is airworthy, it is pretty rare. I actually prefer the way Stevens Aerospace does it, they use the term “RTS” which means they won’t return the aircraft to service unless the discrepancy is corrected or someone can convince their QA department that it shouldn’t be required because of X. A common example is that the previous maintenance facility will provide a log entry showing that the inspection item was done, just not clearly referenced in the log entry.

Even though it’s probably rare for a Bo to go to Textron for prebuy, I hope if a buyer or seller of one sees this, they will know to require an annual inspection and to require a list of airworthiness discrepancies.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Apr 2024, 11:28

My V35B was a victim of this divergence in practice.

I had the prebuy done at a "jet center". There was a 2" crack at the rear of a ruddervator (prob hangar rash), and the prebuy noted its existence with a comment that it had been stop drilled.

I had it for 5 years, and even had the RVs repainted, with never a comment from anybody. But when I sold it, the buyer's prebuy shop immediately pronounced it "unairworthy". That ultimately cost me $7K off the sale price to have it reskinned.

Attachment:

rv1.jpg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Apr 2024, 12:40

I asked for a reconciliation of divergent comments, how a item out of manufacturer's tolerance cannot be considered an airworthy item, and why that would not be the same in the jet world. Your response consisted of...

Username Protected wrote:

This thread primarily applies to turbine aircraft and the factory owned service centers. I’m not sure if pistons are involved...

I do wish that Jeff would split Brand X into piston and turbines because they really are two different worlds.

To answer your question, in the jet world it is much more clean, the maintenance manuals are less ambiguous and though disagreements arise between parties about what is airworthy, it is pretty rare...

I understand the primary purpose, but was asking for differences.

Perhaps start your own internet forum with a membership means test so us lowly piston riff-raff can't participate?

If the jet world is that clean and manuals less ambiguous, why the thread?

Never mind, I'll just go back to my own sandbox.

Have a good day, Chip. :peace:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Apr 2024, 15:00

Username Protected wrote:

This thread primarily applies to turbine aircraft and the factory owned service centers. I’m not sure if pistons are involved...

I do wish that Jeff would split Brand X into piston and turbines because they really are two different worlds.

To answer your question, in the jet world it is much more clean, the maintenance manuals are less ambiguous and though disagreements arise between parties about what is airworthy, it is pretty rare...

I understand the primary purpose, but was asking for differences.

Perhaps start your own internet forum with a membership means test so us lowly piston riff-raff can't participate?

If the jet world is that clean and manuals less ambiguous, why the thread?

Never mind, I'll just go back to my own sandbox.

Have a good day, Chip. :peace:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Apr 2024, 15:34

Username Protected wrote:

It’s not that they are saying these items are airworthy, it’s that they’re not saying anything at all either way.

Perhaps this more reflects reality anyway, and expectations have always been skewed.

In my limited experience, pre buys are always kind of ambiguous. A shop can be asked (or “influenced” in some way) to skew toward being very picky or not about whether to list things as airworthy. Some things are clear, as you say usually when related to required inspection or paperwork item not having been completed. But anything related to physical condition is often up for some debate. And shops are being asked to resolve the condition into a binary choice, where really it’s a lot of judgment.

I once had a shop whose prebuy listed every item they found (and they were damn picky) as “airworthy”. Down to noting pen marks on the seat leather. That clearly was also not a helpful prebuy - essentially buyer (me) and seller were still forced to negotiate based on our own judgement of what was something the seller should be responsible for.

So perhaps the new scheme where your expectations are not to get a shop judgment about whether the buyer or seller should be responsible for a given item is better. It frequently comes back to another negotiation anyway. :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Apr 2024, 15:46

This smells a lot of lawyers intervening in the inspection process. I would suspect there's more weasel-wording in the statements provided beyond skipping the "airworthiness vs. non-airworthiness" checkbox. I would bet there's more get-off-the-hook language stating that those are only the things they found and there may be more issues unfound, etc.

One might also suspect that this arose from unhappy sellers threatening lawsuits against inspectors.

Or perhaps the sales departments don't want maintenance departments taking sales opportunities out of their hands by "helping out" owner-sellers or other brokers.

A potential buyer should certainly get disclosure up front about what report will be generated by the inspection process and what will be listed in the report.

Factory Prebuy - Dishonest Honest Business Practices