A question for the CFIa amoung us

[Tom-D]

And I bet that's why I see them in all three - because our shops have the stamp that says 100HR/ANNUAL and the Engine/Airfame/Prop Check boxes, and they're probably in the habit of marking them on all three everytime they do the inspections at all.

That statement high lights the question of how many CFIs know the difference when FAR 43-D is the scope and detail of a 100 hour/annual.

 

[TMetzinger]

That statement high lights the question of how many CFIs know the difference when FAR 43-D is the scope and detail of a 100 hour/annual.

I was taught that the scope was the same - and would see airplane logs where the inspection was logged both as the 100HR and the Annual, since the timing matched up.

I freely admit that what I don't know about maintenance is a lot.

 

[LearDriver]

File this under, CFIs Who Make Up Stuff. Membership in that club remains steady.

Why so much hate towards the CFI's?

 

[Henning]

Were you operating within part 91 or ?

I was always 91, but I see from the post above this you have the appropriate reference declaring any "annual inspection" declaration to only be required in the aircraft log.

 

[Tom-D]

I was taught that the scope was the same - and would see airplane logs where the inspection was logged both as the 100HR and the Annual, since the timing matched up.

I freely admit that what I don't know about maintenance is a lot.

The only difference between an annual and the 100 hours is, who can sign them off.

and requirement of all aircraft in part 91 for having an annual each 12 months, though You may never need a 100 hour.

 

[Tom-D]

Why so much hate towards the CFI's?

not all,,,,,,, just the stupid ones, who require owners to have entries they do not need.

If you elect to have your A&P-IA place the entry in your log that's OK but when a CFI requires you to get one that is not required that is a different matter.

If you are going to teach, teach the correct info.

 

[Henning]

And I bet that's why I see them in all three - because our shops have the stamp that says 100HR/ANNUAL and the Engine/Airfame/Prop Check boxes, and they're probably in the habit of marking them on all three everytime they do the inspections at all.

I think that's likely it. There is no regulation stating you "may not" so shops just so they don't miss one, or get some idiot DPE who doesn't know the rules cause problems and end up with an angry customer, easier just to stamp/tag all the books. As long as the required ones are there, I'm good.

As far as a DPE calling a ride off over it, that's a different subject. He should KNOW this stuff inside and out. He's getting paid 100hr to test people on it.

 

[Doggtyred]

The only difference between an annual and the 100 hours is, who can sign them off.

and requirement of all aircraft in part 91 for having an annual each 12 months, though You may never need a 100 hour.

For the average part 91 owner that sums it up.

For a rental fleet, the oversimplified version is the 100 hr is look-and-lube.

The annual involves reviewing for AD's in addition to 100 hr type inspection/service and must be by an IA. Of course some planes that have AD's that mandate action every 100 hrs.

Some planes never reach 100 hrs a year. Others get 100hr inspections every three calendar weeks.

And you don't HAVE to wait for the 100 hrs or calendar year to lapse before beginning the next inspection cycle... For example If you trash a jug at 10 months, as long as it's worded properly, you can have your annual during repair downtime and reset the calendar clock. No reason to go back down in two months. Key is how it's worded and who does it (IA).

 

[Henning]

The only difference between an annual and the 100 hours is, who can sign them off.

and requirement of all aircraft in part 91 for having an annual each 12 months, though You may never need a 100 hour.

However if you are in a position Pt 91 to require a 100hr and you don't need one, you're not doing too well...

 

[jesse]

If you are going to teach, teach the correct info.

That's always the goal, I don't think many try to teach the incorrect info, but it is much easier said than done.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, as I'm getting your point, you're saying that the "Annual Inspection" only needs to be logged and signed off in "Aircraft Log" since the engine is part of the aircraft. You log the procedures and services in the respective books. I can see your logic. How well it works in practice with DEs and FSDO ramp checks, I have absolutely no clue.

It works fine if they know the rules.

I'm trying to remember our stamps and I thought the "Annual" stamp had an option for "engine" and "airframe".

I've seen such stamps, but the fact that the person who ordered the stamp chose to put it in there doesn't mean the FAA requires it.

If that recollection is correct, then at least convention points to it being signed "annual" in each book. Best I can recollect all my engine logs have had "Annual" sign offs in them.

I see it a lot, too, in my clients' airplanes, but that doesn't make it necessary or correct.

 

[Tom-D]

It works fine if they know the rules.

I've seen such stamps, but the fact that the person who ordered the stamp chose to put it in there doesn't mean the FAA requires it.

I see it a lot, too, in my clients' airplanes, but that doesn't make it necessary or correct.

Rubber stamps are not being used as much as they once were, many IAs have gone to the sticky to be placed in the maintenance records.

advantage? copy and paste from most any place such as the required wording in 43.11. and the ability to save in your computer files we use to track maintenance we have done in the past.

I do not see the hand scribbling I used to.

 

[xaminmo]

I think the confusion comes from shops that outsource each piece to a specialist. Our club plane is like that. There's a common stamp saying "Inspected this _______________ in accordance with 100HR/Annual blah blah" and they fill in the piece. The prop is sent off to somewhere else and it gets its own maint log sticker, and then the prop is returned to service. The engine is inspected, plugs, oil, etc and gets an RTS signoff too. Then the avionics and airframe, and the final signoff for the whole airplane.

I'm guessing this is fairly common, since a similar thing happened at my flight school. If that's all someone had ever seen, and they had no other guidance, then it makes sense that it would seem regulatory if not dug up like Troy and Ron posted.

 

[Henning]

Rubber stamps are not being used as much as they once were, many IAs have gone to the sticky to be placed in the maintenance records.

advantage? copy and paste from most any place such as the required wording in 43.11. and the ability to save in your computer files we use to track maintenance we have done in the past.

I do not see the hand scribbling I used to.

Sticky back log entries are a "win" all around. You don't need to carry your log books around traveling.

 

[Tom-D]

Sticky back log entries are a "win" all around. You don't need to carry your log books around traveling.

That is solely dependent upon what the sticker says.

I require a log for me to paste them in, and make the time entry on the page of the book.

I don't trust owners to not loose the sticker.

I use these http://www.avery.com/avery/en_us/Products/Labels/?Ns=Rank

 

[Tom-D]

I think the confusion comes from shops that outsource each piece to a specialist. Our club plane is like that. There's a common stamp saying "Inspected this _______________ in accordance with 100HR/Annual blah blah" and they fill in the piece. The prop is sent off to somewhere else and it gets its own maint log sticker, and then the prop is returned to service. The engine is inspected, plugs, oil, etc and gets an RTS signoff too. Then the avionics and airframe, and the final signoff for the whole airplane.

I'm guessing this is fairly common, since a similar thing happened at my flight school. If that's all someone had ever seen, and they had no other guidance, then it makes sense that it would seem regulatory if not dug up like Troy and Ron posted.

I have several issues with that method of doing the annual.
Read FAR 43 Apendix D and see what is says about who does an annual.

If your school is a certified part 41 school they will have a director of maintenance and they are responsible to sign off the annual. there is no need for a separate entry in each log.

 

[denverpilot]

That is solely dependent upon what the sticker says.

I require a log for me to paste them in, and make the time entry on the page of the book.

I don't trust owners to not loose the sticker.

I use these http://www.avery.com/avery/en_us/Products/Labels/?Ns=Rank

How do you handle transients that break down? No one carries their logs with them, they're too valuable.

 

[Tom-D]

How do you handle transients that break down?

I don't .... I'm a freelanced A&P-IA not an FBO, You must know me or be referred to me, and when you are bring your logs.

 

[denverpilot]

I just asked because the whole system is retarded. In the modern age, it sure seems like a well-designed and maintained online database would be an excellent replacement for all of this paper.

Certain maintenance organizations and fleets do it, but it hasn't trickled down to any company or system that I'm aware of handling the average GA light aircraft.

Why have a stupid argument about which logbook to put a signature in? Just put the stuff in a database and query what has or hasn't been done.

Paper for when no Net connection is available or the system is down, scanned and added later.

Talk about a silly and difficult for no good reason at all, system... wouldn't it be great as a pilot to be able to LOOK and see if all the proper maintenance was done on a rental in a centralized database? No more wasting time getting two or three people to "go over the logs" every time a student wants to get a checkride done... just pull up the web page and if it's green, everything's done.

Etc etc etc... never going to happen, I know... but having to figure out the rules for the caring and feeding of paper logs in 2011... is dumb.

 

[xaminmo]

I require a log for me to paste them in, and make the time entry on the page of the book.

I don't trust owners to not loose the sticker.

HEAR HEAR. I'm detail oriented, partly for the sake of being accurate, partly for the sake of protection if the NTSB or FAA are ever digging around, and partly for proof of minimal safety for me.

Several times I've gone to make photocopies of the logs for the recent maintenance, and they're not there 3-4 weeks later. "Oh, I forgot. I'll put them in this weekend."

I have several issues with that method of doing the annual.
Read FAR 43 Apendix D and see what is says about who does an annual.

If your school is a certified part 41 school they will have a director of maintenance and they are responsible to sign off the annual. there is no need for a separate entry in each log.

I too have issues with it. I understand specialization, but other than specific avionics components, and maybe prop rebuilds, I think it just leads to an unwarranted dilution of accountability. Sometimes it's something small that gets overlooked, and sometimes it's not.

I feel that ideally, the sign-off is done by the person who has inspected every maint and repair in detail, AND has done the flight check. The school did most of it, including all of the integration, in-house. Our club plane's last annual wasn't as integrated.

I just asked because the whole system is retarded. In the modern age, it sure seems like a well-designed and maintained online database would be an excellent replacement for all of this paper.

Here's why that's not best: Database corruption. Happens all the time. "Oops, we lost our systems. All of your planes are now unairworthy until completely reinspected."

Paper doesn't crash, and is easy enough to make backup copies. It also keeps accountability with the aircraft owner, who is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of their aircraft.

 

[Tom-D]

I too have issues with it. I understand specialization, but other than specific avionics components, and maybe prop rebuilds, I think it just leads to an unwarranted dilution of accountability. Sometimes it's something small that gets overlooked, and sometimes it's not.

Remember the A&p in the field can't do anything but minor repairs on props, which is the ICAs issued in the owner's hand book. If a prop comes off for repair, there is no such thing as a rebuild on a prop, it's overhaul or nothing. and there will be the proper sign off in the new log book.

I feel that ideally, the sign-off is done by the person who has inspected every maint and repair (snip)

That is how the FAA sees it too.


Here's why that's not best: Database corruption. Happens all the time. "Oops, we lost our systems. All of your planes are now unairworthy until completely reinspected."

the control and use of the maintenance records are the responsibility of the owner /operator and can not be delegated to anyone, even the government.

Paper doesn't crash, and is easy enough to make backup copies. It also keeps accountability with the aircraft owner, who is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of their aircraft.

that system has worked for a very long time and has never failed, unless we mess it up by not understanding the rules.

 

[dmccormack]

I still have the original logbooks from 1940. The handwriting was elegant, clear, and legible.

And frequent -- it looks like they changed the oil twice a week.

My handwriting has devolved into tangled fishing line.

 

[denverpilot]

Here's why that's not best: Database corruption. Happens all the time. "Oops, we lost our systems. All of your planes are now unairworthy until completely reinspected."

Did you miss the part about "properly maintained"?

Professionals don't run databases without backups. Period. Full stop. (Anything less is not professional grade.)

If someone can't tell you how long it will take them to restore from backups... well, fired on the spot comes to mind.

(Unfortunately this would mean roughly a 65-75% reduction in all IT staff tomorrow in most shops.)

Augmenting that I also said "properly designed"... which would include an "always up" system design for something as big a deal as a national MX database.

Like I said, I know it won't happen. Everyone's far too in love with paper.

Paper doesn't crash, and is easy enough to make backup copies. It also keeps accountability with the aircraft owner, who is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of their aircraft.

Paper does "crash". All the time. I have a gallon of red kool-aid here if you'd like me to demonstrate.

Logs are lost, destroyed, mangled, and un-readable/illegible all the time.

As far as the owner being responsible, didn't you just argue they're not worthy of such at the outset -- by saying they can't even handle simple stickers?

Wouldn't want to shock anyone into the 2000's or anything, but our young pilots building time aren't flying many paper checks around anymore either, ya know... somehow my bank manages to put my paycheck in my account...

FAA isn't exactly motivated to modernize. It could be done...

 

[xaminmo]

Did you miss the part about "properly maintained"?

Professionals don't run databases without backups. Period. Full stop. (Anything less is not professional grade.)

If someone can't tell you how long it will take them to restore from backups... well, fired on the spot comes to mind.

(Unfortunately this would mean roughly a 65-75% reduction in all IT staff tomorrow in most shops.)

Augmenting that I also said "properly designed"... which would include an "always up" system design for something as big a deal as a national MX database.

Like I said, I know it won't happen. Everyone's far too in love with paper.



Paper does "crash". All the time. I have a gallon of red kool-aid here if you'd like me to demonstrate.

Logs are lost, destroyed, mangled, and un-readable/illegible all the time.

As far as the owner being responsible, didn't you just argue they're not worthy of such at the outset -- by saying they can't even handle simple stickers?

Wouldn't want to shock anyone into the 2000's or anything, but our young pilots building time aren't flying many paper checks around anymore either, ya know... somehow my bank manages to put my paycheck in my account...

FAA isn't exactly motivated to modernize. It could be done...

I deal with IT all the time. Over 20 years, and hundreds of companies, I honestly cannot point to ANY IT shop that I would trust to manage MY critical data.

Just look at what IS managed digitally. 337s are managed digitally as well as in paper copies. From time to time, people have to re-send them to the FAA to prove airworthiness.

As to accountability, yes. Many people are unworthy of the responsibilities. Let other people mess up their own data, but offloading accountability such that one angry person can mess things up for thousands of people is not a good idea.

Basically, I understand where you're coming from, because I keep digital copies of all of my stuff... in six different places actually, encrypted. But what you speak of is an ideal world which does not exist.

 

[Tom-D]

Like I said, I know it won't happen. Everyone's far too in love with paper.

FAA isn't exactly motivated to modernize. It could be done...

You don't seem to understand this

91.417 Maintenance records.

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

 

[denverpilot]

Whoa, "one angry person" can mess up someone else's data?

There's a whole swath of system design problems in any system where one person can delete all data. Holy crap.

That's WAY beyond retarded on some design engineer's part. (Sigh.)

No one person would ever have that ability in a monster database this big. Off-site continuous backups (logical transaction logs) wouldn't be delete-able by day to day admins.

Wow. Wow wow wow.

I'm stopping now before I go off on more than half of my industry's "professionals" who absolutely "don't get it" when it comes to critical system design.

Nevermind trying to make things better. Paper is perfect if the above is what IT schools are teaching these days. Sigh. Good God.

 

[xaminmo]

Whoa, "one angry person" can mess up someone else's data?

There's a whole swath of system design problems in any system where one person can delete all data. Holy crap.

That's WAY beyond retarded on some design engineer's part. (Sigh.)

No one person would ever have that ability in a monster database this big. Off-site continuous backups (logical transaction logs) wouldn't be delete-able by day to day admins.

Wow. Wow wow wow.

I'm stopping now before I go off on more than half of my industry's "professionals" who absolutely "don't get it" when it comes to critical system design.

Nevermind trying to make things better. Paper is perfect if the above is what IT schools are teaching these days. Sigh. Good God.

There's something not quite right about you. *deep south accent*

And of course we love paper. We all snuggle up with it at night.

And I'll protect my data and keep copies of it, and fight against the only iTunes backup being "the cloud", etc etc etc while everyone else finds some way to justify why their single point of failure is the only rational possibility.

Shortly after that's resolved, the Earth is struck by asteroids, all paper is burned, all computers are destroyed by the huge em pulse, and everyone is killed by magma flows.

But there'll be that one plane on a hill somewhere without it's logs, and neither of us will be able to argue which way to protect the logs would have been better.

Except this whole exercise shows that there is something not right with ME.

*sigh*

I wonder if any AMEs are reading this, trying to file reports about us for some revocation of medical certificate...

I really shouldn't use my real name online... Er I mean, hah. hah. That ole Josh Davis is in for a surprise.

*cough*

 

[Tom-D]

Shortly after that's resolved, the Earth is struck by asteroids, all paper is burned, all computers are destroyed by the huge em pulse, and everyone is killed by magma flows.

But there'll be that one plane on a hill somewhere without it's logs, and neither of us will be able to argue which way to protect the logs would have been better.

In that case I'd grab a book and the first entry would be
"this aircraft has "0" time since new and no ADs apply"

and then sell it to a stupid CFI that knows nothing about maintenance records.

 

[Tom-D]

Whoa, "one angry person" can mess up someone else's data?

Yep.... 1 angry person did mess up a lot of folks in OKC Federal building with 1 truck bomb.

 

[EdFred]

In that case I'd grab a book and the first entry would be
"this aircraft has "0" time since new and no ADs apply"

and then sell it to a stupid CFI that knows nothing about maintenance records.

Sold!!!!!!

 

[denverpilot]

There's something not quite right about you. *deep south accent*

!!!

Too many years building critical systems in telco back when companies actually spent capital on such things.

Now it's all just "do it cheap" and firefighting. Yawn.

I'm just bored. Building a big system to handle all MX records would be fun.

Nobody's interested in such grand projects anymore. Even good places like where I'm at, can't be convinced to invest in automation... Just keep it running by hand...

Ohhhhh well. Too many people came into the industry in the boom days who didn't know what they were doing and ruined the whole industry's image.

Seen the awful security buglists lately? Seriously stupid stuff. Tipping point.

 

[denverpilot]

Yep.... 1 angry person did mess up a lot of folks in OKC Federal building with 1 truck bomb.

What the heck does that have to do with data systems?

Or are you telling me there were divisions of government who only had their data in that ONE building?

If they did, they're idiots. You never, ever, ever, have all your data in only one physical location with no backups... Ever.

If they're employing data managers and staff who did that, they're stupid stupid stupid. Did I mention, stupid? You don't even do that with paper!

Business Continuity Plan. It must be done. It must be in writing. It must be in the hands of the staff. It must be tested.

 

[Tom-D]

What the heck does that have to do with data systems?.

Don't you read what you post ?


"No one person would ever have that ability in a monster database this big. Off-site continuous backups (logical transaction logs) wouldn't be delete-able by day to day admins. ""

 

[denverpilot]

Don't you read what you post ?


"No one person would ever have that ability in a monster database this big. Off-site continuous backups (logical transaction logs) wouldn't be delete-able by day to day admins. ""

Yes. Two data centers. At least. Anything big enough to be nationwide probably uses more. Two is a *minimum*.

What the heck does one home-grown psycho blowing up a singular building have to do with that? Other than it'd have zero effect?

The discussion was about who has access under normal run-state to delete data in a properly designed large-scale system. From the command line or GUI.

You never ever give one single sysadmin the "keys" to destroy all critical data including backups. Ever. If you do, you're running a serious risk.

No good sysadmin who knows what they're doing will ever accept that level of power either.

Example: With my level of access, I can delete my company's servers. But someone else has the "keys" to the off-site backup and the other admins have a written plan on how to lock me out in X number of minutes and how many minutes day or night, 24/7, it would take them to put the company back in business.

I can't put them out of business completely. Worst possible case is that I can "pause" their business.

If you want to talk Disaster Recovery or Emergency Operations, for our shop, it's the same thing with a bomb at a datacenter. We'd be limping but still in business. That's the scenario you offered up.

Honestly datacenter power outages are still all too common. People still accidentally trip EPO switches. Seen three of those days so far in my career.

Something as big as a national MX record system would be many many layers "deeper", if done right.

Any IT department who can't answer those questions above, by the way... in writing... should be fired. CIO all the way down the line.

This business continuity stuff for data systems isn't that hard. It's not even hideously expensive when done right.

 

[xaminmo]

Again, ideal systems. Unfortunately, demand for data typically grows faster than people can figure out how to protect that data.

CYA, all the way.

 

[Tom-D]

Yes. Two data centers. At least. Anything big enough to be nationwide probably uses more. Two is a *minimum*.

What the heck does one home-grown psycho blowing up a singular building have to do with that? Other than it'd have zero effect?

The discussion was about who has access under normal run-state to delete data in a properly designed large-scale system. From the command line or GUI.

You never ever give one single sysadmin the "keys" to destroy all critical data including backups. Ever. If you do, you're running a serious risk.

No good sysadmin who knows what they're doing will ever accept that level of power either.

Example: With my level of access, I can delete my company's servers. But someone else has the "keys" to the off-site backup and the other admins have a written plan on how to lock me out in X number of minutes and how many minutes day or night, 24/7, it would take them to put the company back in business.

I can't put them out of business completely. Worst possible case is that I can "pause" their business.

If you want to talk Disaster Recovery or Emergency Operations, for our shop, it's the same thing with a bomb at a datacenter. We'd be limping but still in business. That's the scenario you offered up.

Honestly datacenter power outages are still all too common. People still accidentally trip EPO switches. Seen three of those days so far in my career.

Something as big as a national MX record system would be many many layers "deeper", if done right.

Any IT department who can't answer those questions above, by the way... in writing... should be fired. CIO all the way down the line.

This business continuity stuff for data systems isn't that hard. It's not even hideously expensive when done right.

Fantasies, the Faa is never going you allow you to bypass the regulations to have all the log books taken out of the owner control nor will they except the responsibility to do the data base.

 

[Tom-D]

Again, ideal systems. Unfortunately, demand for data typically grows faster than people can figure out how to protect that data.

CYA, all the way.

problem is no one will do that data base for free, like maintaining the logs the owners do now.

 

[Tim]

I see the why I got the email now!

 

[denverpilot]

Fantasies, the Faa is never going you allow you to bypass the regulations to have all the log books taken out of the owner control nor will they except the responsibility to do the data base.

I was thinking *FAA* could/should do it. Or a third party service contracted to the owners with open visibility to all. Subscription-based, but owners can pull their data at any time if they stop paying. Liability for accuracy still on the owner, owner just chooses to use records-management system online.

(Or contract it to a Senator's buddy at some crazy price tag, I mean. Couldn't possibly be done without at least $100M in graft. What was I thinking? )

Government providing a service that raises overall safety and made sense done right on a budget? Now I know I'm dreaming.

I guess we're stuck with stupid rubber stamps and stickers in 2011. 1930 called and they want their logbook ideas back.

Congress can't even pass a proper funding bill for FAA now for a decade. It's not really surprising they can't do big picture stuff like maintenance databases.

Rumor is Congress will kick the can down the road with -- what is this, the 10th, 11th? -- another temporary FAA funding bill that'll only last until early next year ... Sigh.

But that's a different thread... that broken record skipping in Washington is nauseating.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Congress can't even pass a proper funding bill for FAA now for a decade. It's not really surprising they can't do big picture stuff like maintenance databases.

Rumor is Congress will kick the can down the road with -- what is this, the 10th, 11th? -- another temporary FAA funding bill that'll only last until early next year ... Sigh.

But that's a different thread... that broken record skipping in Washington is nauseating.

This will be the 23rd CR,but who's counting?