Part M and hopefully not as much chaos as I think

Hi @ all,

I’m new in this forum, please excuse that my english isn’t the best, I’ll try my best to explain my problem, but I’ll probably won’t always find the right words, so hopefully you’ll understand what I’m getting at.

I’ve read many, many threads here and found a lot of interesting stuff in relation to my questions, but some things still remain in the dark. It’s all about the topic “what has to happen with parts after an incident if they should get installed into a new body/cell”. Unfortunately, it’s a little more complex than I’ve thought one year ago.
I myself have nothing to do with airplanes, neither I’m a pilot nor I know much about things like maintenance etc.. but my boyfriend does, and I’m trying to support him, but maybe I’ll express some things like a noob – that’s what I am.
In 2018 he bought an 1 year old ELA1-airplane (sailplane with rotary engine, in German we say “Eigenstarter”, sorry, I don’t know the exact english word for it!) for round about 220.000 Euros from a private seller. It was sold as accident free and all documents looked like this was the truth. The seller bought it directly from the manufacturer, each Form 1 declared the status “new” etc., so it was approved by the LBA in Germany as a new airplane and got its Certificate of Airworthiness.

In the beginning of 2021 my boyfriend found out absolutely randomly! that the seller owned another airplane of the exact same type before and crashed into a wood with it. We also found some more facts about the crash in a bulletin of the BFU. It came out because a guy from the UK published tables in the internet where he listed each of these aircrafts, including serial numbers and registration and which one was involved in an incident or crash. Both, the crashed one and the one my boyfriend bought later, got the same registration but different serial numbers, so he got suspicious if his sailplane really was accident free and fitted with new parts or used parts from the crashed one.
He wrote an EMail to the manufacturer, and he confirmed that parts like engine, instruments, tail wheel etc. were removed from the crashed plane and got installed into a new body/cell. He also told him that no further documentation was necessary.
Then we’ve contacted the seller. At first he admitted everything and asked my boyfriend if they could come to an agreement, he wanted to buy a new engine etc. He said he wanted to get offers, and we know that he did because another maintenance organisation told us that he called them and asked about the costs.
Well – we’ve never heard again about this agreement, instead he started to appeal to the “camaraderie among pilots”..
From a legal point of view, the thing seems to be clear, and I dont’t want to discuss this point here, it’s up to the court.
What I don’t get is the following:
As far as I understand.. If it comes to an incident (the crashed plane had to be cut with a chain saw etc., it was a total damage), and you want to remove parts to install them into a new body/cell, you need to inspect these parts and issue a new Form 1 with the status “inspected/tested” or “repaired”, whatever, but you cant’t just use the old Form 1 with the status “new”. I think these regulations are a little bit hard to understand, but I’m sure that the history of the removed parts must make clear that a certified maintenance organisation made sure that they are servicable.
Of course we’ve also contacted the LBA in Germany. I don’t know how other countries handle it, but in Germany it is forbidden to install used parts for manufacturing a new plane, except the manufacturer asks the LBA for a special permission (nearly NOONE we’ve talked to in Germany knew about that, really strange, even the LBA was a little confused at first – though its their own rule). So far, so good? The employee of the LBA (the first one we’ve talked to) checked all documents. They also sent another employee to the manufacturer, result: everything’s absolutely fine, don’t worry.
At the same time I’ve contacted a guy from the US who’s directly involved in working out the Easy Access Rules for continuing Airworthiness. He told me that the Form Ones of my boyfriends plane should declare “inspected/tested” and that there must exist some kind of history about what happened to these parts after the crash.
That’s what he said, but that’s NOT what the manufacturer said, he insisted of getting done everything correctly, and at first, the LBA confirmed that.
Time passed by and I got a little desperated, because for my understanding the airworthiness certificate based on a lie. My boyfriend started to get really angry with the manufacturer then, who started changing his mind from week to week. After a few months he told us: of course I have all these documents, and of course I know exactly what we did here to test all these parts, but I won’t tell you and I won’t give you anything! (between the lines: just shut up.).
Again we’ve talked to another employee of the LBA and complained about the manufacturer’s behaviour. The guy there asked us to send over all documents, he wanted to check them again.
In the meantime I did some further research and found out about “Owner Accepted Parts”, but the LBA told us that this is only a possibility if parts are new and a Form 1 doesn’t exist.
And then things became a little awkward.
After a few more months the LBA wrote us an Email. Again: Everything’s fine. All documents are correct, the plane is airworthy.
We’ve required these documents, because they belong to the history of the aircraft. That was four weeks ago.
Last week we’ve finally received at least one document from the LBA. It’s the permission for installing used parts, including a list of them. But some used instruments are missing. 2021, in January, the manufacturer allegedly called the LBA and asked via telephone (??!) for the permission to install these parts, and this permission was finally granted on June 28th, 2022, six days after we’ve asked for a document that prooves something. More than five years after these parts were installed. So this permission is retrospectively, and it didn’t exist for nearly five years. I haven’t found anything about the possibility to get such a permission retrospectively, and still noone can tell us why each Form 1 declares that all parts are new.
As if this wasn’t weird enough, the legal basis for this permission is a document from the year 2020, which didn’t exist in 2017, the year the plane was built.
If I take a look at Part M.A.902:
“b) An aircraft must not fly if the airworthiness certificate is invalid OR IF:
1. The continuing airworthiness of the aircraft or ANY COMPONENT FITTED TO THE AIRCRAFT does not meet the requirements of this part.”

M.A.613 (a) 2.1 says the following:
“An EASA Form 1 may be issued for an aircraft component which has been (…) removed from an aircraft which have been withdrawn from service or from an aircraft which have been involved in abnormal occurences such as accidents, incidents, heavy landings or lightning strikes.”

And, last but not least, M.A.613 (a) 2.9:
“Used aircraft components removed from an aircraft involved in an accident or incident: Such components should only be issued with an EASA Form 1 when processed in accordance with Paragraph 2.7 an a specific work order including all additional necessary tests and inspections made necessary by the accident or incident. Such work order may require input from the TC holder or original manufacturer as appropriate. This work order should be referenced in block 13.”

(I know, part M also includes other important information)

Well, the history of the aircraft tells us nothing like that.

It’s a little confusing. My boyfriend also contacted another expert and he said that it sounds to him like the manufacturer and the LBA would defend each other. I can only hope that this is not what’s happening here and we’re on the hose. To me as a person that has nothing to do with aircrafts or these complicated rules it sounds just unbelievable, I’m stunned. BUT, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to blame the LBA or the manufacturer, I don’t believe that things like these happen there every day. Call me naive or whatever, but to me this has to be an individual case.
Maybe there is a possibility that everybody did everything right?
Can anyone tell me about similar experiences? Or if I understood Part M etc. totally wrong?

Thanks a lot and sorry for the chaos!
Enjoy the weekend,
Alex