The International Cessna^® 170 Association

If they wrote a document clearly telling us what to do, then they would just have to write two others documents contradicting it . You know, just to keep the whole balance of confusion going . If every thing was clearly black and white about half of them would be out of a job because they wouldn't have anything to do. Gotta love it.
Shawn

there is a swell new column by Mike Busch about this very stuff on AvWeb today, he explains the options pretty well.

"The Savvy Aviator #15", find it on http://www.avweb.com, free signup if you're not already a member there.

The direct link to the article is:
http://avweb.com/news/columns/189103-1.html

I do not agree with his assesment as to "why" a separate list of discrepancies is stipulated, but otherwise I agree with the major points of this article. (The author states that the reason the list is separate is to enable the owner to destroy the list after it is addressed. I disagree with that. I believe the reason a separate list is stipulated is because discrepancies are frequently subjective in nature and as such, may not actually be contrary to airworthiness issues. If they are subsequently found to be airworthy, then no derogatory remarks should or would have been made permanent to the aircraft records. If they ARE unairworthy, then the repairs would entered (as all work performed is required by FARs to be entered), and a record would then be in the permanent mx records.) In other words,...work NOT performed is not required to be entered. And THAT is why a list of discrepancies which have not been worked should not be listed in the logbooks. IMHO