No. And the guidance specifically states that. Unfortunately there are a number of mechanics and owners at the Part 91 level who do not fully understand the importance of aircraft conformity when it comes to airworthiness.
True. But only from a regulatory point. It would require a separate civil action to get any money as the FAA is not in that side of the business.
They're being sycophants because they're not arguing in good faith about the merits of personal responsibility, nor the already simple-minded presumption of safety of flight by "rule-following" proxy. They're just implying it as a vessel for economic exclusion: "if you kvetch about monetary injury in the pursuit of a non-revenue activity, you don't belong here".
Kudos to them for realizing they own that mistake.
The point is not if they do the work, its their signature on the annual inspection that states they did check it. Matter fact anyone who signs off an inspection as “airworthy” owns the aircraft conformity back to the date of its original AWC issuance. That’s regulatory and at one time only the CAA performed annuals due to it required a conformity to the type design and the issuance of a new AWC every year.
No, but a new IA would 100% check the STCs and the original STC clearly stated there was an ICA that expressly prohibited the exact install.
The airplane safely flew for 9 years, at some point the paperwork itself becomes the problem, not safety. The FAA isn't perfect, by any means, but this just isn't something that should be any issue for anyone other than the repair station that did the initial install. An IA, on a subsequent annual, should be able to rely on valid 337s and other logbook entries from other mx professionals, and shouldn't need to take every 337 and logbook entry and validate every single aspect of the install. IMHO, the IA's job is to make sure there is an appropriate record for all installed equipment, but doesn't need to then go down the rabbit hole of checking the prior guy's work. In other words, IA sees an aspen; IA needs to ensure there is in fact a 337, etc. for the Aspen, but doesn't then need to go line-by-line through the 337 to ensure it's all correct; that was the first guy's job.
Which one of the hazardous attitudes is this? I can think of two/three.
Yeah, when I was training for the FE rating the instructor said, about my propensity to double-check certain things not listed in the SOPs, "That's 'back-checking'! They do that in hockey. No time for that here."
Or any component every installed or repaired? I have a mental image of a plane being half way dismantled every year for the IA to check that nothing "wrong" has been added in the previous year.
Not quite. It is up to the IA how he chooses to perform the conformity of the aircraft during an annual and this is can seen in the variances in the cost and performance of annuals. Regardless, when the IA signs off the annual he is taking responsibility for the airworthiness, mistakes and all, from the day it was built to the day of his signature as that signature actually renews/revalidates the AWC for the next 12 calendar months. The only reprieve an IA or mechanic does get with the conformity or condition of an item, is the internal areas of components where they do not have to disassemble say an engine to determine its internal conformity. But there is guidance stating that. Are there IAs who do catch these types of errors? Sure, but I doubt most on PoA would pay their going rate for a proper annual.
I guess that's wherer the rub is. I've been through part 141 and part 135 conformities. I have seen aircraft straight from the factory not be accepted. I just cannot imagine a maintainer taking apart an instrument panel to check to see if there is a specific serial number that matches what was put on a 337 15 years ago.
Why not?
Wherever the mechanic or IA draws it. I drew the line in one manner up till the IA test went multiple choice. Then I redrew that line. Throw in the $200 annual inspection rage and I totally reorganized my side mx business with a shift away from ad hoc work to work I had more control over.
You don’t. But you make the best effort possible unless you are someone who doesn’t give a fck to appease some owners. And since Part 43 is a performance standard vs an operational standard like Part 91, most mechanics know that they can be held responsible for any work they ever have performed. It is what it is.
Did you get a ferry permit to fly it over there to keep the POA paperwork police happy, or did you fall out of the sky?
