Can an airplane be flown while its annual inspection is still in progress?

[bkspero]

I recall being trained that once an annual inspection has started, an airplane is no longer considered airworthy until the inspection has been completed (including paperwork). Even if the plane would have still been within the annual inspection due date if the annual had not been started. Today, however, others at the airport claimed that as long as it is still within the due date month, the plane may be "partially" inspected, flown, and then the annual completed.

For example, a plane is due for its annual by the end of January 2024. An annual inspection of that airplane is started on January 10th and the engine portion is completed on the 11th and the cowl buttoned up. The owner then flies the plane for several days, and returns it on the 15th for the annual inspection to be completed. Were the flights between the 11th and 15th legal?

More extreme would be the same example where the annual is started on the 10th, but all the inspection activities are completed by the 15th. At that point the IA falls seriously ill before the paperwork and logbook entries for return to service are completed and he/she is unable to complete them. May the plane be legally flown prior to January 31 without completion of the paperwork and log entries (i.e., since it is still within the 12 month limit for the old annual inspection)?

Please include the regulatory basis for your conclusion, as my colleagues will not accept a response without that.

Thanks. BTW, I apologize if this has been discussed. I tried searching both here and more widely, and got lots of hits relating to planes that are past their annual due dates, but wasn't able to find any that addressed this specific situation.

 

[Daleandee]

I recall being trained that once an annual inspection has started, an airplane is no longer considered airworthy until the inspection has been completed (including paperwork). Even if the plane would have still been within the annual inspection due date if the annual had not been started. Today, however, others at the airport claimed that as long as it is still within the due date month, the plane may be "partially" inspected, flown, and then the annual completed.

For example, a plane is due for its annual by the end of January 2024. An annual inspection of that airplane is started on January 10th and the engine portion is completed on the 11th and the cowl buttoned up. The owner then flies the plane for several days, and returns it on the 15th for the annual inspection to be completed. Were the flights between the 11th and 15th legal?

More extreme would be the same example where the annual is started on the 10th, but all the inspection activities are completed by the 15th. At that point the IA falls seriously ill before the paperwork and logbook entries for return to service are completed and he/she is unable to complete them. May the plane be legally flown prior to January 31 without completion of the paperwork and log entries (i.e., since it is still within the 12 month limit for the old annual inspection)?

Please include the regulatory basis for your conclusion, as my colleagues will not accept a response without that.

Thanks. BTW, I apologize if this has been discussed. I tried searching both here and more widely, and got lots of hits relating to planes that are past their annual due dates, but wasn't able to find any that addressed this specific situation.

Did you get "the regulatory basis" from "others at the airport" to support the claims they were making?

Curious ...

 

[Salty]

I’d like to see the reg that states “once an annual inspection has started, an airplane is no longer considered airworthy”

 

[JScarry]

I can see how annual *maintenance* can be done and then the plane flown (pack the brakes, clean the plugs, replace filters), but not the inspection. The IA is certifying that the plane is airworthy as of the date in the logbook. But if he inspects the engine and prop and then you fly it, how does he know that you didn’t nick the prop when you flew? How does he know that the muffler didn’t blow out from a bad start? How does he know that no fuel or oil leaks developed? It would still be legal to fly once the annual was started, but the IA would most likely repeat a lot of the inspection.

 

[Bell206]

Were the flights between the 11th and 15th legal?

Yes. Provided the work performed on the 10th and 11th was properly documented in the mx record.

May the plane be legally flown prior to January 31 without completion of the paperwork and log entries (i.e., since it is still within the 12 month limit for the old annual inspection)?

No. Part 43 requires any work performed to be documented in the record and the aircraft approved for return to service.

Please include the regulatory basis for your conclusion, as my colleagues will not accept a response without that.

The only regulatory requirement for an annual inspection is found in 91.409(a)(1). As long as you comply with that item you are good. Keep in mind the annual is calendar based and not hourly based. So flight time does not effect the due date. Of note you can also perform a 100 hr inspection over a span of days and flight hours as well, but being hourly you have certain hourly limitations.

Another way to look at it is to take a Progressive Inspection per 91.409(d) which allows you to inspect an aircraft over the span of 12 months using the same checklist, in general, as used for an annual inspection. What you basically do in the context of your questions is perform a condensed “progressive” inspection over the span of week provided you document your work correctly per the rules. But all this is contingent on the APIA and how he operates. But I've known IAs who have done this and I've performed 100 hr inspections over a period of time as well.

 

[pfarber]

I’d like to see the reg that states “once an annual inspection has started, an airplane is no longer considered airworthy”

You can get on a progressive inspection for any airframe... so the annual inspection never stops.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Yes. Provided the work performed on the 10th and 11th was properly documented in the mx record.

No. Part 43 requires any work performed to be documented in the record and the aircraft approved for return to service.

The only regulatory requirement for an annual inspection is found in 91.409(a)(1). As long as you comply with that item you are good. Keep in mind the annual is calendar based and not hourly based. So flight time does not effect the due date. Of note you can also perform a 100 hr inspection over a span of days and flight hours as well, but being hourly you have certain hourly limitations.

Another way to look at it is to take a Progressive Inspection per 91.409(d) which allows you to inspect an aircraft over the span of 12 months using the same checklist, in general, as used for an annual inspection. What you basically do in the context of your questions is perform a condensed “progressive” inspection over the span of week provided you document your work correctly per the rules. But all this is contingent on the APIA and how he operates. But I've known IAs who have done this and I've performed 100 hr inspections over a period of time as well.

Is Inspection considered "maintenance"? If not, and no maintenance was performed.....I see no reason for the need to document the activity until it's needed.

But.... The term “maintenance” is defined in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 1, § 1.1 as “inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance.” So, it would need to be documented.

 

[Doc Holliday]

You can get on a progressive inspection for any airframe... so the annual inspection never stops.

He specifically asked about an annual inspection, and not a progressive. And the progressive has specific inspection intervals that must be inspected and documented. It's not a year long annual inspection done at will.

 

[bkspero]

Did you get "the regulatory basis" from "others at the airport" to support the claims they were making?

Curious ...

No, but they are relying on the requirement that an annual inspection be completed by the end of the 12th calendar month, and claiming that there is no other limitation. I accept that stipulation, and also that asking them to prove a negative is not constructive.

 

[bkspero]

Difficult for me to summarize the responses. One clear take away is that no one provided a regulatory reference supporting my contention. However, the requirement that work be documented in the logbook prior to return to service provides, I think, provides the basis for what I was taught. In both of the examples we had considered there was no consideration of a logbook entry being made after the initial inspection work and prior to the next flight. The second example specifically includes the fact that the documentation was not done prior to the next flight due to the IA's illness.

So, unless someone later points out another regulatory basis, I will presume that flight mid-annual inspection may be legal if and only if the IA documents the completed inspection work prior to the mid-annual flight.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Bell206]

if and only if the IA documents the completed inspection work prior to the mid-annual flight.

FYI: while not regulatory, there is existing guidance for documenting an incomplete annual:

 

[flyingron]

Which still doesn't change the fact that if the prior annual is still in effect and nothing has specifically been found to indicate the airplane IS NOT airworthy, it can be flown. Of course, if there is maintenance, there needs to be a return to service that the person doing the work has to do.

 

[Daleandee]

No, but they are relying on the requirement that an annual inspection be completed by the end of the 12th calendar month, and claiming that there is no other limitation. I accept that stipulation, and also that asking them to prove a negative is not constructive.

I was simply asking if you held them to the same standard that you gave the group i.e. "please include the regulatory basis for your conclusion, as my colleagues will not accept a response without that."

"No I did not" would have been sufficient ...

 

[Silvaire]

When an inspection is started the reason the aircraft is no longer airworthy is because they have started to take it apart (open panels, disconnect ignition wires etc...) If the annual due date has not expired then the inspection requirement has no bearing on the airworthiness. All that is required is that the aircraft be put back together and returned to service with the appropriate log entries for maintenance performed. However, if during the partial inspection something was found that makes the aircraft unairworthy then all bets are off because no mechanic is going to sign a release. But the unairworthiness has nothing to do with the inspection requirement. The discrepancy can be fixed and the aircraft flown until such time that the last annual has expired.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was simply asking if you held them to the same standard that you gave the group i.e. "please include the regulatory basis for your conclusion, as my colleagues will not accept a response without that."

"No I did not" would have been sufficient ...

The regulatory basis is the annual inspection rule, 91.409(a)

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—​

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7of this chapter​

​

Has the airplane received an annual inspection sign off within the past 12 calendar months? Yes, it’s airworthy as far as the inspection requirement is concerned.​

​

Were you thinking that the second the mechanic took possession for the purpose of conducting the next one, it was automatically not airworthy? If so, I think you need to include the regulatory basis for that assertion. Otherwise.​

​

When an inspection is started the reason the aircraft is no longer airworthy is because they have started to take it apart (open panels, disconnect ignition wires etc...

 

[Pinecone]

It may be unairworthy due to removing panels, but put them back on and it is now back to airworthy.

There is nothing indicating that a annual has been started. Until after it is done.

 

[Doc Holliday]

some peoples kids... i never said anything of the sorts

He asked that if an annual is started could it be stopped.

i never said about anything at will.

have you missed your meds? i worry that you missed your meds.

if anything a progressive inspection is much more thorough for one reason as explained in 91.409

"The progressive inspection schedule must ensure that the aircraft, at all times, will be airworthy and will conform to all applicable FAA aircraft specifications, type certificate data sheets, airworthiness directives, and other approved data".

An annual only does this once every 12 months. How many GA owners want an IA poking around their AC looking for discrepancies?

Try doing a progressive inspection on a typical GA type aircraft that's privately owned, such as a 172 or a Bonanza. If you actually knew anything about the progressive inspection and how it worked, you would realize just how inane the above statement is.

Of course I understand your lack of actually being an A&P comes into play once again.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

and here we are.....lobbing personal attacks.

 

[brcase]

When an inspection is started the reason the aircraft is no longer airworthy is because they have started to take it apart (open panels, disconnect ignition wires etc...)

My opinion which counts for a nothing, I am not even a A let alone an A&P. I did work for a Glider repair station for a few years but that was more hands on than documentation, mostly aircraft were experimental. I have been assisting with condition Inspections for more than 30 years.

I think it is a judgment call of the IA and the operator. I don't think anyone documents removing a few inspection panels. I don't recall it ever being documented that all the inspection panels were removed, or that a compression test was done. Usually just that an Annual Inspection was completed.

If the only thing done was all the inspection panels were removed/replaced and the airframe was inspected, but no critical systems were disassembled or adjusted, I would probably just go fly the airplane and not worry about documenting it. Ideal would be the IA would document something like Firewall aft Inspection completed, but this would be more for the situation were another IA might be needed to complete the inspection, but also would remove any doubt about if the airplane could be flown or not, since everything is documented. What I would probably do is have the IA print up a sticker with what was done and place it in the log book, but not stick it in, and then it I would lose the sticker once the full inspection was completed and documented in the logbook.

Now if a critical system was disassembled or adjusted I (as the operator) would require that be documented, before flying the airplane.

Brian

 

[Bell206]

I don't recall it ever being documented that all the inspection panels were removed, or that a compression test was done.

These tasks are usually listed in the reference being used for the inspection so they dont technically need to be itemized. For example, if you use Part 43 Appx D as the reference it has the statement below. However, if you don't complete the inspection then technically you may have to itemize the panels, etc depending on how you reference the worked performed prior to the approval for RTS. And if the work performed is considered "maintenance" then the work must be documented per 43.9 regardless if considered critical or not. But thats only if you wish to follow the rules as written.

 

[bkspero]

I was simply asking if you held them to the same standard that you gave the group i.e. "please include the regulatory basis for your conclusion, as my colleagues will not accept a response without that."

"No I did not" would have been sufficient ...

I thought your question was fair and reasonable enough that it merited an explanation why I didn't ask the others for regulatory justification. That's why I added on to my initial "No.." I did not intend the explanation to suggest any criticism of the question. I apologize if my writing was unclear in this regard and it seemed like I was being critical.

 

[Daleandee]

I thought your question was fair and reasonable enough that it merited an explanation why I didn't ask the others for regulatory justification. That's why I added on to my initial "No.." I did not intend the explanation to suggest any criticism of the question. I apologize if my writing was unclear in this regard and it seemed like I was being critical.

No apology needed as we are adults engaging in a worthwhile conversation. You have brought up a good subject for disscussion. I fly an experimental that I built and have authorization to do my condition inspections so I know when they are done. As for me, once I start taking it apart I won't fly it until it's done and signed off.

Wasn't trying to be difficult as my response was more for those that were asking you the question than for your asking of us. I just find it a bit odd sometimes that people will insist that they be given a verified and qualified answer to some assertion that they have made without any proof or evidence to support what they have claimed, even if it is true.

 

[Pinecone]

How does anyone know an annual has started?

Is there a log book entry? No. Is there notification made to the FAA? No.

There is NO WAY to know an Annual has been started officially.

 

[Jim K]

I think the "once the annual is started, the plane isn't airworthy until it's completed" thing came from Mike Busch. I'm 98% certain I've heard him say that in the EAA webinars he does. I have no idea what he's basing that on. Might be his own personal rule. AFAIK it depends totally on the discretion of the IA. If he opens up a plane and looks at it, that's not necessarily an annual, or even a 100 hour. My IA looks at my plane all the time. He doesn't have to sign the logbook every time he sees me taxi past.

 

[Bell206]

If he opens up a plane and looks at it, that's not necessarily an annual, or even a 100 hour.

No, its not. But if he "opens up" the aircraft he is required to document that work and approve the aircraft for return to service. And its just as easy to perform the work and sign it off per a single reference than an itemized list. For example: Started annual (100hr) inspection per Part 43 Appndx D (a)(b)(c). Closed up items removed. No defects noted. 12/26/2023. TT: 1234:5. Mike Mechanic APIA 1234567. Keeps things legit and simple. That is provided one chooses to follow the rules. As to Mike Busch thing, the issue of the aircraft grounded once an annual is started goes back much farther than he has been involved in aviation and probably goes back to the days when only the CAA performed the annual inspection which I doubt they would have broke up over a weeks time.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

How does anyone know an annual has started?

Is there a log book entry? No. Is there notification made to the FAA? No.

There is NO WAY to know an Annual has been started officially.

Simple….hangar fairies know these things.

 

[Magman]

I had a FSDO Fellow tell me that is the case some time ago.

There was no reference mentioned.

Could it be something like the Airworthiness Inspectors Handbook? Maybe Order 8300.10 ? Not available now?

 

[Bell206]

Could it be something like the Airworthiness Inspectors Handbook? Maybe Order 8300.10 ? Not available now?

The 8300.10 was incorporated into the 8900.1 FSIMS along with a couple other handbooks a number of years ago.

 

[Magman]

My personal belief is that it can be flown.

If possible I try to start an Annual with a review of what has to be addressed regarding ADs.

If it is an infrequent new to me aircraft the next step is a brief “ survey”.

This is for 2 reasons:

#1. To determine the status of problem areas for that type aircraft.

#2. To see how the Owner reacts when they are told of #1. If we don’t see eye to eye it’s the end
of the line.


The dreaded “ First Annual” is often discussed from an owners perspective. Techs encounter it also.

Missed or overdue ADs , concerns that were long ignored now fall upon the Tech. Obviously this involves

more time and money. Then after the aircraft is done you never see it again. Forming relationships

with people that are on the same page is a much better way to go.

 

[skyking3286]

I would assume that a typical IA would be within their rights to start the clock all over again since you have no idea what the pilot did with the plane. The IA has to certify at the end it’s all airworthy. Interruption of the chain of inspection.

 

[Albany Tom]

I read the title to mean "taking off while the guy is inspecting the airplane", and thought "well, if he's in it, you probably should ask AND make sure W&B is good", and "probably should check to make sure none of the important parts are opened up before takeoff."

I realize that wasn't the original question, but I still like my answer best.