PDA

View Full Version : Englishman buys death trap plane


mr Q
6th Oct 2003, 23:54
NI man in court over sale of plane
(UTV Online)

A man paid almost £18,000 for a plane only to discover it was a flying "death trap" a court heard today
Enniskillen Crown Court sitting in Dungannon heard that an Englishman gave 47-year-old Ian William Burrows £17,950 for the two-seater Kitfox MK4 plane in July 2001 after he was allegedley told it had never been damaged.

However, prosecution QC Andrew Donaldson told the jury of nine men and three women that when it was later examined by an engineer, he found that the plane had "suffered serious damage" and "wasn`t fit to be flown" even though no damage had been recorded in the aircrafts log book, a legal requirement for plane owners.

Burrows, from Dungannon Park on the Moy Road in Dungannon, denies two counts of acting in a manner likely to endanger the plane and people in it and failing to record details of damage or repair in the log book.

Alongside him in the dock is 66-year-old George Adams from Fairlough Road, also Dungannon who also denies two counts of acting in a manner likely to endanger the plane and any passengers and of failing to record damage in the log book.

Adams, a voluntary inspector with the Popular Flying Association, further denies issuing a flight release certificate without being satisfied that it was fit to be flown, with all charges dating between February and July 2001.

Opening the prosecution case to the jury, Mr Donaldson said that in February 2001, Burrows damaged the right wing and other parts of the plane when he was forced to make an emergency landing in a Co Armagh field but that the damage was not recorded in the plane`s logbook.

The lawyer said even though his insurance firm gave him over £11,000 to fix the damage and Burrows decided to fix it himself, "he did not fit a new wing".

Mr Donaldson told the court that on April 7 2001, Adams issued a flight release certificate for the plane, indicating that it was air worthy and fit to be flown.

However, he said that when the engineer examined the plane after it was sold he found "shoddy work" and that "the wing was in such a state that it could`ve disintegrated in flight and there`s only one place a plane can go and that is down".

Mr Donaldson said it was the prosecution case that "Mr Burrows either undertook the work himself and did it in a very shabby fashion or he got someone else to do it in very shabby and incompetent way and further more, Mr Adams, the inspector who was supposed to have checked that, said that it was fine but that simply could not be so".

Both Adams and Burrows gave statements concerning the condition of the plane with Burrows claiming the plane was safe when he sold it and further suggesting that the damage had been caused after he sold it.

Adams also maintained his innocence, claiming that he inspected the plane and was satisfied that it was air worthy.

"The prosecution case is that this was a bad and cheap job which should never have been approved and a man bought a plane that could well have proved to be a death trap," declared Mr Donaldson.

Monocock
7th Oct 2003, 02:22
I have no connection with Mr Adams OR Mr Burrows but I would like to say one thing.........

Before some of the righteous lot start giving their opinions of "cowboys" and how they "can't believe there are people like this about", lets not forget how many people ended up with large dollops of egg on their face when they gave their opinions on the "Seneca out of fuel in Shoreham" thread.

Look what happened there.:rolleyes:

Mr Burrows MIGHT be perfectly innocent and MIGHT be facing a disgruntled buyer who has connections in places that he hasn't.

Just wanted to say that before the slating started.......

Aussie Andy
7th Oct 2003, 02:50
Caveat emptor?

Flyin'Dutch'
7th Oct 2003, 02:54
Well spoken, MC!

FD

IO540
7th Oct 2003, 03:24
how many people ended up with large dollops of egg on their face when they gave their opinions on the "Seneca out of fuel in Shoreham" thread

Did they? As I understand it, all that trial showed was that relying on others' written records of fuel tank content constitutes a legally sufficient discharge of the PIC's responsibility to ensure he's got enough juice.

On this topic I would say that the first plane I learnt in (whose pre-flight check fortunately included looking under the engine cowling) was possibly just as dangerous. I reported the fault a number of times and the instructor wasn't too bothered.

dublinpilot
7th Oct 2003, 17:06
What sort of person hands over £18k for an airplane with out getting it checked by an engineer first? But then decided to get an engineer to check it afterwards?

I'm in no way sympathetic to someone selling a doggy plane as a perfectly good one, but as AA said "Caveat emptor"

I certainly wouldn't hand over that sort of money without getting it checked out first.

dp

ps. I haven't re-read the Seneca thread, but I don't remember too many people with egg on their faces either.... just a pilot who was very lucky to be alive, and very lucky to have his licence, due to very good legal representation.

ToryBoy
7th Oct 2003, 17:23
I think if you re-read the thread there were some remarkably opinionated views from people saying how irresponsible he was and that he would have the book thrown at him etc.

I think that's where MC's coming from.

Timothy
7th Oct 2003, 17:32
...it is worth remembering that a "not guilty" verdict simply means that the prosecutor has not met the burden of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" on the specific charge or summons laid.

It does not mean that the defendant is exonerated from any contribution to the incident.

W

niknak
7th Oct 2003, 22:35
This has been done in the past and will happen again, purely because some people are of the opinion that all other human beings are as honest and as genuine as they are.

Personally, I would never buy anything without either checking that is what it purports to be or having it thoroughly checked over by someone with the technical competence to assure me that it is.
That said, I've seen 10s of £1000s of pounds in cash, or a cheque, for aircraft and other items which are then immediately released, and it's never occured to the seller that the cash or cheque may not be genuine.

At least this gentleman will have some form of redress.

shortstripper
8th Oct 2003, 00:09
It's certainly an interesting case. Let's hope the appropriate expert witnesses are called to give opinion.

As I see it, the main "naughty" in my eyes is the lack of a record indicating that the damage had been done. The fact that the previous owner elected to fix it himself sounds to have been rather sensationalised. After all, this is common practice, and if the correct direction and inspection process is followed then it is perfectly legal. If the inspector then classed the aircraft as fit ( in full knowledge of the work undertaken ) then the legal aspect has been met. However, if the repair was carried out in secret the inspector may easily have missed the repair as he'd not necassarily go into the wing with a microscope. This would condemn the owner but not necassarily the inspector. Why would he have not detected the damage repair? Well, if say he'd done the permit the year before ( or even the initial build inspection )and was unaware of obvious damage at the latest inspection he'd have no reason to look in such depth. Before you say "but he should have", ask yourself how many times you hear of wooden airframes with loads of broken ribs ect that only become evident during a recover! A permit inspection is not a complete strip search of the aeroplane.

At worst they were both involved in passing on a dangerous aeroplane ... or as monocock points out, they may be victims of a disgruntled buyer. Lack of damage record does point toward some kind of cover up, I'm sure it will all come out in the wash .... in the meantime, open minds?

IM

IO540
8th Oct 2003, 06:32
As a general comment on undeclared repairs, I discussed this subject recently with a sizeable repair shop and they confirmed that the following is correct.

The service records for a plane of any age are usually dispersed. The original dealer will have some of it. Shops that have worked on it subsequently will have records of THEIR work. If some avionics shop does some they will have records of THEIR work.

But unless there is an entry in the aircraft/engine/propeller logbooks (those that have to stay with the plane) the buyer will have no direct way of knowing who has worked on it over the years.

Repair shops occassionally go bust, with records being lost. They might also be abroad.

So it would be quite easy to get major work done and get away with not mentioning it when the plane is later sold. Which is why an annual-equivalent inspection by an engineer familiar with the type is essential - the logbooks are unlikely to contain the full story.