Extending annual signoff?

Jeff K

Jeff K

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
379
Location
KBIV
Display Name
Display name:
Jeff King
Got a project plane and we got it good enough to test fly, which of course required a signed off annual. As expected, a new set of problems were discovered after the test flight, which required it being rolled back in, and another 4-6 weeks of work (a leaking bladder, some steering issues, door issues, etc etc).

The question I have for the AP's is can my AP extend the signoff, that is sign it off again using the basis as the previous annual inspection and the new squawk's being repair, or once you sign things a whole new annual inspection needs to be done?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
No
Click to expand...
Yes they can. there is nothing saying there can't be more than one annual inspection per year/month/week.

and there is nothing saying how long an annual must take.

But I really don't see why the first annual isn't good enough.

the proper way to have done this is a ferry permit for a test flight.
 
Legally an additional annual would need to be completed, otherwise the A&P would be falsifying an inspection having taken place.

How long is the current annual valid for?
 
Only one annual is required. A list of discrepancies can be given to the owner and those discrepancies can be addressed by any A&P. The aircraft is not airworthy until the discrepancies are addressed.
 
Yeah, I don’t get it. An annual was completed and it was deemed “airworthy”. It shouldn’t need another annual for a year. If you have subsequent airworthy items that occurred after the annual, repair them and get those signed off.
 
John221us said:
Yeah, I don’t get it. An annual was completed and it was deemed “airworthy”. It shouldn’t need another annual for a year. If you have subsequent airworthy items that occurred after the annual, repair them and get those signed off.
Click to expand...

He's hoping his mechanic will pencil whip a "new" annual at the end of ~6 weeks when these repairs are finished. Effectively, he's hoping to have one inspection and net a 14-15 month annual from a paperwork and $$ perspective.
 
kyleb said:
He's hoping his mechanic will pencil whip a "new" annual at the end of ~6 weeks when these repairs are finished. Effectively, he's hoping to have one inspection and net a 14-15 month annual from a paperwork and $$ perspective.
Click to expand...
Bizzarre. Than like Tom said, he should have gotten a ferry permit, I guess. I still don’t get it.
 
Hold on now. Not trying to "pencil whip" anything. I'll restate.

The aircraft was out of annual 6 years. The annual was "completed" yet on the first test flight 2+ pages of squawks were found, including numerous ones that made the aircraft unairworthy. The 2nd test flight 2 weeks later, the same thing. Now 4 weeks after that we still are fixing things.

I simply was wondering if I could avoid burning up 2 months of the annual. No is a good answer, no reason to make assumptions.

BTW, the "Ferry flight" idea was good, wish I had thought of it. Guess I'll just need to eat the time.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
He's hoping his mechanic will pencil whip a "new" annual at the end of ~6 weeks when these repairs are finished. Effectively, he's hoping to have one inspection and net a 14-15 month annual from a paperwork and $$ perspective.
Click to expand...
Ain't going to happen. the A&P-IA signed a new annual, the clock starts then.
 
I want to know who returned this aircraft to service with this amount o un-airworthy items
 
You can do an annual every month if you want but no need; continue on your present one.
Not too many IAs who will do what you ask but there are some out there. It's not legal to sign an annual without actually seeing the airplane and doing all the required items again even a month after the first one.
 
If the thing has been in their shop the entire time except for test flights, how is it any different than when the original annual takes 2 months due to issues found? I'd want them to sign off on a new annual when they complete fixing the things they didn't catch in the original annual.
 
If the IA works in the shop that's doing the work and so is familiar with the work as it's being done, he may be willing to sign off a new annual once it's complete, and that could be appropriate. If he's independent and not tracking the work done, he could still do a new annual, but he'd have to actually do the inspection.
 
I schedule my annuals so that they are ready to be signed off in the first few days of the month. That way, I get 13 months of flying (nearly) on the sign off. Any discrepancies discovered on the PMCF are addressed right away (although honestly, I can't recall any that were airworthiness issues).
 
John221us said:
Bizzarre. Than like Tom said, he should have gotten a ferry permit, I guess. I still don’t get it.
Click to expand...
No they should have gotten it right the first time.
log entry should have said " flew aircraft .5 hr. no discrepancies noted"
 
Tom-D said:
No they should have gotten it right the first time.
log entry should have said " flew aircraft .5 hr. no discrepancies noted"
Click to expand...
There is that. It sounds like someone could have been hurt or worse.
 
John221us said:
There is that. It sounds like someone could have been hurt or worse.
Click to expand...
Ya never know,, there may have been dust on the carpet. Some will gripe every thing.
Keep In mind, this is the internet.
 
kyleb said:
Effectively, he's hoping to have one inspection and net a 14-15 month annual from a paperwork and $$ perspective.
Click to expand...

I do a fully legal 13-month annual inspection every year. I just deliver it to the shop at the end of the month.

For a fully legal 14-month annual, one would not fly it for a month at the end of that period.
 
Tom-D said:
Ya never know,, there may have been dust on the carpet. Some will gripe every thing.
Keep In mind, this is the internet.
Click to expand...

And keep in mind I already described some of the issues. I left out the part on the first takeoff it was aborted because the airspeed indicator didn't work. That, leaking fuel bladders near the exhaust, non-functioning brakes, sloppy steering etc are hardly "dust on the carpet".
 
Salty said:
If the thing has been in their shop the entire time except for test flights, how is it any different than when the original annual takes 2 months due to issues found? I'd want them to sign off on a new annual when they complete fixing the things they didn't catch in the original annual.
Click to expand...

Yes, the thing has been in shop the entire time and this was exactly the basis for me asking the question.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
an airplane like that, go for shortened annual intervals, Jeff - not longer ones.
Click to expand...

No worries there. I've already budgeted a substantial maintenance budget the first year for squawks and I'll be having the mechanic nose around between intervals.
 
Jeff K said:
And keep in mind I already described some of the issues. I left out the part on the first takeoff it was aborted because the airspeed indicator didn't work. That, leaking fuel bladders near the exhaust, non-functioning brakes, sloppy steering etc are hardly "dust on the carpet".
Click to expand...
Every one of those discrepancies should have been found on the out of annual turn up required by FAR.43
(2) Each person approving a reciprocating-engine-powered aircraft for return to service after an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that approval, run the aircraft engine or engines to determine satisfactory performance in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations of—

IOWs no one did a proper preflight prior to taking the aircraft out to the hot spot and making the engine turn up.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Every one of those discrepancies should have been found on the out of annual turn up required by FAR.43
(2) Each person approving a reciprocating-engine-powered aircraft for return to service after an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that approval, run the aircraft engine or engines to determine satisfactory performance in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations of—

IOWs no one did a proper preflight prior to taking the aircraft out to the hot spot and making the engine turn up.
Click to expand...


Not a single one of those discrepancies I described have to do with the engine, which was fine. All were discovered after the 1st and 2nd test flights by the shop's test pilot. The complete citation is here and states:

(2) Each person approving a reciprocating-engine-powered aircraft for return to service after an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that approval, run the aircraft engine or engines to determine satisfactory performance in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations of -​

(i) Power output (static and idle r.p.m.);

(ii) Magnetos;

(iii) Fuel and oil pressure; and

(iv) Cylinder and oil temperature.



BTW, you are aware you answered my question and I thanked you? Is there a particular reason you are continuing on or just trying to drive your post count up?
 
Jeff K said:
Not a single one of those discrepancies I described have to do with the engine, which was fine. All were discovered after the 1st and 2nd test flights by the shop's test pilot. The complete citation is here and states:

(2) Each person approving a reciprocating-engine-powered aircraft for return to service after an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that approval, run the aircraft engine or engines to determine satisfactory performance in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations of -​

(i) Power output (static and idle r.p.m.);

(ii) Magnetos;

(iii) Fuel and oil pressure; and

(iv) Cylinder and oil temperature.



BTW, you are aware you answered my question and I thanked you? Is there a particular reason you are continuing on or just trying to drive your post count up?
Click to expand...
He's probably thinking that maybe the items should have been found at engine run up, before heading off into the blue yonder. Failed brakes and the fuel leak probably should have been caught.
 
GlennAB1 said:
He's probably thinking that maybe the items should have been found at engine run up, before heading off into the blue yonder. Failed brakes and the fuel leak probably should have been caught.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, but it wasn't my question. The fuel leak was discovered, fixed, but then started leaking again after the test flight. The brakes were on the passenger side. The airspeed indicator needed airspeed to test it.

I'm not mad at my shop nor was I looking for a critique of it.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Well, you keep adding facts that could cause a change in anyone's response...
Click to expand...

To my orginal question? I don't follow. I stated airworthy issues as examples in my question. That I might go into more detail when acccused of complaining of "dust on a carpet" or wishing my mechanic to pencil whip shouldn't really change any answer. The plane was first signed off as "Airworthy" in late August, but it has yet to leave the shop after 2 months and 3 test flights that have discovered airworthy issues. I'm hopeful by the end of the month wil have licked all the airworthy issues.

I simply was asking if the annual signoff could be extended to the final airworthy item being resolved, or tracked back to the first sign-off (ergo "extended annual").

I got a pretty clear "NO" from TarHeePilot on the 2nd answer, not the answer I hoped for but the one I expected. Yet here we are 32 posts later....
 
Last edited:
Hey Joe, you did my annual last year and it hasn't flown at all, would you mind just extending my annual...

What's the difference?

It's up to the IA, it's on his certificate
 
I’m tracking your frustration with your situation and I can empathize. They signed off the annual, but you discovered issues post-annual that have taken the airplane down for another extensive period of time, which has now begun eating away at your fresh annual time. You could always ask them to sign off a fresh annual since the plane has been with them this whole time. Personally, I doubt they’ll do it. They’d basically be admitting that they they did a less than perfect job the first time, but I’m not them nor am I an A&P/IA, so it’s just an opinion. Fwiw, people have surprised me with their reasonableness before...
 
GlennAB1 said:
Hey Joe, you did my annual last year and it hasn't flown at all, would you mind just extending my annual...

What's the difference?

It's up to the IA, it's on his certificate
Click to expand...
Hey Joe, my plane has been in your hangar since June while you work on it. Would you mind giving it back to me with the fresh annual I paid for?
 
Jeff K said:
Whi The fuel leak was discovered, fixed, but then started leaking again after the test flight. The brakes were on the passenger side. The airspeed indicator needed airspeed to test it.

I'm not mad at my shop nor was I looking for a critique of it.
Click to expand...
This is a prime example of What I feel is very poor maintenance practices.
when a fuel leak is properly repaired it does not leak again.
brakes are tested from both sides prior to being released for flight.
and there are test sets for all indicators, specially the air speed. this could have caused an accident on a test flight. A simply static system check would have caught this.
 
Tom-D said:
This is a prime example of What I feel is very poor maintenance practices.

I agree, it is not the best maintenance practices I've ever seen, BUT ...

when a fuel leak is properly repaired it does not leak again.

Nor do the bladders leak "near the exhaust". Bladders being in the wing and the exhaust being north of the firewall. AND if the hoses were leaking during the annual they surely would have been caught. Sounds to me like they leaked after being "exercised" during a bumpy test flight and perhaps a character building test landing.

brakes are tested from both sides prior to being released for flight.

They may have worked fine on a low speed taxi test and failed during a high speed landing. You never know.

and there are test sets for all indicators, specially the air speed. this could have caused an accident on a test flight. A simply static system check would have caught this.

Not a requirement in the annual/100 hour test procedures in the regs. Unless you want to hang your hat on "all systems must be in working order" or other weasel words like this one in which case a jammed cigarette ashtray would be cause to reject the aircraft for unworthiness.

You are correct in that the correct procedure would have been to request a ferry permit from airport A back to airport A. And, had I been the IA that signed the original annual I certainly would have protected my @$$ by giving the guy another annual (as you said, Tom, no required time to complete an annual) which should have been MERCIFULLY short after having just done one a couple of months ago AND a lot of work and open inspection holes during the subsequent repairs.

Jim
Click to expand...

I would beg of my colleagues one unconfusion factor when we read these things.

1. It is true that an Inspection Authorization is only given to a current Airframe and Powerplant mechanic.

2. A mechanic may not sign off an annual.

3. An inspector may not repair an airplane.

When the A&P/IA signs off on an annual, (s)he is doing it as an INSPECTOR.

When the A&P/IA repairs an airplane (s)he is doing it as a MECHANIC.

Not all A&Ps are IAs. All IAs are A&Ps.

When you are referring to the mechanic as signing off the annual, it gives at least me the heeby-jeebies that some A&P is signing off that which (s)he can't. When it refers to the fellow that signed off the annual doing the repairs it doesn't much bother me.

And yes, an IA can sign off as inspected the work (s)he did as a mechanic.

I know Tom has done this a hundred times, but after 40 years as an A&P and 20+ years as an IA, I finally signed a 337 (Major Repair/Alteration) on which I played ALL 3 parts ... an aviation hat trick, as it were.

I entered it as the owner of the airplane, signed the installation of an ADSB as the mechanic, then approved my own work as the IA. It seemed kind of funny, but them's the rules.

Jim
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top