Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:59:04 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3758064@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.254.38.234; envelope-from=paul@tbm700.com
From: paul miller <paul@tbm700.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3756950@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: [LML] inspections - responsibility
References: <list-3756950@logan.com>

The issue of damage resulting during inspections is not solely an  
Experimental concern.   Many owners of production aircraft I know  
loathe the annual requirement and calendar inspection that requires  
disassembly of perfectly working components and risks damage or  
improper handling.   Many owners can relate to parts being damaged  
during an inspection that was supposed to detect problems.  When the  
damage dollars are high you can predict that nobody but the owner is  
to blame.   Pre-buy inspections are always a concern.  As a small time  
broker in the past for various turbine and piston aircraft I can say  
that the inspection conditions and liability for problems or damage  
during inspection were always the most difficult to conclude after a  
sale was agreed to.   Without a strong set of clear written conditions  
there is always a risk of confusion when damage occurs and we would  
not proceed without that understanding.   Does a Lancair require a  
good inspection contract that links all the players?   Probably if the  
risk of damage is significant.    I'm sad to hear of the airplane's  
dismount from the jacks but happy it wasn't more severe.   It was good  
for the Seller to inform us of the risk and the reply from Lancair and  
that the sale was concluded.

How ironic that a requirement from the insurance company to inspect  
could possibly have caused enough damage to claim under one of its  
policies.

Paul Miller,  Legacy N357V
TBM 700