what would you do?

[biggles38]

I bought a R22 with a full annual with no problem advised. I used it to learn in clear fine weather and always hangared.
At 47 hours (ARC) the rotorblades were condemned by new engineer (and a few experts). The end plates were corroded on and the black line for inspection with 10x lens was in incorrect space. Several other defects found . Engineer says corrosion happened in 4 months in hangar!! and has ignored all claims. CFI and other expert witnesses say action should be taken. CAA inspector doing a M>O>R on the evidence. Anyone else had similar , any suggestions how to force the issue (except expensive legal action.)

[Savoia]

.
Did you commission a pre-purchase inspection on the craft prior to acquiring it?

If so, the person responsible for analysing the technical records should have observed whether there was anything related to the main rotors which may have warranted their detailed inspection. If no work was performed on the mrb's and it is, as you suggest, a matter of corrosion, the challenge becomes one of investigating whether the blades were suffering from this at the time of sale and whether the seller was aware of their condition.

Even if both of these (potential culpability on the part of the seller) can be established there are laws protecting the seller once you have accepted the aircraft through purchase.

A tenacious lawyer with the support of capable technical advisers might be able to lay claim (in court) to compensation if it can be proved that the seller was aware of the blade condition - ephasis on the might however.

Regarding achieving this inexpensively .. not unless you have access to a lawyer who will offer you pro-bono services (challenging for helicopter owners, even if the copter is small) or your wife/girlfriend happens to be a lawyer (although you would then suffer loss of income from the time spent on this case). You could represent yourself if you are prepared to read-up on the specific issues involved or hire a low-cost lawyer and work with him/her in a scenario where you perform much of the research, investigation and case-building yourself.

[vfr440]

B
As S has indicated the first (gentle) discussion must be with the engineer who carried out your pre-purchase inspection, and his report (you did have one done didn't you?), otherwise it really is, as S says, caveat emptor against the seller - and have a nice day with that one, it'll be protracted that's for certain. - VFR

[biggles38]

a predictable answer -- could well have been written by the guilty party who is hiding behind exactly these points. The sale was made to me (new to heli) by a company with good reputation -- and I was advised that an inspection was not necessary IF I HAD A FULL ANNUAL BEFORE PURCHASE.
The facts and evidence are still available, my FI and others are as angry as myself and we will continue to push to get some compensation (only asking for a contribution). If nothing else, the facts will be put on the internet so that others know the full story and can decide if thay want to check their situation if same engineer involved. I have taken advice on libel -- nothing but firm evidence will be shown. It seems only way to deal with this is to think in same way!

[biggles38]

I re-read yr message.

The annual specifically refers to the rotorblade inspection -- the wrong tool was used for the job and the corrosion was so bad 13 weeks later that the end plates could not be undone!(still available)
Are you really suggesting that caveat emptor should be the shield for such obvious shoddy (if at all ) work?? THose who have seen the evidence do not and are backing me.
There really should be some retribution against it as it could be dangerous-- a view from many people (experts) who have looked at it.
The CAA MOR would not be taking place if there was no problem!!
In the end, I believe I will get nothing from this engineer but I will (with backing of my FI and others) get satisfaction by telling others about it to avoid them going through such problems --OR WORSE.
The engineer has been told that I will publicise it, there maybe some reputational damage which he is obviously prepared for.
This is now principle, relatively little money involved (£5k)

[rjsquirrel]

The mechanic who signed off the annual screwed up, obviously. Two choices:
1) corner him, and tell him to help you fix the problem, using his labor to install and track the new blades, and support you for a reasonable time, as resititution. Work the cost per hour of his time, and the future work, so you split the cash outlay for the new blades. In the states, a good mechanic costs about $100 per hour, so if he installs the blades, helps you maintain the aircraft for a year (a few hours a month) and does one annual inspection, you are reimbursed 50% of the economic penalty. Swallow the half and chalk that up to the way helos are, and get him to work for you as a way to earn himself out of the hole he dug.
If he does not want to help:
2) prepare a fine dossier, photos, expert reports, factory teardowns, and fry him with the authorities. He deserves it.

[vfr440]

Yes, fully understand the rationale. But did you have an independant engineering survey, and attendant written report of the aircraft before you signed to purchase? Surely you did; and that gives an edge to any argument for negligence you may choose to proffer against either or both the seller and engineer. If not then it is a busted flush I fear. Would you buy a 2nd hand car from someone (as a private sale as I suspect this is) without an inspection, just because it has a new MOT? No, I thought not. - VFR

[John R81]

First, sorry for your predicament - first purchase is always difficult. However, I think that you were badly advised to act as you have.



One way of looking at this is that you chose to save money by not having an inspection, and this has come back to haunt you.

The purpose of the inspection that you didn't buy is to see if the machine has any faults that would affect the value that you might pay. Had you taken that option, then the engineer performing the survey knows and accepts that he has a duty of care to you for that very transaction, and that he may be liable for any loss you suffered in that transaction through his lack of reasonable care / skill.

Based on an annual inspection, which is something entirely different, you took a gamble and it seems that it didn't pay-off.

Whether the engineer who performed the annual missed something or not, I don't see his potential exposure to you as being any more in value than the cost of the annual, or more likely part of that cost. Can you show that the condition of the blades at the time of the annual was such that the annual should not have been granted? If you can then the cost of the blade inspection should be refunded as the test was not properly carried out. In addition, as it is a safety related matter, you may be able to raise this with the CAA; given this error should this person have the ability to sign-off a machine as fit for flight?

You did not pay this engineer to take on the risk of advising you for the purpose of underwriting the value of the machine for purchase. You chose to rely on the annual for something that it was not. I don't see any UK court holding the engineer liable for your consequential loss. I would anticipate that the court would see significance in your avoiding the cost of the pre-purchase survey if you asked them to consider the matter.

Seems to me that you are now trying to strong-arm compensation from the engineer based on a risk that you didn't pay him to take on. I don't see that as fair.

[toptobottom]

biggles38

You won't win. Don't waste a load on money and time (and stress) on an issue that you need to put down to experience. Sorry to be blunt, but this is a clear 'caveat emptor' case. ALWAYS have an aircraft professionally and thoroughly surveyed before purchase - there are no short cuts. 'Going public' will only double your loss (if you're lucky) and cause even more stress.

[biggles38]

everyone says he deserves it-- and pilots should know what he does.....
It will cost nothing to me, no stress, maybe his reputation we all hope.

[biggles38]

understand the arguments -- I heard them from engineer, YES the evidence has been looked at by experts (and the CAA-- thats the basis for their MOR)

The engineer is hanging behind the arguments.

I will expose him fully (after the outcome of the MOR is revealed)

The blades are still in storage at new engineers and available for inspection.The guilty engineer has never even bothered to look (and only a letter of refute after 7 months!)

The general opinion is that he should be responsible for the blades at least (there were other smaller problems which should have been dealt with)

[biggles38]

I have been in aviation for 35 years. We have to trust the engineers-- our lives depend on them!. This one is answerable for not doing the annual properly (he admits that he used the wrong tool to check the blades-- he doesnt admit that he didn`t do the job properly -- maybe the MOR will convince him.
Yes I would buy a car with an MOT from a trusted engineer.

[biggles38]

thanks yr message... someone who understands...

I tried 1/ (he ignored me completely for 7 months then denied everything)

I am doing exactly that in 2/ The CAA are doing an MOR, and I will publicise that when complete together with the other evidence.

All pilots who have seen it say he deserves it...
Thanks

[vfr440]

TTB
Methinks we have someone here who isn't listening. As my Father said (on many occasion "None so deaf as those who don't want to hear". C'est la vie -VFR

[biggles38]

thanks VFR Not sure who you suggest is not listening...
The engineer is listening but ignoring the situation and hiding behind the C.E. and other things.
I (and my fellow pilots) ARE listening and getting more support to deal with this organisation . None of my friends will fly a machine" serviced" by this man.
Would you??
I may not get anywhere with compensation but I will continue and do everything to stop him putting others in future in similar situation.
We will see after MOR (it is probable that this is not the only investigation he is under -- from feedback)

[Helinut]

I think you need to look very carefully at the situation: I doubt that you will.

If I understand the situation you have no contractual relationship with this engineer at all. This limits any action you might choose to take against him.

I am not sure that your post tells us the necessary detail (and I really don't want to ask), but did this engineer directly render the blades defective? Did he damage them himself? Or arguably, did he just miss some pre-existing damage or defect in the annual inspection he did, or even not do a check properly?

If I read this correctly, the blades had some defect. He did not record this when he did the annual for someone else. He may have even not done the annual properly. BUT, he owes you no duty in law to do that. The blade was damaged/defective before he looked at it: he did nothing to make it worse. You did not contract (and pay him) him to do anything for you.

AS others have said, You should ALWAYS have a survey done pre-purchase by an engineer and agree what that survey will include and NOT include.

[biggles38]

I accept all your points , I have heard them from the engineer (after 7 months of silence)
The blades were advised as "near perfect" to me.
The engineer did an annual which involves a specific check-- ie to mark the blades with an R22 tool and inspect with 10x lens for corrosion/deformation.

The annual report I was given was that the aircraft was fine.
13 weeks later (after flying only in dry conditions and hangared , the blades were condemned due to deformation. The end plate scews were so corroded that they could not be undone. The mark for inspection was not done with R22 template (wrong place)

The engineer does not refute that, he says it was an error but he inspected the correct area, and the corrosion occurred in those 13 weeks.
None of the experts believe it and with a few other details which became apparent, the CAA have instigated a MOR (so they don`t believe it either.)

I was so scared of what else could have been missed that I spent £17k + having it fully checked/repaired.

I am asking engineer for £5k contribution .......
If he doesn`t respond, I will shortly publicise the evidence (and the result of the MOR)

Of course the legal system can protect him from my claim--- but there are a lot of people who have seen this who are urging me to go ahead with this action to prevent this rogue doing it again.

Its his reputation -- and hopefully he will learn lesson.

[Helinut]

You're not taking any notice of what anyone posts.

Clearly you have decided what you think is right. You are using language and words to try and make some of the "facts" you mention fit your view of things.

You have also decided what you are going to do. Apart from advertising your intentions on PPRUNE, I am not sure what you want from PPRUNE and its posters?

[biggles38]

I`m sure the man is reading (and maybe replying to ) these threads
I hope he will reconsider and contact me and settle before too late.
If not, I am advising him that I will not just go away, and he should consider the ramifications.
I have big support from others -- very little support (except from you and one other for his actions!)

[Senior Pilot]

any suggestions how to force the issue (except expensive legal action.)

I am asking engineer for £5k contribution .......
If he doesn`t respond, I will shortly publicise the evidence (and the result of the MOR)

biggles38, you have had lots of advice, most of which you seem determined to ignore.

Having signed up to PPRuNe only 12 days ago, it appears that you are under some sort of impression that Rotorheads is a forum where you can 'out' an engineer because you disagree with his professional servicing of your aircraft. Indeed, you appear to be using the threat of naming the engineer here and/or elsewhere in order to achieve your own ends. Rest assured, this will not happen here on Rotorheads :=

[Coconutty]

As has been mentioned, you didn't have a contract with or employ the engineer yourself,
so if you have any comeback at all, shouldn't your claim be against the SELLER,
for selling you a machine that is "not as advertised" ?

Any issue with the mechanic and his inspection / service would then be one for the seller that employed him ?

Oh, and with regards to :
the CAA have instigated a MOR (so they don`t believe it eitherFor your own sake, and so as not jeopardise your situation, I would be very careful about publicly stating what someone else - i.e. the CAA,
believes or doesn't believe - that is for them to state - when they publish the result of any investigation, not for you !

CAP382 :
The objective of the MOR Scheme is to contribute to the improvement of flight
safety by ensuring that relevant information on safety is reported, collected, stored,
protected and disseminated. The sole objective of occurrence reporting is the
prevention of accidents and incidents and not to attribute blame or liability.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[biggles38]

OK understood. No problem. apologies

[Coriolis]

Biggles,

While I do sympathise with your situation (and fwiw, agree mainly with the caveat emptor advice given by others), I'd simply like to caution you not to build up any big hopes that an MOR (whether raised by CAA or anyone else) will do anything at all to help (although it won't do any harm either)

There is a common misconception that an MOR will trigger a full investigation into an event and guns willl be brought to bear on the 'culprit', when in reality all that happens in 99% of cases is that they appear in the monthly digest (now only online for one month, then disappear into obscurity) with a 'closed on receipt' comment.

The likelyhood is that the report is simply added to the ever-growing database of events, and whoever is involved may have to answer a few gentle questions from CAA the next time they meet - the clue is in the title 'Mandatory Occurrence Report', not Investigation

If you feel strongly enough to pursue this, you'll need bigger guns than the 'threat' of an MOR, sorry...

[biggles38]

Thanks for all your views. I am not taking this any further on PPrune.

I will continue elsewhere....

Thanks again

[vfr440]

Biggles
You may no longer be monitoring this thread, but I thought the following extract from CAA's GASIL, Iss 7, July 2011 is VERY pertinent and reflects the advice I, and several others, have given you. Here it is

"
Caveat Emptor
We have in the past advised anyone who wishes to purchase a second-hand aircraft to ensure that they have the potential purchase checked out by a qualified engineer before parting with cash. We also advise that at an early stage in the proceedings the intending purchaser consults G-INFO and the CAA’s Aircraft Registration Section to ensure the advertiser really does own the aircraft and that no outstanding mortgage exists.

Fortunately for a Canadian would-be helicopter owner, he did exactly that, even though he had been shown what appeared to be the UK Certificate of Registration. He was therefore able to avoid a scam which wanted him to pay a deposit for a helicopter which belonged to someone else, who had no intention of selling it and no knowledge of the advertisement! The Certificate was a forgery.

This is apparently not the only instance of someone advertising an aircraft for sale without being the legal owner. If you are tempted by an advertisement, beware and make careful checks before parting with any money."

So there you go, wisdom echoed by CAA no less. Put it all down to experience :D - VFR