No Damage History?

[CFLav8r]

I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage History" is.
After looking through Ebay for a Cessna 172 I ran across this description:

Complete Logs, Computerized AD List,
Logs reflect no history of damage except:
11/2/95 Off airport landing; Wings, rudder & vertical fin replaced with
exchange units.
11/1/96 Hangar rash; R/H elevator re-skinned
5/16/97 Hit runway light on landing with tail; replaced rear tail cone skin,
rudder & stabilizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Maybe I misunderstood?
Maybe what this seller is really saying is that none of the damage was
recorded in the a/c log.
You be the judge, see the ad for yourself at Ebay item # 2451430535

David

[Dan Luke]

"CFLav8r" wrote:
> I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage
> History" is.
> Complete Logs, Computerized AD List,
> Logs reflect no history of damage except:
> 11/2/95 Off airport landing; Wings, rudder & vertical fin
> replaced with exchange units.
> 11/1/96 Hangar rash; R/H elevator re-skinned
> 5/16/97 Hit runway light on landing with tail; replaced rear
> tail cone skin, rudder & stabilizer
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Ha-ha!
"Antique axe from Civil War era for sale: new handle 1973, new blade
1989. $500."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Ron Natalie]

"CFLav8r" > wrote in message om...
> I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage History" is.
> After looking through Ebay for a Cessna 172 I ran across this description:
>
> Complete Logs, Computerized AD List,
> Logs reflect no history of damage except:


I don't know what you expect, it looks straight forward. It says that
there is no damage history in the logs other than the three incidents
listed. It doesn't say "NO DAMAGE HISTORY" in the auction
anywhere. It does say "No Major Damage" in the original listing
Having to replace both wings and the tail in an off-airport landing
(read CRASH) sounds major to me. Of course, he did disclose that
in a revision that was placed before the bidding got serious (and
nobody has yet cleared the reserve anyhow).

[Ben Smith]

> You be the judge, see the ad for yourself at Ebay item # 2451430535

Funny - I never knew that bird was up for sale. It belongs to a flying club
based at MSN.. I've never flown it, but my instructor has many times, and
made the comment that 'it just didn't fly right'...


--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y

[James M. Knox]

"CFLav8r" > wrote in
om:

> I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage History" is.

As you surmise, there is not precise legal definition that I am aware
of. There are few aircraft in the fleet these days that haven't had a
piece of aluminum replaced SOMEWHERE due to a rock or hangar rash or
whatever.

> Logs reflect no history of damage except:
> 11/2/95 Off airport landing; Wings, rudder & vertical fin replaced
> with exchange units.
> 11/1/96 Hangar rash; R/H elevator re-skinned
> 5/16/97 Hit runway light on landing with tail; replaced rear tail cone
> skin, rudder & stabilizer

Two issues here. First, note that he is not saying this is a "no damage
history" aircraft. He is saying the only damage is... and lists it.

Second issue, could this aircraft be called "no damage history"? In my
opinion, absolutely not. Both wings, rudder, and vertical? That's
pretty durn major IMHO. OTOH, those items are designed to come off. If
they were replaced with undamaged replacements, then one *could* argue
that there is no longer any damaged items on the plane. I've seen
brokers try to cover themselves this way... and in terms of practical
value of the aircraft, there may be something to their arguement. But
"no damage history"? No way.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Ron Natalie]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message ...

> Second issue, could this aircraft be called "no damage history"? In my
> opinion, absolutely not. Both wings, rudder, and vertical? That's
> pretty durn major IMHO. OTOH, those items are designed to come off. If
> they were replaced with undamaged replacements, then one *could* argue
> that there is no longer any damaged items on the plane.

Of course if you damage a plane such that these parts need replacing, one has to
beg the question what else might have been damaged. At least he disclosed it.
With those red flags, I'd never buy the airplane for the price he's wanting (It
hasn't cleared the reserve at $35K and the BIN is $40K so I suspect that is the price
he expects to get). No way would I would buy it without further inspection.
It might be a good price, but you can't tell just on the basis of the description.

His KING radios he makes as a selling point are junk (one 170 and one MAC
170 upgrade, sheesh). Also his "big one owner" selling point is sort of countered
by the fact that it's been abused by renter pilots for almost 9000 hours.

Wonder what happened at ~1700 hours when the engine was removed.

The 1995 crash was "The airplane sustained substantial damage when it nosed over during the
landing roll following a forced landing." But that would seem to be later in the history than
1700 hours. So in addition to the "repaired damage", there was most likely a prop strike
(on albeit a windmilling engine).

The 1997 "runway light" incident was really a collision with the VASI's after a bounced
landing. Again the report says "substantially damaged." A little more than just running
over a runway edge light as suggested.

[Sven]

"CFLav8r" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage History" is.
> After looking through Ebay for a Cessna 172 I ran across this description:

I visited a website that I could look up the history of an aircraft by tail
number but didn't bookmark it and can't find it again. :-(

Does anyone have that website url available? It's not the NTSB query, it
gives discrepancies that were reported to the FAA.

Thanks!

[Mike Adams]

You may be thinking of http://www.myairplane.com Look under Aircraft
Background Investigation on the menu bar

Mike

"Sven" > wrote:

> "CFLav8r" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage History" is.
>> After looking through Ebay for a Cessna 172 I ran across this
>> description:
>
> I visited a website that I could look up the history of an aircraft by
> tail number but didn't bookmark it and can't find it again. :-(
>
> Does anyone have that website url available? It's not the NTSB query,
> it gives discrepancies that were reported to the FAA.
>
> Thanks!
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message news:4m2Kb.46498$m83.46269@fed1read01...
> You may be thinking of http://www.myairplane.com Look under Aircraft
> Background Investigation on the menu bar

Doesn't do a very good job. I looked up my N number which I know is in the NTSB
database. All I get is my ownership records.

But the eBay plane finds more stuff

PILOT MADE A HARD LANDING. BOUNCED AND LANDED ON NOSE WHEEL

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tony Woolner wrote:
>
> I went the the avweb website. From there to the FAA. Database. They said you
> could not look up owners name because of security!

Interesting. It's available from http://www.landings.com . A flying club in WI.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jay Honeck]

> OTOH, those items are designed to come off. If
> they were replaced with undamaged replacements, then one *could* argue
> that there is no longer any damaged items on the plane. I've seen
> brokers try to cover themselves this way... and in terms of practical
> value of the aircraft, there may be something to their arguement.

Well, there's "Damage History" and then there's "Ancient Damage History".

When my plane was just a few months old, back in 1974, the first owner
departed the runway on landing (or "lost directional control" as they say),
and sheared off the left landing gear. The left wing was pretty banged up,
too.

Back then apparently there were places called "Piper Service Centers" that
did repairs, rather than just "Joe's FBO". They repaired "Atlas" to "new
factory specs" with all new parts, and returned him to his owner, none the
worse for wear.

Now that was 29.5 years ago on a 30 year old airplane. Would you say my
plane has "damage history"?

I would. But does it matter?

Not to me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tony Woolner]

I went the the avweb website. From there to the FAA. Database. They said you
could not look up owners name because of security!

Sven wrote:

> "CFLav8r" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I'm wondering what everyone else's definition of "Damage History" is.
> > After looking through Ebay for a Cessna 172 I ran across this description:
>
> I visited a website that I could look up the history of an aircraft by tail
> number but didn't bookmark it and can't find it again. :-(
>
> Does anyone have that website url available? It's not the NTSB query, it
> gives discrepancies that were reported to the FAA.
>
> Thanks!

[Aaron Coolidge]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
: Well, there's "Damage History" and then there's "Ancient Damage History".

<snip>
: Now that was 29.5 years ago on a 30 year old airplane. Would you say my
: plane has "damage history"?

When my airplane was 6 months old, someone did almost exactly the same
maneuver, wiping out the left wing rear attach point. Was repaired so
well that even the previous owner didn't know about it.

Since it's been flying fine for, oh, the last 34 1/2 years (longer that I
have been around), this really didn't mean a lot to me. Will it make a
difference when I sell the airplane? Cannot say.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[James M. Knox]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:0SkKb.752801$Tr4.2086487@attbi_s03:

> Now that was 29.5 years ago on a 30 year old airplane. Would you say
> my plane has "damage history"?

Jay, you know the answer to that question. Namely, it depends upon whether
I am selling, or buying! {:>)

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Jay Honeck]

> > Now that was 29.5 years ago on a 30 year old airplane. Would you say
> > my plane has "damage history"?
>
> Jay, you know the answer to that question. Namely, it depends upon
whether
> I am selling, or buying! {:>)

Ah, good point. ;-)

It didn't deter me, though. And as the fleet gets older and older, the
odds of finding a true "NDH" aircraft become less and less.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

It also may be irrelavant. Take a Cub for example. My mechanic
specializes in taking wrecked or otherwise unairworthy Cubs and turning
them into pieces of flying art. He gets top dollar. Same goes for the
desirable planes like Cessna 180/182/185/206. Guys that read only
newsgroups care about a replaced firewall. My firewall has been
replaced twice. There's no discount for that. My plane had some
stringers replaced in the main gear area, we think due to a hard
landing. Again there's no discount for that. But on a Cherokee or a
Musketeer there would be.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Now that was 29.5 years ago on a 30 year old airplane. Would you say
>>>my plane has "damage history"?
>>
>>Jay, you know the answer to that question. Namely, it depends upon
>
> whether
>
>>I am selling, or buying! {:>)
>
>
> Ah, good point. ;-)
>
> It didn't deter me, though. And as the fleet gets older and older, the
> odds of finding a true "NDH" aircraft become less and less.

[Ron Natalie]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:L8AKb.236808$8y1.1070687@attbi_s52...
> My firewall has been
> replaced twice.

Far better that it has already been replaced. I had a friend who had a 172 on leaseback
to a flying club. Nobody admits to when it happened, but some time, someone bounced
it hard on the nosegear and really bent the firewall. In addition the tail wasn't straight
anymore. Not only was there no damage "history." The owner never found out how
his plane got bent.

[John Galban]

Newps > wrote in message news:<L8AKb.236808$8y1.1070687@attbi_s52>...
> It also may be irrelavant. Take a Cub for example. My mechanic
> specializes in taking wrecked or otherwise unairworthy Cubs and turning
> them into pieces of flying art. He gets top dollar.

Much like those Cub-Crafters cubs. I think the only "not new" part
is the data plate. You could probably look up some damage history in
the records, but it would be meaningless.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[karl]

John,

*****Much like those Cub-Crafters cubs. I think the only "not new" part is
the data plate.*****

Cub-Crafter Super Cubs are brand new airplanes, with brand new data plates
and brand new log books. Nothing comes off a donor airplane. Nothing.

http://www.pipercubforum.com/topcub.htm

Best,
Karl

[hlongworth]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Adams" > wrote in message news:4m2Kb.46498$m83.46269@fed1read01...
> > You may be thinking of http://www.myairplane.com Look under Aircraft
> > Background Investigation on the menu bar
>
> Doesn't do a very good job. I looked up my N number which I know is in the NTSB> database. All I get is my ownership records.
>

Ron,
I thought that site was pretty good. I think between the information
provided by the site

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/aircraft_report/

and a copy of the individual aircraft record (which now comes in cd
instead of microfice format for $5.00)

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraft.asp#copiesaircraftrecords

one can learn a lot about the history of a plane.

Was checking on plane history of half a dozen or so 152 trainers
which I had flown as a student at the myairplane site and found quite
a few of them with serious damage history (mostly by soloed students).
Had to wonder whether the average time to solo at a given school goes
up with the number of accidents.

[John Galban]

"karl" > wrote in message >...
> John,
>
> Cub-Crafter Super Cubs are brand new airplanes, with brand new data plates
> and brand new log books. Nothing comes off a donor airplane. Nothing.
>
> http://www.pipercubforum.com/topcub.htm

Very interesting. In their earlier days, Cub-Crafters used to do
what they called a total restoration, which amounted to building you a
brand new plane on which they affixed your data plate. Now it seems
they're building Cubs from scratch. I wonder how they get away with
that, since New Piper obviously doesn't want them to. The website
said :

"The FAA has so far sided with Mr. Richmond, approving the Top Cubs
under a regulation that allows anybody to build any civilian aircraft,
as long as it meets the original design. "

Does this mean I could start building and selling Cherokees in my
garage and Piper couldn't stop me??? Apparently so.

Very strange indeed.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> Best,
> Karl

[Ron Natalie]

"John Galban" > wrote in message om...

> "The FAA has so far sided with Mr. Richmond, approving the Top Cubs
> under a regulation that allows anybody to build any civilian aircraft,
> as long as it meets the original design. "
>
> Does this mean I could start building and selling Cherokees in my
> garage and Piper couldn't stop me??? Apparently so.

There's no enforceable intellectual property on the cub (save maybe the
cub trademark). The certification approval is at the FAA's discretion,
but hey if it's identical to the previously approved design, what justification
is there in declining that CC's cubs are any different than Pipers?

Presumably CC has gotten independent manufacturing authority (Piper's
would come under the type certificate), but that's a lot less effort than
certificating a new design.

[Doug]

What I don't understand is what sort of certification tag the FAA is
giving the Cub Crafters Top Cubs. It can't be a Super Cub, but yet it
is a certified aircraft. So what is it?

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> "karl" > wrote in message >...
> > John,
> >
> > Cub-Crafter Super Cubs are brand new airplanes, with brand new data plates
> > and brand new log books. Nothing comes off a donor airplane. Nothing.
> >
> > http://www.pipercubforum.com/topcub.htm
>
> Very interesting. In their earlier days, Cub-Crafters used to do
> what they called a total restoration, which amounted to building you a
> brand new plane on which they affixed your data plate. Now it seems
> they're building Cubs from scratch. I wonder how they get away with
> that, since New Piper obviously doesn't want them to. The website
> said :
>
> "The FAA has so far sided with Mr. Richmond, approving the Top Cubs
> under a regulation that allows anybody to build any civilian aircraft,
> as long as it meets the original design. "
>
> Does this mean I could start building and selling Cherokees in my
> garage and Piper couldn't stop me??? Apparently so.
>
> Very strange indeed.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> >
> > Best,
> > Karl

[Guy Byars]

> What I don't understand is what sort of certification tag the FAA is
> giving the Cub Crafters Top Cubs. It can't be a Super Cub, but yet it
> is a certified aircraft. So what is it?

It is 100% certain that Piper will be sued when some bone head crashes one
after running it out of gas or crashes into a mountain at night in fog.

[Newps]

Guy Byars wrote:

>>What I don't understand is what sort of certification tag the FAA is
>>giving the Cub Crafters Top Cubs. It can't be a Super Cub, but yet it
>>is a certified aircraft. So what is it?
>
>
> It is 100% certain that Piper will be sued when some bone head crashes one
> after running it out of gas or crashes into a mountain at night in fog.

Well since some have crashed, with fatalities, it's safe to say you
don't know what you are talking about.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:sqkMb.26871$na.20763@attbi_s04...
>
>
> Guy Byars wrote:
>
> >>What I don't understand is what sort of certification tag the FAA is
> >>giving the Cub Crafters Top Cubs. It can't be a Super Cub, but yet it
> >>is a certified aircraft. So what is it?
> >
> >
> > It is 100% certain that Piper will be sued when some bone head crashes
one
> > after running it out of gas or crashes into a mountain at night in fog.
>
> Well since some have crashed, with fatalities, it's safe to say you
> don't know what you are talking about.

You missed his tongue-in-cheek remark.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Yes, that is what it means... They could not stop you if the FAA signs off
that your produced aircraft meets the original certified drawings and gives
you a production certificate...

It is not strange to those of us who have taken the time to understand the
regulations - and to those who have to make unavailable parts for their
aircraft... Further, New Piper shot itself in the foot by publically saying
they will NEVER again produce the Cub, alerting the feds to an orphaned
airplane... Cub Crafters had established a history and reputation for
credibility with the FAA beginning in the rebuild area and then became the
source of technical and engineering knowledge about Cubs by getting PMA for
all the parts... The step from supplying approved replacements for every
part on the Cub, to simply assembling a totally new airplane from a pile of
these parts, was a very small step...

Denny
"John Galban" > wrote in message > Does this mean I
could start building and selling Cherokees in my
> garage and Piper couldn't stop me??? Apparently so.
>
> Very strange indeed.