Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware !

[Bill Berle]

This is a very lengthy but worth reading post. For the purposes of
possibly saving someone's life or at least preventing serious injury
to their wallets, I am posting below the text of an e-mail I sent
recently to someone who had advertised a Cessna in the San Diego area.
I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
aircraft). As a 15 time airplane owner, buyer and seller, I am about
as educated as anyone else out there on what to look for when buying
an airplane. I am not a licensed mechanic but I am proud to say I am a
fairly knowledgable owner/operator. I asked what I thought were most
or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails. Other than
it clearly not being a showplane, I got the impression that I was
going down to San Diego (with a lump of green cash in hand) to buy a
"fair" quality airplane that was in safe working order. Nothing more
or less, definitely not a showplane but definitely not a deathtrap
either. What I found when I got there was in MY sole opinion a worn
out clunker that needed all of the expensive and complex AD's done,
and SHOULD not have even qualified for a one-shot ferry permit. It was
signed off and "in annual", which was the big shocker. Also, the guy
conveniently forgot to tell me on the phone that a wing had been
ripped off in a windstorm before the last annual, as well as the
nosegear mounts, prop, spinner, etc. The real point of this is that
any first time aircraft buyer should have a very thorough,
professional pre-buy inspection done. This airplane could easily have
caused an accident or incident and put ALL of our flying activities at
risk. I e-mailed a similar warning to friends of mine and business
entities at the seller's airport, so that they might apply a little
pressure to him to be more honest in his sales tactics. The seller got
wind of this and blasted me on my answering machine, threatening legal
action, etc. etc. Below is my response to his phone message. Some of
the RAH old timers and Zoom warriors might crack a smile and remember
my communication "style" fondly :)

(name of seller), do not call, e-mail, or otherwise bother me again.
After your tactics
and de facto dishonesty you have no right to call me names or tell me
I
can't relate my experiences to others. Below is the final
communication
between you and I regarding the Cessna 175 I saw yesterday and my
notifying
the aviation public to be careful when buying airplanes...feel FREE to
share
it with an attorney, and show it to the local FSDO while you're at it:

You wasted a day of my life, and that is not acceptable to me. That
alone
justifies some action on my part, however there are far more important
reasons. Your sleazy tactics of omitting, minimizing, and sidestepping
several "make or break" safety and airworthiness items is
reprehensible.
This is why used car salesmen and cheap-ass independent contractors
have
such awful reputations.

By not telling me about four or five significant deficiencies in the
safety
and quality of the airplane, you did two things. First you insulted my
intelligence by hoping that I was uneducated and gullible enough to
buy the
airplane because you withheld important information. Second, you
showed me
that you would have been willing to let someone who was inexperienced
and
uneducated buy it, fly away, and potentially hurt someone. Or if they
were
lucky they'd get home and then find that they bought a pile of ****.

A ten minute cursory inspection by only a reasonably educated
owner/operator
revealed the following:

Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
build seat
rails with oval shaped holes, and rounded edges. This has cost more
than one
life, and you were willing to sell someone the airplane and have them
take a
chance on an accident. Any GOOD mechanic or IA would have demanded you
fix
it before the next annual. I am tempted to request one of them do an
impromptu "ramp check" at Gillespie, so that I can educate myself on
which
airplanes are legal and which are not. Ask around and see what that
kind of
ramp check is like... I've had it happen to me.

Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits. There is a big AD on this.
I
moved the trailing edge of your flaps up and down over an inch. I do
NOT
know what the service limit is on that, but I DO know that it is an
expensive repair, and affects the safety of flight greatly. I don't
think
any of your 3 or 4 recent half-assed annuals even mentioned the flap
tracks,
measuring them per the AD, or recommending replacement. But I'll bet
the
mechanic might have mentioned it and you chose not to do anything
about it.
Since I don't know what that wear limit is, perhaps I should ask an IA
or
FAA field inspector to come out to Gillespie and show me what the
limit is.
If it is within limits I would issue you an apology for questioning
the flap
tracks.

Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints. I moved your
elevator up
and down with light finger pressure, which is correct. I needed heavy
finger
pressure to move the ailerons, and it was very difficult. Moving the
yoke
revealed that it took four times as much pressure to move the ailerons
as it
did to move the elevator. When I tried to rotate the ball joint at the
ailerons, the joints were so tight that you couldn't wiggle them
(rotationally) with finger pressure. This happens for one of two
reasons.
Either the joints are frozen, or they were so loose that some
half-assed
owner or mechanic simply wrenched the bolts clamping the ball joints
so
tight that it wasn't loose any more. I'd be interested to know WHICH
of
those two safety deficiencies your IA mechanic signed off on. Could
you ask
him for me? Never mind, I can ask someone at the local FSDO because
they are
interested in things having to do with PRIMARY FLIGHT CONTROLS.

By the way, speaking of primary flight controls, I noticed that the
pilot's
side control yoke could be moved up and down a couple of inches in the
instrument panel bushing. The co-pilot yoke could not be moved 1/4 of
that
distance. Was this some sort of luxury or cosmetic upgrade Cessna
offered on
the 175?

The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired, using hardware store pop
rivets and scab patches. Any decent repair would have used inside or
flush
patches, and regardless of where the patch is the FAR's REQUIRE the
use of
aircraft rivets. Why? Because, you Bozo, it's right behind the
propeller and
there is a tremendous amount of vibration, air loads, prop vibration,
etc.
The vibrations are different and conflicting between engine speed and
propeller speed on that airplane.Your IA mechanic signed off an annual
with
pop rivets and ****ty repair work holding together a 40 pound engine
cowling. By the way, an engine cowling on a 175 is heavy enough to go
thru
the windshield killing the occupants, or heavy enough to remove a wing
strut
or tail surface on it's way off the airplane inflight. You have the
gall to
be mad at me for pointing things like this out? Tough ****. Why don't
I cc
this e-mail to a few folks in the aviation maintenance business...

Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
airplane
was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
was
replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
have
wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
time, and
if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
that
information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
trip.

Each and every safety or cosmetic deficiency on your airplane is
tolerable
under the right circumstances. If you would have been honest with me
during
our phone call or e-mails, I could at least have considered the facts,
and
figured out what it would have cost me to fix them.Chances are I would
have
said "OK, I am willing to fix A, B, and C, and I might even be willing
to
buy an airplane with major damage history...but I will offer X dollars
instead of Y dollars". It is the CUMULATIVE effect of all the
deficiencies,
and the reprehensible use of "lies by omission" that is the problem
here.
YOU and your withholding of information are an even bigger safety
hazard
than the nuts and bolts problems with the airplane. You would have
sold that
restoration project to some brand new private pilot, and he would have
had 6
or 8 months in which to crash before a proper mechanic got his hands
on the
airplane. If by some miracle nothing failed in flight during that
time, the
owner would have been hit with a huge repair bill on the next annual.
Basically, you acted like a sleazy used car salesman selling a salvage
title
car to an unsuspecting kid, or a **** quality contractor selling a
teardown
quality house to desperate new homeowners.

Those of us in aviation who care about safety and integrity are a very
close
fraternity. We frown on jackasses like you who are less than honest
and
would risk someone's life just to sell an airplane for more money.
I've
sold unsafe and crap quality airplanes more than once but I let the
buyer
know what he is buying. I sold an antique glider with a bad spar for
$200.00
to the one person in the area (San Diego, incidentally) who can safely
rebuild a wooden spar and make a pile of matchsticks into a museum
quality
antique that is safe to fly. Why? Because EVERY single airplane crash
could
be the last straw that takes away our ability to fly private
airplanes. The
guy buying your 175 could have been flying over a little league
baseball
game when the flap or cowling came off, or when the ailerons froze up
and he
lost control. THAT is why it's my business to expose your kind of
airplane
seller to other potential victims.

However, you (and your attorney) will notice that I went to the
trouble to
NOT mention you by name, or your airplane by number. My intention in
putting
out e-mails and internet advertisements was simply to make sure a
person
looking to buy ANY Cessna 175 in the San Diego area has a qualified
pre-buy
inspection done, and pays attention to several important details that
could
mean life or death or at the very least a huge repair bill. I am
hoping that
your attorney would not want any innocent victim to fall prey to the
kind of
sleazy tactics, withholding of information, etc. that I didn't fall
victim
to. Or would he?

You are more than welcome to exercise your rights to contact an
attorney,
and attempt to file suit against me for whatever you think I did to
harm
you. However, any harm you think I have done you will be publicly
compared
to the harm that was done to me, and the potential harm done to me or
others, and your participation in seriously risking air safety near a
major
metropolitan area, in an election year, and with the added pressures
of the
TSA risking private aviation's existence at every turn.

In the event of a court, FAA or NTSB proceeding it would be my intent
to :

Produce testimony from FAA airworthiness inspectors,
Produce testimony from experienced IA mechanics familiar with Cessna
100
series aircraft,
Ask the FAA to investigate the maintenance records and practices on
your
aircraft,
Ask the FAA to determine whether your aircraft was indeed airworthy
per
FAR's at the time your mechanic signed off on the annual with pop
rivets,
worn flap tracks, worn seat rails, and frozen aileron ball joints, and
WHATEVER ELSE you failed to mention.
Forensic maintenance investigation to determine whether hasty repairs
were
made after I saw the aircraft but before the FAA/NTSB proceedings, to
cover
up or hide the potential deficiencies I found.

Although I am not a licensed aircraft mechanic and I am not in a
position to
determine the legal airworthiness status of any aircraft, I am well
within
my rights to call into question anything that I believe could
adversely
affect flight safety, cause an air accident, or to identify any
potential,
suspected, or possible fraud in the sale of an aircraft. I am also
VERY well
within my rights to remind my brothers and sisters in the aviation
world
that there are indeed fraudulent sellers here in SoCal who would pass
off a
marginal or possibly unsafe aircraft to make a quick buck.

I TRULY look forward to having the opportunity in a court of law or
FAA/NTSB
hearing to discuss my safety concerns and personal experiences with
you and
your aircraft if the opportunity arises. Until then, keep your voice
out of
my answering machines and your e-mails out of my inbox, and you can
thank
God that one or two in particular of my A&P / IA friends wasn't along
for
the ride when I saw your airplane yesterday.

If you have one shred of class or concern for integrity, you will
either
repair the problems on your airplane and adjust your asking price
accordingly, or represent the airplane as 'probably needing
significant
repairs immediately or in the near future'.

Bill Berle

cc: Bill Reid A&P / IA
Charles B. Gorden-Robinson A&P / IA
Dane Walker
David Boeshaar
Richard Riley
rec.aviation.marketplace
barnstormers.com

[Newps]

You looked at a crappy plane. Get over it. There are hundreds for sale
just like this one. You will get exactly nowhere with FSDO, they are not
interested.



"Bill Berle" > wrote in message
om...
> This is a very lengthy but worth reading post.

[Cy Galley]

Are you talking about..
N-number Database Search Result
Last Database Update: Sun Jun 13 15:55:18 2004
To print registration information, check the checkbox for each
registration to be printed and click on "Retrieve Selected Entries" at the
bottom of the list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check for printing
N-number : N7309M
Aircraft Serial Number : 55609
Aircraft Manufacturer : CESSNA
Model : 175
Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
Model : GO-300 SERIES
Aircraft Year : 1958
Owner Name : BAIS TIMOTHY A
Owner Address : 13409 CALLE COLINA
POWAY, CA, 92064-1608
Type of Owner : Co-ownership
Registration Date : 04-Apr-1996
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard


"Bill Berle" > wrote in message
om...
> This is a very lengthy but worth reading post. For the purposes of
> possibly saving someone's life or at least preventing serious injury
> to their wallets, I am posting below the text of an e-mail I sent
> recently to someone who had advertised a Cessna in the San Diego area.
> I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
> advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
> fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
> aircraft). As a 15 time airplane owner, buyer and seller, I am about
> as educated as anyone else out there on what to look for when buying
> an airplane. I am not a licensed mechanic but I am proud to say I am a
> fairly knowledgable owner/operator. I asked what I thought were most
> or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails. Other than
> it clearly not being a showplane, I got the impression that I was
> going down to San Diego (with a lump of green cash in hand) to buy a
> "fair" quality airplane that was in safe working order. Nothing more
> or less, definitely not a showplane but definitely not a deathtrap
> either. What I found when I got there was in MY sole opinion a worn
> out clunker that needed all of the expensive and complex AD's done,
> and SHOULD not have even qualified for a one-shot ferry permit. It was
> signed off and "in annual", which was the big shocker. Also, the guy
> conveniently forgot to tell me on the phone that a wing had been
> ripped off in a windstorm before the last annual, as well as the
> nosegear mounts, prop, spinner, etc. The real point of this is that
> any first time aircraft buyer should have a very thorough,
> professional pre-buy inspection done. This airplane could easily have
> caused an accident or incident and put ALL of our flying activities at
> risk. I e-mailed a similar warning to friends of mine and business
> entities at the seller's airport, so that they might apply a little
> pressure to him to be more honest in his sales tactics. The seller got
> wind of this and blasted me on my answering machine, threatening legal
> action, etc. etc. Below is my response to his phone message. Some of
> the RAH old timers and Zoom warriors might crack a smile and remember
> my communication "style" fondly :)
>
> (name of seller), do not call, e-mail, or otherwise bother me again.
> After your tactics
> and de facto dishonesty you have no right to call me names or tell me
> I
> can't relate my experiences to others. Below is the final
> communication
> between you and I regarding the Cessna 175 I saw yesterday and my
> notifying
> the aviation public to be careful when buying airplanes...feel FREE to
> share
> it with an attorney, and show it to the local FSDO while you're at it:
>
> You wasted a day of my life, and that is not acceptable to me. That
> alone
> justifies some action on my part, however there are far more important
> reasons. Your sleazy tactics of omitting, minimizing, and sidestepping
> several "make or break" safety and airworthiness items is
> reprehensible.
> This is why used car salesmen and cheap-ass independent contractors
> have
> such awful reputations.
>
> By not telling me about four or five significant deficiencies in the
> safety
> and quality of the airplane, you did two things. First you insulted my
> intelligence by hoping that I was uneducated and gullible enough to
> buy the
> airplane because you withheld important information. Second, you
> showed me
> that you would have been willing to let someone who was inexperienced
> and
> uneducated buy it, fly away, and potentially hurt someone. Or if they
> were
> lucky they'd get home and then find that they bought a pile of ****.
>
> A ten minute cursory inspection by only a reasonably educated
> owner/operator
> revealed the following:
>
> Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
> build seat
> rails with oval shaped holes, and rounded edges. This has cost more
> than one
> life, and you were willing to sell someone the airplane and have them
> take a
> chance on an accident. Any GOOD mechanic or IA would have demanded you
> fix
> it before the next annual. I am tempted to request one of them do an
> impromptu "ramp check" at Gillespie, so that I can educate myself on
> which
> airplanes are legal and which are not. Ask around and see what that
> kind of
> ramp check is like... I've had it happen to me.
>
> Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits. There is a big AD on this.
> I
> moved the trailing edge of your flaps up and down over an inch. I do
> NOT
> know what the service limit is on that, but I DO know that it is an
> expensive repair, and affects the safety of flight greatly. I don't
> think
> any of your 3 or 4 recent half-assed annuals even mentioned the flap
> tracks,
> measuring them per the AD, or recommending replacement. But I'll bet
> the
> mechanic might have mentioned it and you chose not to do anything
> about it.
> Since I don't know what that wear limit is, perhaps I should ask an IA
> or
> FAA field inspector to come out to Gillespie and show me what the
> limit is.
> If it is within limits I would issue you an apology for questioning
> the flap
> tracks.
>
> Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints. I moved your
> elevator up
> and down with light finger pressure, which is correct. I needed heavy
> finger
> pressure to move the ailerons, and it was very difficult. Moving the
> yoke
> revealed that it took four times as much pressure to move the ailerons
> as it
> did to move the elevator. When I tried to rotate the ball joint at the
> ailerons, the joints were so tight that you couldn't wiggle them
> (rotationally) with finger pressure. This happens for one of two
> reasons.
> Either the joints are frozen, or they were so loose that some
> half-assed
> owner or mechanic simply wrenched the bolts clamping the ball joints
> so
> tight that it wasn't loose any more. I'd be interested to know WHICH
> of
> those two safety deficiencies your IA mechanic signed off on. Could
> you ask
> him for me? Never mind, I can ask someone at the local FSDO because
> they are
> interested in things having to do with PRIMARY FLIGHT CONTROLS.
>
> By the way, speaking of primary flight controls, I noticed that the
> pilot's
> side control yoke could be moved up and down a couple of inches in the
> instrument panel bushing. The co-pilot yoke could not be moved 1/4 of
> that
> distance. Was this some sort of luxury or cosmetic upgrade Cessna
> offered on
> the 175?
>
> The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired, using hardware store pop
> rivets and scab patches. Any decent repair would have used inside or
> flush
> patches, and regardless of where the patch is the FAR's REQUIRE the
> use of
> aircraft rivets. Why? Because, you Bozo, it's right behind the
> propeller and
> there is a tremendous amount of vibration, air loads, prop vibration,
> etc.
> The vibrations are different and conflicting between engine speed and
> propeller speed on that airplane.Your IA mechanic signed off an annual
> with
> pop rivets and ****ty repair work holding together a 40 pound engine
> cowling. By the way, an engine cowling on a 175 is heavy enough to go
> thru
> the windshield killing the occupants, or heavy enough to remove a wing
> strut
> or tail surface on it's way off the airplane inflight. You have the
> gall to
> be mad at me for pointing things like this out? Tough ****. Why don't
> I cc
> this e-mail to a few folks in the aviation maintenance business...
>
> Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
> airplane
> was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
> was
> replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
> have
> wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
> burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
> time, and
> if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
> that
> information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
> trip.
>
> Each and every safety or cosmetic deficiency on your airplane is
> tolerable
> under the right circumstances. If you would have been honest with me
> during
> our phone call or e-mails, I could at least have considered the facts,
> and
> figured out what it would have cost me to fix them.Chances are I would
> have
> said "OK, I am willing to fix A, B, and C, and I might even be willing
> to
> buy an airplane with major damage history...but I will offer X dollars
> instead of Y dollars". It is the CUMULATIVE effect of all the
> deficiencies,
> and the reprehensible use of "lies by omission" that is the problem
> here.
> YOU and your withholding of information are an even bigger safety
> hazard
> than the nuts and bolts problems with the airplane. You would have
> sold that
> restoration project to some brand new private pilot, and he would have
> had 6
> or 8 months in which to crash before a proper mechanic got his hands
> on the
> airplane. If by some miracle nothing failed in flight during that
> time, the
> owner would have been hit with a huge repair bill on the next annual.
> Basically, you acted like a sleazy used car salesman selling a salvage
> title
> car to an unsuspecting kid, or a **** quality contractor selling a
> teardown
> quality house to desperate new homeowners.
>
> Those of us in aviation who care about safety and integrity are a very
> close
> fraternity. We frown on jackasses like you who are less than honest
> and
> would risk someone's life just to sell an airplane for more money.
> I've
> sold unsafe and crap quality airplanes more than once but I let the
> buyer
> know what he is buying. I sold an antique glider with a bad spar for
> $200.00
> to the one person in the area (San Diego, incidentally) who can safely
> rebuild a wooden spar and make a pile of matchsticks into a museum
> quality
> antique that is safe to fly. Why? Because EVERY single airplane crash
> could
> be the last straw that takes away our ability to fly private
> airplanes. The
> guy buying your 175 could have been flying over a little league
> baseball
> game when the flap or cowling came off, or when the ailerons froze up
> and he
> lost control. THAT is why it's my business to expose your kind of
> airplane
> seller to other potential victims.
>
> However, you (and your attorney) will notice that I went to the
> trouble to
> NOT mention you by name, or your airplane by number. My intention in
> putting
> out e-mails and internet advertisements was simply to make sure a
> person
> looking to buy ANY Cessna 175 in the San Diego area has a qualified
> pre-buy
> inspection done, and pays attention to several important details that
> could
> mean life or death or at the very least a huge repair bill. I am
> hoping that
> your attorney would not want any innocent victim to fall prey to the
> kind of
> sleazy tactics, withholding of information, etc. that I didn't fall
> victim
> to. Or would he?
>
> You are more than welcome to exercise your rights to contact an
> attorney,
> and attempt to file suit against me for whatever you think I did to
> harm
> you. However, any harm you think I have done you will be publicly
> compared
> to the harm that was done to me, and the potential harm done to me or
> others, and your participation in seriously risking air safety near a
> major
> metropolitan area, in an election year, and with the added pressures
> of the
> TSA risking private aviation's existence at every turn.
>
> In the event of a court, FAA or NTSB proceeding it would be my intent
> to :
>
> Produce testimony from FAA airworthiness inspectors,
> Produce testimony from experienced IA mechanics familiar with Cessna
> 100
> series aircraft,
> Ask the FAA to investigate the maintenance records and practices on
> your
> aircraft,
> Ask the FAA to determine whether your aircraft was indeed airworthy
> per
> FAR's at the time your mechanic signed off on the annual with pop
> rivets,
> worn flap tracks, worn seat rails, and frozen aileron ball joints, and
> WHATEVER ELSE you failed to mention.
> Forensic maintenance investigation to determine whether hasty repairs
> were
> made after I saw the aircraft but before the FAA/NTSB proceedings, to
> cover
> up or hide the potential deficiencies I found.
>
> Although I am not a licensed aircraft mechanic and I am not in a
> position to
> determine the legal airworthiness status of any aircraft, I am well
> within
> my rights to call into question anything that I believe could
> adversely
> affect flight safety, cause an air accident, or to identify any
> potential,
> suspected, or possible fraud in the sale of an aircraft. I am also
> VERY well
> within my rights to remind my brothers and sisters in the aviation
> world
> that there are indeed fraudulent sellers here in SoCal who would pass
> off a
> marginal or possibly unsafe aircraft to make a quick buck.
>
> I TRULY look forward to having the opportunity in a court of law or
> FAA/NTSB
> hearing to discuss my safety concerns and personal experiences with
> you and
> your aircraft if the opportunity arises. Until then, keep your voice
> out of
> my answering machines and your e-mails out of my inbox, and you can
> thank
> God that one or two in particular of my A&P / IA friends wasn't along
> for
> the ride when I saw your airplane yesterday.
>
> If you have one shred of class or concern for integrity, you will
> either
> repair the problems on your airplane and adjust your asking price
> accordingly, or represent the airplane as 'probably needing
> significant
> repairs immediately or in the near future'.
>
> Bill Berle
>
> cc: Bill Reid A&P / IA
> Charles B. Gorden-Robinson A&P / IA
> Dane Walker
> David Boeshaar
> Richard Riley
> rec.aviation.marketplace
> barnstormers.com

[Stan Kap]

Your the kind of guy who's always looking for a deal or an unsavy seller. I
guess he fooled you. I'm going to sue Wah!! Wah!! Were's my momy? I'm
tellin' on you.

It's just like fishin, put out the bait and wait.

ROTFLMAO.

Stan K.


"Bill Berle" > wrote in message
om...
> This is a very lengthy but worth reading post. For the purposes of
> possibly saving someone's life or at least preventing serious injury
> to their wallets, I am posting below the text of an e-mail I sent
> recently to someone who had advertised a Cessna in the San Diego area.
> I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
> advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
> fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
> aircraft). As a 15 time airplane owner, buyer and seller, I am about
> as educated as anyone else out there on what to look for when buying
> an airplane. I am not a licensed mechanic but I am proud to say I am a
> fairly knowledgable owner/operator. I asked what I thought were most
> or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails. Other than
> it clearly not being a showplane, I got the impression that I was
> going down to San Diego (with a lump of green cash in hand) to buy a
> "fair" quality airplane that was in safe working order. Nothing more
> or less, definitely not a showplane but definitely not a deathtrap
> either. What I found when I got there was in MY sole opinion a worn
> out clunker that needed all of the expensive and complex AD's done,
> and SHOULD not have even qualified for a one-shot ferry permit. It was
> signed off and "in annual", which was the big shocker. Also, the guy
> conveniently forgot to tell me on the phone that a wing had been
> ripped off in a windstorm before the last annual, as well as the
> nosegear mounts, prop, spinner, etc. The real point of this is that
> any first time aircraft buyer should have a very thorough,
> professional pre-buy inspection done. This airplane could easily have
> caused an accident or incident and put ALL of our flying activities at
> risk. I e-mailed a similar warning to friends of mine and business
> entities at the seller's airport, so that they might apply a little
> pressure to him to be more honest in his sales tactics. The seller got
> wind of this and blasted me on my answering machine, threatening legal
> action, etc. etc. Below is my response to his phone message. Some of
> the RAH old timers and Zoom warriors might crack a smile and remember
> my communication "style" fondly :)
>
> (name of seller), do not call, e-mail, or otherwise bother me again.
> After your tactics
> and de facto dishonesty you have no right to call me names or tell me
> I
> can't relate my experiences to others. Below is the final
> communication
> between you and I regarding the Cessna 175 I saw yesterday and my
> notifying
> the aviation public to be careful when buying airplanes...feel FREE to
> share
> it with an attorney, and show it to the local FSDO while you're at it:
>
> You wasted a day of my life, and that is not acceptable to me. That
> alone
> justifies some action on my part, however there are far more important
> reasons. Your sleazy tactics of omitting, minimizing, and sidestepping
> several "make or break" safety and airworthiness items is
> reprehensible.
> This is why used car salesmen and cheap-ass independent contractors
> have
> such awful reputations.
>
> By not telling me about four or five significant deficiencies in the
> safety
> and quality of the airplane, you did two things. First you insulted my
> intelligence by hoping that I was uneducated and gullible enough to
> buy the
> airplane because you withheld important information. Second, you
> showed me
> that you would have been willing to let someone who was inexperienced
> and
> uneducated buy it, fly away, and potentially hurt someone. Or if they
> were
> lucky they'd get home and then find that they bought a pile of ****.
>
> A ten minute cursory inspection by only a reasonably educated
> owner/operator
> revealed the following:
>
> Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
> build seat
> rails with oval shaped holes, and rounded edges. This has cost more
> than one
> life, and you were willing to sell someone the airplane and have them
> take a
> chance on an accident. Any GOOD mechanic or IA would have demanded you
> fix
> it before the next annual. I am tempted to request one of them do an
> impromptu "ramp check" at Gillespie, so that I can educate myself on
> which
> airplanes are legal and which are not. Ask around and see what that
> kind of
> ramp check is like... I've had it happen to me.
>
> Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits. There is a big AD on this.
> I
> moved the trailing edge of your flaps up and down over an inch. I do
> NOT
> know what the service limit is on that, but I DO know that it is an
> expensive repair, and affects the safety of flight greatly. I don't
> think
> any of your 3 or 4 recent half-assed annuals even mentioned the flap
> tracks,
> measuring them per the AD, or recommending replacement. But I'll bet
> the
> mechanic might have mentioned it and you chose not to do anything
> about it.
> Since I don't know what that wear limit is, perhaps I should ask an IA
> or
> FAA field inspector to come out to Gillespie and show me what the
> limit is.
> If it is within limits I would issue you an apology for questioning
> the flap
> tracks.
>
> Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints. I moved your
> elevator up
> and down with light finger pressure, which is correct. I needed heavy
> finger
> pressure to move the ailerons, and it was very difficult. Moving the
> yoke
> revealed that it took four times as much pressure to move the ailerons
> as it
> did to move the elevator. When I tried to rotate the ball joint at the
> ailerons, the joints were so tight that you couldn't wiggle them
> (rotationally) with finger pressure. This happens for one of two
> reasons.
> Either the joints are frozen, or they were so loose that some
> half-assed
> owner or mechanic simply wrenched the bolts clamping the ball joints
> so
> tight that it wasn't loose any more. I'd be interested to know WHICH
> of
> those two safety deficiencies your IA mechanic signed off on. Could
> you ask
> him for me? Never mind, I can ask someone at the local FSDO because
> they are
> interested in things having to do with PRIMARY FLIGHT CONTROLS.
>
> By the way, speaking of primary flight controls, I noticed that the
> pilot's
> side control yoke could be moved up and down a couple of inches in the
> instrument panel bushing. The co-pilot yoke could not be moved 1/4 of
> that
> distance. Was this some sort of luxury or cosmetic upgrade Cessna
> offered on
> the 175?
>
> The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired, using hardware store pop
> rivets and scab patches. Any decent repair would have used inside or
> flush
> patches, and regardless of where the patch is the FAR's REQUIRE the
> use of
> aircraft rivets. Why? Because, you Bozo, it's right behind the
> propeller and
> there is a tremendous amount of vibration, air loads, prop vibration,
> etc.
> The vibrations are different and conflicting between engine speed and
> propeller speed on that airplane.Your IA mechanic signed off an annual
> with
> pop rivets and ****ty repair work holding together a 40 pound engine
> cowling. By the way, an engine cowling on a 175 is heavy enough to go
> thru
> the windshield killing the occupants, or heavy enough to remove a wing
> strut
> or tail surface on it's way off the airplane inflight. You have the
> gall to
> be mad at me for pointing things like this out? Tough ****. Why don't
> I cc
> this e-mail to a few folks in the aviation maintenance business...
>
> Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
> airplane
> was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
> was
> replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
> have
> wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
> burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
> time, and
> if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
> that
> information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
> trip.
>
> Each and every safety or cosmetic deficiency on your airplane is
> tolerable
> under the right circumstances. If you would have been honest with me
> during
> our phone call or e-mails, I could at least have considered the facts,
> and
> figured out what it would have cost me to fix them.Chances are I would
> have
> said "OK, I am willing to fix A, B, and C, and I might even be willing
> to
> buy an airplane with major damage history...but I will offer X dollars
> instead of Y dollars". It is the CUMULATIVE effect of all the
> deficiencies,
> and the reprehensible use of "lies by omission" that is the problem
> here.
> YOU and your withholding of information are an even bigger safety
> hazard
> than the nuts and bolts problems with the airplane. You would have
> sold that
> restoration project to some brand new private pilot, and he would have
> had 6
> or 8 months in which to crash before a proper mechanic got his hands
> on the
> airplane. If by some miracle nothing failed in flight during that
> time, the
> owner would have been hit with a huge repair bill on the next annual.
> Basically, you acted like a sleazy used car salesman selling a salvage
> title
> car to an unsuspecting kid, or a **** quality contractor selling a
> teardown
> quality house to desperate new homeowners.
>
> Those of us in aviation who care about safety and integrity are a very
> close
> fraternity. We frown on jackasses like you who are less than honest
> and
> would risk someone's life just to sell an airplane for more money.
> I've
> sold unsafe and crap quality airplanes more than once but I let the
> buyer
> know what he is buying. I sold an antique glider with a bad spar for
> $200.00
> to the one person in the area (San Diego, incidentally) who can safely
> rebuild a wooden spar and make a pile of matchsticks into a museum
> quality
> antique that is safe to fly. Why? Because EVERY single airplane crash
> could
> be the last straw that takes away our ability to fly private
> airplanes. The
> guy buying your 175 could have been flying over a little league
> baseball
> game when the flap or cowling came off, or when the ailerons froze up
> and he
> lost control. THAT is why it's my business to expose your kind of
> airplane
> seller to other potential victims.
>
> However, you (and your attorney) will notice that I went to the
> trouble to
> NOT mention you by name, or your airplane by number. My intention in
> putting
> out e-mails and internet advertisements was simply to make sure a
> person
> looking to buy ANY Cessna 175 in the San Diego area has a qualified
> pre-buy
> inspection done, and pays attention to several important details that
> could
> mean life or death or at the very least a huge repair bill. I am
> hoping that
> your attorney would not want any innocent victim to fall prey to the
> kind of
> sleazy tactics, withholding of information, etc. that I didn't fall
> victim
> to. Or would he?
>
> You are more than welcome to exercise your rights to contact an
> attorney,
> and attempt to file suit against me for whatever you think I did to
> harm
> you. However, any harm you think I have done you will be publicly
> compared
> to the harm that was done to me, and the potential harm done to me or
> others, and your participation in seriously risking air safety near a
> major
> metropolitan area, in an election year, and with the added pressures
> of the
> TSA risking private aviation's existence at every turn.
>
> In the event of a court, FAA or NTSB proceeding it would be my intent
> to :
>
> Produce testimony from FAA airworthiness inspectors,
> Produce testimony from experienced IA mechanics familiar with Cessna
> 100
> series aircraft,
> Ask the FAA to investigate the maintenance records and practices on
> your
> aircraft,
> Ask the FAA to determine whether your aircraft was indeed airworthy
> per
> FAR's at the time your mechanic signed off on the annual with pop
> rivets,
> worn flap tracks, worn seat rails, and frozen aileron ball joints, and
> WHATEVER ELSE you failed to mention.
> Forensic maintenance investigation to determine whether hasty repairs
> were
> made after I saw the aircraft but before the FAA/NTSB proceedings, to
> cover
> up or hide the potential deficiencies I found.
>
> Although I am not a licensed aircraft mechanic and I am not in a
> position to
> determine the legal airworthiness status of any aircraft, I am well
> within
> my rights to call into question anything that I believe could
> adversely
> affect flight safety, cause an air accident, or to identify any
> potential,
> suspected, or possible fraud in the sale of an aircraft. I am also
> VERY well
> within my rights to remind my brothers and sisters in the aviation
> world
> that there are indeed fraudulent sellers here in SoCal who would pass
> off a
> marginal or possibly unsafe aircraft to make a quick buck.
>
> I TRULY look forward to having the opportunity in a court of law or
> FAA/NTSB
> hearing to discuss my safety concerns and personal experiences with
> you and
> your aircraft if the opportunity arises. Until then, keep your voice
> out of
> my answering machines and your e-mails out of my inbox, and you can
> thank
> God that one or two in particular of my A&P / IA friends wasn't along
> for
> the ride when I saw your airplane yesterday.
>
> If you have one shred of class or concern for integrity, you will
> either
> repair the problems on your airplane and adjust your asking price
> accordingly, or represent the airplane as 'probably needing
> significant
> repairs immediately or in the near future'.
>
> Bill Berle
>
> cc: Bill Reid A&P / IA
> Charles B. Gorden-Robinson A&P / IA
> Dane Walker
> David Boeshaar
> Richard Riley
> rec.aviation.marketplace
> barnstormers.com

[Robert Little]

You are totally right in every aspect. There are no degrees of "airworthy".
Safety is by the book and that is how the FAA should inforce it through ramp
inspections and less tolerance of IAs that are willing to sign off aircraft
without full inspections and research. Ethics now has a monetary value more
than ever and its getting cheaper by the day.

Robert Little

[Richard Lamb]

Robert Little wrote:
>
> You are totally right in every aspect. There are no degrees of "airworthy".
> Safety is by the book and that is how the FAA should inforce it through ramp
> inspections and less tolerance of IAs that are willing to sign off aircraft
> without full inspections and research. Ethics now has a monetary value more
> than ever and its getting cheaper by the day.
>
> Robert Little


IA's that pencil whip an inspection are one thing.
But owners that go looking for that service are the real problem.

Just my opinion,
I could be wrong...

Richard

[xyzzy]

Hmmmm...

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=38222


Cy Galley wrote:

> Are you talking about..
> N-number Database Search Result
> Last Database Update: Sun Jun 13 15:55:18 2004
> To print registration information, check the checkbox for each
> registration to be printed and click on "Retrieve Selected Entries" at the
> bottom of the list.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check for printing
> N-number : N7309M
> Aircraft Serial Number : 55609
> Aircraft Manufacturer : CESSNA
> Model : 175
> Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
> Model : GO-300 SERIES
> Aircraft Year : 1958
> Owner Name : BAIS TIMOTHY A
> Owner Address : 13409 CALLE COLINA
> POWAY, CA, 92064-1608
> Type of Owner : Co-ownership
> Registration Date : 04-Apr-1996
> Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard
>
>
> "Bill Berle" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>This is a very lengthy but worth reading post. For the purposes of
>>possibly saving someone's life or at least preventing serious injury
>>to their wallets, I am posting below the text of an e-mail I sent
>>recently to someone who had advertised a Cessna in the San Diego area.
>>I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
>>advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
>>fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
>>aircraft). As a 15 time airplane owner, buyer and seller, I am about
>>as educated as anyone else out there on what to look for when buying
>>an airplane. I am not a licensed mechanic but I am proud to say I am a
>>fairly knowledgable owner/operator. I asked what I thought were most
>>or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails. Other than
>>it clearly not being a showplane, I got the impression that I was
>>going down to San Diego (with a lump of green cash in hand) to buy a
>>"fair" quality airplane that was in safe working order. Nothing more
>>or less, definitely not a showplane but definitely not a deathtrap
>>either. What I found when I got there was in MY sole opinion a worn
>>out clunker that needed all of the expensive and complex AD's done,
>>and SHOULD not have even qualified for a one-shot ferry permit. It was
>>signed off and "in annual", which was the big shocker. Also, the guy
>>conveniently forgot to tell me on the phone that a wing had been
>>ripped off in a windstorm before the last annual, as well as the
>>nosegear mounts, prop, spinner, etc. The real point of this is that
>>any first time aircraft buyer should have a very thorough,
>>professional pre-buy inspection done. This airplane could easily have
>>caused an accident or incident and put ALL of our flying activities at
>>risk. I e-mailed a similar warning to friends of mine and business
>>entities at the seller's airport, so that they might apply a little
>>pressure to him to be more honest in his sales tactics. The seller got
>>wind of this and blasted me on my answering machine, threatening legal
>>action, etc. etc. Below is my response to his phone message. Some of
>>the RAH old timers and Zoom warriors might crack a smile and remember
>>my communication "style" fondly :)
>>
>>(name of seller), do not call, e-mail, or otherwise bother me again.
>>After your tactics
>>and de facto dishonesty you have no right to call me names or tell me
>>I
>>can't relate my experiences to others. Below is the final
>>communication
>>between you and I regarding the Cessna 175 I saw yesterday and my
>>notifying
>>the aviation public to be careful when buying airplanes...feel FREE to
>>share
>>it with an attorney, and show it to the local FSDO while you're at it:
>>
>>You wasted a day of my life, and that is not acceptable to me. That
>>alone
>>justifies some action on my part, however there are far more important
>>reasons. Your sleazy tactics of omitting, minimizing, and sidestepping
>>several "make or break" safety and airworthiness items is
>>reprehensible.
>>This is why used car salesmen and cheap-ass independent contractors
>>have
>>such awful reputations.
>>
>>By not telling me about four or five significant deficiencies in the
>>safety
>>and quality of the airplane, you did two things. First you insulted my
>>intelligence by hoping that I was uneducated and gullible enough to
>>buy the
>>airplane because you withheld important information. Second, you
>>showed me
>>that you would have been willing to let someone who was inexperienced
>>and
>>uneducated buy it, fly away, and potentially hurt someone. Or if they
>>were
>>lucky they'd get home and then find that they bought a pile of ****.
>>
>>A ten minute cursory inspection by only a reasonably educated
>>owner/operator
>>revealed the following:
>>
>>Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
>>build seat
>>rails with oval shaped holes, and rounded edges. This has cost more
>>than one
>>life, and you were willing to sell someone the airplane and have them
>>take a
>>chance on an accident. Any GOOD mechanic or IA would have demanded you
>>fix
>>it before the next annual. I am tempted to request one of them do an
>>impromptu "ramp check" at Gillespie, so that I can educate myself on
>>which
>>airplanes are legal and which are not. Ask around and see what that
>>kind of
>>ramp check is like... I've had it happen to me.
>>
>>Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits. There is a big AD on this.
>>I
>>moved the trailing edge of your flaps up and down over an inch. I do
>>NOT
>>know what the service limit is on that, but I DO know that it is an
>>expensive repair, and affects the safety of flight greatly. I don't
>>think
>>any of your 3 or 4 recent half-assed annuals even mentioned the flap
>>tracks,
>>measuring them per the AD, or recommending replacement. But I'll bet
>>the
>>mechanic might have mentioned it and you chose not to do anything
>>about it.
>>Since I don't know what that wear limit is, perhaps I should ask an IA
>>or
>>FAA field inspector to come out to Gillespie and show me what the
>>limit is.
>>If it is within limits I would issue you an apology for questioning
>>the flap
>>tracks.
>>
>>Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints. I moved your
>>elevator up
>>and down with light finger pressure, which is correct. I needed heavy
>>finger
>>pressure to move the ailerons, and it was very difficult. Moving the
>>yoke
>>revealed that it took four times as much pressure to move the ailerons
>>as it
>>did to move the elevator. When I tried to rotate the ball joint at the
>>ailerons, the joints were so tight that you couldn't wiggle them
>>(rotationally) with finger pressure. This happens for one of two
>>reasons.
>>Either the joints are frozen, or they were so loose that some
>>half-assed
>>owner or mechanic simply wrenched the bolts clamping the ball joints
>>so
>>tight that it wasn't loose any more. I'd be interested to know WHICH
>>of
>>those two safety deficiencies your IA mechanic signed off on. Could
>>you ask
>>him for me? Never mind, I can ask someone at the local FSDO because
>>they are
>>interested in things having to do with PRIMARY FLIGHT CONTROLS.
>>
>>By the way, speaking of primary flight controls, I noticed that the
>>pilot's
>>side control yoke could be moved up and down a couple of inches in the
>>instrument panel bushing. The co-pilot yoke could not be moved 1/4 of
>>that
>>distance. Was this some sort of luxury or cosmetic upgrade Cessna
>>offered on
>>the 175?
>>
>>The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired, using hardware store pop
>>rivets and scab patches. Any decent repair would have used inside or
>>flush
>>patches, and regardless of where the patch is the FAR's REQUIRE the
>>use of
>>aircraft rivets. Why? Because, you Bozo, it's right behind the
>>propeller and
>>there is a tremendous amount of vibration, air loads, prop vibration,
>>etc.
>>The vibrations are different and conflicting between engine speed and
>>propeller speed on that airplane.Your IA mechanic signed off an annual
>>with
>>pop rivets and ****ty repair work holding together a 40 pound engine
>>cowling. By the way, an engine cowling on a 175 is heavy enough to go
>>thru
>>the windshield killing the occupants, or heavy enough to remove a wing
>>strut
>>or tail surface on it's way off the airplane inflight. You have the
>>gall to
>>be mad at me for pointing things like this out? Tough ****. Why don't
>>I cc
>>this e-mail to a few folks in the aviation maintenance business...
>>
>>Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
>>airplane
>>was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
>>was
>>replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
>>have
>>wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
>>burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
>>time, and
>>if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
>>that
>>information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
>>trip.
>>
>>Each and every safety or cosmetic deficiency on your airplane is
>>tolerable
>>under the right circumstances. If you would have been honest with me
>>during
>>our phone call or e-mails, I could at least have considered the facts,
>>and
>>figured out what it would have cost me to fix them.Chances are I would
>>have
>>said "OK, I am willing to fix A, B, and C, and I might even be willing
>>to
>>buy an airplane with major damage history...but I will offer X dollars
>>instead of Y dollars". It is the CUMULATIVE effect of all the
>>deficiencies,
>>and the reprehensible use of "lies by omission" that is the problem
>>here.
>>YOU and your withholding of information are an even bigger safety
>>hazard
>>than the nuts and bolts problems with the airplane. You would have
>>sold that
>>restoration project to some brand new private pilot, and he would have
>>had 6
>>or 8 months in which to crash before a proper mechanic got his hands
>>on the
>>airplane. If by some miracle nothing failed in flight during that
>>time, the
>>owner would have been hit with a huge repair bill on the next annual.
>>Basically, you acted like a sleazy used car salesman selling a salvage
>>title
>>car to an unsuspecting kid, or a **** quality contractor selling a
>>teardown
>>quality house to desperate new homeowners.
>>
>>Those of us in aviation who care about safety and integrity are a very
>>close
>>fraternity. We frown on jackasses like you who are less than honest
>>and
>>would risk someone's life just to sell an airplane for more money.
>>I've
>>sold unsafe and crap quality airplanes more than once but I let the
>>buyer
>>know what he is buying. I sold an antique glider with a bad spar for
>>$200.00
>>to the one person in the area (San Diego, incidentally) who can safely
>>rebuild a wooden spar and make a pile of matchsticks into a museum
>>quality
>>antique that is safe to fly. Why? Because EVERY single airplane crash
>>could
>>be the last straw that takes away our ability to fly private
>>airplanes. The
>>guy buying your 175 could have been flying over a little league
>>baseball
>>game when the flap or cowling came off, or when the ailerons froze up
>>and he
>>lost control. THAT is why it's my business to expose your kind of
>>airplane
>>seller to other potential victims.
>>
>>However, you (and your attorney) will notice that I went to the
>>trouble to
>>NOT mention you by name, or your airplane by number. My intention in
>>putting
>>out e-mails and internet advertisements was simply to make sure a
>>person
>>looking to buy ANY Cessna 175 in the San Diego area has a qualified
>>pre-buy
>>inspection done, and pays attention to several important details that
>>could
>>mean life or death or at the very least a huge repair bill. I am
>>hoping that
>>your attorney would not want any innocent victim to fall prey to the
>>kind of
>>sleazy tactics, withholding of information, etc. that I didn't fall
>>victim
>>to. Or would he?
>>
>>You are more than welcome to exercise your rights to contact an
>>attorney,
>>and attempt to file suit against me for whatever you think I did to
>>harm
>>you. However, any harm you think I have done you will be publicly
>>compared
>>to the harm that was done to me, and the potential harm done to me or
>>others, and your participation in seriously risking air safety near a
>>major
>>metropolitan area, in an election year, and with the added pressures
>>of the
>>TSA risking private aviation's existence at every turn.
>>
>>In the event of a court, FAA or NTSB proceeding it would be my intent
>>to :
>>
>>Produce testimony from FAA airworthiness inspectors,
>>Produce testimony from experienced IA mechanics familiar with Cessna
>>100
>>series aircraft,
>>Ask the FAA to investigate the maintenance records and practices on
>>your
>>aircraft,
>>Ask the FAA to determine whether your aircraft was indeed airworthy
>>per
>>FAR's at the time your mechanic signed off on the annual with pop
>>rivets,
>>worn flap tracks, worn seat rails, and frozen aileron ball joints, and
>>WHATEVER ELSE you failed to mention.
>>Forensic maintenance investigation to determine whether hasty repairs
>>were
>>made after I saw the aircraft but before the FAA/NTSB proceedings, to
>>cover
>>up or hide the potential deficiencies I found.
>>
>>Although I am not a licensed aircraft mechanic and I am not in a
>>position to
>>determine the legal airworthiness status of any aircraft, I am well
>>within
>>my rights to call into question anything that I believe could
>>adversely
>>affect flight safety, cause an air accident, or to identify any
>>potential,
>>suspected, or possible fraud in the sale of an aircraft. I am also
>>VERY well
>>within my rights to remind my brothers and sisters in the aviation
>>world
>>that there are indeed fraudulent sellers here in SoCal who would pass
>>off a
>>marginal or possibly unsafe aircraft to make a quick buck.
>>
>>I TRULY look forward to having the opportunity in a court of law or
>>FAA/NTSB
>>hearing to discuss my safety concerns and personal experiences with
>>you and
>>your aircraft if the opportunity arises. Until then, keep your voice
>>out of
>>my answering machines and your e-mails out of my inbox, and you can
>>thank
>>God that one or two in particular of my A&P / IA friends wasn't along
>>for
>>the ride when I saw your airplane yesterday.
>>
>>If you have one shred of class or concern for integrity, you will
>>either
>>repair the problems on your airplane and adjust your asking price
>>accordingly, or represent the airplane as 'probably needing
>>significant
>>repairs immediately or in the near future'.
>>
>>Bill Berle
>>
>>cc: Bill Reid A&P / IA
>> Charles B. Gorden-Robinson A&P / IA
>> Dane Walker
>> David Boeshaar
>> Richard Riley
>> rec.aviation.marketplace
>> barnstormers.com
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

Speaking of omissions, why would you go off on such a rant, purporting to
'beware,' and not tell us precisely what or whom to beware of?

[Jim Weir]

What do I hear?

A little brat whining because he was looking for a cheap plane and found one.

A statement to the effect that, "I'm not an airplane mechanic, but I like to
play one in the newsgroups."


Jim



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Clay]

Bill,
You were right to say your piece.
One of the problems in the world today is lack of honesty.
I do not blame you for being upset with the individual who
misrepresented the C-175 and caused you to drive such a long distance.
Even if it had been two or three hangers down from you, the man
should have been upfront.
Good luck and keep smiling.

Jules > wrote in message >...
> Nicely done!
>
> It's wrong but people do need protecting when it is possible. Yes you
> can't help all the people all of the time. But each of us can make a
> difference.
>
> Bill Berle wrote:
> > This is a very lengthy but worth reading post. For the purposes of
> > possibly saving someone's life or at least preventing serious injury
> > to their wallets, I am posting below the text of an e-mail I sent
> > recently to someone who had advertised a Cessna in the San Diego area.
> > I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
> > advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
> > fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
> > aircraft). As a 15 time airplane owner, buyer and seller, I am about
> > as educated as anyone else out there on what to look for when buying
> > an airplane. I am not a licensed mechanic but I am proud to say I am a
> > fairly knowledgable owner/operator. I asked what I thought were most
> > or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails. Other than
> > it clearly not being a showplane, I got the impression that I was
> > going down to San Diego (with a lump of green cash in hand) to buy a
> > "fair" quality airplane that was in safe working order. Nothing more
> > or less, definitely not a showplane but definitely not a deathtrap
> > either. What I found when I got there was in MY sole opinion a worn
> > out clunker that needed all of the expensive and complex AD's done,
> > and SHOULD not have even qualified for a one-shot ferry permit. It was
> > signed off and "in annual", which was the big shocker. Also, the guy
> > conveniently forgot to tell me on the phone that a wing had been
> > ripped off in a windstorm before the last annual, as well as the
> > nosegear mounts, prop, spinner, etc. The real point of this is that
> > any first time aircraft buyer should have a very thorough,
> > professional pre-buy inspection done. This airplane could easily have
> > caused an accident or incident and put ALL of our flying activities at
> > risk. I e-mailed a similar warning to friends of mine and business
> > entities at the seller's airport, so that they might apply a little
> > pressure to him to be more honest in his sales tactics. The seller got
> > wind of this and blasted me on my answering machine, threatening legal
> > action, etc. etc. Below is my response to his phone message. Some of
> > the RAH old timers and Zoom warriors might crack a smile and remember
> > my communication "style" fondly :)
> >
> > (name of seller), do not call, e-mail, or otherwise bother me again.
> > After your tactics
> > and de facto dishonesty you have no right to call me names or tell me
> > I
> > can't relate my experiences to others. Below is the final
> > communication
> > between you and I regarding the Cessna 175 I saw yesterday and my
> > notifying
> > the aviation public to be careful when buying airplanes...feel FREE to
> > share
> > it with an attorney, and show it to the local FSDO while you're at it:
> >
> > You wasted a day of my life, and that is not acceptable to me. That
> > alone
> > justifies some action on my part, however there are far more important
> > reasons. Your sleazy tactics of omitting, minimizing, and sidestepping
> > several "make or break" safety and airworthiness items is
> > reprehensible.
> > This is why used car salesmen and cheap-ass independent contractors
> > have
> > such awful reputations.
> >
> > By not telling me about four or five significant deficiencies in the
> > safety
> > and quality of the airplane, you did two things. First you insulted my
> > intelligence by hoping that I was uneducated and gullible enough to
> > buy the
> > airplane because you withheld important information. Second, you
> > showed me
> > that you would have been willing to let someone who was inexperienced
> > and
> > uneducated buy it, fly away, and potentially hurt someone. Or if they
> > were
> > lucky they'd get home and then find that they bought a pile of ****.
> >
> > A ten minute cursory inspection by only a reasonably educated
> > owner/operator
> > revealed the following:
> >
> > Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
> > build seat
> > rails with oval shaped holes, and rounded edges. This has cost more
> > than one
> > life, and you were willing to sell someone the airplane and have them
> > take a
> > chance on an accident. Any GOOD mechanic or IA would have demanded you
> > fix
> > it before the next annual. I am tempted to request one of them do an
> > impromptu "ramp check" at Gillespie, so that I can educate myself on
> > which
> > airplanes are legal and which are not. Ask around and see what that
> > kind of
> > ramp check is like... I've had it happen to me.
> >
> > Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits. There is a big AD on this.
> > I
> > moved the trailing edge of your flaps up and down over an inch. I do
> > NOT
> > know what the service limit is on that, but I DO know that it is an
> > expensive repair, and affects the safety of flight greatly. I don't
> > think
> > any of your 3 or 4 recent half-assed annuals even mentioned the flap
> > tracks,
> > measuring them per the AD, or recommending replacement. But I'll bet
> > the
> > mechanic might have mentioned it and you chose not to do anything
> > about it.
> > Since I don't know what that wear limit is, perhaps I should ask an IA
> > or
> > FAA field inspector to come out to Gillespie and show me what the
> > limit is.
> > If it is within limits I would issue you an apology for questioning
> > the flap
> > tracks.
> >
> > Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints. I moved your
> > elevator up
> > and down with light finger pressure, which is correct. I needed heavy
> > finger
> > pressure to move the ailerons, and it was very difficult. Moving the
> > yoke
> > revealed that it took four times as much pressure to move the ailerons
> > as it
> > did to move the elevator. When I tried to rotate the ball joint at the
> > ailerons, the joints were so tight that you couldn't wiggle them
> > (rotationally) with finger pressure. This happens for one of two
> > reasons.
> > Either the joints are frozen, or they were so loose that some
> > half-assed
> > owner or mechanic simply wrenched the bolts clamping the ball joints
> > so
> > tight that it wasn't loose any more. I'd be interested to know WHICH
> > of
> > those two safety deficiencies your IA mechanic signed off on. Could
> > you ask
> > him for me? Never mind, I can ask someone at the local FSDO because
> > they are
> > interested in things having to do with PRIMARY FLIGHT CONTROLS.
> >
> > By the way, speaking of primary flight controls, I noticed that the
> > pilot's
> > side control yoke could be moved up and down a couple of inches in the
> > instrument panel bushing. The co-pilot yoke could not be moved 1/4 of
> > that
> > distance. Was this some sort of luxury or cosmetic upgrade Cessna
> > offered on
> > the 175?
> >
> > The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired, using hardware store pop
> > rivets and scab patches. Any decent repair would have used inside or
> > flush
> > patches, and regardless of where the patch is the FAR's REQUIRE the
> > use of
> > aircraft rivets. Why? Because, you Bozo, it's right behind the
> > propeller and
> > there is a tremendous amount of vibration, air loads, prop vibration,
> > etc.
> > The vibrations are different and conflicting between engine speed and
> > propeller speed on that airplane.Your IA mechanic signed off an annual
> > with
> > pop rivets and ****ty repair work holding together a 40 pound engine
> > cowling. By the way, an engine cowling on a 175 is heavy enough to go
> > thru
> > the windshield killing the occupants, or heavy enough to remove a wing
> > strut
> > or tail surface on it's way off the airplane inflight. You have the
> > gall to
> > be mad at me for pointing things like this out? Tough ****. Why don't
> > I cc
> > this e-mail to a few folks in the aviation maintenance business...
> >
> > Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
> > airplane
> > was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
> > was
> > replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
> > have
> > wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
> > burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
> > time, and
> > if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
> > that
> > information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
> > trip.
> >
> > Each and every safety or cosmetic deficiency on your airplane is
> > tolerable
> > under the right circumstances. If you would have been honest with me
> > during
> > our phone call or e-mails, I could at least have considered the facts,
> > and
> > figured out what it would have cost me to fix them.Chances are I would
> > have
> > said "OK, I am willing to fix A, B, and C, and I might even be willing
> > to
> > buy an airplane with major damage history...but I will offer X dollars
> > instead of Y dollars". It is the CUMULATIVE effect of all the
> > deficiencies,
> > and the reprehensible use of "lies by omission" that is the problem
> > here.
> > YOU and your withholding of information are an even bigger safety
> > hazard
> > than the nuts and bolts problems with the airplane. You would have
> > sold that
> > restoration project to some brand new private pilot, and he would have
> > had 6
> > or 8 months in which to crash before a proper mechanic got his hands
> > on the
> > airplane. If by some miracle nothing failed in flight during that
> > time, the
> > owner would have been hit with a huge repair bill on the next annual.
> > Basically, you acted like a sleazy used car salesman selling a salvage
> > title
> > car to an unsuspecting kid, or a **** quality contractor selling a
> > teardown
> > quality house to desperate new homeowners.
> >
> > Those of us in aviation who care about safety and integrity are a very
> > close
> > fraternity. We frown on jackasses like you who are less than honest
> > and
> > would risk someone's life just to sell an airplane for more money.
> > I've
> > sold unsafe and crap quality airplanes more than once but I let the
> > buyer
> > know what he is buying. I sold an antique glider with a bad spar for
> > $200.00
> > to the one person in the area (San Diego, incidentally) who can safely
> > rebuild a wooden spar and make a pile of matchsticks into a museum
> > quality
> > antique that is safe to fly. Why? Because EVERY single airplane crash
> > could
> > be the last straw that takes away our ability to fly private
> > airplanes. The
> > guy buying your 175 could have been flying over a little league
> > baseball
> > game when the flap or cowling came off, or when the ailerons froze up
> > and he
> > lost control. THAT is why it's my business to expose your kind of
> > airplane
> > seller to other potential victims.
> >
> > However, you (and your attorney) will notice that I went to the
> > trouble to
> > NOT mention you by name, or your airplane by number. My intention in
> > putting
> > out e-mails and internet advertisements was simply to make sure a
> > person
> > looking to buy ANY Cessna 175 in the San Diego area has a qualified
> > pre-buy
> > inspection done, and pays attention to several important details that
> > could
> > mean life or death or at the very least a huge repair bill. I am
> > hoping that
> > your attorney would not want any innocent victim to fall prey to the
> > kind of
> > sleazy tactics, withholding of information, etc. that I didn't fall
> > victim
> > to. Or would he?
> >
> > You are more than welcome to exercise your rights to contact an
> > attorney,
> > and attempt to file suit against me for whatever you think I did to
> > harm
> > you. However, any harm you think I have done you will be publicly
> > compared
> > to the harm that was done to me, and the potential harm done to me or
> > others, and your participation in seriously risking air safety near a
> > major
> > metropolitan area, in an election year, and with the added pressures
> > of the
> > TSA risking private aviation's existence at every turn.
> >
> > In the event of a court, FAA or NTSB proceeding it would be my intent
> > to :
> >
> > Produce testimony from FAA airworthiness inspectors,
> > Produce testimony from experienced IA mechanics familiar with Cessna
> > 100
> > series aircraft,
> > Ask the FAA to investigate the maintenance records and practices on
> > your
> > aircraft,
> > Ask the FAA to determine whether your aircraft was indeed airworthy
> > per
> > FAR's at the time your mechanic signed off on the annual with pop
> > rivets,
> > worn flap tracks, worn seat rails, and frozen aileron ball joints, and
> > WHATEVER ELSE you failed to mention.
> > Forensic maintenance investigation to determine whether hasty repairs
> > were
> > made after I saw the aircraft but before the FAA/NTSB proceedings, to
> > cover
> > up or hide the potential deficiencies I found.
> >
> > Although I am not a licensed aircraft mechanic and I am not in a
> > position to
> > determine the legal airworthiness status of any aircraft, I am well
> > within
> > my rights to call into question anything that I believe could
> > adversely
> > affect flight safety, cause an air accident, or to identify any
> > potential,
> > suspected, or possible fraud in the sale of an aircraft. I am also
> > VERY well
> > within my rights to remind my brothers and sisters in the aviation
> > world
> > that there are indeed fraudulent sellers here in SoCal who would pass
> > off a
> > marginal or possibly unsafe aircraft to make a quick buck.
> >
> > I TRULY look forward to having the opportunity in a court of law or
> > FAA/NTSB
> > hearing to discuss my safety concerns and personal experiences with
> > you and
> > your aircraft if the opportunity arises. Until then, keep your voice
> > out of
> > my answering machines and your e-mails out of my inbox, and you can
> > thank
> > God that one or two in particular of my A&P / IA friends wasn't along
> > for
> > the ride when I saw your airplane yesterday.
> >
> > If you have one shred of class or concern for integrity, you will
> > either
> > repair the problems on your airplane and adjust your asking price
> > accordingly, or represent the airplane as 'probably needing
> > significant
> > repairs immediately or in the near future'.
> >
> > Bill Berle
> >
> > cc: Bill Reid A&P / IA
> > Charles B. Gorden-Robinson A&P / IA
> > Dane Walker
> > David Boeshaar
> > Richard Riley
> > rec.aviation.marketplace
> > barnstormers.com

[Stu Gotts]

I'd pay good money for tickets to see Berle kick that wining Jim
Weir's ass at OSH. God knows he's had it coming for years. Would be
great fodder for his next book, a best seller for sure. Maybe we can
set it up as a charity event for the Poberesny benefit and award fund.
The boys can never have enough personal funds nor awards for their
work.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:02:08 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>What do I hear?
>
>A little brat whining because he was looking for a cheap plane and found one.
>
>A statement to the effect that, "I'm not an airplane mechanic, but I like to
>play one in the newsgroups."
>
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

> You looked at a crappy plane. Get over it. There are hundreds for sale
> just like this one. You will get exactly nowhere with FSDO, they are not
> interested.

And he wasted WAY too many characters to say "crappy."


Matt

[Lennie the Lurker]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> What do I hear?
>
> A little brat whining because he was looking for a cheap plane and found one.
>
> A statement to the effect that, "I'm not an airplane mechanic, but I like to
> play one in the newsgroups."
>
>
> Jim
>
I have a lot of respect for one that will blow the whistle when it
needs blowing.

I have no respect for someone that thinks he finds something wrong
with it.

Not a pilot
No longer a student
No longer an aircraft owner

Just a retired mechanical inspector/machinist/gage technician

that would probably have no problem making you very angry were I to
inspect your work. I've done it to the best.

[Stu Gotts]

On 18 Jun 2004 21:00:47 -0700, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:

>Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
>> What do I hear?
>>
>> A little brat whining because ..................................


>Just a retired mechanical inspector/machinist/gage technician
>
>that would probably have no problem making you very angry were I to
>inspect your work. I've done it to the best.

Weir's work doesn't need inspecting, so you've ****ed him off already!

[Matt Whiting]

Lennie the Lurker wrote:

> Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
>
>>What do I hear?
>>
>>A little brat whining because he was looking for a cheap plane and found one.
>>
>>A statement to the effect that, "I'm not an airplane mechanic, but I like to
>>play one in the newsgroups."
>>
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
> I have a lot of respect for one that will blow the whistle when it
> needs blowing.
>
> I have no respect for someone that thinks he finds something wrong
> with it.
>
> Not a pilot
> No longer a student
> No longer an aircraft owner
>
> Just a retired mechanical inspector/machinist/gage technician
>
> that would probably have no problem making you very angry were I to
> inspect your work. I've done it to the best.

Does this make you more manly?

Matt

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Lennie the Lurker wrote:
>
>> Jim Weir > wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>>What do I hear?
>>>
>>>A little brat whining because he was looking for a cheap plane and
>>>found one.
>>>
>>>A statement to the effect that, "I'm not an airplane mechanic, but I
>>>like to play one in the newsgroups."
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>
>> I have a lot of respect for one that will blow the whistle when it
>> needs blowing.
>>
>> I have no respect for someone that thinks he finds something wrong
>> with it.
>>
>> Not a pilot
>> No longer a student
>> No longer an aircraft owner
>>
>> Just a retired mechanical inspector/machinist/gage technician
>>
>> that would probably have no problem making you very angry were I to
>> inspect your work. I've done it to the best.
>
> Does this make you more manly?
>
> Matt

Probably not, Matt, since none of this has anything to do with
"manliness," but this comment of yours sure does make you look rather
foolish.

[Jules]

So you are saying you would sign it off?

Are you warning people or advertising?



Jim Weir wrote:
> What do I hear?
>
> A little brat whining because he was looking for a cheap plane and found one.
>
> A statement to the effect that, "I'm not an airplane mechanic, but I like to
> play one in the newsgroups."
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Lennie the Lurker]

Stu Gotts > wrote in message >...
> >
> Weir's work doesn't need inspecting, so you've ****ed him off already!

Whether he's ****ed off or not is totally inconsequential.

His comments about someone warning of safety problems and to look for
them, says much for his character. THey tell me that I would
definately NOT buy anything based on his signature.

[Richard Kaplan]

Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?

Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
> Why do you think it isn't airworthy. After all it is signed off. Right?

Of course there are lots of airplanes signed off with annual inspections
which are unairworthy.

Of course the FAA should go after the owners and the mechanics.

All I am saying is that this potential buyer is naive if he thought a "super
low priced" airplane would be as advertised and if he is that annoyed he
didn't get the bargain of the century.

I say again.. why would an airplane ever be "super low priced" if it is
airworthy? It makes no sense.

If my mechanic offers to do an annual inspection on my airplane for $49,
should I take it at face value or assume it is pencil-whipped?

[Jim Weir]

Stu Gotts >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->I'd pay good money for tickets to see Berle kick that wining Jim
->Weir's ass at OSH. God knows he's had it coming for years. Would be
->great fodder for his next book, a best seller for sure. Maybe we can
->set it up as a charity event for the Poberesny benefit and award fund.
->The boys can never have enough personal funds nor awards for their
->work.



First of all, it is WHINING, not wining. Second, it is POBEREZNY, not
Poberesny. Third, my schedule will be posted in the EAA Convention Guide; you
know where to come find me.

Let's examine the facts:

Berle claimed that there were several "complex and expensive ADs" that had not
been complied with. Nowhere in the body of the text does he describe or list
these ADs. However, just to keep the record straight, here is my software's
printout of the applicable airframe ADs on a Cessna 175. Since Berle did not
specify 175, A, B, or C, I chose the earliest model to be sure I captured all of
the old ADs as well.

If anybody finds an AIRFRAME AD that my software missed, please post it here in
the spirit of safety and completeness. We can do engine, too, if you like, but
Berle's only squawks that I saw were airframe related.

Company
Manufacturer CESSNA AIRCRAFT CORP.
Model 175
Tail #
Serial #
Tach Time
A/C Cert. Date
Total Time
AD Number Description
62-22-01 VACUUM PUMP MODIFICATION/
*69-15-03 MUFFLER ASSEMBLY/
*71-22-02 CRACKS IN NOSE GEAR FORK/
73-17-01 FUEL TRANSFER PUMP PLACARD/
*74-06-02 AVCON MUFFLERS/
79-08-03 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM/
79-10-14 R1 FUEL TANK VENTING/
82-07-02 ENGINE CRANKCASE BREATHER/
86-26-04 SHOULDER HARNESS ADJUSTER/
*87-20-03 R2 SEAT TRACKS/
97-01-13 COLLAPSED HOSE/
99-27-02 FUEL SELECTOR VALVE/
* Indicates possible recurring inspections Page 1 of 1


He also complains of a major repair that he was not told about. With all of his
"experience", he didn't know that the first question out of the box on the phone
should have been "what is the major damage history?" I think not, nor does he
claim that the owner lied to him on the question that was not asked.

Let's take a look at the specific items that Berle was not pleased with:

> > Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
> > build seat

We do not deal in "probably" in this business. Nor can we demand that something
be replaced when it is "near" a limit. Limits are just that...the point at
which something has to be dealt with. The AD on seat tracks (*87-20-03-R2) is
very specific. If Berle had his precision pin set with him, he could have been
very specific that the rail was or was not within limits. Eyeball guessing
doesn't cut it.


> > Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits.
There is a big AD on this.

And Cessna's definition of safe limits is? You had the Cessna repair manual
with you that gave the limits? And the AD number you refer to is?


> > Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints.

Frozen? Probably. An airplane sitting outside, even in San Diego, gathers a
bit of corrosion inside the mechanisms. That's why Mouse Milk and/or LPS-1 is a
staple of any mechanic's chemistry shelf. Why don't you explain to us how you
can overtighten a Cessna aileron ball joint and have it clamp down on the pivot
bolt? Without chucking the ball joint up in a lathe and cutting another inch or
so of threads on the ball joint, of course. If you are talking about tightening
up the pivot bolt, you'd have deformed the aileron attach bracket so severely
that it would have been obvious to the casual observer. Which was it?


> > By the way, speaking of primary flight controls,
I noticed that the > > pilot's
> > side control yoke could be moved up and down
a couple of inches in the
> > instrument panel bushing.

You may have one here, although I doubt (once more) you had a definitive answer
as to how loose is too loose from an authoritative source (like the Cessna fixit
manual). And, if you could move it UP and DOWN a couple of inches, you have a
four inch total travel. Somehow I think the case is overstated here -- you'd be
bumping the gyros going up and the radio stack going down with this much
mickeymotion.


> > The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired
, using hardware store pop > > rivets and scab patches.
Any decent repair would have used inside or
> > flush > > patches, and regardless of where the patch
is the FAR's REQUIRE the > > use of > > aircraft rivets.

Shoddy and unairworthy are two separate and distinct conditions. One is
subjective (eye of the beholder) and one is objective (written in precise
language). Cessna allows scab (outside) patches on pretty nearly the entire
sheet metal airframe, and who are you to say that a "decent" repair has to
follow your personal desires when the manufacturer says different? And there
ARE aircraft approved "pop rivets". Whether or not these are of that variety,
I'd either have to see for myself OR look what the person who did the repair put
in the logbook for materials used. I'd hardly call somebody a Bozo when you
appear to be the Bozee.


> > Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know
that the whole > > airplane > > was windstorm-flipped
out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing > > was
> > replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any
potential buyer would > > have > > wanted to know that
kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
> > burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get
replaced all the > > time, and > > if it's done right
it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer > > that
> information before they make arrangements to drive
250 miles round > > trip.

And you owe the owner the simple question of major damage history on the phone
before you set out on the trip. I stand by my original statement...you thought
you were going to buy a creampuff for a lemon's price and you found that you had
a lemon for a lemon's price. What's your squawk?

Now, would I annual this airplane? Hell, I'm 600 miles north and not the least
bit interested. However, from the words you wrote, I'd be hard pressed to find
something unairworthy in your diatribe. You got suckered, plain and simple.
Barnum was right.


Jim









Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

You would probably find a lot to squawk about on my mechanical machine work. I
never set myself out to be a machinist, nor a gauge tech, nor have I ever
claimed to do flawless mechanical work.

And I've been inspected by the best, and always learned a thing or two when
somebody found an error in my work; I try never to make the same goof twice
(two marriages notwithstanding {;-) ).

Jim


(Lennie the Lurker)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
->
->Just a retired mechanical inspector/machinist/gage technician
->
->that would probably have no problem making you very angry were I to
->inspect your work. I've done it to the best.




Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

Jules >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->So you are saying you would sign it off?

How the hell would I know? I'm 600 miles north, and not the least bit
interested in looking at a ratty 175. What I'm saying is that in all the
squawks a bitches in the original post, I have yet to see something that is
definitively unairworthy BY THE BOOK.


->
->Are you warning people or advertising?


None of the above. I'm in the enviable position of being able to pick and
choose my friends for whom I will do inspections; I don't have to work for
anybody who comes through the front door with an attitude.

Jim



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

Bingo. Finally, somebody understands. Good on 'ya Richard.


Jim



"Richard Kaplan" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
->
->Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?
->
->
->



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

There are those of us who have done them for free...like for the widow of the
poor ******* that died of cancer within three weeks of finding it, so the kids
would have food for the next couple of months...

And there are those of us who wouldn't do one for ten thousand dollars for a
whining son of a bitch that wouldn't be happy if we subcontracted him out with a
hooker while we worked on his plane...

Most of us are somewhere in between. Some more, some less. Some of us refuse
to WORK on airplanes if something is wrong; we got out of the fixit game when we
got the inspector's ticket. Some of us will only do the work if the owner is
willing to get greasy. Some of us will swap annuals for goodies instead of
money. Some of us do it for the sheer joy and unalloyed bliss of it.

Some of us do it because we are captured with the joy and beauty of flight
itself.

Jim



"Richard Kaplan" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->If my mechanic offers to do an annual inspection on my airplane for $49,
->should I take it at face value or assume it is pencil-whipped?
->



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Stu Gotts]

The misspellings were for your benefit. Thought you would understand
them better and I could give a **** about how da and lad spell their
name. Thanks for the invite, tough guy and yes, maybe I will look you
up and give you a bitch slap for all the time you spend trying to
discredit everything Berle says or does.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:30:08 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>Stu Gotts >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->I'd pay good money for tickets to see Berle kick that wining Jim
>->Weir's ass at OSH. God knows he's had it coming for years. Would be
>->great fodder for his next book, a best seller for sure. Maybe we can
>->set it up as a charity event for the Poberesny benefit and award fund.
>->The boys can never have enough personal funds nor awards for their
>->work.
>
>
>
>First of all, it is WHINING, not wining. Second, it is POBEREZNY, not
>Poberesny. Third, my schedule will be posted in the EAA Convention Guide; you
>know where to come find me.
>
>Let's examine the facts:
>
>Berle claimed that there were several "complex and expensive ADs" that had not
>been complied with. Nowhere in the body of the text does he describe or list
>these ADs. However, just to keep the record straight, here is my software's
>printout of the applicable airframe ADs on a Cessna 175. Since Berle did not
>specify 175, A, B, or C, I chose the earliest model to be sure I captured all of
>the old ADs as well.
>
>If anybody finds an AIRFRAME AD that my software missed, please post it here in
>the spirit of safety and completeness. We can do engine, too, if you like, but
>Berle's only squawks that I saw were airframe related.
>
>Company
>Manufacturer CESSNA AIRCRAFT CORP.
>Model 175
>Tail #
>Serial #
>Tach Time
>A/C Cert. Date
>Total Time
>AD Number Description
>62-22-01 VACUUM PUMP MODIFICATION/
>*69-15-03 MUFFLER ASSEMBLY/
>*71-22-02 CRACKS IN NOSE GEAR FORK/
>73-17-01 FUEL TRANSFER PUMP PLACARD/
>*74-06-02 AVCON MUFFLERS/
>79-08-03 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM/
>79-10-14 R1 FUEL TANK VENTING/
>82-07-02 ENGINE CRANKCASE BREATHER/
>86-26-04 SHOULDER HARNESS ADJUSTER/
>*87-20-03 R2 SEAT TRACKS/
>97-01-13 COLLAPSED HOSE/
>99-27-02 FUEL SELECTOR VALVE/
>* Indicates possible recurring inspections Page 1 of 1
>
>
>He also complains of a major repair that he was not told about. With all of his
>"experience", he didn't know that the first question out of the box on the phone
>should have been "what is the major damage history?" I think not, nor does he
>claim that the owner lied to him on the question that was not asked.
>
>Let's take a look at the specific items that Berle was not pleased with:
>
> > > Seat rails near or probably beyond the wear limit. Cessna did not
> > > build seat
>
>We do not deal in "probably" in this business. Nor can we demand that something
>be replaced when it is "near" a limit. Limits are just that...the point at
>which something has to be dealt with. The AD on seat tracks (*87-20-03-R2) is
>very specific. If Berle had his precision pin set with him, he could have been
>very specific that the rail was or was not within limits. Eyeball guessing
>doesn't cut it.
>
>
> > > Flap tracks worn to or beyond safe limits.
> There is a big AD on this.
>
>And Cessna's definition of safe limits is? You had the Cessna repair manual
>with you that gave the limits? And the AD number you refer to is?
>
>
> > > Frozen or over tightened aileron rod ball joints.
>
>Frozen? Probably. An airplane sitting outside, even in San Diego, gathers a
>bit of corrosion inside the mechanisms. That's why Mouse Milk and/or LPS-1 is a
>staple of any mechanic's chemistry shelf. Why don't you explain to us how you
>can overtighten a Cessna aileron ball joint and have it clamp down on the pivot
>bolt? Without chucking the ball joint up in a lathe and cutting another inch or
>so of threads on the ball joint, of course. If you are talking about tightening
>up the pivot bolt, you'd have deformed the aileron attach bracket so severely
>that it would have been obvious to the casual observer. Which was it?
>
>
> > > By the way, speaking of primary flight controls,
> I noticed that the > > pilot's
> > > side control yoke could be moved up and down
> a couple of inches in the
> > > instrument panel bushing.
>
>You may have one here, although I doubt (once more) you had a definitive answer
>as to how loose is too loose from an authoritative source (like the Cessna fixit
>manual). And, if you could move it UP and DOWN a couple of inches, you have a
>four inch total travel. Somehow I think the case is overstated here -- you'd be
>bumping the gyros going up and the radio stack going down with this much
>mickeymotion.
>
>
> > > The engine cowl was really shoddily repaired
> , using hardware store pop > > rivets and scab patches.
> Any decent repair would have used inside or
> > > flush > > patches, and regardless of where the patch
> is the FAR's REQUIRE the > > use of > > aircraft rivets.
>
>Shoddy and unairworthy are two separate and distinct conditions. One is
>subjective (eye of the beholder) and one is objective (written in precise
>language). Cessna allows scab (outside) patches on pretty nearly the entire
>sheet metal airframe, and who are you to say that a "decent" repair has to
>follow your personal desires when the manufacturer says different? And there
>ARE aircraft approved "pop rivets". Whether or not these are of that variety,
>I'd either have to see for myself OR look what the person who did the repair put
>in the logbook for materials used. I'd hardly call somebody a Bozo when you
>appear to be the Bozee.
>
>
> > > Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know
> that the whole > > airplane > > was windstorm-flipped
> out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing > > was
> > > replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any
> potential buyer would > > have > > wanted to know that
> kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
> > > burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get
> replaced all the > > time, and > > if it's done right
> it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer > > that
> > information before they make arrangements to drive
> 250 miles round > > trip.
>
>And you owe the owner the simple question of major damage history on the phone
>before you set out on the trip. I stand by my original statement...you thought
>you were going to buy a creampuff for a lemon's price and you found that you had
>a lemon for a lemon's price. What's your squawk?
>
>Now, would I annual this airplane? Hell, I'm 600 miles north and not the least
>bit interested. However, from the words you wrote, I'd be hard pressed to find
>something unairworthy in your diatribe. You got suckered, plain and simple.
>Barnum was right.
>
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[Lennie the Lurker]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> You would probably find a lot to squawk about on my mechanical machine work. I
> never set myself out to be a machinist, nor a gauge tech, nor have I ever
> claimed to do flawless mechanical work.
>
> And I've been inspected by the best, and always learned a thing or two when
> somebody found an error in my work; I try never to make the same goof twice
> (two marriages notwithstanding {;-) ).
>
> Jim
>
>
> (Lennie the Lurker)
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> -
> ->
> ->Just a retired mechanical inspector/machinist/gage technician
> ->
> ->that would probably have no problem making you very angry were I to
> ->inspect your work. I've done it to the best.
>
And please note, not one ****ing word trying to justify his dislike
for someone issuing a warning to others that may look at the plane
less thoroughly than Bill did. It's not the person you don't like,
Jim, it's him giving a warning what to look out for. Too many major
repairs were not disclosed, which is dishonest in the nth degree. A
lot of other major work needed doing, not disclosed beforehand either.
WHich would equate to me selling my nine inch South Bend, then
telling the buyer that it has been backed over with a tractor. (I
figure I'm the sixth owner since then, and it should be running by the
end of July, but there's no way I'd try to pass it off as anything but
what it is.) I don't do business that way.

[Jim Weir]

(Lennie the Lurker)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->And please note, not one ****ing word trying to justify his dislike
->for someone issuing a warning to others that may look at the plane
->less thoroughly than Bill did.

I don't do ****ing words. I never considered ****ing a spectator sport or a
word game.

Did you really LOOK at his post, Lennie? All the bitches about the airplane
were of the "I didn't like the way it looked." Not one single, "this measured
outside of the limits set by the xyz approved data sheet."

Now the owner emailing or phoning him with threats... THAT was plain dumb and
stupid on the owner's part. Had that OWNER posted here about this idiot that
looked at his airplane and what he had done about it, I'd'a reamed the owner a
new asshole with a wire brush. What I saw here were two jerks who deserved to
run into each other.


It's not the person you don't like,
->Jim, it's him giving a warning what to look out for.

I could give a rat's hiney about the warning. The dislike was that Berle had
absolutely no factual information on which to base his rant. He didn't like the
seat rails, but didn't measure them. He didn't like the aileron ball joints but
had no idea why they were frozen. He didn't like the flap mechanisms but had no
data on which to base his complaints...yada...yada...yada...


Too many major
->repairs were not disclosed, which is dishonest in the nth degree.

What not disclosed? Did Berle ASK about major damage or major repairs on the
phone and was told a lie? Anybody above moron in this business asks that
question as the first order of business. He never said the person lied to him;
Berle was too stupid to ask the question.


A
->lot of other major work needed doing, not disclosed beforehand either.

What major work needed to be done? Quote me from Berle's post, will you? All I
saw were some rantings from a person who expected to see a show airplane for a
beater price. He got what he bargained for...and never spent a cent of money in
the process...other than gas money which he quite easily could have avoided with
the proper questions on the phone.



-> WHich would equate to me selling my nine inch South Bend, then
->telling the buyer that it has been backed over with a tractor. (I
->figure I'm the sixth owner since then, and it should be running by the
->end of July, but there's no way I'd try to pass it off as anything but
->what it is.) I don't do business that way.

You got a nine inch South Bend for sale? I'm in the market.


Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Juan Jimenez]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
s.com:

>
> Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
>
> Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?

What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness? When did
the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of airworthiness?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
> s.com:
>
> >
> > Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
> >
> > Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?
>
> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?

Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for a
purpose"?

> When did
> the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of airworthiness?

It doesn't, "economic reality" does.

(Geez...you should have learned this before entering elementary school)

[Juan Jimenez]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
:

>> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
>
> Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for a
> purpose"?

Really? On what planet, Tom?

>> When did the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
>> airworthiness?
>
> It doesn't, "economic reality" does.

Boy, you sure have an active imagination. Of course, this only applies to
the resale price of an airplane, doesn't it? It doesn't apply to the
acquisition price, because then, according to your rules, anything goes,
doesn't it? Capitalistic airworthiness at its best?

> (Geez...you should have learned this before entering elementary school)

I missed Dumb Rationalizations 101. On purpose.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:57:37 +0000, Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
>>
>> Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for a
>> purpose"?
>
> Really? On what planet, Tom?
>

Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability for
a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality, price, and
popularity often have little to do with each other.

>>> When did the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
>>> airworthiness?
>>
>> It doesn't, "economic reality" does.
>
> Boy, you sure have an active imagination. Of course, this only applies to
> the resale price of an airplane, doesn't it? It doesn't apply to the
> acquisition price, because then, according to your rules, anything goes,
> doesn't it? Capitalistic airworthiness at its best?

I know. It's kind of funny. Accordingly, if we run with his logic, there
are never deals to be had in aviation. In fact, we can ignore every
social issue which affects mankind such as money problems, loss of
interest, medical problems, or desire to rapidly acquire another
possession. Nope, paying absoluete top dollar is the only way to aquire
anything of worth. I wonder if he purchased anything other than new, and
paid above sticker to boot? If he did, he clearly got ripped off. ;)

Just having some fun with the obvious, which was seemingly overlooked
in the grandparent message.


Cheers,

Greg

[Robert M. Gary]

Juan Jimenez > wrote in message >...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
> s.com:
>
> >
> > Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
> >
> > Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?
>
> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness? When did
> the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of airworthiness?

What FAR requires a plane to be Airworthy to sell? Sounds like the
owner was willing to sell a project plane cheaply. The fact that he
wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.

-Robert

[Juan Jimenez]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

> Juan Jimenez > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
>> s.com:
>>
>> >
>> > Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
>> >
>> > Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?
>>
>> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
>> When did the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
>> airworthiness?
>
> What FAR requires a plane to be Airworthy to sell? Sounds like the
> owner was willing to sell a project plane cheaply. The fact that he
> wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
> looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
> to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.
>
> -Robert

The original poster never implied the effort to sell the a/c was illegal.
Whether or not something is a bad deal is up to the seller and buyer to
decide. What he did warn people about was that the one seller he met was
particularly egregious in his attempts to misrepresent the aircraft.
Apparently there are a few people around here over whose heads this all
went...

[Juan Jimenez]

Greg Copeland > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:57:37 +0000, Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
>>>
>>> Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for a
>>> purpose"?
>>
>> Really? On what planet, Tom?
>>
>
> Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
> for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality,
> price, and popularity often have little to do with each other.
>
>>>> When did the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
>>>> airworthiness?
>>>
>>> It doesn't, "economic reality" does.
>>
>> Boy, you sure have an active imagination. Of course, this only
>> applies to the resale price of an airplane, doesn't it? It doesn't
>> apply to the acquisition price, because then, according to your
>> rules, anything goes, doesn't it? Capitalistic airworthiness at its
>> best?
>
> I know. It's kind of funny. Accordingly, if we run with his logic,
> there are never deals to be had in aviation. In fact, we can ignore
> every social issue which affects mankind such as money problems, loss
> of interest, medical problems, or desire to rapidly acquire another
> possession. Nope, paying absoluete top dollar is the only way to
> aquire anything of worth. I wonder if he purchased anything other than
> new, and paid above sticker to boot? If he did, he clearly got ripped
> off. ;)
>
> Just having some fun with the obvious, which was seemingly overlooked
> in the grandparent message.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg

No reply needed. Well put.

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Juan Jimenez > wrote in message
>...
> > "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
> > s.com:
> >
> > >
> > > Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
> > >
> > > Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?
> >
> > What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness? When
did
> > the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
airworthiness?
>
> What FAR requires a plane to be Airworthy to sell? Sounds like the
> owner was willing to sell a project plane cheaply. The fact that he
> wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
> looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
> to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.
>
> -Robert

If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy. Nowhere did
the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy. His post sounded
to me like he seriously failed in his questioning before looking at the
plane then tried to blame the seller for his poor questioning. His
assumptions were based on what he thought he heard and wanted to hear not on
what the seller said. Jim Weir hit the nail squarely on the head on this
one.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:57:37 +0000, Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >>> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
> >>
> >> Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for a
> >> purpose"?
> >
> > Really? On what planet, Tom?

This one. What planets version of "value" (which determines price) are YOU
using? Kalifornia's?

> Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability for
> a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality, price, and
> popularity often have little to do with each other.

Really? On what planet?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Copeland > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > Just having some fun with the obvious, which was seemingly overlooked
> > in the grandparent message.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Greg
>
> No reply needed. Well put.

Well put bull ****.

No wonder you get taken.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Juan Jimenez > wrote in message
>...
> > "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in
> > s.com:
> >
> > >
> > > Why do you think this airplane is "super low priced"?
> > >
> > > Why would it be priced that low if it were airworthy?
> >
> > What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness? When
did
> > the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
airworthiness?
>
> What FAR requires a plane to be Airworthy to sell? Sounds like the
> owner was willing to sell a project plane cheaply. The fact that he
> wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
> looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
> to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.
>
He must not have ever heard of "parting out", "fixer upper"...

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> >>
> >> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
> >> When did the FAA include price of the airplane in its definition of
> >> airworthiness?
> >
> > What FAR requires a plane to be Airworthy to sell? Sounds like the
> > owner was willing to sell a project plane cheaply. The fact that he
> > wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
> > looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
> > to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.
> >
> > -Robert
>
> The original poster never implied the effort to sell the a/c was illegal.

> Whether or not something is a bad deal is up to the seller and buyer to
> decide.

And how would they determine that?

> What he did warn people about was that the one seller he met was
> particularly egregious in his attempts to misrepresent the aircraft.

How did he "misrepresent" it?

> Apparently there are a few people around here over whose heads this all
> went...

Yours.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy. Nowhere
did
> the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy. His post sounded
> to me like he seriously failed in his questioning before looking at the
> plane then tried to blame the seller for his poor questioning. His
> assumptions were based on what he thought he heard and wanted to hear not
on
> what the seller said. Jim Weir hit the nail squarely on the head on this
> one.

Yup...Caveat Emptor.

Likewise a car need not be roadworthy, or a building be inhabitable...and
it's the buyers responsibility to find out.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
>
>
> Did you really LOOK at his post, Lennie? All the bitches about the airplane
> were of the "I didn't like the way it looked." Not one single, "this measured
> outside of the limits set by the xyz approved data sheet."

A pilot that will fly in a plane that has that many things "He doesn't
like" can be called only a goddam fool.
>
> He didn't like the aileron ball joints but
> had no idea why they were frozen. He didn't like the flap mechanisms but had no
> data on which to base his complaints...yada...yada...yada...

Anyone with the amount of experience Bill has shouldn't need data
sheets to decide for himself what is acceptable and what is not. Data
sheet be damned, if it's not right, it's not right.
>
> Berle was too stupid to ask the question.

Sorry, but after several years of correspondence with him, that
statement is totally wrong. When I bought my 1-26 I got more solid
information from him than I did from the rest of the soaring group.
>
>
> A
> ->lot of other major work needed doing, not disclosed beforehand either.
>
> What major work needed to be done? Quote me from Berle's post, will you?

Flap rails, aileron ball joint, seat rails, excessive play in yoke, I
doubt that any of these are going to be cheap to fix.

All I
> saw were some rantings from a person who expected to see a show airplane for a
> beater price.

He stated quite clearly that that was not what he expected, but did
expect an airworthy aircraft from the owners description and answers.
Any halfway sane buyer is going to ask about any major damage, and to
my mind, replacing a wing and the nosewheel mount qualify as major.
As does any structural damage. Was the engine torn down after it was
flipped? If it caused the replacement of the prop, chances are good
that damage was also done to the engine.
>
> You got a nine inch South Bend for sale? I'm in the market.

You're only number 25 on the list. Had guys after that since the day
I brought it home, in pieces. Still have a lot of work to do to make
it run, and then if it's not to my specs, it won't be sold. As it is
now, a POS, when I'm done it might be a running POS and require all
the experience my 44 years in machining can give to do any acceptable
work. (I didn't say respectable, just acceptable.) Until it cuts
metal, I don't know what it is.
>

[Snowbird]

(Bill Berle) wrote in message >...
> I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
> advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
> fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
> aircraft).<...> I asked what I thought were most
> or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails.
<...>
> Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
> airplane
> was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
> was
> replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
> have
> wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
> burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
> time, and
> if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
> that
> information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
> trip.

I don't mean to pick here, but I am curious.

Did you specifically ask about accidents or major damage hx? If
so, I agree, an honest seller owes you an honest answer.

If not, do you feel the seller "owes" it to potential buyers to
spontaneously give negative info over the phone? If so, why?

Better luck with the next plane you look at,
Sydney

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:27:51 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> GC said:
>> Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
>> for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality, price,
>> and popularity often have little to do with each other.
>
> Really? On what planet?

LOL. This one. Stay with the conversation, please. I'm laughing and
teasing a little because I'm trying to figure out if you're for real or
not. If you seriously believe what you're implying, you seriously have,
"sucker", written all over you. You seriously believe that top dollar
always buys best suitability for everything, every time? If so, I have a
$900 plastic tub liner and a $600 hammer to sale you. I'll be happy to
ship as soon as I receive your check, and it clears. I'm more than happy
to sale as many as you'd like to purchase. Seriously. This is no joke.

Is the phrase, "common sense", nothing more than a cliche to you?

Cheers,

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:47:04 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:27:51 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>> GC said:
>>> Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
>>> for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality, price,
>>> and popularity often have little to do with each other.
>>
>> Really? On what planet?
>
> LOL. This one. Stay with the conversation, please. I'm laughing and
> teasing a little because I'm trying to figure out if you're for real or
> not. If you seriously believe what you're implying, you seriously have,
> "sucker", written all over you. You seriously believe that top dollar
> always buys best suitability for everything, every time? If so, I have a
> $900 plastic tub liner and a $600 hammer to sale you. I'll be happy to
> ship as soon as I receive your check, and it clears. I'm more than happy
> to sale as many as you'd like to purchase. Seriously. This is no joke.
>
> Is the phrase, "common sense", nothing more than a cliche to you?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg

Would you believe, "sell", even? Hate it when I do dumb stuff like that.

Oh well.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:47:04 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:27:51 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >>> GC said:
> >>> Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
> >>> for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality,
price,
> >>> and popularity often have little to do with each other.
> >>
> >> Really? On what planet?
> >
> > LOL. This one. Stay with the conversation, please. I'm laughing and
> > teasing a little because I'm trying to figure out if you're for real or
> > not. If you seriously believe what you're implying, you seriously have,
> > "sucker", written all over you. You seriously believe that top dollar
> > always buys best suitability for everything, every time? If so, I have
a
> > $900 plastic tub liner and a $600 hammer to sale you.

Ever buy something custom made?

If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it might be
worth $900.

Do you know WHY the military had to pay $600 for hammers and why they could
not get them at Ace Hardware.

> > I'll be happy to
> > ship as soon as I receive your check, and it clears. I'm more than happy
> > to sale as many as you'd like to purchase. Seriously. This is no joke.
> >
> > Is the phrase, "common sense", nothing more than a cliche to you?

Evidently, terminology is foreign to you.

What does the term "price" mean to you (other than what TV advertising
says).

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The fact that he
> wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
> looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
> to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.
>

The fact that when the OP put out an alert warning people looking for
Cessnas in So Cal to look for these things the seller blew a gasket
tells me that the seller had every intention of keeping the major damage
history and signficant squawks a secret. After all, he may not
spontaneously give the info out, but why should he be mad and
threatening to sue when someone reminds buyers to look for this stuff?

I found the ad (link posted elsewhere on the thread), it was a $25K C175
which I agree should have been a red flag. But at a club member who is
contemplating buying, after reading this thread and seeing IMO the
shockingly high number of people who think the seller's behavior is
acceptable, I think that's a good indication that I better stay away
from buying planes any time in the near future.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
>
>>If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy. Nowhere
>
> did
>
>>the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy. His post sounded
>>to me like he seriously failed in his questioning before looking at the
>>plane then tried to blame the seller for his poor questioning. His
>>assumptions were based on what he thought he heard and wanted to hear not
>
> on
>
>>what the seller said. Jim Weir hit the nail squarely on the head on this
>>one.
>
>
> Yup...Caveat Emptor.
>
> Likewise a car need not be roadworthy, or a building be inhabitable...and
> it's the buyers responsibility to find out.

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.

[G.R. Patterson III]

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
> But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
> by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
> vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
> standard applies to airplanes.
>
> Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
> voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
> problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Robert M. Gary]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote in message >...
> But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
> by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
> vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
> standard applies to airplanes.
>
> Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
> voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
> problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
>
> So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
> building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
> legality.


Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
have to be responsible for actually figuring out if something we buy
is good. Its good to know the gov't is willing to do all that for me.
I really, really hate it when I have to think. Just like I know its
safe to fly the J-3 into icing conditions because it doesn't say not
to. I know the gov't wouldn't let me hurt myself. In the mean time
I'll continue to let my 8 year old taxi the plane around by himself. I
know its safe, I checked the FARs.

-Robert

[Juan Jimenez]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
:

> And how would they determine that?

If I have to explain that to you you shouldn't be in this thread in the
first place.

> How did he "misrepresent" it?

And I if I have to teach you to read as well, you should reconsider your
decision to be doing anything at all on Usenet.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in news:PaKBc.100$wd7.41167
@news.uswest.net:

> Well put bull ****.
>
> No wonder you get taken.

I got taken to a very nice restaurant this weekend. Your taste in food is
not something I share.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:57:37 +0000, Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> >>> What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for
>> >> a purpose"?
>> >
>> > Really? On what planet, Tom?
>
> This one. What planets version of "value" (which determines price) are
> YOU using? Kalifornia's?

Ah, so now you backpedal like there's no tomorrow and change your tune from
"price" to "value". Ok, fine. What does "value" have to do with
"airworthiness"?

<chuckle> <someone pass the popcorn>

[Juan Jimenez]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
gy.com:

> If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy.
> Nowhere did the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy.
> His post sounded to me like he seriously failed in his questioning
> before looking at the plane then tried to blame the seller for his
> poor questioning. His assumptions were based on what he thought he
> heard and wanted to hear not on what the seller said. Jim Weir hit
> the nail squarely on the head on this one.

Weir wasn't even in the building, let alone close to the nail.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote in message >...
>
>>But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
>>by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
>>vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
>>standard applies to airplanes.
>>
>>Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
>>voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
>>problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
>>
>>So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
>>building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
>>legality.
>
>
>
> Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
> [over the top sarcasm snipped]
>

Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
volunteering the info that it had received major repairs. Apparently a
lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it. Someone
else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
disclosure, so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
any buyer anything" argument.

[xyzzy]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
>>But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
>>by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
>>vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
>>standard applies to airplanes.
>>
>>Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
>>voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
>>problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
>
>
> None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.

According to the Rogue's Gallery page you live in New Jersey.

Less than 5 minutes with Google yields the following info about New Jersey:

C. Disclosure of Body Damage

N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.7 entitled unlawful advertising practices makes
unlawful:

"The failure to disclose that the motor vehicle had been previously
damaged and that substantial repair or body work had been performed on
it when such prior repair or body work is know or should have been known
by the advertiser; for the purposes of this subsection, "substantial
repair or body work" shall mean repair or body work having a retail
value of $1,000 or more.";

[Tom Sixkiller]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
> >>by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
> >>vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
> >>standard applies to airplanes.
> >>
> >>Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
> >>voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
> >>problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
> >>
> >>So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
> >>building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
> >>legality.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
> > [over the top sarcasm snipped]
> >
>
> Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
> that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
> volunteering the info that it had received major repairs.

That's a part of the maintenance record.

>Apparently a
> lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
> their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it.

It is. It's called Caveat Emptor.

>Someone
> else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
> it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
> to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
> it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
> disclosure,

Only with ignorant people who've probably screwed up themselves by their own
ignorance.

> so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
> mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
> any buyer anything" argument.

And when the seller doesn't know, or doesn't think it's relevant, then he's
liable. And the seller continues with his head up his ass.

Ever see those jokes such as not using the hair dryer in the shower? Now you
know the source of that mentality.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> >
> > TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> >
> >>But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
> >>by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
> >>vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
> >>standard applies to airplanes.
> >>
> >>Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
> >>voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
> >>problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
> >
> >
> > None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.
>
> According to the Rogue's Gallery page you live in New Jersey.
>
> Less than 5 minutes with Google yields the following info about New
Jersey:
>
> C. Disclosure of Body Damage
>
> N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.7 entitled unlawful advertising practices makes
> unlawful:
>
> "The failure to disclose that the motor vehicle had been previously
> damaged and that substantial repair or body work had been performed on
> it when such prior repair or body work is know or should have been known
> by the advertiser; for the purposes of this subsection, "substantial
> repair or body work" shall mean repair or body work having a retail
> value of $1,000 or more.";
>
That would be 25% of how much?

[G.R. Patterson III]

xyzzy wrote:
>
> N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.7 entitled unlawful advertising practices makes
> unlawful:

Applies only to dealers. Private sellers are not required to disclose anything.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
> Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
> that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
> volunteering the info that it had received major repairs. Apparently a
> lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
> their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it.

That information should be in the logs. If it's not logged, I would agree that the
seller's actions are immoral. I do not feel that the seller has a moral obligation to
volunteer anything other than offering the logbooks for inpection and truthfully
answering any questions the shopper asks.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Dave Stadt]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
> >>by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
> >>vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
> >>standard applies to airplanes.
> >>
> >>Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
> >>voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
> >>problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
> >>
> >>So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
> >>building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
> >>legality.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
> > [over the top sarcasm snipped]
> >
>
> Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
> that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
> volunteering the info that it had received major repairs. Apparently a
> lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
> their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it. Someone
> else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
> it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
> to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
> it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
> disclosure, so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
> mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
> any buyer anything" argument.
>

And we all know that laws fix everything. The more laws the better off
everybody is. Not. My guess is the buyer in those states with the
disclosure laws are ripped off at the same rate as buyers in states without
the laws. In fact in many cases such laws generate legal loop holes that
have the exact opposite effect of the original intention of the law.

If someone doesn't know to ask the right questions it is their fault. If
you don't know the rules, don't play the game. Especially if you can't
afford to lose.

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Ever buy something custom made?

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As it related to
the items I mentioned, none were custom items. In fact, IIRC, according
to the press, Congresional hearings, and military people which were
interviewed, nothing was custom about them. In fact, it was mentioned
many times that any hardware store could of provided the items at a proper
price.

>
> If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
> might be worth $900.

Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.

>
> Do you know WHY the military had to pay $600 for hammers and why they
> could not get them at Ace Hardware.

According to everything I ever read about the subject, there never was a
single reason to support those prices, aside from simply attempting to
steal from Peter to pay Paul. Feel free to correct as needed

> Evidently, terminology is foreign to you.

Doubtful.

>
> What does the term "price" mean to you (other than what TV advertising
> says).

Oh shesh. I shutter anytime I hear this. As if it actually answers
anything. You said, "Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of
'suitability for a purpose'." The problem is, it isn't. Price is a
measure of what the market is willing to bare for an item and often has
nothing to do with suitability or quality. Such statements also blindly
ignore the human condition, which is blindly open to manipulation by
marketing and sheer stupidity or ignorance.

The reason I poked fun is because you seem to give the impression that the
more you pay for something, with no exception, will always be better than
anything for which you can pay less. In otherwords, if I take two
identical planes, and raise the price 10% on one, you gave me the
impression that you think the higher priced of the two is
automatically better.


Cheers,

Greg

[Matt Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
>>But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
>>by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
>>vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
>>standard applies to airplanes.
>>
>>Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
>>voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
>>problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.
>
>
> None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.
>
> George Patterson
> None of us is as dumb as all of us.

I had to do this when I sold my house in PA a few years ago and I
believe it is required across the border in NY as well.


Matt

[Richard Lamb]

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > Ever buy something custom made?
>
> Yes, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As it related to
> the items I mentioned, none were custom items. In fact, IIRC, according
> to the press, Congresional hearings, and military people which were
> interviewed, nothing was custom about them. In fact, it was mentioned
> many times that any hardware store could of provided the items at a proper
> price.
>
> >
> > If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
> > might be worth $900.
>
> Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.
>
> >
> > Do you know WHY the military had to pay $600 for hammers and why they
> > could not get them at Ace Hardware.
>
> According to everything I ever read about the subject, there never was a
> single reason to support those prices, aside from simply attempting to
> steal from Peter to pay Paul. Feel free to correct as needed
>
> > Evidently, terminology is foreign to you.
>
> Doubtful.
>
> >
> > What does the term "price" mean to you (other than what TV advertising
> > says).
>
> Oh shesh. I shutter anytime I hear this. As if it actually answers
> anything. You said, "Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of
> 'suitability for a purpose'." The problem is, it isn't. Price is a
> measure of what the market is willing to bare for an item and often has
> nothing to do with suitability or quality. Such statements also blindly
> ignore the human condition, which is blindly open to manipulation by
> marketing and sheer stupidity or ignorance.
>
> The reason I poked fun is because you seem to give the impression that the
> more you pay for something, with no exception, will always be better than
> anything for which you can pay less. In otherwords, if I take two
> identical planes, and raise the price 10% on one, you gave me the
> impression that you think the higher priced of the two is
> automatically better.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg


The True Value hardware would work fine - IF it met the required specs.

Therein lies the rub.

[Rich S.]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> The reason I poked fun is because you seem to give the impression that the
> more you pay for something, with no exception, will always be better than
> anything for which you can pay less. In otherwords, if I take two
> identical planes, and raise the price 10% on one, you gave me the
> impression that you think the higher priced of the two is
> automatically better.

But Greg. . . . "If it saves the life of just ONE child, it's worth it".

:o)

Rich S.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >
> > If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
> > might be worth $900.
>
> Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.

With comprehension skills like that, I can see why you need someone to hold
your hand.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Rich S." wrote:
>
> But Greg. . . . "If it saves the life of just ONE child, it's worth it".

Even if it costs the life of several other people?

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I had to do this when I sold my house in PA a few years ago and I
> believe it is required across the border in NY as well.

Perhaps so, but I did not have to do this when I sold my house in New Jersey a few
years ago.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Snowbird]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote in message >...
> But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
> by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
> vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
> standard applies to airplanes.

I don't know what 'people' think, but if the accident damage was not
"disclosed", how did the original poster find out about it?

What I think you're missing is the issue doesn't seem to be one
of not disclosing major damage. The issue is when and how it was
disclosed. The seller didn't volunteer the information on the
phone. The buyer either found out from the maintenance records
or was told when he looked at the plane/asked questions.

Those laws in your state require you to burble out every negative
thing/"whole laundry list of problems" to everyone who calls
and expresses interest in your car/building, before they even
come look? Even if they don't ask?

Suppose I have a car which was rear-ended. It was properly repaired
by a reputable shop, drives perfectly, and there's no way to tell by
looking at it. On the phone, you don't ask me if it's ever been in
an accident and I don't volunteer the info. You come, look at my car,
drive it. I say "it was rear-ended in '99 and repaired by XXX" (or maybe
I offer you a written document which provides this information and give
you a chance to read it) You either make me an offer or go away at
that point.

Is that unethical? Is that against the disclosure laws in your state?

> So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
> building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
> legality.

How so? Are you saying the laws in your state require you to volunteer
every negative piece of information you have about an item you're selling,
to everyone who calls or emails you? Or even in your state, are you just
required to disclose it at some point before the potential purchaser
makes an offer?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Rich S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Rich S." wrote:
> >
> > But Greg. . . . "If it saves the life of just ONE child, it's worth it".
>
> Even if it costs the life of several other people?
>
> George Patterson
> None of us is as dumb as all of us.

And the freedom of a nation!

Rich "motorcycle helmets for everyone, all the time" S.

Sorry, just ignore me. I'm having a Transportation Safety Administration
reaction.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:55:45 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
>> > might be worth $900.
>>
>> Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.
>
> With comprehension skills like that, I can see why you need someone to hold
> your hand.

Just lost complete respect for you. You're talking about my comprehension
skills yet look at what you wrote. Does not speak well for your character
or your comprehension skills. Very sad Tom. Interesting that you
ignored the rest of the post. But hey, I think you said all that needed
to be said anyways. I guess we have one less name of people here that can
actually support their viewpoint.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:16:00 -0700, Rich S. wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The reason I poked fun is because you seem to give the impression that the
>> more you pay for something, with no exception, will always be better than
>> anything for which you can pay less. In otherwords, if I take two
>> identical planes, and raise the price 10% on one, you gave me the
>> impression that you think the higher priced of the two is
>> automatically better.
>
> But Greg. . . . "If it saves the life of just ONE child, it's worth it".
>
> :o)
>
> Rich S.


LOL! That's a good one. Thanks. I needed that after reading Tom's
pethetic reply.

Cheers!

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:11:28 +0000, Richard Lamb wrote:

> Greg Copeland wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> >
>> > Ever buy something custom made?
>>
>> Yes, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As it related to
>> the items I mentioned, none were custom items. In fact, IIRC, according
>> to the press, Congresional hearings, and military people which were
>> interviewed, nothing was custom about them. In fact, it was mentioned
>> many times that any hardware store could of provided the items at a proper
>> price.
>>
>> >
>> > If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
>> > might be worth $900.
>>
>> Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.
>>
>> >
>> > Do you know WHY the military had to pay $600 for hammers and why they
>> > could not get them at Ace Hardware.
>>
>> According to everything I ever read about the subject, there never was a
>> single reason to support those prices, aside from simply attempting to
>> steal from Peter to pay Paul. Feel free to correct as needed
>>
>> > Evidently, terminology is foreign to you.
>>
>> Doubtful.
>>
>> >
>> > What does the term "price" mean to you (other than what TV advertising
>> > says).
>>
>> Oh shesh. I shutter anytime I hear this. As if it actually answers
>> anything. You said, "Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of
>> 'suitability for a purpose'." The problem is, it isn't. Price is a
>> measure of what the market is willing to bare for an item and often has
>> nothing to do with suitability or quality. Such statements also blindly
>> ignore the human condition, which is blindly open to manipulation by
>> marketing and sheer stupidity or ignorance.
>>
>> The reason I poked fun is because you seem to give the impression that the
>> more you pay for something, with no exception, will always be better than
>> anything for which you can pay less. In otherwords, if I take two
>> identical planes, and raise the price 10% on one, you gave me the
>> impression that you think the higher priced of the two is
>> automatically better.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Greg
>
>
> The True Value hardware would work fine - IF it met the required specs.
>
> Therein lies the rub.

According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would of
met the specs. Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off. As
I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were being
scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
seats at that.

Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.

Seriously, you don't have to look that hard to see that Tom gets screwed
in just about every deal he makes.

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
Greg Copeland > wrote:

> According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would of
> met the specs. Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
> you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off. As
> I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
> like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
> specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
> extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were being
> scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
> seats at that.
>
> Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
> scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
> they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
> would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.
>
> Seriously, you don't have to look that hard to see that Tom gets screwed
> in just about every deal he makes.

The problem with this discussion is that it is on specific items. The
entire bid has to be considered to get the $900 hammer in perspective.
Often there will be thousands of items in the bid, many of which will be
in the hundreds of thousands if not millions per item. Weeks will be
spent getting the price down on the more expensive items and then the
cheaper items will be used to tweak the total bid.

The price of small items pale into insignificance when the total bids
are compared.

LG

[Jim Carter]

George,
These disclosures are also required by law here in Arkansas. We just
sold our home and moved across town so my experience is very recent. Things
like death events, mold abatement actions, and myriad other similar issues
have to be disclosed on the buyers declaration form now.

--
Jim Carter

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:55:45 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
> >> > might be worth $900.
> >>
> >> Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.
> >
> > With comprehension skills like that, I can see why you need someone to
hold
> > your hand.
>
> Just lost complete respect for you.


Don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining. You're completely full of
**** and ignorant to boot. Your understanding of law and economics in
virtually nil. Then you stick your foot in your mouth to back a point.

You're not worth the time I've already invested in this and I don't worry
about editing pieces written for punks like you.

[Tom Sixkiller]

> In article >,
> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
> > According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would
of
> > met the specs.

Well that explains it. When you learn a bit about hammers that have to be
made of special metals, then you can shoot your n=mouth off instead on
constinually indicting your scholboy ignorance and naivete.


> Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
> > you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off.
As
> > I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
> > like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
> > specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
> > extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were
being
> > scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
> > seats at that.
> >
> > Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
> > scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
> > they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
> > would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.

Yup, they changed the specs back to a ferrous metal (which one exactly I
don't recall)...which is material that the airlines can't use.

Keep shoving your foot in deeper, punk.

PLONK

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> George,
> These disclosures are also required by law here in Arkansas. We just
> sold our home and moved across town so my experience is very recent.
Things
> like death events, mold abatement actions, and myriad other similar issues
> have to be disclosed on the buyers declaration form now.
>

What if the seller is the one who died?

[Richard Lamb]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> You're not worth the time I've already invested in this and I don't worry
> about editing pieces written for punks like you.


Uhh, for what it's worth, Tom, I counted three 'punk' references
this morning. Was 'Dirty Harry' on TV last night?

Richard

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > You're not worth the time I've already invested in this and I don't
worry
> > about editing pieces written for punks like you.
>
>
> Uhh, for what it's worth, Tom, I counted three 'punk' references
> this morning. Was 'Dirty Harry' on TV last night?

TBS, probably.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:24:00 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:55:45 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
>> >> > might be worth $900.
>> >>
>> >> Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.
>> >
>> > With comprehension skills like that, I can see why you need someone to
> hold
>> > your hand.
>>
>> Just lost complete respect for you.
>
>
> Don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining. You're completely full of
> **** and ignorant to boot. Your understanding of law and economics in
> virtually nil. Then you stick your foot in your mouth to back a point.
>

Brillant! You **** down your own back, declare it's raining, and then
blame me because I told you what you're doing. That's sad.

Again, you simply insult and avoid answering the questions. That speaks
clear and loud. Especially since this thread started out rather light
hearted. Yet, according to you, I don't know anything because I'm not
willing to get ripped off. Well supported argument.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:28:01 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>
>> In article >,
>> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>>
>> > According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would
> of
>> > met the specs.
>
> Well that explains it. When you learn a bit about hammers that have to be
> made of special metals, then you can shoot your n=mouth off instead on
> constinually indicting your scholboy ignorance and naivete.
>
>
>> Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
>> > you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off.
> As
>> > I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
>> > like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
>> > specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
>> > extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were
> being
>> > scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
>> > seats at that.
>> >
>> > Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
>> > scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
>> > they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
>> > would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.
>
> Yup, they changed the specs back to a ferrous metal (which one exactly I
> don't recall)...which is material that the airlines can't use.
>
> Keep shoving your foot in deeper, punk.
>
> PLONK

Wow. What a jackass! I noticed, yet again, you completed dodged
answering any of the questions. I love how you stand proudly and show
your true character. Believe me, we're all happy to nudge and wink at
each other and let you stand there.

Oh wait. One has to have a PhD in economics to figure out if they are
getting a bad deal. Nope, sure wouldn't want to talk about it. Nope,
it's much easier to yell, insult, and stress what kind of jackass you are,
without even being provoked. In second thought, I'm sure you're right. I'm
sure you always get what you pay for. Please, let me know where you are
able to shop, such that you're not buying from humans. Please. I'm ready
to get my best deals on everything too.

You just got to love the egotistical stroking and posturing that is Mr.
Sixkiller. After all, we all know the human condition doesn't exist.
It's a myth after all.

I bow to your greatness.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:37:25 -0600, Legrande Harris wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
>> According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would of
>> met the specs. Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
>> you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off. As
>> I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
>> like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
>> specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
>> extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were being
>> scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
>> seats at that.
>>
>> Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
>> scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
>> they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
>> would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.
>>
>> Seriously, you don't have to look that hard to see that Tom gets screwed
>> in just about every deal he makes.
>
> The problem with this discussion is that it is on specific items. The
> entire bid has to be considered to get the $900 hammer in perspective.
> Often there will be thousands of items in the bid, many of which will be
> in the hundreds of thousands if not millions per item. Weeks will be
> spent getting the price down on the more expensive items and then the
> cheaper items will be used to tweak the total bid.
>
> The price of small items pale into insignificance when the total bids
> are compared.
>
> LG

The real problem with this is that it's really a tangent to the topic
at hand. The details are really not what's important. The reason I felt
it was germane to the topic is that it highlighted that you don't always
get what you paid for and quality and price often have little to do with
each other. Worse, his credo completely ignores the human
condition, as I originally pointed out. Which, both contradict Mr.
Sixkiller's position. In otherwords, you don't have to look far to find
that his credo of, "you get what you pay for" (or whatever it was), does
not even make for a good rule of thumb, let alone always true.

But, he'd rather start ad homin (lol...punk....lol) attacks and push out
his chest than support his view point. Clearly, in his mind, no one has
the right to question him. After all, he knows more than anyone here, and
his ego isn't about to let him forget that. Of course, there is that
little pesky thing known as reality that I guess the rest of us live in,
but that sure is not going to get past his ego.

Summary of What We Learned:
I'm a punk and he always gets the best by paying top dollar.

Nuff said. I think we all understand were each stands.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George,
>> These disclosures are also required by law here in Arkansas. We just
>>sold our home and moved across town so my experience is very recent.
>
> Things
>
>>like death events, mold abatement actions, and myriad other similar issues
>>have to be disclosed on the buyers declaration form now.
>>
>
>
> What if the seller is the one who died?
>

Then the fact that the seller is an estate instead of a person is
usually a tipoff.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
:

> That's a part of the maintenance record.

Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you think
that not disclosing important information about the history of an aircraft
to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do? Do you engage in this type
of behaviour when you sell aircraft, cars, or anything else that might
remotely fall under this category?

Over here, I am selling a BD-5J Microjet. Not only do I disclose the
history of the aircraft, which includes an in-transit damage issue that was
repaired by the original builder, I even post pictures of it on my website
for everyone to see. Just in case you're thinking about turning the
question around to me.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
> Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you think
> that not disclosing important information about the history of an aircraft
> to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?

No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as disclosure.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jim Weir]

I think I understand where both of you are coming from, and

NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOW HOW TO GODDAMN SNIP.


Jim
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >
> > Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you think
> > that not disclosing important information about the history of an
aircraft
> > to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?
>
> No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
disclosure.

Anything else is just your "opinion" regarding something being wrong.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOW HOW TO GODDAMN SNIP.

Says who?

[Jim Carter]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > ... do you think
> > that not disclosing important information about the history of an
aircraft
> > to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?
>
> No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
disclosure.
>

Kind of takes caveat emptor to a whole new level doesn't it?

--
Jim Carter

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > ... do you think
> > > that not disclosing important information about the history of an
> aircraft
> > > to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?
> >
> > No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
> disclosure.
> >
>
> Kind of takes caveat emptor to a whole new level doesn't it?
>
Yeah, a new LOW level.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in news:o5WCc.2862$531.143
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >
>> > ... do you think
>> > that not disclosing important information about the history of an
> aircraft
>> > to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?
>>
>> No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
> disclosure.
>>
>
> Kind of takes caveat emptor to a whole new level doesn't it?
>

<chuckle>

[Juan Jimenez]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
:

>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> >
>> > Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you
>> > think that not disclosing important information about the history
>> > of an
> aircraft
>> > to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?
>>
>> No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
> disclosure.
>
> Anything else is just your "opinion" regarding something being wrong.

What goes around, comes around, Tom. Remember that.