An Annual question

[Tom Downey]

Let assume that your aircrafts annual runs out on last day of July.

You fly the aircraft to your A&P-IA in May, for the annual.

Your A&P-IA finds several discrepancies writes them on a note pad and gives them to you, then makes the proper entry in the logbook, and dates it 15 May

can you fly that aircraft home to your mechanic for repair?

[rudymantel]

It depends what the discrepancies are. Unless they're serious, legal and/or airwortiness discrepancies, I'd say yes, you can fly home.
Rudy

[GAHorn]

Conscientiously, probably not. But it depends. An AP/IA finding unairworthy items in an aircraft that is still in license, has no authority to "ground" an airplane or revoke it's license. However, the owner/operator has the authority to remove it from service, and a good case can be made that he should do so.
On the other hand, if if flew in, then it might be that the operator determines that he can fly it back out. And if no cop is around to see the stop-sign being run....then it didn't happen. (Ask me sometime why it's not true that you are responsible for preventing someone from entering the airport security area behind you thru the gate you just opened. And also, unless you are a law-enforcement officer, before you get yourself shot think twice about challenging someone's presence in the secure area.)
Of course, you're probably talking about the legal aspect of the inspection matter, and in that case, providing that the AP/IA was correct in his assessment, the operator should comply with FAR 91.7:

91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditons occur.

It's a good question, Tom. You're making folks think.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

In this broad scenario it is difficult to answer the question.

The aircraft is within it's annual inspection period so flown under FAR 91 there is no problem there.

The pilot has the ultimate responsibility to determine whether an aircraft is airworthy or not.

If the aircraft is flown after a certified mechanic has deemed it unairworthy without any further approval like a ferry permit the pilot may have some explaining to do and be ask to prove how he determined it was airworthy.

If the discrepancy is something like corrosion(rust) on cowl screws or the effected item is not included in an MEL in effect for the aircraft then fly it.

Very interesting question Tom. Perhaps you could add more detail to the question or perhaps you intended it to be a vague question

[zero.one.victor]

1) Do the "discrepancies" make the airplane unairworthy?
2) Or are the discrepancies items like "tire tread (or brake pads, etc) approaching minimum dimensions. (Like the old joke: squawk: tires almost worn out-- action taken: tires almost replaced)
3) Does your "proper logbook entry" state that it is unairworthy?
4) for that matter, what is the "proper logbook entry"?
If the answer to questions 1 & 3 are yes, i'd say the airplane should now be considered unairworthy,and should be grounded.
Technically speaking, that is. If it was mine, I'd probably fly it home (or wherever) for fixin'.

Eric

[Tom Downey]

GA,

When I inspect an aircraft, IAW the Maintenance manual, or the 43.13,1B, or any other proper data, such as FAR 43-D.

Am I not required by 43.11 to make an entry?

And if I find a discrepancy, Am I not to place it in the logs as per 43.11

"" (1) The type of inspection (Annual) and a brief description of the extent of the inspection."" (unairworthy due to the following discrepancy)

If that is in the log, can the pilot return it to service?

IMHO if the pilot is not an A&P no, unless the discrepancy is preventive maintenance in nature, such as tire air pressure, or being over the Lycoming snake oil AD 50 hour limit, which the owner can return to service.

Seldom do we ever see an Unairworthy sign off, no one likes to do business that way, but if you do elect to have another shop, or your self repair the aircraft be careful, you could be flying a down aircraft.

In the pilots best interest, get a ferry permit to CYA in order to fly.

If you believe that an A&P can't down your aircraft, read your airworthiness certificate fine print.

It says with out quote, you will maintain your aircraft IAW bla bla

AS soon as you know of the discrepancy the responsibility is the owners/ operator, to repair.

91.7 is a start but read

§91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.



The next point, as soon as the IA places the annual sign off in the log the previous annual is no longer in effect. and IF the sign off is Unairworty, see the FAR above.

[Tom Downey]

1) Do the "discrepancies" make the airplane unairworthy?

Its all in the sign off,


2) Or are the discrepancies items like "tire tread (or brake pads, etc) approaching minimum dimensions. (Like the old joke: squawk: tires almost worn out-- action taken: tires almost replaced)


If it is minor preventive in nature, go fix it and I'll be back..


3) Does your "proper logbook entry" state that it is unairworthy?
YES

4) for that matter, what is the "proper logbook entry"?

The proper entry would be,
(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement- "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator."

The FAA guidance now is,, that LIST will be placed in the log.
Many owners do not like it,
Many A&P-IAs don't do it.

If the answer to questions 1 & 3 are yes, i'd say the airplane should now be considered unairworthy,and should be grounded.
Technically speaking, that is. If it was mine, I'd probably fly it home (or wherever) for fixin'.

Eric

[GAHorn]

I would ask the question: If the "list" is not intended to be a seperate list....then why does the FAR require the "list" to specifically have it's own date? Any list included in the logbook sign-off would by necessity already be dated same as the entry in which it has been included.
FAR 43.11 is entitled "Content, form, and dispositon of records for inspections..." In other words, since that rule does not specify that the content of the logbook entry must/should include the list of discrepancies.....then the logbook entry must/should not include them because no authorization exists for inclusion.
Otherwise if the intent of the rule was for inclusion, the FAR should read similar to, "...and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator and included herewith." But it does not so read.
Inclusion of unairworthy items in an aircraft's permanent records are not appropriate because the FARs specifically provide that any work performed on the aircraft ARE a part of the permanent record. Work NOT performed is not included. An unairworthy item that is not repaired has not been work performed. IMHO

Imagine this: An inspector declares seat tracks to be unairworthy, and writes that in the aircraft logs. It's the only unairworthy item listed.
Another inspector measures the tracks and determines that while they are AT the limit they are not unairworthy.
Who is to be believed? A third opionator? Or is the argument going to revolve around which inpector's micrometer was last calibrated? And by whom? The problem is it's been written INTO the permanent records and until those seat tracks are replaced the aircraft is under the cloud of unairworthiness.
With a seperate list, the owner/operator merely needs a logbook entry that "All items on discrepancy list dated (date) signed by (first inspector's name) have been inspected, and all items are in an airworthy condition. No actual work performed. Aircraft is approved for return to service.)"
If the owner/operator wishes to include that list into his logbooks, that is his prerogative, but the list itself should also be signed off by the person approving return to service. That is how I believe the FARs should be interpreted. It's only my opinion. (It is not necessarily my preference, should I be looking at purchasing or maintaining the aircraft in the future,...but it's how I believe the FAR's are written and intended.)

[Tom Downey]

Imagine this: An inspector declares seat tracks to be unairworthy, and writes that in the aircraft logs. It's the only unairworthy item listed.
Another inspector measures the tracks and determines that while they are AT the limit they are not unairworthy.
Who is to be believed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer is very simple, who ever returns to service, IOW when the AD is complied with that person must comply with the whole AD, and record as discribed in the AD. if it found to be with in limits, sign it off that way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third opionator? Or is the argument going to revolve around which inpector's micrometer was last calibrated?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would there be any question as to who to believe? I grip it, some one measures and returns it to service.

I see no problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And by whom? The problem is it's been written INTO the permanent records and until those seat tracks are replaced the aircraft is under the cloud of unairworthiness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you were buying this aircraft wouldn't you like that entry highlited in RED.

But if you were selling, you probably wouldn't like to have your nose rubbed in it.

For those interested, there is no calibration program required for A&P's working in the field. Some FBO's and Repair stations have one, but independent A&P's NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a seperate list, the owner/operator merely needs a logbook entry that "All items on discrepancy list dated (date) signed by (first inspector's name) have been inspected, and all items are in an airworthy condition.

------- No actual work performed.------- Aircraft is approved for return to service.)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there in, lies the problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the owner/operator wishes to include that list into his logbooks, that is his prerogative, but the list itself should also be signed off by the person approving return to service.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no requirement to sign off any list, and there is no method of proving what was on the list. this makes uncle sugar's lawyers nervious.

Prove to me what those discrepancies were, and how they were repaired. Where is the requirement to save the list? or make it a part of the aircraft history?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is how I believe the FARs should be interpreted. It's only my opinion. (It is not necessarily my preference, should I be looking at purchasing or maintaining the aircraft in the future,...but it's how I believe the FAR's are written and intended.)[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE IAs take our direction from the local FSDO airworthiness inspectors known as my PMI, (Primary Maintenance Inspectors) that is the person in FSDO that I am directly responsible to when signing log books.

This method of recording discrepancies in the log, is simple way to insure unscrupulous owners from hiding discrepancies.

I am sure every one who reads this will want the discrepancies found on thier aircraft repaired and properly entered in the logs. all this method of recording discrepancies does in fact is, place the first half of the log book entry in the log first.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

This is a very interesting discussion and I can't find fault in either George's or Tom's argument. Like many FARs this seems to be a grey area open to interpretation and reading between the lines. Of course neither George or Tom see it that way and that is fine.

I personally am of the opinion that an aircraft with full detailed documentation such as Tom suggests makes for a more valuable aircraft and detailed discrepancies and how they where remedied or not is great.

Can you tell my aircraft records are full of nothing but the minimum. That was reflected in the price I paid. And you get what you pay for.

On the other hand from a regulatory and possibly liable side I can appreciate the "don't tell them anything they don't need to know or don't ask for" attitude that George has been talking about.

Now before George fires back I'm not saying George is advocating not documenting repairs.
---
Tom in the future when quoting some one such as you did George in your above post could you separate you comments from the quote a little better. That post was very difficult to read. There are ways to do it none of them easy for the amount of quotes you had though.

[GAHorn]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gahorn wrote: If the owner/operator wishes to include that list into his logbooks, that is his prerogative, but the list itself should also be signed off by the person approving return to service.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Downery wrote: There is no requirement to sign off any list, and there is no method of proving what was on the list. this makes uncle sugar's lawyers nervious.

Prove to me what those discrepancies were, and how they were repaired. Where is the requirement to save the list? or make it a part of the aircraft history?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point I was attempting to make is that IF the owner decided to include the list in his records...then the person returning the aircraft to service IS REQUIRED to sign off the list (by virtue of it's inclusion.)
If a person returns the aircraft to service subsequent to a discrepancy list being issued and dated...(whether or not it is included in the logs)....then that person would by necessity have to address all the items in that list (because he will have noted by the previous log entry that such a list existed)....and he'd also have to list the items that he repaired...per 43.11. (Therefore all the items in the list would have been repaired.)
A better argument could be made (in my opinion) that such a list IS IN FACT a part of the aircraft mx records WHETHER OR NOT they are kept intact with the aircraft logs. (Similar to the records kept by repair stations when they perform major repairs such as 337's....they are kept a few years then discarded. Here's a related question: If discrepancy lists are so danged important....then why the heck doesn't the FAA require Certified Repair Stations to keep records of work orders? You'd certainly think THAT would be more important to them than a mere discrepancy list from an annual.
I can't tell you the number of airplanes I've seen that had undergone serious, major repairs (a couple of them were clearly "dataplate-only" aircraft) by CRS's and yet no one can tell exactly what repairs were performed because it's been several years gone by. When I flew for the State of TX, the mechanics dropped a KingAir 200 on it's belly in the hangar, puncturing a gear-leg up thru a wing full of fuel and crushing a C-210 on jacks nearby with the tail, and splitting the rear pressure bulkhead on the KingAir. (Nearly killed the mechanic underneath who had pressed the squat-switch without knowing the helicopter-mechanic in the cockpit who was unfamiliar with the system had raised the gear handle.) The airplane was flown without a ferry permit to an outside facility in Addision, TX...a CRS that the state mechanics knew would not keep a record of the extent of damage.....where it was repaired, repainted, and flown back to home base. The flashy new state-flag paint job and it's new tail number "N1TX" was assigned to then-governor GW Bush as his personal steed. {His staff hated the paint scheme and refused to let him fly in it because it was too "showy" and they thought it posed a security risk. They never knew it was probably also a STRUCTURAL security risk as well.) No record now exists of the extensive nature of repairs on that airplane. If it's ever sold it'll likely be listed as "personal plane of GW Bush."

Anyway, I'm not arguing that discrepancy lists aren't valuable information or that I wouldn't like to see them included in aircraft logs....I'm just not convinced the regs require that. (Tom, Ask your PMI how many times he's "written up" an inspector who didn't include the discrpancy list in his annual inspections? If he's so certain the regs require it, then he should be able to point to a lot of write-ups and guys that have been violated. Otherwise I'd guess he's just wishing it were so.)

[zero.one.victor]

I happened upon a handout from the Seattle FSDO today: "GENERAL AVIATION - Aircraft Owner,Operator, Mechanic, and Agency- AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES revised 02 July 1999". It's a xeroxed pamphlet, not an official advisory circular.
It's got some pretty good information about what you should do regarding maintenance & how to log it, depending on if you are: A) an owner B) an A&P C) an IA, or D) a CRS.
I quote:
"Required entry for annual inspection when aircraft is found to be "unairworthy". Note that the date, total time,and tach reading are included.
(example) January 18,1967. Total time 853.0 hours. Tach reading 420.80. I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an annual inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (insert date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or lessee.
George B. Jones IA272182 "
This is as per our earlier discussions. But there is no mention of including the list as part of the actual logbook entry, just the requirement for a (seperate) list. But then again, this handout is 5 or 6 years old.

Eric

[Tom Downey]

The next seminar for IA renewal I will make reservations for you to attend too, you can record the conversation for comic value when William O'Brian starts on me about how to record discrepancies.

Just remember the FAA is teaching us IA's how to protect our tickets.

[zero.one.victor]

Tom, you IA's should definitely be able to protect your tickets. I don't have any problem with that. But I feel that this photocopied pamphlet I referred to is along the same lines as what an FAA inspector verbally tells you, whether at a seminar on the phone or at your hangar-- none of these seem like they are OFFICIAL. To be OFFICIAL it seems like the procedure should be described in an FAA publication, whether the FAR's or an Advisory Circular. Kinda like the (pick one) FSDO saying there's no more field approvals allowed, then the (pick another) FSDO sez sure, we'll field approve them fat tires, or 180 gear legs, or VG's.
I've run across this sort of thing in the construction business, epecially in the non-metropolitan areas where I work these days. You get a city or county building inspector who red-tags some part of the building project. You ask what's wrong with it, he replies "not per job specs" or " it doesn't look strong enough" or just "I don't like it". Well, none of that has anything to do with it. He is supposed to be inspecting for compliance with the Uniform Building Code & Uniform Mechanical Code. The owner's representative (contracting officer, CQC,architect,project manager) inspects for compliance with plans,specifications, & cosmetic requirements, NOT the city or county building inspector--even on a city or county project. If he can't document that the work is out of compliance with the uniform mechanical or building codes, he has no authority to red-tag it. These guys are often used to getting their way even when they're wrong, this usually sets them back a bit. But they can't deny that it's true. (that usually ticks them off even more )
My point being that there SHOULD be an established, documented procedure for these situations & that it should be put down in black & white in the FAR's or an AC. Then we can all deal with it.

Eric

[N2865C]

My point being that there SHOULD be an established, documented procedure for these situations & that it should be put down in black & white in the FAR's or an AC. Then we can all deal with it.

Eric

Remember that we are dealing with the FAA here. That would be way too easy!