"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies

Wow, you guys... this takes the cake. I figured that a few of you
might bicker a little about what I said, but I could never have
imagined the silly flame war that ensued.

I guess I have a few more folks who dislike me than I had initially
counted. In my life, I have INDEED been at various times a horse's
ass, a buyer of un-airworthy airplanes, and a seller of unairworthy
planes. I've been a womanizer, a liar, a spoiled brat, a whining brat,
and an angry bitter jackass. I've had money to burn and I've clipped
coupons and I've spent money and I've lost money.

But one thing that I have NEVER done, is to turn my back on aviation
or my fellow pilots and owners. I have NEVER kept silent about
something important where my voice (even the voice of a spoiled brat)
could have made a difference. Some people can sit back and say that
it's all on the buyer, and that the seller has every right to just
keep quiet and let the buyer figure out everything for himself, and
screw the buyer if he gets taken. That is a very common mentality in
certain cultures outside of America and well outside of aviation.

For those of you who think that I was wrong, or whining, or crying or
whatever when I posted a warning, I have a couple of questions:

Do any of you understand that the existence of private aviation in
America in 2004 is put at real risk by every private airplane crash
that gets reported on the news? In an election year? That YOUR ability
to go flying on a nice day could easily be destroyed by one Cessna
crashing into a house on the other side of the country from you?

Do any of you understand that an average brand new private pilot with
150 hours would have every reason to believe that if he buys an
airplane with a current annual inspection signoff he has every reason
to think it is safe and airworthy? REGARDLESS OF THE ****ING DOLLAR
PRICE HE PAID???

Do any of you know the difference between a quickie 'pencil whip'
annual inspection on an airplane that there isn't anything seriously
wrong with, and a quickie 'pencil whip' annual on an airplane with
significant mechanical safety issues that need to be addressed before
the next flight?

For the record, there is a reason I said that I am not an IA or
A&P...because I am not one. However, I am fairly educated and have
been around long enough to know a little more than the average owner.
My reason for stating all that originally (and now) is that I
admitted that I did not have the measuring equipment or the license to
determine the exact state of legal airworthiness on that 175. That
being said, I saw several things on a CURSORY inspection that were of
serious concern to me, and that convinced me the airplane was less
than safe. All of the folks who posted negative comments about me or
my post ALSO did not address what I said in any real-world manner.

Even though I did not have the measuring tools or the license to use
them, I said that I knew damn well that Cessna did not build seat
rails with oval shaped holes. NOBODY said anything like "well, I think
Bill Berle is a jackass for XYZ reason, but yes, oval shaped seat rail
holes have KILLED more than one Cessna owner and that is certainly a
big tip-off that the plane might be less than safe."

We are in an economic recession, and used airplane prices have fallen
in some segments. People get desperate to sell for personal reasons.
People have the IRS clawing up their backside round about May or June.
Airplanes OFTEN get bought and sold at bargain prices, both projects
and showplanes.

When an IA mechanic inspector signs off an annual, that means the
airplane is presumed airworthy and within safe limits, even if the
owner wants to sell the plane for 50% of it's retail value a week
later. The IA does NOT have the right to say to the buyer "well, tough
****, you get what you pay for, anyone who thought that $25K would buy
you a really airworthy 175 is an idiot...caveat emptor and all that...
and my signature doesn't count unless you paid $50K for it anyway".

What seems to have been lost in all these intellectual giants' flaming
replies is that there was an airplane presented and advertised as
being flyable, safe, and in-annual. The airplane was at the very least
suspicious because of the results of a very informal cursory
inspection. Since I am NOT a licensed IA, I am NOT in a position to
numerically quantify the wear limits on seat rails, flap tracks,
control yoke play, and aileron circuit friction. However I am well
within my rights and ability to call it into question for IA's, FAA
inspectors, and other potential fraud victims to talk about. I even
told the guy that if the measurements showed it to be within limits I
would publish an apology. Nobody wanted to give me credit for that, I
guess.

Out of a personal dislike for me, my detractors seem to be overlooking
the most universally basic service that pilots and aviation people do
for each other... they look out for each other and always go over and
above what is minimally required, to help prevent an accident. Well,
MOST of us go over and above, Jim.

I have every legal right to stand by and watch some other pilot take
off with a control lock still installed. In my best "caveat emptor"
voice, I could tell the NTSB investigators that the pilot got what he
deserved, because he didn't follow the checklist and didn't do a
proper pre-flight, and that I haven't a care about his widowed wife
and kids. And that the pilot can further burn in hell because I don't
like him, and worse yet I found his tone of voice a little too
'whining' when he was talking about the preflight in the first place.
It appears that THIS is the same kind of logic some of the posters in
this thread would apply. None of you who hide behind that type of
logic are friends of aviation.

My intent was to make people aware of a
potentially...POTENTIALLY...unsafe airplane and a DEFINITELY sleazy
seller. I had to tone down and soften several things to protect myself
from a lawsuit. For the same reason, I had to remind everyone that I
am not legally licensed to say whether this airplane was airworthy,
which one poster took to mean I didn't know much about airplanes. I
know more about airplanes (and I honor our un-written agreement to
help each other) than some of the fish in these waters do.

I feel that I have done the right thing by calling people's attention
to this matter. I will do it again tomorrow or the next day. I am
disgusted that it appears some of you wouldn't do it, just because you
didn't have to.

As for the personal attacks or disparaging comments toward me, I can
live with that far better than I could live with myself if I just sat
back and said "caveat emptor" and allowed this type of behavior to go
un-addressed.

And as for Mr. Weir, I have no idea what I have ever done to earn his
disrespect. He read my original post, looked past all of the substance
and reasoning behind it, and then proclaimed that "all he saw" was a
spoiled brat or an amateur IA wannabee, or whatever. My question, Sir,
is how could you see anything if your view was blocked by the inner
lining of your colon?

Bill Berle
Los Angeles