BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 17:40

Ok, I was under the impression that you were still leasing/flying it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 17:50

Username Protected wrote:

Ok, I was under the impression that you were still leasing/flying it.

Nope. That would be against the FARs. We discovered the issue after 3 days. I never flew it after that.

Spent a year hiring a lawyer (Drew Coats) and building our case. Depositions are up next. $100k to litigate. But the head honcho would pay if he loses. His case is the aircraft was legal because the HSI was not mantory. Therefore, I was unreasonable to not want to fly it. Hence the $25k was effectively an early lease termination fee.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 17:52

Username Protected wrote:

Ok, I was under the impression that you were still leasing/flying it.

Nope. That would be against the FARs. We discovered the issue after 3 days. I never flew it after that.

Spent a year hiring a lawyer (Drew Coats) and building our case. Depositions are up next. $100k to litigate. But the head honcho would pay if he loses. His case is the aircraft was legal because the HSI was not mantory. Therefore, I was unreasonable to not want to fly it. Hence the $25k was effectively an early lease termination fee.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 18:01

His company provided an unairworthy aircraft and repped it as airworthy. When we discovered it to be unairworthy he picked the aircraft up and kept the money. His claim is HSI are recommended not mandatory so I was wrong to say the aircraft wasn't airworthy.

His lawyer actually wrote a letter saying that since the aircraft actually flew when they came to retrieve it then it had to be airworthy. The inference being as long as it can physically fly it must be airworthy. Huh?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 18:18

Username Protected wrote:

His company provided an unairworthy aircraft and repped it as airworthy. When we discovered it to be unairworthy he picked the aircraft up and kept the money. His claim is HSI are recommended not mandatory so I was wrong to say the aircraft wasn't airworthy.

His lawyer actually wrote a letter saying that since the aircraft actually flew when they came to retrieve it then it had to be airworthy. The inference being as long as it can physically fly it must be airworthy. Huh?

I don't see how you could lose if it goes to court.

He is an idiot for not settling this with you out of court.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 18:18

Username Protected wrote:

So, a “mandatory” Service Bulletin could be part of your current inspection program if, at the time that you adopted the program (that is, when you purchased your aircraft) any Service Bulletin(s) that contain inspection requirements are included, whether they appear directly in the program or are incorporated into it by reference.

Note the highlight.

You only have to do the INSPECTION part of the SB.

Also note that an airplane owned by person #1 can be completely legal and airworthy in their possession but the moment person #2 buys that airplane, it becomes immediately unairworthy due to the immediate requirement to select an inspection program *current* at the moment of purchase.

Thus a seller CAN sell an airworthy airplane, and a buyer CAN buy an unairworthy airplane, and it is the same exact plane.

This situation is absolutely unreasonable and needs to be fixed. An airplane does not become unairworthy just because papers were signed.

Mike C.

A further wrinkle is when you dry lease an aircraft you become the operator. As the operator with a dry lease you need your own LOAs such as RVSM and MEL. What is the "current inspection program" the dry lessor must follow? The one the lessee was following or the one current at the time the dry lease was established?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 18:35

Username Protected wrote:

His lawyer actually wrote a letter saying that since the aircraft actually flew when they came to retrieve it then it had to be airworthy. The inference being as long as it can physically fly it must be airworthy. Huh?

I have seen that argument made before the NTSB multiple times. And each time it is a looser and suggests a profound ignorance of the FARs.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 18:45

Sierra has a Citation II for sale that matches your description, over HSI by 25 hours or so.

If they are indeed the ones you are talking about I find it unbelievable that they are taking the stance they are.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 19:50

Username Protected wrote:

Sierra has a Citation II for sale that matches your description, over HSI by 25 hours or so.

Generally, an HSI interval has a 100 hour grace period. If it is due, say, at 2000 hours, you can have it done anywhere from 1900 to 2100 and that counts as having done it at 2000.

At least, that has been so with the programs I have seen.

So things can be technically over the nominal HSI interval time, but still airworthy due to the grace period.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 20:01

May be a dumb question but isn't the responsibility for determining airworthiness ultimately on the operator (in this case Mark's PIC)? Does the "he (lessor) told me it was airworthy" argument really hold up in court?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 20:02

Username Protected wrote:

A further wrinkle is when you dry lease an aircraft you become the operator. As the operator with a dry lease you need your own LOAs such as RVSM and MEL. What is the "current inspection program" the dry lessor must follow? The one the lessee was following or the one current at the time the dry lease was established?

The regs actually define this somewhat. It says in 91.409(f):

The registered owner or operator of each airplane ... must select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use one of the following programs for the inspection of the aircraft:

I would take the "or" to be permissive in allowing the registered owner (the lessor) to select the program and thus the operator (the lessee) can follow it. Thus the program can be established at time of purchase by the owner and not changed with each change in operator who leases the airplane. It would be seemingly disadvantageous to have the operator chose the program since that would potentially increase requirements based on recent program changes.

Another wrinkle: have the aircraft owned by an LLC that holds only that aircraft as an asset. Now "sell" the aircraft to the next owner by selling ownership of the LLC, not the aircraft by itself. Can the LLC still use the program the plane was operating under?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 20:04

Username Protected wrote:

isn't the responsibility for determining airworthiness ultimately on the operator (in this case Mark's PIC)? Does the "he (lessor) told me it was airworthy" argument really hold up in court?

True, for pilot enforcement actions. Pilot is ultimately dinged for flying an unairworthy aircraft, unless there are extenuating circumstances (mechanic falsified records, for example).

False, for contract dispute where the plane was represented as legally airworthy to the buyer/lessee.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 20:31

Username Protected wrote:

Spent a year hiring a lawyer (Drew Coats) and building our case. Depositions are up next. $100k to litigate. But the head honcho would pay if he loses. His case is the aircraft was legal because the HSI was not mantory. Therefore, I was unreasonable to not want to fly it. Hence the $25k was effectively an early lease termination fee.

Let me get this straight, you are going to spend $100K to litigate and try to get back a $25K? :scratch:

Is there "looser pays legal fees" provision in the contract?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 21:32

Agree,
Thats how my maintenance program is written also.

Username Protected wrote:

Sierra has a Citation II for sale that matches your description, over HSI by 25 hours or so.

Generally, an HSI interval has a 100 hour grace period. If it is due, say, at 2000 hours, you can have it done anywhere from 1900 to 2100 and that counts as having done it at 2000.

At least, that has been so with the programs I have seen.

So things can be technically over the nominal HSI interval time, but still airworthy due to the grace period.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2016, 21:37

Username Protected wrote:

Generally, an HSI interval has a 100 hour grace period. If it is due, say, at 2000 hours, you can have it done anywhere from 1900 to 2100 and that counts as having done it at 2000.

At least, that has been so with the programs I have seen.

So things can be technically over the nominal HSI interval time, but still airworthy due to the grace period.

Mike C.

Suing a Citation aftermarket modifier