Am I missing something ?

[Bill Hamilton]

Darky,

 

All aviation law in Australia is criminal law, and the definitions of offenses in the Civil Aviation Act 1988,the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations conform with the definitions in the Criminal Code.

 

My previous posts have included details.

 

The detailed logging of flight time for a pilot, or time in service for a aircraft, aeronautical part or component are covered in the regulations, as is the requirement for a pilot to keep a log book. All flight time is to be logged, and the actual time to be logged (flight time) is defined in the Act, and repeated in the Regulation.

 

Once again, I have given detailed references in previous posts.

 

For these purposes, we don't need to go into details of all the various category of pilot.

 

Likwise, time in service must be measured as defined in the Regulations. I have already provided a precise reference. To what use the recorded time in service is put can very considerably, but the definition of time in service doesn't vary.

 

Returning to the origin of this thread, loose expressions were used, such as TT from overhaul, sometimes called TSO, time since overhaul, and it is quite legitimate time to quote TT/TIS from overhaul. Nothing suggested that the overhaul was not legitimate.

 

That didn't stop a few of you making it clear you didn't know what constitutes a legitimate overhaul.

 

The original poster also took issue with the seller recording time in service with an air switch. So, where was the "dodgey hour meter"??

 

The seller's record is quite legitimate and conforms to the regulations (if manufacturer requires something else --- see previous posts re. Jabiru, record that as well as, not instead of). The aircraft owner was and is not required to treat engine runs, taxying, delays with the engine running as time in service, only airborne to touchdown, off to on.

 

Total Time In Service, TTIS, is not defined in the regulations, and unless we wind up with turbine powered RAOz aircraft, something similar defined by a manufacturer, not CASA Act and Regulations, is very unlikely to come into question.

 

In general terms, the only common occasion where total time in service is a factor, is a case where a manufacturer specifies a retirement life as well as a recommended time between overhaul. I have never personally come across this with a fixed wing piston engine or propeller, but it is common with turbine engines. There can be hours or cycles limits, both between overhauls and for retirement life. Retirement life is common for helicopter parts, rotors being one.

 

The Crimes Act comes into the matter with log books and other technical records --- CASA and the DPP generally takes the view that any non-compliance, even as simple as getting a date wrong, is a falsification of records, "imposing on the Commonwealth", more simply called fraud --- as well as a breach of the CASA legislation.

 

In the case of pilots log book and technical records, it is common to bring charges under both the Civil Aviation Act and the Crimes Act.

 

In terms of the aviation or fair trading law --- where was the legal misrepresentation of the aircraft??

 

Nothing in the original post revealed anything that the seller had done wrong.

 

Where is the misleading and deceptive conduct ??

 

Saying xxx hours since overhaul instead of saying xxx hours time in service since overhaul and thereby alleging "deceptive and misleading conduct is never going to get through the front door of any state department of fair trading.

 

As I would hope is now clear, at least to some of you, is that it is really rather silly ( and potentially very, very expensive) to make defamatory statements about a person, demand he or she be outed, shamed etc, when all that is factually clear in this whole issue is that many of you have only the most tenuous grasp of what is required by regulation.

 

Motzartmerv,

 

What might you be suggesting, misleading and deceptive conduct ??

 

Even if I was a lawyer, I would be under no compulsion to reveal that on this site. Enough people on this site know who I am, W.J.R.(Bill) Hamilton, a member in good standing of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. (and a few other organisations) not hiding behind an avatar, and have been around the the aviation arena for quite some time.

 

I believe I have an adequate understanding of both the basic aviation knowledge required for the operation of small aircraft, including what "flight time" and "time is service" means in day to day aviation, and what can happen to you, if you don't have that basic knowledge.

 

Instead of making snide remarks, why don't you try Google. I'm hiding in full view!

 

Regards,

 

 

[Tomo]

You're good quality Bill, I enjoy your posts.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Bill. I know who you are.

 

My question was simply to find out if you are are legal professional, or just like to speak like one.

 

Snide remarks?..I fail to see where I have made any, and my only issue with you has been the way in which you have spoken in this thread. I have taken absolutley no issue with any of your post's contents and am not arguing with your point of view.

 

More importantly, I am not hiding behind anything. Most people know who I am, but if you would like details. I am the CFI of the south coast recreational flying club. scrfc.com.au and a student mentor on this site. Hence my dissapointment with your "attitude" in several of your post's.

 

In all discussions ive had, on this site, with RAA board members, with CASA rep's, pilot's, aviation business people, you are the VERY FIRST one to say that the reg's are black and white and easily understood.

 

Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice.

 

 

[Guest terry]

Motz you are the VERY FIRST one to say that the reg's are black and white and easily understood.

 

If this is what you think bill said you need to go back and re read his posts.

 

 

[Steve Donald]

Air switch time

 

Jetr you're on the money, you can pretty well forecast engine life by the kilometres travelled by a piston over the period. On a well built engine,fueld, lubricated and serviced to its designers recommendations the life cycles are remarkably similar.On a fleet of 1800 trucks I was progressively able to predict to about 30,000 km in over 500,000 km when engines might start to drop.

 

Once you start ignoring piston travel (as in not counting start up, taxying etc) you are fudging life cycle figures so you don't know where safety ends and nasty surprises start.

Air Switch Time, was introduced a long time ago and approved internationally, the concept was to provide fair time in the air for hire and training, but a major concideration was that it would encourage correct warm ups ect from the hire and fly pilots mainly as the service life of engines are greatly reduced by full power departure on a cold engine, ie the P@W RADIAL handbook says for each full power cold engine take off reduces engine life by approx 50hrs, scary stuff, service time should still be made by real running hrs and is the opinion of many maintainers, as the low speed operations create most of impurities that we change oil for.

 

Personally i would prefer a 1000hr engine which has done all long haul flights over a 500hr weekender that might have done say 2 hrs per month, assuming both are serviced per schedule .

 

as for the other stuff around this posting, yep get an inspection an always audit the books even phone the maintainer i have seen fabricated data and found unreported crash repair in the past, so check it well. enjoy your shopping .

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Terry, ive never said the regs are easily understood.. But welcome to the conversation mate.. Good to see your making a contribution.:thumb_up:

 

 

[bacchus]

G'day all ,

 

I have not contributed to this thread for a while as to be honest

 

the quoting of regulations and application of such IS above my head

 

and better left for those to argue who are well versed in them.

 

Thus my question comes more from a common sense point of view ( imho )

 

Bill , a question without prejudice and I am not intending to be a smart ar**

 

so a response in the same vein would be appreciated

 

In this case the aircraft is " wheels up " at 40 -45 kts

 

It could quite happily tavel around at say 55kts for hundreds if not thousands of hours

 

never recording squat on the Hobbs meter ( as it activates at 60kts )

 

Do you think this is acceptale and more to the point lawful ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Disregarding this case, If someone was to ask me if it is deceptive conduct to advertise an aircraft for sale with TT, (which I understand to mean Total Time) of 270 hours when the Total time of the aircraft was 1370 hours I would answer yes.

 

So for those who say there's nothing wrong with this, I'd suggest you come up with an alternative so prospective buyers can make a correct decision on the potential life left in the purchase and its safety.

 

Otherwise buyers from now on would be justified in making a substantial drop in the prices they offer, say 50%, to cover themselves.

 

 

[bacchus]

thanks CFI

 

Could have been the case , I guess in my limited experience , I will be servicing my aircraft

 

( using the services of L2 ) at intervals reccomended by Rotax , measured by Hobbs , which is set running by Oil Pressure which seems to be the way to go as per Rotax owners Manual

 

 

[facthunter]

Short vs longer trips

 

Just responding to Steve Donalds post, re short and long trips. Once you are up and cruising the engine has a much easier time of it. It is away from the dust, it has reached an equilibrium temperature situation, having got there the hard way. That is through the take-off phase, where often the oil is too cold, the engine has not reached operating temperature, and it has to operate on full throttle as well.

 

At start-up the rate of wear is at a peak with any reciprocating engine. A car that has been driven to school 2 times a day and to the church on sundays, will be in much worse condition at say 30.000 Kms, than a Cab engine at 200,000 km's.

 

Getting to aeroplanes, there was a situation where Douglas DC-6's were used by both Ansett and TAA, in the early 60's on the ML-Launceston-Hobart return route. BIG problems with the P&W R-2800's. Don't like lots of cycles-short legs. Back on the run to Port Moresby,(PNG) doing long runs, much more reliable. Nev

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

---you are the VERY FIRST one to say that the reg's are black and white and easily understood.

Motzartmerv,

 

At no time have I made a statement as above, indeed, quite the contrary.

 

However, some provisions in the Act and Regulations are clear and simple, most of those hark back to the old Air Navigation Act and ANO's, were there long before I graduated from model aeroplanes, probably back to the time Cecil Rhodes said "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" --- and the definitions of "flight time" and "time in service" are two of them.

 

How should I write ?? All confused??

 

Repeating what I have already said, I only came into this discussion because a seller of an aeroplane had, in my considered opinion, been seriously defamed, because of a paucity of knowledge and understanding of the regulations resulted in somebody convincing themselves the seller was misrepresenting the aircraft.

 

Then the bandwagon (or was it a tumbrel) started rolling: Of with his head!!

 

On the basis of the posts, to which I took exception, the seller had, in fact, conformed to the regulations in recording "time in service", including "time in service since overhaul". There was no evidence to the contrary.

 

We have a serious problem in training standards --- students should be able to rely on the information provided by an instructor doing their training. Or rely on accurate answers to question at any time.

 

There is also a trait (not unreasonable) to remember best what you/we first learnt.

 

A student should not expect to have to verify as correct, what he or she is instructed during training.

 

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (particularly marked in GA, with generally low experience instructors, compared to many instructors in the RAOz lineup) we have several generations of pilots with a very limited and often seriously erroneous conceptions/misconceptions/standard of quite basic knowledge.

 

In recent years, Bruce Byron as CASA CEO/DAS moved decisively to rectify the problem, it has taken several generations of pilots to develop, it will take as long to rectify --- but only with concerted effort.

 

The greatest impediment is that so many pilots have never experienced operations to what should be the minimum standard, have no frame of reference, and therefore no real comprehension that their personal standards need significant improvement.

 

Your new RAOZ CEO is an expert in the field (he wrote/edited the most recent edition of the CASA VFG) of training, training standards and training generally, and he is moving decisively to do the same in RAOz --- where, in my opinion, it is a lesser problem than GA, but still a very significant problem.

 

You can all help yourselves, by understanding the basic rules that apply to all flying in the airspace you use. Self education in the art of aviation should never stop, you should all aspire to achieving the highest standard you can.

 

Setting yourself unacceptably low standards, and consistently failing to achieve them, is just not good enough!!

 

Understand the limits of the "exemptions" that make RAOz possible.

 

Understand that those are the only exemptions, all the other relevant rules apply. Never forget that not only do you have a legal obligation, but you also have an obligation to those around you , to fly with minimum risk to other airspace users, and those under the flight path of the aircraft.

 

Be thoroughly familiar with the basic "Rules of the Air". Forget looking for "tricky interpretations" to justify operating outside the intent of the rules --- they might go down a treat over a beer in the bar, but such BLB (bush lawyer bu----it) lasts milliseconds in a real court.

 

Understand the limits of the aeroplane you are flying, and you'r own limits.

 

As Captain Dan Maurino of ICAO would say: "All aircraft accidents are Human Factors accidents".

 

And as your CEO has said, the most important factor in achieving safe operations is: CBS --- Common Bloody Sense.

 

CBS, a commodity that, all too often when reading accident/incident reports, or observing some individuals at fly-ins, is in seriously short supply.

 

Regards,

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Saying xxx hours since overhaul instead of saying xxx hours time in service since overhaul and thereby alleging "deceptive and misleading conduct is never going to get through the front door of any state department of fair trading.

According to the original post, the seller advertised Total Time (TT) not 'Total Time since Overhaul' which is where the issue arises.

 

As I stated, s56 also mentions conduct which is likely to mislead or deceive.

 

The test for this is the 'reasonable person' (who I like to call Bob) - I imagine you've heard of him before? Basically, would a 'reasonable person' (Bob) reading the seller's advert, take the advertised 'total time' to mean 'total time in service' or 'total time since overhaul?'. Personally, I think it is easily arguable that Bob would take Total Time (TT), with no other qualifications in the ad (such as 'just overhauled' or similar) to mean Total Time in Service. So Bob is likely to be misled or deceived by the ad.

 

I do actually have some idea of what I'm talking about, terrifying isn't it.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Air Switch Time, was introduced a long time ago and approved internationally, the concept was to provide fair time in the air for hire and training,

Steve Donald,

 

Would you like to provide a reference, or is this another "old wives tale" ??

 

Approve by whom, the International Old Wives Guild ??

 

How somebody charges for an aeroplane has absolutely nothing to do with aviation regulatory matters, and we are not discussing the Trade Practices Act here. If somebody wants to charge you from the time of picking up the key from the desk, and bringing the keys back, they can, whether you want to hire there is not a matter of air safety regulation.

 

In my ICAO Annex's/SARPs/, I have never seen a reference to "air switch time". But "time in service" is clear, and goes back to ICAN, the predecessor to ICAO.

 

Every aircraft that I have flown, that has automatic time recording (as previously posted) records "off blox" time on the release of the park brake, "on blox" from park brake on --- with provision that setting the park brake during taxi delays does not have any effect.

 

"Time in Service" is measure by release/weight on the main gear squat switch, time off to time on ---- as required by regulation, and already comprehensively covered in my previous posts.

 

I have a reasonable amount of time behind both P&W and Curtis Wright radials, they have one thing clearly in common, there is no such thing as a T/O with a cold engine, both specify a minimum CHT and oil temperature before application of more than idle power, and before takeoff.

 

That somebody makes a generalized comment about wear and tear can, in no way, be considered as an authorization to operate the engine other than in compliance with the AFM Limitations. NO cold takeoffs.

 

With such engines used occasionally, most of us have oil tank heaters and pre-oiler pumps, the engine is pre-oiled with hot oil before start, for the obvious reasons. For CW engines, pre-oil is required, if the time between shutdown and the next start exceed 72 hours.

 

Is "air switch time" --- "legal".

 

I would have thought the answer was obvious.

 

If it accurately represents the time "wheels off" to "wheels on", the answer is Yes.

 

If there is a significant difference, or it is ineffective ( 60 kt switch in an aeroplane with a cruise speed of 55kt) the answer must be No.

 

What is a significant difference --- there is no "legal" answer, but no regulatory authority will demure if the difference is in seconds.

 

Turbo,

 

Go back to the original post, the seller was reported as quoting Total Time since overhaul

 

a proper answer.

 

Total Time in Service since New is another thing altogether, apparently when asked, the seller also (not instead of) provided the total time since new.

 

In a previous post, I have explained how you can buy a "factory manufactured" piston engine, with nil hours (time in service) in the log book, and critical components may and usually will have thousands of hours since new --- or total time in service, time that does not necessarily have to be recorded --- none of these comments refer to turbine engines.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest terry]

Hi Darky, I think you have been missing the point from the start. You cannot be deceived if your dealing with the truth. The point has been made previously that his [the seller] way of advertising was not incorrect so how can there be an intent to deceive, also when asked for more info it was forth coming, now if his arm [the seller] was twisted up around his back before he coughed up the info then you might have an argument but we don't know that was the case. so to sum up we might be doing this fellow [the seller] a disservice only because his way of advertising his plane is different from what we would prefer. Do you get my point or have I missed again.

 

With the kindest regards Terry

 

 

[turboplanner]

Aircraft advertised with 270 hrs TT ( changed slightly to avoid identification )

Call me dumb Bill, but I did what you asked and went back to the post and found this - 270 hours Total Time - a low hour aircraft has been advertised for sale.

 

I agree with Darky

 

Wriggling around with subsequent discussions just clouded the issues, and I am surprised that you would be supporting this type of advertising.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Call me dumb Bill, but I did what you asked and went back to the post and found this - 270 hours Total Time - a low hour aircraft has been advertised for sale.I agree with Darky

 

Wriggling around with subsequent discussions just clouded the issues, and I am surprised that you would be supporting this type of advertising.

I do as well, for what is worth.Cheers

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Turbo,

 

With all due respect, you have completely missed the point, haven't you.

 

So let's try again:

 

1) The engine had a "time in service", Time since overhaul, commonly if a little erroneously called Total Time, (TT) (the correct term is TIS, time in service) since overhaul, of ~270 hours ---- all quite legitimate.

 

2) It was a Bert Flood overhaul, it is quite legitimate to quote 270 hours since overhaul, since there is no question that the engine was overhauled, nobody has suggested that the engine was signed out as anything other than overhauled.

 

ie: It wasn't a repair that didn't qualify as an overhaul.

 

3) The only reference to the airframe was to the Hobbs meter being connected to an air switch that triggers at 60kt---- all quite legitimate, with the caveat of my previous post, that 60 kt is very close to when the aircraft gets airborne, or touches down.

 

4) It is not clear whether the airframe has a time in service of 270 hours or 1370 hours, but that is not at issue

 

5) That the engine was stripped and inspected by Bert Flood, re-assembled and signed off as overhauled ---- without needing any replacement parts, except for the usual gaskets and seals, is not unusual for a "first life" engine being overhauled --- and does suggest the engine was very carefully operated during the 1100 hours before overhaul.

 

6) For an overhauled engine, commonly it is not necessary to record or even know time since "new". If any parts or components are "time-lifed components" (see CAR 2), that's a variation not applicable here.

 

7) The only time you will know (almost) for certain that an engine (or all its components) is first life, is by buying a factory new engine, not a factory re-manufactured engine.

 

8) The original poster was asking for opinions about the situation, not making defamatory remarks.

 

9) Then "the Xsperts" started to weigh in. And what is the definition of an Xspert?

 

10) Despite a plethora of "opinion", the fact remains that the seller was quite legitimate (had complied with the aviation law) when he or she said the engine had 270 hours, and was quite forthcoming that the engine had previously done about 1100 before the Bert Flood overhaul.

 

Give the seller a break, he didn't do anything wrong, he didn't misrepresent the engine, or something called "Total Time" meaning "Total Time in Service", TTIS --- TTIS is not even an aviation term, it does not appear in CAR 2.

 

So, exactly where is the misrepresentation ??

 

If it was a new aeroplane, in which the overhauled engine was installed, the time in service for both the engine and airframe is 270 H TIS.

 

If it was the original engine in the aeroplane (not clear), and had been overhauled, then the engine TIS is 270 hours, the airframe is TIS is 1370.

 

Regards,

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm sorry to have sounded ambiguous.

 

The first ten points you make are not relevent to what I posted about.

 

Nor is TTIS, whatever that might be.

 

I am referring to the fact that when an aircraft is ADVERTISED, a person of reasonable intelligence, as Darky alluded to, on seeing TT, would reasonably believe that to be the total time of the aircraft.

 

ie less than 500 hours - in excellent condition vs 7723 hours - probably in need of another $30,000 maintenance to give reasonable ownership costs.

 

In my opinion, and Darky will know the details, the prosecution for false advertising would centre around a copy of the ADVERTISEMENT, not subsequent excuses, explanations, sweeteners etc.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Lets take this back a few steps, If I was selling a aeroplane eg- a Piper Archer. If it had 3500 hrs total airframe time, I would say that.I would also say what the total engine hours of the engine(fitted) ,was lets just say 1500 hours and i would say 500 hours to run in the case of the lycomming 0-360.Whether the engine makes TBO or not, i wouldnt know i dont have a crystal ball. I selling the aircraft want to give the buyer as much information as i can. I would also say whether the engine was is calendar(GA). This whole thing as ended up as a "play on words".I think.Cheers

 

 

[Tomo]

Sorry guys, but I do have to agree with Bill in that we tend to cause a lot of grief to others at times, or being to critical maybe.

 

When I first read the story I felt for the guy looking at the aircraft, I also felt for the seller. I haven't a clue who the seller is, and don't know his mentality. But for what it's worth -

 

*A private add (I believe)

 

*He was told from the engine recon place (Flood's) that it was ok. Pulled down and checked out, (within new tolerances)

 

*He was forth coming with information when asked, not all of us are lawyers/solicitors so have trouble making everything we write for the learnered generation.

 

Aircraft advertised with 270 hrs TT ( changed slightly to avoid identification )

When wanting to confirm the motor was 270 hrs from new I was told it had a " Floods Overhaul " 270 hrs ago , no probs.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd get a new engine overhauled. So if he asked about the hrs, and he said it had done 270 hrs TT since overhaul, I (myself) would automatically think it has done a lot more hrs, or isn't a new engine (from new) for that matter. Sure it wasn't stated in the add, but I guess that is why they supply their contact details?

 

Took one heck of a long time to kick over this morning , eventually got running and sounded pretty good , so off on the test flight , Taxi out , check Hobbs Meter , not moving !!

Finished flight , pretty good , Quized re Hobbs , was told that it is configured to START COUNTING AT 60 KTS !! So it does not cut in until flight as he only wants to record " Flying Hours " So all the hours spent taxiing , warming up are not recorded ( surely this is not normal ??? )

At least this chap is honest, he didn't "pre-warm" the engine so when the buyer turned up it sounded all rosy and started first pop. In a general worldly consensus it is easy to look down on a person just because it took a bit to start - there is usually a pretty simple reason for that. (like I said I'd certainly give the guy credit for waiting till the buyer turned up before he did anything)

 

The airswitch is a common thing - as has been fully covered I believe. In my personal opinion he should have one for the engine also, but it is a registered aircraft, It has to pass an approval for all registration purposes, so it must have been deemed ok. (you'd think!)

 

Best of all when I asked what parts were replaced in the overhaul and could I view the invoice , I was told it was actually an " inspection " and as all was in good condition

the engine was re assembled with no new parts required !!

 

So I asked where he sourced the engine and he advised that he bought it second hand and it had done " about 1100 hrs " when he bought it ! To me that means the engine has done about 1370 hrs NOT 270 Total Time !!

I'm a mechanic, and have pulled down many an engine - and at times some components were still within high running tolerance so you don't replace them. You could, but there is no point, really.

 

Once we finish the rebuild, that engine/whatever is now deemed fully reconditioned. In other words "It is all within 'new' tolerances". Even if some parts weren't replaced.

 

Like I said, if the guy has openly stated when asked about the hrs and said it was from overhaul, it implies that it certainly isn't 270 TT from "out of the box" (so to speak).

 

Not going against you Bacchus, you were asking genuine questions, and I hope you've had them answered. But like Bill and some others, I think we could be giving the seller a bit of a hard time for something that really isn't as big an issue as you may think.

 

Is it?! ;)

 

 

[deadstick]

Sorry guys, but I do have to agree with Bill in that we tend to cause a lot of grief to others at times, or being to critical maybe.When I first read the story I felt for the guy looking at the aircraft, I also felt for the seller. I haven't a clue who the seller is, and don't know his mentality. But for what it's worth -

 

*A private add (I believe)

 

*He was told from the engine recon place (Flood's) that it was ok. Pulled down and checked out, (within new tolerances)

 

*He was forth coming with information when asked, not all of us are lawyers/solicitors so have trouble making everything we write for the learnered generation.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd get a new engine overhauled. So if he asked about the hrs, and he said it had done 270 hrs TT since overhaul, I (myself) would automatically think it has done a lot more hrs, or isn't a new engine (from new) for that matter. Sure it wasn't stated in the add, but I guess that is why they supply their contact details?

 

At least this chap is honest, he didn't "pre-warm" the engine so when the buyer turned up it sounded all rosy and started first pop. It is easy to look down on a person just because it took a bit to start - there is usually a pretty simple reason for that. (like I said I'd certainly give the guy credit for waiting till the buyer turned up before he did anything)

 

The airswitch is a common thing - as has been fully covered I believe. In my personal opinion he should have one for the engine also, but it is a registered aircraft, It has to pass an approval for all registration purposes, so it must have been deemed ok. (you'd think!)

 

I'm a mechanic, and have pulled down many an engine - and at times some components were still within high running tolerance so you don't replace them. You could, but there is no point, really.

 

Once we finish the rebuild, that engine/whatever is now deemed fully reconditioned. In other words "It is all within 'new' tolerances". Even if some parts weren't replaced.

 

Like I said, if the guy has openly stated when asked about the hrs and said it was from overhaul, it implies that it certainly isn't 270 TT from "out of the box" (so to speak).

 

Not going against you Bacchus, you were asking genuine questions, and I hope you've had them answered. But like Bill and some others, I think we could be giving the seller a bit of a hard time for something that really isn't as big an issue as you may think.

 

Is it?! ;)

(Off topic comment removed) - mod

 

You state above that infomation wasn't placed in the add but number was provided, so what?

 

If I was selling a new car with a rebuilt engine I wouldn't tell you unless you asked me ( has it been rebuilt). The OP was under the impression that the airframe and the engine had done 270 TT since new and it wasn't till he noticed some discrepencies that he questioned the age/hours on the engine deceptive advert? mmmm I would think so.

 

Your total post above and this quote is confusing to me

 

Quote

 

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd get a new engine overhauled. So if he asked about the hrs, and he said it had done 270 hrs TT since overhaul, I (myself) would automatically think it has done a lot more hrs, or isn't a new engine (from new) for that matter. Sure it wasn't stated in the add, but I guess that is why they supply their contact details?

 

End quote

 

No it wasnt stated in the add, and that is just random, did the seller state since overhaul?

 

Mate if I was advertising my aircraft with 270 hrs TT and the engine had been overhauled I would state, in the add, engine tt since overhaul 270. I would prolly state hours to run as well, makes it clear that the engine was not new with the aircraft. And that is what this thread is about a statement that prayes on assumption.

 

Are we really causing grief? or being too critical? opinionated? maybe but not mean or nasty,

 

The ID of the seller has been changed and so have the details so its now a hypothetical and not defamitory or disrespectfull.

 

(comment removed) - Mod

 

 

[motzartmerv]

what exactly is a "private add"??...an add is an add?? was it an add to himself??

 

 

[bacchus]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by bacchus

 

Aircraft advertised with 270 hrs TT ( changed slightly to avoid identification )

 

When wanting to confirm the motor was 270 hrs from new I was told it had a " Floods Overhaul " 270 hrs ago , no probs.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd get a new engine overhauled. So if he asked about the hrs, and he said it had done 270 hrs TT since overhaul, I (myself) would automatically think it has done a lot more hrs, or isn't a new engine (from new) for that matter. Sure it wasn't stated in the add, but I guess that is why they supply their contact details?

 

Tomo ,

 

If you wish to quote me , please try and read the quote correctly and in text.

 

It is screaming obvious that the engine had done more hours than 270 hrs

 

AFTER being told of the " Overhaul " The question to CONFIRM the engine had done these hours from new was asked prior to being told of the " Tear Down and Inspection " as Rotax describe it which has already been debated.

 

For you to suggest I " LOOK DOWN " on someone because the engine took a bit to start OFFENDS ME NO END !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I LOOK DOWN on nobody !!!!

 

(comment removed) - mod

 

It used to be said Two ears one Mouth , that translates into Two eyes one finger in Modern Speak.

 

As far as going against me ( removed ) Free world , Free speech

 

Sorry to others not normally like this.

 

 

[wizzard1964]

I think I'd run a mile

I'd be running and writing ....Taking notes for the authorities, some poor sucker is likely to get. hurt.

 

Thread temporarily closed for maintenance - Mod.