Pencil Whipped Annuals

[JoseCuervo]

Not really, because after they sat there for two years, they're now pretty much junk. That's why repos and seizures are never a good deal.



Just because someone lost a medical doesn't mean they should be expected to give their plane away below market.

No, they are not junk after 2 years.

 

[Jaybird180]

Henning sometimes speaks in hyperbole. However, how long are you going to keep the price of your beloved (for example) 1965 Bonanza at $235k because that's what you bought it for in 2005? Even though you can't fly it, you are doggone gonna get your money out of it at resale, not realizing that it's losing value every month.

I know of an "abandoned" 201 (in otherwise good condition) that the seller says he's not taking a penny less than $30k for it. Says a guy offered him $25 a couple years ago (may have been me) and he told him to pound sand, meanwhile he says he's been working on it and has put $6k into small nickel/dime parts. Good math there buddy.

 

[timwinters]

No, $27k is an "as is, where is" price. The plane is legal to fly for a year. You assume that these ADs have not been CW, but I see no evidence of that, nor the rebuttal from the IA who signed it off.

The price of the aircraft is completely irrelevant if the seller said it would come with "a fresh annual." "A fresh annual" implies that it's going to be "signed off" i.e. certified airworthy with all airworthiness squawks fixed...and not that the seller will be handing the buyer a squawk list that his A&P gave him.

If the seller didn't agree to "a fresh annual" then I agree with you.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The price of the aircraft is completely irrelevant if the seller said it would come with "a fresh annual." "A fresh annual" implies that it's going to be "signed off" i.e. certified airworthy with all airworthiness squawks fixed...and not that the seller will be handing the buyer a squawk list that his A&P gave him.



If the seller didn't agree to "a fresh annual" then I agree with you.

Is there an annual signed off in the logs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Henning]

The price of the aircraft is completely irrelevant if the seller said it would come with "a fresh annual." "A fresh annual" implies that it's going to be "signed off" i.e. certified airworthy with all airworthiness squawks fixed...and not that the seller will be handing the buyer a squawk list that his A&P gave him.

If the seller didn't agree to "a fresh annual" then I agree with you.

It "has" a fresh annual. He is disputing the validity of the annual, which I don't have evidence to see as accurate. Squawks are squawks, they have nothing to do with the annual.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Henning....why didn't you get your A&P?

 

[Henning]

No, they are not junk after 2 years.

That depends on where they sit. I will promise you that if you park a plane on the ramp at FXE and let it sit for 2 years, it will certainly be junk, especially if it has a Lycoming. EYW will eat a plane in 6 months.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

maybe that's why lots don't like Florida planes....

 

[JoseCuervo]

That depends on where they sit. I will promise you that if you park a plane on the ramp at FXE and let it sit for 2 years, it will certainly be junk, especially if it has a Lycoming. EYW will eat a plane in 6 months.

What makes you think this plane is at FXE?

What makes you think this plane has a Lycoming?


If you do a bit of math, lots of 50 year old planes with 3000 hours spent al lot of years not racking up hours and did not become junk. Look at the logs, lots of gaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GlennAB1]

Ain't we all? -- still looking.

If you don't know what you are looking for, you'll not know it when you see it.

Oh he knows what he's looking for, being a PP with A&P for 30 years. Being 6'4" he'not open to everything.

 

[GlennAB1]

It "has" a fresh annual. He is disputing the validity of the annual, which I don't have evidence to see as accurate. Squawks are squawks, they have nothing to do with the annual.

One thing is for sure, Inspectors will never look at things the same. Hopefully though, they will all catch the big stuff.

 

[petrolero]

Buy plane for $27k. Overhaul engine for $35k. You now have a 182 with 0-time engine for $62K! Then perform all ADs for $5k. You're in it for $67k. That's a great price for an airplane of that caliber.

Hell I sold a raggedy out-of-annual C172G in 2003 for $27k! So unless this thing has a showstopper such as corrosion or damage or a 10,000 hour airframe, it's got to be worth $27k easy.

Squabbling about compressions when you're only playing $27k sorta seems like... what are you expecting for $27k?

Seems like your expectations for what you can get for $27k are way too high.

Although weirdjim's posts are over the top, he's correct in the sense that the requirements for airworthiness don't amount to much. ADs, of course, notwithstanding.

But for $27k I'll get my IA to go c/w all of them and walk away smiling.

Any pre-buy can turn up a list of squawks as long as your arm. Not all of them are reasonable to expect the seller to concede.

I bought an apparently pristine TR182 and I still had a list as long as my arm with many airworthiness items. A good inspector will find stuff that the last guy either missed or didn't consider "unairworthy". I agree that missed ADs are a sign that someone didn't really check for them and that suggests there may be other things neglected.

The question is not whether there is anything wrong with it - there must be - the question is whether it is worth the price being paid and whether the cost to fix it worthwhile.

 

[denverpilot]

Buy plane for $27k. Overhaul engine for $35k. You now have a 182 with 0-time engine for $62K! Then perform all ADs for $5k. You're in it for $67k. That's a great price for an airplane of that caliber.

I would say that's a normal price for that airplane, not a "great" one.

I bought an apparently pristine TR182 and I still had a list as long as my arm with many airworthiness items. A good inspector will find stuff that the last guy either missed or didn't consider "unairworthy".

Not kidding, we had seven, count them, seven A&Ps wiggle our right aileron and look over the hinges, and then they VOTED on what the shop would recommend to us, as to whether they needed replacement.

They voted four to three in favor of replacement and said the AI would sign it off for another year if we wanted to wait a year.

We told them to just get the damn work done after we had our beer meeting regarding inspection squawks amongst the co-owners and decided, "We didn't buy our own airplane to fly a rental."

THEN we found out the rear hinge half isn't stock Cessna, when the Robertson STC is added. It's larger on only the back half, due to the aileron droop system -- and a replacement set for only the back half, is available from the current STC holder for the low-low price of $930 shipped.

Heh. The joys of ownership. Still got fixed, and feels and looks better both eyeballing them and through the yoke, than the ones that came off and found their way to a trash can.

30 year old stuff is 30 year old stuff. Always going to be something to fix.

[Edit: This was a few years ago.]

 

[Silvaire]

The price of the aircraft is completely irrelevant if the seller said it would come with "a fresh annual." "A fresh annual" implies that it's going to be "signed off" i.e. certified airworthy with all airworthiness squawks fixed...and not that the seller will be handing the buyer a squawk list that his A&P gave him.

If the seller didn't agree to "a fresh annual" then I agree with you.

What does "fresh" annual mean? When does it begin to go stale?

An annual inspection means that the plane was inspected on that day and deemed to be in airworthy condition at that date and time. It doesn't mean that the airplane is going to remain in airworthy condition for another year it only means that the aircraft does not need another inspection for a year.

An inop nav light a week or a month later bears nothing on the validity of the inspection and as far as rust on the pushrod tubes - do you really want an IA to flag your aircraft as unairworthy because of that?

Some of these discussions are just plain downright ridiculous.

 

[GlennAB1]

An annual inspection means that the plane was inspected on that day and deemed to be in airworthy condition at that date and time.

It is deemed to be airworthy when the approval for return to service entry is made, after the annual inspection.

 

[timwinters]

What does "fresh" annual mean? When does it begin to go stale?

An annual inspection means that the plane was inspected on that day and deemed to be in airworthy condition at that date and time. It doesn't mean that the airplane is going to remain in airworthy condition for another year it only means that the aircraft does not need another inspection for a year.

An inop nav light a week or a month later bears nothing on the validity of the inspection and as far as rust on the pushrod tubes - do you really want an IA to flag your aircraft as unairworthy because of that?

Some of these discussions are just plain downright ridiculous.

A visually broken vacuum pump on a week-old annual? It's my understanding the plane hadn't been flown since the annual. So the vacuum pump fairies snuck in and broke it?

An oil filter that obviously hadn't been changed yet there was a notation in the logs that it was cut open at annual?

ADs not complied with?

And it wasn't a pencil whipped annual? It was all on the up-and-up?

Who's being rediculous here?

 

[N801BH]

A visually broken vacuum pump on a week-old annual? It's my understanding the plane hadn't been flown since the annual. So the vacuum pump fairies snuck in and broke it?

An oil filter that obviously hadn't been changed yet there was a notation in the logs that it was cut open at annual?

ADs not complied with?

And it wasn't a pencil whipped annual? It was all on the up-and-up?

Who's being rediculous here?

My feelings exactly.....

Something don't smell kosher with this planes maintenance records..

 

[Henning]

What does "fresh" annual mean? When does it begin to go stale?

An annual inspection means that the plane was inspected on that day and deemed to be in airworthy condition at that date and time. It doesn't mean that the airplane is going to remain in airworthy condition for another year it only means that the aircraft does not need another inspection for a year.

An inop nav light a week or a month later bears nothing on the validity of the inspection and as far as rust on the pushrod tubes - do you really want an IA to flag your aircraft as unairworthy because of that?

Some of these discussions are just plain downright ridiculous.

A month before it's due.

 

[Henning]

A visually broken vacuum pump on a week-old annual? It's my understanding the plane hadn't been flown since the annual. So the vacuum pump fairies snuck in and broke it?

An oil filter that obviously hadn't been changed yet there was a notation in the logs that it was cut open at annual?

ADs not complied with?

And it wasn't a pencil whipped annual? It was all on the up-and-up?

Who's being rediculous here?

You don't have to fly it to break a vacuum pump coupler, they are a design weak link. If the pump was worn out, it could happen by aligning the prop by turning it backwards. It's a dry vacuum pump, they break every 500 hours with no preference of phase of operation, anything that can turn the prop, can break it at that point.

Once again, Vacuum Pumps are not included in core value price. $27,000 buys you a clean airframe and a core engine. It doesn't pay for paint, interior, avionics, magnetos, spark plugs, instruments, avionics, accessories... Those are all extras on top of core price. A vacuum pump is an accessory, you don't need it to fly the plane VFR. At $27k for that plane, there are only 2 things to reject/renegotiate the deal for, air frame corrosion and a damaged engine. If it runs without knocking, it's bringing core value.

$27k does not buy a 'good' 182, $27k buys you a good starting point to build into a good 182.

 

[Jaybird180]

A visually broken vacuum pump on a week-old annual? It's my understanding the plane hadn't been flown since the annual. So the vacuum pump fairies snuck in and broke it?

An oil filter that obviously hadn't been changed yet there was a notation in the logs that it was cut open at annual?

ADs not complied with?

And it wasn't a pencil whipped annual? It was all on the up-and-up?

Who's being rediculous here?

The plane hadn't been flown since the seller's last reported flight in about Aug 2014. It went out of annual in July 2015. The annual was signed off after a 3-4 days. The 1st attempted demo flight was when the broken vacuum pump was discovered. Flight scrubbed. Next flight: the transponder was discovered INOP by ATC and the pilot was ordered to RTB (inside DC SFRA). Demo flight cut short.

In summary: no real demo flight and I also learned that Danny didn't get to finish his pre-buy inspection. He wanted to be done before dark and the owner's barrage of questions took time away from what he was doing.

One of our partners has backed out. But to be fair to him, he didn't know that Pt 91 airplane owner is not required to take the engine out of service just because it's reached TBO. Unfortunately, he was also the one who convinced the other 2 to join in. I don't know where they stand and I've never met them and I'm not interested in doing this deal alone. I can handle 25% of the risk and expenses but not 100% of the risk and expenses, and I barely fly enough to justify the 25%.

 

[Jaybird180]

You don't have to fly it to break a vacuum pump coupler, they are a design weak link. If the pump was worn out, it could happen by aligning the prop by turning it backwards. It's a dry vacuum pump, they break every 500 hours with no preference of phase of operation, anything that can turn the prop, can break it at that point.

Once again, Vacuum Pumps are not included in core value price. $27,000 buys you a clean airframe and a core engine. It doesn't pay for paint, interior, avionics, magnetos, spark plugs, instruments, avionics, accessories... Those are all extras on top of core price. A vacuum pump is an accessory, you don't need it to fly the plane VFR. At $27k for that plane, there are only 2 things to reject/renegotiate the deal for, air frame corrosion and a damaged engine. If it runs without knocking, it's bringing core value.

$27k does not buy a 'good' 182, $27k buys you a good starting point to build into a good 182.

The condition of the engine is unknown. What we do know is that the seller said it had a bad mag, so he fixed that during his annual. What's on there now is a lightweight and a heavyweight mag. Danny says he's never seen one like it, but doesn't think the rules prohibit it.

We don't know if the engine is making metal. We don't know if there's corrosion. We don't know about the compression trends. We can only guess they will go up if the it's regularly flown. We suspect the prop is ready for overhaul.

Danny's most salient comment was that it just appears the airplane was neglected and that was my sentiment too. The seller did bare minimums and moreso just wanted to have a toy to look at every once in awhile. he put 1300hrs in 42 years of ownership on it. The factory/ dealer put the first 200 on it in the first 6months of it's life.

 

[Henning]

The condition of the engine is unknown. What we do know is that the seller said it had a bad mag, so he fixed that during his annual. What's on there now is a lightweight and a heavyweight mag. Danny says he's never seen one like it, but doesn't think the rules prohibit it.

We don't know if the engine is making metal. We don't know if there's corrosion. We don't know about the compression trends. We can only guess they will go up if the it's regularly flown. We suspect the prop is ready for overhaul.

Danny's most salient comment was that it just appears the airplane was neglected and that was my sentiment too. The seller did bare minimums and moreso just wanted to have a toy to look at every once in awhile. he put 1300hrs in 42 years of ownership on it. The factory/ dealer put the first 200 on it in the first 6months of it's life.

You need to leave this one for someone who appreciates it and will turn it into a Katmai. That's a super low time airframe with no reports of corrosion, it needs someone who appreciates that and has the will to make it a better than new plane for half the price of a new one. This will likely make an excellent $250k, 260hp, glass panel, Katmai. It would be a shame to waste a clean low time airframe of this vintage. For what you are looking for this won't work.

If you need a 4 way partnership to get the plane you want, you don't want a project plane, you want a nice plane that will just fly for 5 years.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The condition of the engine is unknown. What we do know is that the seller said it had a bad mag, so he fixed that during his annual. What's on there now is a lightweight and a heavyweight mag. Danny says he's never seen one like it, but doesn't think the rules prohibit it.

We don't know if the engine is making metal. We don't know if there's corrosion. We don't know about the compression trends. We can only guess they will go up if the it's regularly flown. We suspect the prop is ready for overhaul.

Danny's most salient comment was that it just appears the airplane was neglected and that was my sentiment too. The seller did bare minimums and moreso just wanted to have a toy to look at every once in awhile. he put 1300hrs in 42 years of ownership on it. The factory/ dealer put the first 200 on it in the first 6months of it's life.

A friend of mine wanted to build rep 18-hole golf courses and associated real estate development. It required 5 farmers all agreeing and their land being the basis of the development in order to get the necessary acres.

It was funnier than hell watching him try to keep 5 people pointed the same direction long enough to accomplish the planning and zoning, let alone actually move dirt.

No way you keep 5 partners together on a plane that isn't ready to go Day 1 and has a 99% dispatch rate.


That being said, 1 person should jump all over this.

A $300 vacuum pump,
$$500 used transponder
$100 oil change

Fly the hell out of it for the next year, another $800 annual in August, sell it for $35k as a perfectly airworthy 182.

Easy money.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Sales tax.

 

[petrolero]

What does "fresh" annual mean? When does it begin to go stale?

An annual inspection means that the plane was inspected on that day and deemed to be in airworthy condition at that date and time. It doesn't mean that the airplane is going to remain in airworthy condition for another year it only means that the aircraft does not need another inspection for a year.

An inop nav light a week or a month later bears nothing on the validity of the inspection and as far as rust on the pushrod tubes - do you really want an IA to flag your aircraft as unairworthy because of that?

Some of these discussions are just plain downright ridiculous.

"Fresh annual" is a common term that means the annual was recently completed as opposed to coming due soon. Don't overthink it.

 

[petrolero]

If the only problem with engine (assuming it has been scoped) is "compression in the 60s" then it's not really a problem. Either accept the oil burn and consider it a continuous oil change or top it for $8k.

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

It doesn't pay for paint, interior, avionics, magnetos, spark plugs, instruments, avionics, accessories... Those are all extras on top of core price. .

Oh my, my… I'm hearing Donna Summer…

Strumming my pain with his fingers
Singing my life with his words
Killing me softly with his song
Killing me softly with his song
Telling my whole life with his words
Killing me softly, with his song

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

The plane hadn't been flown since the seller's last reported flight in about Aug 2014. It went out of annual in July 2015. The annual was signed off after a 3-4 days. The 1st attempted demo flight was when the broken vacuum pump was discovered. Flight scrubbed. Next flight: the transponder was discovered INOP by ATC and the pilot was ordered to RTB (inside DC SFRA). Demo flight cut short.

In summary: no real demo flight and I also learned that Danny didn't get to finish his pre-buy inspection. He wanted to be done before dark and the owner's barrage of questions took time away from what he was doing.

One of our partners has backed out. But to be fair to him, he didn't know that Pt 91 airplane owner is not required to take the engine out of service just because it's reached TBO. Unfortunately, he was also the one who convinced the other 2 to join in. I don't know where they stand and I've never met them and I'm not interested in doing this deal alone. I can handle 25% of the risk and expenses but not 100% of the risk and expenses, and I barely fly enough to justify the 25%.

Jaybird, believe me, the INOPs you describe are all PAR for the course. The only problem is that you've got partners. That makes me think it's best to walk. Project planes are stressful and very personal. I've actually fallen in love with mine. It will be one of the finest Rallye's on the planet when I'm done, but going through the surprises is not something it's easy to do as a group.

I actually think old planes deliberate break for a new owner. it's a test of commitment. They're trying to find out whether you really love them.

 

[Rcmutz]

Except that if it needs an engine, then all of a sudden you're at $67k and the rest of it is still junk. You can buy a nice, well equipped 182 with a low or mid-time engine for less than that. Maybe not one of that late of vintage, but I'd far rather have an earlier, lighter, model anyway.

As we always say...cheap airplanes are seldom cheap.

And hence the problem in today's market.

There are a lot of airplanes for sale that have engines that are questionable with owners who know it when, not if, and is only a matter of time when the engine will need overhaul. These sellers are trying to get out before they get hit with a $20-$30K bill, but do not price there airplane for the current market. They think they are back in 2003-2005. Prices have fallen, airplanes have gotten older, avionics better, but they are stuck with their plane and equipment from 1980-1990. So these airplanes sit, unsold, rotting. They would be better parting them out.

Avionics are used once installed... worth 50-60% of new value
Paint, after a couple of years, figure 50%
Interior, after the 1-2 years... 50%

It is real easy to get upside down in your plane. Once you are, you better keep it or be resigned to not get back what you put into it.

I also like the seller who tells me about his $5000 annual or long list of items he has done to the plane as a way to justify his price. Dude, ever hear of maintenance and upkeep?

 

[Rcmutz]

That's just it really, same thing, you end up with the engine you want without having to pay for the remainder of the engine someone else wanted, but since you're buying at core value, any hours you put on this one are free.

Yep! I'd much rather buy an airplane APPROPRIATELY priced with a run-out engine, than one with 100-200 hrs SMOH 10 years ago.

 

[Rcmutz]

How many times have we seen the owner get a list of discrepancies, and simply sell the aircraft rather than fix it.

Have we ever seen any one buy a mediocre aircraft learn to fly, then sell it as is, where is.

If you want to buy any 182 for 27k (about 50% of market) don't expect to fly it today.

When you want to fly your family today, your going to pay much more to do it safely.

aaahhhh..there is that word, "safe". Safe is a state of mind. What is safe to you may not be safe to the next person.

Airworthy does not equal safe, depending on your "state of mind".

 

[GlennAB1]

aaahhhh..there is that word, "safe". Safe is a state of mind. What is safe to you may not be safe to the next person.

Airworthy does not equal safe, depending on your "state of mind".

Is it safe to say something derogatory about Ohio State?... definitely depends upon your state of mind... LOL, I'm a Buckeye fan, too!

 

[Tom-D]

Airworthy does not equal safe, depending on your "state of mind".

It does when you read the whole thing as stated by The FAA and use it the sense it was intended.

14 CFR Part 3, General Requirements, was established. The definition was included in the guidance, such as Advisory Circulars and Orders, but never in the Rule. Part 3 defines the definition of Airworthy as, the aircraft conforms to its type design or its properly altered condition, and is in a condition for safe operation.

 

[GlennAB1]

But, "in a condition for safe operation" is subjective.

 

[Silvaire]

Annual inspection and sign off means it is in compliance and safe at that moment in time and that the required annual inspection has been completed. Run the wingtip into a light pole at the pumps on the way out and it is still in annual. Finding a broken coupler on the vacuum pump a week later has nothing to do with the annual.

I'm not implying that things never get pencil whipped or even that that's not the case here but what you have are nothing more than assumptions and you have made up your mind on the matter. So honestly, the list has a hint of "witch hunt" to it. We already talked about the allegedly outstanding AD's. You need to understand that you don't comply with AD's that are not applicable.

There's just a lot of nit picky stuff on that list and a big deal is being made of nothing but if you have it in your mind to go that way none of us are going to change that.

 

[Henning]

Right, if you don't want it, you don't want it. You don't have to find a problem with the deal to justify it. Trying to call the deal a 'bad deal' on the list of complaints you have is dishonest though.

 

[GlennAB1]

Subjective maybe, but not dishonest.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Tom....show us your #2.

 

[RotorAndWing]

From 8900.1

10/1/15



8900.1 CHG 422

VOLUME 14 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Indicates new/changed information.
CHAPTER 3 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 4 Airworthiness

14-3-4-1 AIRWORTHY OR UNAIRWORTHY? The term “airworthiness” or one of its derivatives is not defined in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) or Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Nevertheless, a clear understanding of its meaning is an essential tool for the compliance program. Airworthiness is a concept that represents the substance of two of the most fundamental safety regulations: 14 CFR part 43, § 43.15(a) and 14 CFR part 91, § 91.7(a).

A. Airworthiness. Since “airworthiness” is not defined in the revised 49 U.S.C., Subtitle VII, Part A, or in 14 CFR part 11, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential in conducting a violation investigation. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” These conditions are:

1) The aircraft must conform to its type design (certificate). Conformity to type design is considered attained when the required and proper components are installed and they are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the type certificate (TC). Conformity would include applicable Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) and field-approved alterations.

2) The aircraft must be in condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft in relation to wear and deterioration; such conditions could be skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, tire wear, etc.

B. Regulatory Background.

1) Section 43.15(a) states that each person conducting a 100-hour, annual, or progressive inspection required by part 91 must perform those inspections in such a manner as to determine whether the aircraft meets all applicable airworthiness requirements.

2) Section 91.7(a) states that no one may operate a civil aircraft unless it is airworthy.

C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Decisions. The example below clearly expresses the view that an aircraft is airworthy only if it is capable of a safe operation and it conforms to its TC.

1) In this case, the issue was whether the pilot had violated § 91.7(a) by operating an aircraft that was not in an airworthy condition. The respondent had taxied the aircraft into a mud hole, causing the propeller to strike the ground. As a result, one blade was bent and the other was nicked. Upon restarting, the engine ran smoothly, so the pilot did not consider the damage to be significant. The pilot decided to give the aircraft a test flight and found that there was no unusual engine vibration or other indication of malfunction. The pilot then operated the aircraft from Nevada to Kansas to New York to Pennsylvania, and to several locations in Florida.

2) Upon hearing the case after a subsequent investigation revealed the damage and the violation, the examiner held that the damage to the propeller caused it to be unairworthy and sustained the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allegation that the respondent had violated § 91.7(a). The examiner’s findings were based on the theory that an aircraft is airworthy if it conforms to its type certification, but that it is not airworthy if its original design and specifications are altered without FAA approval.

3) The concept of airworthiness expressed in this case must be considered to be the correct one because it is the one which best lends itself to effective enforcement. It is supported clearly by some NTSB precedents and is reinforced by the framework of 49 U.S.C. and the practical operation of the FAA itself. The concept that an aircraft need only be capable of a safe operation to be airworthy cannot be applied effectively because it places too much discretion in the individual pilot or mechanic, safety being a subjective value.

D. Additional Interpretations. A careful study of 49 U.S.C. indicates that the term airworthiness should be interpreted in the manner that it has been in the example above.

1) Title 49 U.S.C. § 44704(d)(1) allows the registered owner of an aircraft to apply for an airworthiness certificate. If the FAA finds that the aircraft conforms to the TC for that aircraft and determines, after inspection, that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight, the FAA issues the airworthiness certificate.

2) The statutory language in § 44704(d)(1) clearly establishes that two tests be applied in determining whether the owner of an aircraft should be granted an airworthiness certificate. First, the aircraft must conform to the TC for that aircraft. Then, if that condition is met, the aircraft must be inspected to determine that it is in a condition which will permit its safe operation.

3) The very term “airworthiness certificate” implies that an aircraft granted such a certificate is “airworthy.” Therefore, an aircraft denied such a certificate is not airworthy. The plain meaning of § 44704(d)(1) indicates that 49 U.S.C. intended that an aircraft should not be considered to merit the issuance of an airworthiness certificate unless it conforms to the TC applicable to it. Therefore, it can be argued that 49 U.S.C. established the concept of airworthiness to mean, “…conforms to its type certificate and, after inspection, is in condition for safe operation.”

4) The practical operation of the FAA should also be considered in determining which concept of airworthiness is most appropriate. If the term airworthy were interpreted to mean only to be in a condition for safe flight, at times it would be unreasonably difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the regulations which turn upon the meaning of that term. In order to prove that a pilot operated an unairworthy aircraft or that a mechanic certified an unairworthy aircraft as airworthy, the FAA sometimes would be required to undertake an extensive test-flight program of an aircraft that did not conform to the applicable TC.

5) Moreover, if airworthy meant only to be in a condition for safe flight, it would render the entire airworthiness certification procedure meaningless. Title 49 U.S.C. provides for the issuance of a TC, a certificate that includes the type design as dictated by the type certification data in the aircraft’s operating limitations and any other conditions or limitations prescribed in the applicable regulations. Title 49 U.S.C. specifies that the TC is to be referred to in determining whether an aircraft should be granted an airworthiness certificate. However, if an aircraft need only be capable of safe flight to be considered airworthy, after the original airworthiness certificate is issued, any mechanic could modify a particular aircraft in any manner that pleased the mechanic and the aircraft would be presumed to be airworthy unless the FAA could prove that the modification was in some way detrimental to the aircraft’s flight characteristics or structural strength.

E. Conclusion. To be airworthy, an aircraft must conform to its TC as well as be in a condition for safe operation. A word of caution is necessary, however, if this concept of airworthiness is to be applied effectively in enforcement cases. Where the evidence clearly shows the aircraft is not in a condition for safe operation, the NTSB will normally sustain a finding that the aircraft was unairworthy. However, even if the aircraft is not in conformance with the TC, the NTSB will probably not sustain a finding that the aircraft was unairworthy unless the evidence also shows it was unsafe for flight. More detailed evidence is required about the TC and the way the aircraft improperly deviates from the TC in order to sustain a finding of unairworthy based on nonconformance alone.

14-3-4-3 through 14-3-4-17 RESERVED.

1 Recently, a definition was added to 14 CFR part 3, § 3.5, which is in general agreement with the content in this section: “Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.” However, the applicability of the definition is limited to persons making record entries as described in part 3 only, and excludes 14 CFR part 43 records.

 

[zwaustin]

Wow I sense some anger here.... Next thread