Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Maintenance Bay' started by Tom-D, Oct 29, 2017.
in the example used... no
You may lose a customer, but if he doesn't want to properly maintain his airplane, you probably don't want him as a customer anyway. A lot of the owners on here have said how ****ed they would be if you went to the FSDO, but I see it differently. I'm sure the potential unsuspecting passengers would appreciate that you are looking out for them. There was one around here recently where I'm sure the passengers and their now orphaned kids would have liked someone raise a flag. Scary part for me is that I was asked to fly the plane a few weeks prior but couldn't due to schedule. I had no prior dealings with the parties involved, but heard rumors since. Sad deal.
Well, the IA was trying to require the mags to get fixed, in the article, no? Seemed similar.
Read from there down.
During any inspection the A&P has a choice..airworthy,,, not airworthy. that's all they can do. Other than simply refusing to sign and walking away.
when they tell an owner they have problems, they have no power to say it must be fixed. When the aircraft is airworthy in all other respects the owner is legal to fly it away.
To add, in Mike's article this was all about the IA thinking the mags were unsafe to fly. When in reality mags are not time life items, we are legal to fly them to failure.
So,when there is no discrepancy on the engine mag check, the IA was wrong.
My sediments exactly.
I have yet to have a customer actually refuse to have airworthy problems fixed. When I find metal in filters I talk to the customer, see what they want to do. I'm even good with I can't afford to deal with now. I simply pack up and go home until the customer wants to deal with it. I wouldn't even sign off the oil change because I wouldn't finish it.
You're really digging up dirt, now!!! LOL
None except for giving him a disc list.
As others mentioned on calling the fsdo about it, don't hold your breath. Even the feds can't ground an aircraft unless it is an immanent danger to others or property where they must follow a specific protocol. Plus the burden of proof is solely on the federale to prove the aircraft is unairworthy. So to me it would be doubtful anyone there would skip lunch and run to K-BFE to ground a Part 91 aircraft with metal in the filter. Not mention a possible ****ed owner who posts on facebook what you did.
Instead I would make a copy of the signed disc list (FAA guidance recommends this) and keep it in the "P" file. If the owner refuses to sign the list make note of that. And if you're still tweaked about it file a report at the 1-800-NASA-AFU website. In a worse case, if the motor pukes a rod the following week and the paperwork/owner burn up in the wreckage, when the attorney of the poor widow walks in claiming negligence and duty of care, you whip out your list copy and nasa number.
I believe if you did all this, your name would be all over this pile of stink.
You'd be better off just walking away. If the owner won't co-operate who wants to deal with them?
From a regulatory side you're good to walk away. But in reality your name is already on it. What's screwed now is that since the GARA Act there's been a shift to the mechanic for civil recovery. It's what is destroying the one man shops. But simply keeping a copy of just the list goes a long way. I don't like but it is what it is.
Aren't you compelled to certify whatever work you have done to this point? FAR 43.9.
"Cowls removed, engine oil drained & filter removed. No further action taken. A&P 123456"
JAWS actually has a point,,My entry would be, " drained oil removed filter found metal in filter, stopped oil changed awaiting farther instructions from owner"
Let's see if he would place that sticker in his records.
Does the mechanic ever have the authority to determine an aircraft is unairworthy, even during an inspection? It's my understanding no. The way I understand it, they only have the authority to declare it airworthy. This may not be technically accurate, but to me, the FAA makes the plane unairworthy after the previous annual expires. The mechanic only has the authority to assert that the aircraft is airworthy, they aren't determining that it is not, that's already been done by the expired annual, or 100 hours, or AD, etc. The mechanic can only restore the aircrafts airworthiness at the end of the inspection, there is no provision for them to determine "unairworthiness".
It's just like when a new plane first gets its airworthiness certificate. Nobody declared it was unairworthy at that point, it simply wasn't airworthy yet. Just my view of things.
Mechanics technically do not "certify" their work, rather they "approve for return to service" which implies the work was performed satisfactorily and per the FARs. Your write up example while possible in one scenario may cause issues in another. See below.
And now we enter the proverbial slippery slope. A mechanic can make whatever write up he wants. There's nothing I know that prevents that. But since 43 is performance based, how could a mechanic explain signing off half a job per 43.13? The owner COULD make issue of that to the feds and I don't recall any guidance on half an oil change.
If it were me in this particular example, I'd complete the oil change and sign it off on a label as such. I could add a note in that sentence "metal in filter" but in this case I would make a second label or formal disc list stating excessive metal in filter, make a copy, give to the owner, and politely ask him to leave.
Since 91 puts airworthy condition directly on the owner--not the mechanic--the ball is now in his field and he is at bat. I on the other hand would be covering most of the bases. Is it a perfect solution? No, but aviation is far from a perfect industry.
Close, but yes, all A&Ps can make a determination of whether a part, or aircraft is in an unairworthy or airworthy condition during maintenance or inspection. But it is semantics. By a mechanic making a disc, a pilot noting an issue during pre-flight, or an IA not signing an annual as airworthy, by default the aircraft is unairworthy. No write up required, but a write up is needed to make it airworthy.
The point being an aircraft is only determined/declared/stated TO BE in an airworthy condition, with everything short of that an unairworthy condition. This why there is no provision for declaring unairworthiness. It's no different than determining a major repair from a minor repair. A major repair is defined by regulation with any minor repair defined as anything not considered a major repair but with no regulatory guidance.
This is the best answer. An A&P/IA does not have the authority to explicitly declare an aircraft "unairworthy." He or she may implicitly do so by refusing to return it to service or sign off an annual/100hr inspection, but he/she doesn't get to affirmatively declare it unairworthy.
43.9 (4) read it, There is no rule saying that a maintenance record must return the aircraft to service. There is a rule we must enter the work done. My entry would do just that. there is no airworthy statement there.
that's why i don't use stickers. if you did use a sticker, YOU had better place it in the book. otherwise, did you really document your work in the aircraft records. now, once its in there its not your job to make sure he does not remove it.
An owner can simply rip out a page in the logbook if he so desires.
The "Aircraft Records" don't have to be an actual logbook. It could be nothing more than a collection of cocktail napkins with entries handwritten on them tossed in a shopping bag. It's not the A&P's job to dictate how the owner keeps the aircraft records.
43-9 does not require a statement stating the aircraft its airworthy.
plus the last statement in 43-9 (4) says that the write up is all that is required.
there also no rule saying that a mechanic can't place a statement in the log saying why the aircraft is unairworthy.
43-9 also says we are to make an entry, this entry is only required to state what we did, "(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.
IMHO one of the fallacies of our system is the pilots are not required to write down the discrepancies. and there is no requirement that a mechanic state why they were required to work on the aircraft in the first place.
When I see records like that I simply pass, go find someone that is willing to contend with that.
They can tell you "use this system or find a new A&P-IA". ( I do that) using the AD log system makes my job a lot easier.
that has been argued as destroying a required record. and NTSB has violated the owner for violation of 91-417.
If the owner doesn't place it in their records they are in violation of 91.417, but if they still have it, they are good to go.
How long is that record required to be kept?
How could it be proven?
Have we determined that the page being ripped out has not exceeded the time required for the document to be retained?
In your hypothetical oil change situation where you logged what you did, how long would the owner need to keep the log entry for? What if you did the work then the owner drug the plane across the ramp to another shop and they repeated everything you did, plus filled the engine with oil, test ran it, and reassembled everything. Then they made a log entry documenting their work. Would your entry still need to be there or not? How about if the owner let it sit for a couple of years then had the work performed?
One of my pet peeves is owners that do not understand their document retention obligations. If they understood them I don't think we'd have nearly as many debates about aircraft valuation when a logbook or log entry is missing.
Simple examination of the book.
Lots of hypothetical situations, we still must comply with 43-9 and 91.417.
So, Tom....did you find more work?
Sure. The point I'm trying to make is that the owner may not be obligated to retain your log entry, but you're implying they must. In both those hypothetical situations I proposed the owner would not be violating 91.417 by disposing of your log entry in their attempt to cover up the metal found in the oil filter.
Is it shady? You bet, and anyone with a little common sense would start asking questions about why there's a page cut out of the logbook when reviewing the logs.
I agree. The maintainer is only certifying that the work he accomplished has been accomplished to the required standard. If I am tasked with repairing the defect "Landing light U/S" by replacing the U/S landing lamp, that is all I am responsible for. If the elevator trim is falling off the plane, that is not my responsibility. That is the pilot's bag. The annual is typically the only time a maintainer will determine aircraft airworthines. In Canada, AME's don't even do that.
That is one of my pet peeves as well. I will often write "Pilot reports left nav light u/s". Otherwise, there is no record of why I am touching the aircraft to start with.
You can't prove what is missing when it's missing. Maybe the logbook was missing the page originally.
Sorrowfully the NTSB does not look at it this way. I really do not know how a mechanic would prove what they wrote in a log book when the entry is no longer there.
The NTSB will note the entry dates, of the maintenance, and the dates in the pilot's log. and make the proper conclusion you had it repaired, then flew it, there must have been an entry there. there isn't one now, guilty as hell.
What are you talking about? What entry dates? Pilots log?
When NTSB does an investigation they can get any and all records they believe important. when they see pages missing it peeks their curiosity, they will want to know if it flew pilots logs are a reference for them.
sounds like you know this....