On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:29:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.

Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.


The problem that developed and caused the engine failure may or may not
have been found by A&P. The log book entry would probably not have been
noticed in a hanger.

The point is though was that this was purchased from an A&P that was
building under the Exp-HB rules buy a buyer that thought that meant he
was getting a well constructed aircraft that had been properly built and
tested.

It's a significant expenditure, and demands due diligence of the
buyer, IMO. The buyer who fails to attempt to guard against being
defrauded in the situation you described shares some culpability, IMO.
This is the sort of caveat emptor that keeps Consumer Reports in
business.

Any aircraft buyer that uses the IA who signed off the last annual
inspection of the aircraft s/he is considering fails to appreciate the
potential conflict of interest. I see no reason that sort of prudence
shouldn't apply in a homebuilt context, especially if the buyer is
aware that the seller's moral character is suspect due to the
knowledge that they are both committing an act of fraud.