Annual Inspection times

[Eric Brunelle]

Just trying to understand the annual inspection time frame. My last annual was done in September. That means that I can fly legally unti September 30, 2022. So, If I put my plane in on 9/30/22, and the annual is finished on 10/5/22 that means my plane is legal until 10/31/23. That means I can increase the time between inspections to pretty much 13 months? Looks that way if I am reading it right.
Am I correct, or missing something?

 

[mandm]

Just trying to understand the annual inspection time frame. My last annual was done in September. That means that I can fly legally unti September 30, 2022. So, If I put my plane in on 9/30/22, and the annual is finished on 10/5/22 that means my plane is legal until 10/31/23. That means I can increase the time between inspections to pretty much 13 months? Looks that way if I am reading it right.
Am I correct, or missing something?

Sounds right.

 

[Bell206]

Am I correct,

Yes.

 

[Dana]

Correct, but... depending on where you live it might be most convenient to have the annual at a certain time of year, working in an unheated hangar in cold weather is no fun. Mine comes up in May, I don't have to worry about things coming out of winter and have some decent weather to get ready for the annual, after which the plane is available all summer, fall, and winter (though not much open cockpit flying here in winter, today was a welcome exception .)

 

[Bell206]

Correct, but... depending on where you live it might be most convenient to have the annual at a certain time of year, working in an unheated hangar in cold weather is no fun. Mine comes up in May, I don't have to worry about things coming out of winter and have some decent weather to get ready for the annual, after which the plane is available all summer, fall, and winter (though not much open cockpit flying here in winter, today was a welcome exception

I guess you are right that PoA'rs do discuss "irrelevant minutiae" vs the original subject.

But this is POA, where people spend far more time discussing the irrelevant minutiae than the original subject.

 

[Clip4]

Yes, you can get 13 months just by delaying putting the plane in service and getting the endorsement on the 1st day of the month. You will eventually end up with annuals due sometime April-October.

 

[Magman]

Caveat:

One possible outcome of an Annual Inspection is the IA finding the aircraft
Not Airworthy and giving you a list of discrepancies . You can then go anywhere to accomplish this and the aircraft is then Airworthy.
However; if your Annual has expired the IA is under no obligation to sign the aircraft as “ferriable”.

 

[Jdm]

One possible outcome of an Annual Inspection is the IA finding the aircraft Not Airworthy and giving you a list of discrepancies . You can then go anywhere to accomplish this and the aircraft is then Airworthy.

How can you go anywhere in an unairworthy condition? I understand the very limited deferral process, and special flight permits. Aside from those options I think the airplane would be grounded.

 

[texasclouds]

You get a free year every 12 years with the 13 month loop hole.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I did mine early this year...I don't want to be doing mine in January and February.

 

[Magman]

The inspecting agency does not have the authority to ground the aircraft.
Suppose IA -1 performs a cold compression check and finds 1 jug @ 65/80 and declares that the engine must be overhauled to be declared Airworthy.

Intrepid Birdman confers with other Techs , Engine Mfg , etc who state that a brief flight may well eliminate the need for any engine work. If the Annual is expired
how could the aircraft be flown?

IA-1 is adamant with the need for a Major Overhaul. So Intrepid confirms all operating parameters such as Static RPM to be normal, pick up the discrepancy list and flys the still-in -Annual aircraft to IA-2. IA-2 performs whatever maintenance is required and signs the approval for return to service.

Was Intrepid wrong?

 

[Jdm]

Not saying that the IA can ground the airplane. I’m saying it’s simply illegal to fly an an un airworthy airplane. The IA finishes the annual, and provides a list of items, seen it many times. Not talking about subjective situations with manufacturers relief available such as with a TCM cylinder. I’m referring to a clear cut un-airworthy aircraft. Inoperative systems, equipment, or other deficiencies (found during the annual) that would render the airplane un airworthy. It would be illegal to fly in that situation. Essentially becoming grounded without a permit or other legal relief. Annualing up early definitely has its advantages. Clearly, if it were out of annual it couldn’t fly regardless without a permit.

 

[Magman]

I agree with Jdm. Some situations are such that the aircraft should not be flown.
With subjective squawks the owner has lost options once out of Annual.

Folks going for 13 month Annuals should be aware of another factor. There are others that do theirs in a particular month. As such the IA can plan workload more efficiently. The 13 monthers are often surprised when I tell them that these folks are ahead of them and they may have to wait 2 or 3 weeks.

Lately I do Owner Assist almost exclusively. “ No new patients” sign has been up for a while. Getting the airplane opened during snow time has advantages. Once opened there are always some days warm enough ( not too cold?) to enable “look phase”. After parts are ordered and ADs checked the aircraft can be completed when weather permits.

April 1st got it’s other name from folks waiting till spring to start. Too many other things need attention when it warms up.

 

[Bell206]

The inspecting agency does not have the authority to ground the aircraft.

True. But they can render it unairworthy via a discrepancy which would need to be dealt prior to flight. Your example is a bit confusing but we'll try it this way...

If the Annual is expired how could the aircraft be flown?

Only with a Special Flight permit per your statement the "annual is expired".

IA-1 is adamant with the need for a Major Overhaul. So Intrepid confirms all operating parameters such as Static RPM to be normal, pick up the discrepancy list and flys the still-in -Annual aircraft to IA-2. IA-2 performs whatever maintenance is required and signs the approval for return to service. Was Intrepid wrong?

Yes. Regardless what IA-1 states he made a discrepancy list. At a minimum since maintenance was performed with the compression test, prior to flight, that work would need a sign-off as well as each open discrepancy on that list. Without those AP signatures/approve for RTS, it's not a legal flight on several levels even if the annual was still in effect as you state now. Having IA-2 finish the inspection is a separate action.

 

[Magman]

Note in my example that the aircraft is in fact still Airworthy.

 

[Jdm]

My experience in dealing with organized shops has been that they list the items on a sheet and have the pilot picking up sign two copies. One stays with the shop to cover liability.
On the subject, here’s a few IA test questions I’ve been studying with the correct answers highlighted. Not sure I agree with the FAA’s inconsistency on this topic. In some cases the correct answer is to notify the owner of the discrepancies. In others it’s to make a maintenance record entry. Neither is what I actually experience in the real world.

 

[Magman]

You’re not saying that “ They are consistent in being inconsistent “?

 

[Bell206]

Note in my example that the aircraft is in fact still Airworthy.

Not really. As I noted above, in the 1st part of your example you state the annual is expired. So aircraft not airworthy. In the 2nd part of your example Birdman blows off IA-1, grabs IA-1's discrepancy list, runs up his aircraft then flies to IA-2. Correct? Problem is he flew with previous work not signed by IA-1 and with an open discrepancy of a low cylinder. At a minimum he needs an approval for RTS after the compression test work and the low cylinder disc signed off in some fashion. Otherwise aircraft not airworthy regardless if the annual is still valid. Part 91 and 43 state this plainly. Plan B would be Birdy gets a SFP to fly with those open write ups to IA-2 but aircraft still is unairworthy.

n some cases the correct answer is to notify the owner of the discrepancies. In others it’s to make a maintenance record entry. Neither is what I actually experience in the real world.

The FARs spell it out for the most part. If you are performing an inspection per 91, 125, 135 and you find the aircraft unairworthy you are required to give the owner a signed, dated list of those discrepancies per 43.11. Full stop. That same FAR also permits you to follow 91.213(d) and defer those applicable disc provided you add those deferred items to your inspection discrepancy list to the owner. How discs are handled when performing maintenance other than inspections has always been a gray area but most ASIs defer to the 43.11 reference. How any mx disc get entered into the aircraft record is strictly up to the owner and not the mechanic. The mechanic is only required to record the work he performed per 43.9 and 43.11... which have different requirements to follow whether you are approving for RTS or not.

 

[Jdm]

Well they sure try to make this test unnecessarily difficult and inconsistent for some reason. They always do so to some degree on the FAA tests. I noticed a number of answer options where they throw in distractors that actually come up on the calculator if you were to enter the wrong sequence of key strokes. I feel like they are deliberately trying to persuade a candidate to select the wrong answer. Exactly the opposite of how they say a CFI should administer a knowledge assessment test.

 

[Bell206]

I feel like they are deliberately trying to persuade a candidate to select the wrong answer.

Not as I was taught many moons ago. The DME who administered my very first FAA knowledge test, in his living room on a TV tray, instilled the following: the point of the test is to select the best answer not only the correct answer as some questions may offer two "correct" answers but only one best answer. That advice never let me down.

 

[Jdm]

I get that, especially back in the old days. And I’ve always felt that was the case on my previous tests but they were a long time ago. Best I can account I’m at least on at my 12th FAA test. Maybe I’m just getting old! It seems very different with this new style of testing. Lot of crafty tactics. Regardless, I passed it with a 98% last week.

 

[Magman]

I have put discrepancy lists in/on aircraft where the owner would find them.
Witnessed of course. Mixed reactions on whether they were ignored. It was CYA on my part.

In some circumstances the second part could be really ugly.

Scenario

IA-1 has completed the Annual Inspection.
The entry of the Inspection with the Unairworthy finding was accomplished
on a legal pad and added to the pile of copies of ADs , STCs etc as furnished by the Owner. The discrepancy list of “engine require a major overhaul due to #3 cylinder
Compression of 64/80” is also included .

The bill for services has been paid.

So far so good?

The owner is aware that a reading of 64/80 is within acceptable limits of the engine mfg. and one cylinder would not require a major overhaul.
My use of “ Airworthy “ was a poor choice of words.

Things get bad as IA-1 will wash his hands and drop the project unless a major overhaul is accomplished.

The aircraft is located at an airport with airline service . There are no other mechanics approved by the TSA.


Since the entry from IA-1 has essentially stated the cylinder is acceptable can another P or A & P issue RTS on that basis?

Or; can the owner taxi to the Terminal Area where his “ guest” ( really the incognito IA-2 ) performs a “Armstrong Compression Check” , finds all cylinders are equal and signs the RTS?

Any comments on how this could be resolved?

Preferably w/o feds or attorneys?

 

[Bell206]

have put discrepancy lists in/on aircraft where the owner would find them. Witnessed of course. Mixed reactions on whether they were ignored. It was CYA on my part.

Technically, the rule states "must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies" which means you have to personally hand it to them. I've seen the legal/admin side of this back up that definition. Leaving the required discrepancy list laying around for the owner to find will not work, witnessed or not.

Since the entry from IA-1 has essentially stated the cylinder is acceptable can another P or A & P issue RTS on that basis?

No. According to your example the discrepancy stated “engine require a major overhaul due to #3 cylinder Compression of 64/80”. Whether the 64/80 is legit is moot as it is still a disc listed from the IA-1 43.11 annual sign-off. At a minimum your AP would have to perform any necessary work and sign off that discrepancy has been corrected or whatever, just like any other disc. Then with the IA-1 discrepancy list signed and completed the aircraft is now airworthy and in annual. Its how the system works.

 

[Magman]

Jdm

I presume you are referring to the IA test?

Well; the “ good old days” were not always so. When I tested you had to provide ALL needed materials. Typical FAA “Catch 22” was you had to bring your Airworthiness Directives. However; you had to BE an IA in order to to receive them! It took 2 trips to the car to carry it all in!

There were 3 parts to the Testing Program. Part 1 was Part 65 -Closed Book.
The other 2 parts were Repairs and Alterations and were open book . YOUR book!
There were no multi-choice questions. One question was “ List all the ADs that apply to your aircraft”. Another was “ Describe how you would inspect the landing gear of the aircraft you selected”.

It was important to list your references as the tests were not machine- scored.
After initial correction a discussion followed . If you followed your reference and could justify your response you would receive credit.

It was a lengthy , fatiguing process.

 

[Jdm]

It was a lengthy , fatiguing process

I’m hearing a lot of horror stories about IA testing during the old days. Glad it’s not that way anymore but we still need to be held to a high standard.

 

[pfarber]

OTE="Eric Brunelle, post: 3214274, member: 33930"]Just trying to understand the annual inspection time frame. My last annual was done in September. That means that I can fly legally unti September 30, 2022. So, If I put my plane in on 9/30/22, and the annual is finished on 10/5/22 that means my plane is legal until 10/31/23. That means I can increase the time between inspections to pretty much 13 months? Looks that way if I am reading it right.
Am I correct, or missing something?[/QUOTE]

No, the number of months is 12, you are getting more days, but the FAA doesn't say you need an annual every 365 days, but 12 months.

I get that you are claiming 13 months, but no your not getting 13 calendar months.