IA Unairworthy A&P Airworthy

[brien23]

If a IA signs off an Annual as Unairworthy with a list of discrepancies can a A&P determine that the unairworthy items listed are Airworthy or overide the IA in respect to Airworthness.

 

[Tom-D]

yes..

 

[BillTIZ]

Yes, the A&P would need to address each discrepancy and how they were corrected and sign off the "work" performed.

 

[poadeleted20]

yes..

...after correcting the discrepancies. Otherwise, if an IA says something isn't airworthy and an A&P then says the IA is wrong, you are stuck in the middle if the FAA ever gets involved. Get a third written opinion from an IA, not just an A&P, before you risk your own ticket on the balance.

 

[Tom-D]

...after correcting the discrepancies. Otherwise, if an IA says something isn't airworthy and an A&P then says the IA is wrong, you are stuck in the middle if the FAA ever gets involved. Get a third written opinion from an IA, not just an A&P, before you risk your own ticket on the balance.

A&P mechanics can return to service any thing they like.

show me the requirement in FAR that requires the A&P repair anything after the annual.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Someone wrote "unairworthy" in your logs, I'd have a chit fit if some knuckle dragged wrote that in my logs.

 

[Tom-D]

Someone wrote "unairworthy" in your logs, I'd have a chit fit if some knuckle dragged wrote that in my logs.

It is allowed, and often done.

and owners often ask to have it completed that way so they can have their own A&P repair the discrepancies.

And in some cases the owner will throw the discrepancy list away and have their A&P make 1 simple entry to return the aircraft to service.

See ya next year

 

[poadeleted20]

If an IA says something isn't airworthy, and another A&P says it's OK as is, one of them is wrong. How do you, who doesn't hold a mechanic certificate, know which? And since it's in writing, there is a big red flag to attract the attention of anyone reviewing the records later, like the FAA. You want to bet your certificates that the first mech was wrong and the second was right, and not the other way around, you go right ahead. I'm not taking that chance -- I'll get a third opinion in writing before I fly that plane.

 

[wabower]

If an IA says something isn't airworthy, and another A&P says it's OK as is, one of them is wrong.

Not necessarily. Interpretations vary.

How do you, who doesn't hold a mechanic certificate, know which? And since it's in writing, there is a big red flag to attract the attention of anyone reviewing the records later, like the FAA.

The local FSDO maintenance inspectors are quite familiar with these situations. I think you're overstating the case.

You want to bet your certificates that the first mech was wrong and the second was right, and not the other way around, you go right ahead. I'm not taking that chance -- I'll get a third opinion in writing before I fly that plane.

The sky evidently falls more often there.

 

[Tom-D]

If an IA says something isn't airworthy, and another A&P says it's OK as is, one of them is wrong. How do you, who doesn't hold a mechanic certificate, know which?

You don't

since it's in writing, there is a big red flag to attract the attention of anyone reviewing the records later, like the FAA. You want to bet your certificates that the first mech was wrong and the second was right, and not the other way around, you go right ahead. I'm not taking that chance -- I'll get a third opinion in writing before I fly that plane.

What you do is your choice, You the owner are responsible for maintaining your aircraft. If you choose to throw the discrepancy list away and have your mechanic return it to service, that's on you, not the A&P-IA

I know you take meticulous care of your aircraft and try to do each issue in the best way possible,, many owners do not.

When I sign off an annual inspection as UN-Airworthy, I keep a copy of the list with the signature of the owner saying they received the list and their logs, they trow it away, and the FSDO comes knocking I show them the list.

And there is no requirement for me to keep the list either, other than a CYA thing on my part.

 

[flyingron]

It doesn't even necessarily take an A&P. If the IA only points out a bulb out or I need a new tire, as the owner-pilot I can correct that discrepancy and sign off the plane as airworthy.

 

[poadeleted20]

It doesn't even necessarily take an A&P. If the IA only points out a bulb out or I need a new tire, as the owner-pilot I can correct that discrepancy and sign off the plane as airworthy.

No question there, but you can't just say, "I think the IA is wrong" and fly it "as is."

 

[Tom-D]

No question there, but you can't just say, "I think the IA is wrong" and fly it "as is."

If the light bulb isn't an airworthy issue?

 

[Tom-D]

If I decide that your old aircraft is not safe to fly, and sign it off as unairworthy, with no real reason, other than my gut feeling, what then?

 

[wabower]

Word from the shop today is that FSDO how wants a copy of any such list.

 

[Tom-D]

Word from the shop today is that FSDO how wants a copy of any such list.

tell them to show you the requirement in the FARs..

Go ahead and PO them, see if you ever get any thing else

 

[brien23]

If the light bulb isn't an airworthy issue?

What if it"s the light bulb in the stall warning and the horn works but the light bulb is burned out?

 

[wanttaja]

What if it"s the light bulb in the stall warning and the horn works but the light bulb is burned out?

I'm having an interesting discussion about this with my Fly Baby's A&P for my ongoing annual. He wants to check that my nav lights and strobe bulbs aren't burned out. I've heard the FAA has dinged some A&Ps for not checking.

This is complicated by the fact that the lights aren't wired up anymore....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Witmo]

I'm having an interesting discussion about this with my Fly Baby's A&P for my ongoing annual. He wants to check that my nav lights and strobe bulbs aren't burned out. I've heard the FAA has dinged some A&Ps for not checking.

This is complicated by the fact that the lights aren't wired up anymore....

Ron Wanttaja

Flybaby is experimental is it not? If so it doesn't have to be airworthy. It only has to be in a safe condition for flight.

 

[Witmo]

Here's a hypothetical. After annual inspection, IA gives owner list of unairworthy items consisting of 1. Crack in main wing spar. and 2. Right main gear tire is worn and needs replacement.

Scenario 1.

The owner tells A&P to replace right tire (no mention of crack) and A&P makes entry in mx record saying "replaced right main tire IAW aircraft service manual." Signs the log entry and owner flies aircraft.

Aircraft crashes and FAA investigates. Owner's heirs state that aircraft was just inspected and the only unairworthy item was a bad tire.
Fortunately, IA who did the annual shows list given to owner with owner's signature listing crack in spar as unairworthy. IA is off hook.

A&P states he was only told to replace tire and his "return to service" signature only applies to the work he performed and not to a discrepancy he was not told about. Mechanic off hook.

Owner is held responsible for flying unsafe aircraft as IA/A&P are both blameless.

Scenario 2.

Owner hands list to A&P and A&P determines the crack is not a crack but is just the primer coating crazing. A&P does change tire. MX entry lists changing tire and how he determined the crack was not a crack using magnifying glass, signs log entry returning aircraft to service. Owner flies aircraft and wing spar breaks due to the crack that really was a crack and not just a bad paint job.

FAA investigates and holds original IA blameless, the owner blameless, but hangs the mechanic out to dry for determining crack was not a crack.

Scenario 3.

Owner tells mechanic to change tire. Mechanic changes tire and signs log. Owner flies aircraft and aircraft doesn't crash. FAA none the wiser. Subsequent annuals by different A&Ps don't catch the crack in spar. Owner eventually sells aircraft. New owner is screwed.

Bottom line: if IA finds something unairworthy or unsafe to fly, along with providing that information to owner, it is smart to keep a copy to prove you told owner.
A mechanic is only responsible for the work he documents in the maintenance record--if it's not in writing, it didn't happen. It's up to owner to maintain his aircraft, not the IA that inspects it or the mechanic that repairs it.

 

[Tom-D]

Here's a hypothetical. After annual inspection, IA gives owner list of unairworthy items consisting of 1. Crack in main wing spar. and 2. Right main gear tire is worn and needs replacement.

Scenario 1.

The owner tells A&P to replace right tire (no mention of crack) and A&P makes entry in mx record saying "replaced right main tire IAW aircraft service manual." Signs the log entry and owner flies aircraft.

Aircraft crashes and FAA investigates. Owner's heirs state that aircraft was just inspected and the only unairworthy item was a bad tire.
Fortunately, IA who did the annual shows list given to owner with owner's signature listing crack in spar as unairworthy. IA is off hook.

A&P states he was only told to replace tire and his "return to service" signature only applies to the work he performed and not to a discrepancy he was not told about. Mechanic off hook.

Owner is held responsible for flying unsafe aircraft as IA/A&P are both blameless.

Scenario 2.

Owner hands list to A&P and A&P determines the crack is not a crack but is just the primer coating crazing. A&P does change tire. MX entry lists changing tire and how he determined the crack was not a crack using magnifying glass, signs log entry returning aircraft to service. Owner flies aircraft and wing spar breaks due to the crack that really was a crack and not just a bad paint job.

FAA investigates and holds original IA blameless, the owner blameless, but hangs the mechanic out to dry for determining crack was not a crack.

Scenario 3.

Owner tells mechanic to change tire. Mechanic changes tire and signs log. Owner flies aircraft and aircraft doesn't crash. FAA none the wiser. Subsequent annuals by different A&Ps don't catch the crack in spar. Owner eventually sells aircraft. New owner is screwed.

Bottom line: if IA finds something unairworthy or unsafe to fly, along with providing that information to owner, it is smart to keep a copy to prove you told owner.
A mechanic is only responsible for the work he documents in the maintenance record--if it's not in writing, it didn't happen. It's up to owner to maintain his aircraft, not the IA that inspects it or the mechanic that repairs it.

The only legal method of informing the public and the owner that there is a safety of flight issues with the aircraft is to get the A&P-IA's PMI from FSDO to pull the airworthiness certificate until the discrepancy is corrected.

They will do this, but you best have the ducks lined up before you make that call.

The easiest way is to place the safety of flight discrepancy in the maintenance record.

"This aircraft was inspected IAW an annual inspection according to the Cessna 100 service manual, and found to be in an un-airworthy condition due to a crack in the right wing spar to fuselage attachment fitting"
Sign it, date it, get paid, and give the log book to the owner, it's best if done in that order

 

[Tom-D]

Flybaby is experimental is it not? If so it doesn't have to be airworthy. It only has to be in a safe condition for flight.

It must be anything the inspector wants it to be. They may be thinking the lights were included in the certification of the aircraft, If so, they must work.

You would have to know what the letter of limitations says.

 

[Witmo]

It must be anything the inspector wants it to be. They may be thinking the lights were included in the certification of the aircraft, If so, they must work.

You would have to know what the letter of limitations says.

My point is "airworthy" and "safe condition for flight" are two distinctly different standards. Do any letters of limitations define "safe condition for flight"? On my standard category aircraft, if my landing light is burned out is my aircraft unairworthy (Part 91)?

 

[wabower]

We discussed this subject at lunch yesterday. If it doesn't work, how does the pilot know? Is a placard necessary? Can it be deferred under part 91? Is it covered by MEL?

My point is "airworthy" and "safe condition for flight" are two distinctly different standards. Do any letters of limitations define "safe condition for flight"? On my standard category aircraft, if my landing light is burned out is my aircraft unairworthy (Part 91)?

 

[Tom-D]

My point is "airworthy" and "safe condition for flight" are two distinctly different standards. Do any letters of limitations define "safe condition for flight"? On my standard category aircraft, if my landing light is burned out is my aircraft unairworthy (Part 91)?

Airworthiness as applied to the production built aircraft flying on a standard airworthiness certificate, has both requirements included. it must comply with its type certificate.

The home built aircraft flying on a EXP certificate does not have a type certificate, thus it can not have that portion of the definition of airworthiness applied to it.

but----

It is required to to comply with its letter of limitations. There are two letters of limitations, the old style which does not include the requirement the aircraft be inspected IAW the FAR 43-D, and the new ones that do.

So, to define airworthiness for a home built aircraft flying on a EXP airworthiness certificate, it must comply with its letter of limitations and be in a condition for safe operation.

So, does the letter of limitation say all installed equipment must work?

 

[Witmo]

...
So, does the letter of limitation say all installed equipment must work?

Any Experimental owners willing to chime in? What does your letter of limitations say?

 

[John Collins]

Someone wrote "unairworthy" in your logs, I'd have a chit fit if some knuckle dragged wrote that in my logs.

I have it done all the time. It is no big deal. All it means is that the discrepancies were not repaired. A typical situation where this is used is at a pre-buy annual, where the IA is paid by the buyer to perform the annual and the seller's A&P makes the repairs. I used to operate a shop and flight school. Only had one IA, the rest were A&P. IA had to go on vacation for a week and didn't have time to inspect and repair, so he just did the inspections before he left, signed off as Annual - Unairworthy, list of discrepancies provided to owner. My A&P's were able to complete the work and return the airplanes to flight status for the flight school in his absence. It can also be used if the IA is unreasonable and won't sign off the aircraft as airworthy or there is a dispute between the IA and the owner. For example there are some IA's who refuse to sign off an annual if the engine or prop are beyond TBO or a manufacturer service bulletin is not complied with. Note also that the regulations require the IA to sign off the annual if it is performed and the discrepancies are required to be provided in writing to the owner (not the logbooks). I don't give my logbooks to an IA, always a copy in the form of a PDF. All my log entries are via stickies that I place in the logbooks

 

[John Collins]

If an IA says something isn't airworthy, and another A&P says it's OK as is, one of them is wrong. How do you, who doesn't hold a mechanic certificate, know which? And since it's in writing, there is a big red flag to attract the attention of anyone reviewing the records later, like the FAA. You want to bet your certificates that the first mech was wrong and the second was right, and not the other way around, you go right ahead. I'm not taking that chance -- I'll get a third opinion in writing before I fly that plane.

It is not always the case that for a particular discrepancy that the IA or A&P is wrong, particularly if an A&P repairs the discrepancy. In cases such as a disagreement, for example whether or not an engine is over TBO constitutes an airworthiness discrepancy or that a Mandatory manufacturers service bulletin has not been complied with, there are FAA General Counselor opinions on these subjects, even though there are differing opinions between various Repair Stations, IA's and A&P's.

The discrepancies don't get put into the logbook unless the owner permits it. They must be provided in writing to the owner and the record does not have to be kept after the repairs are made. Any repairs would be entered into the permanent logs but would be difficult if not impossible to correlate to the annual discrepancy list, other than by a copy kept by the IA.

The IA does not have the option of performing an annual inspection and not making one of the two required log book entries (airworthy or unairworthy) as they would be in violation of regulations.

 

[Tom-D]

It is not always the case that for a particular discrepancy that the IA or A&P is wrong, particularly if an A&P repairs the discrepancy. In cases such as a disagreement, for example whether or not an engine is over TBO constitutes an airworthiness discrepancy or that a Mandatory manufacturers service bulletin has not been complied with, there are FAA General Counselor opinions on these subjects, even though there are differing opinions between various Repair Stations, IA's and A&P's.

The discrepancies don't get put into the logbook unless the owner permits it. They must be provided in writing to the owner and the record does not have to be kept after the repairs are made. Any repairs would be entered into the permanent logs but would be difficult if not impossible to correlate to the annual discrepancy list, other than by a copy kept by the IA.

The IA does not have the option of performing an annual inspection and not making one of the two required log book entries (airworthy or unairworthy) as they would be in violation of regulations.

John, when you take that firm stance, you leave the A&P-IA no alternative but to get FSDO involved when you have a safety of flight discrepancy.

Picture this, the owner/operator is known for not maintaining the aircraft as well as it should be. The discrepancies noted last year are not corrected this year.

and you as the IA finds a safety of flight issue with the aircraft.

How are you going to insure the aircraft doesn't fly until the issue is resolved?

Let us say there is no safety of flight issue, only the airworthiness certificate is missing and the registration is in some one else's name?

what then? Is the aircraft unairworthy? Who can fix it.?
What if, there is no registration, can the A&P-IA even work on the aircraft?

 

[John Collins]

John, when you take that firm stance, you leave the A&P-IA no alternative but to get FSDO involved when you have a safety of flight discrepancy.

Picture this, the owner/operator is known for not maintaining the aircraft as well as it should be. The discrepancies noted last year are not corrected this year.

and you as the IA finds a safety of flight issue with the aircraft.

How are you going to insure the aircraft doesn't fly until the issue is resolved?

Let us say there is no safety of flight issue, only the airworthiness certificate is missing and the registration is in some one else's name?

what then? Is the aircraft unairworthy? Who can fix it.?
What if, there is no registration, can the A&P-IA even work on the aircraft?

I don't care if FSDO gets involved. The inspection is the inspection. The repairs are the repairs. If the IA wants to protect themselves from potential liability, they will keep a copy of the written list of discrepancies they signed and provided to the owner. If the owner decides not to have the IA continue with the repairs, that is their decision. I have even had them ask the owner to sign the copy of the discrepancies kept by the IA. If they then fly the airplane while it is still unairworthy, that is the owner's problem and not the IA's problem. I certainly will never fly an aircraft with actual airworthiness discrepancies and only fly an aircraft with technical airworthiness discrepancies with an appropriately signed ferry permit.

I have had IA's refuse to sign an engine off as airworthy simply because it was beyond TBO. As long as they perform the inspection on the engine and give the owner a list of discrepancies, one of which includes that the aircraft is unairworthy simply because the engine is over TBO, that should be easily dispatched with by any competent A&P, even with a FSDO Inspector looking over his shoulder.

As far as not having proper documents, the registration and AW certificate can be replace thru the FAA.

In cases that I have been involved with, in particular, pre-buy annuals, I would get any discrepancies fixed by the shop that performed the inspection that would prevent a ferry flight if it was needed to continue with repairs. The ferry permit is signed by the FSDO as well as an A&P certifying that the aircraft is safe for the intended ferry flight. I have made this clear to the IA prior to the inspection taking place. When I represent a seller, the purchase agreement states who pays for what and how discrepancies will be dealt with. The shop's annual inspection fee is contracted for as a fixed fee and does not include any repairs of any discrepancies other than replacing normal fluids, filters, and gaskets. The fee is held in escrow, so there are never any payment issues on this part of the annual.

An IA always has the choice if they are willing to perform the inspection or not, but they don't have a choice of performing an inspection and not appropriately logging and signing off their work. I have never come across a case where an IA refused to make the logbook entry and provide a copy of the discrepancies to the owner. If they did refuse, I would report them to the FSDO myself and recommend that the owner take legal action against them. Non payment for the inspection and enforcement of a mechanics lean, might be a legitimate reason for the IA to not release an aircraft in their custody until payment was made, but I am assuming this is not the case.

 

[Tom-D]

I don't care if FSDO gets involved. The inspection is the inspection. The repairs are the repairs.

True, many here do not believe that, they think of the annual as the 13th month maintenance period.

If the IA wants to protect themselves from potential liability, they will keep a copy of the written list of discrepancies they signed and provided to the owner.

This is also true, but unless it was signed by the owner, it becomes a who said the list was given or received.

If the owner decides not to have the IA continue with the repairs, that is their decision. I have even had them ask the owner to sign the copy of the discrepancies kept by the IA. If they then fly the airplane while it is still unairworthy, that is the owner's problem and not the IA's problem.


This is also true, but when you have a safety of flight discrepancy, what is the A&P-IA's responsibility? I believe it is a responsibility of conscience to see that no unsuspecting pilot gets hurt.

I certainly will never fly an aircraft with actual airworthiness discrepancies and only fly an aircraft with technical airworthiness discrepancies with an appropriately signed ferry permit.

wise decision, buut when I ask you to ferry the aircraft how do you know what the discrepancies are ?

I have had IA's refuse to sign an engine off as airworthy simply because it was beyond TBO. As long as they perform the inspection on the engine and give the owner a list of discrepancies, one of which includes that the aircraft is unairworthy simply because the engine is over TBO, that should be easily dispatched with by any competent A&P, even with a FSDO Inspector looking over his shoulder.

That's an easy one, ask them to prove service letters are required for airworthiness in part 91.

As far as not having proper documents, the registration and AW certificate can be replace thru the FAA.

How can you even do the inspection with out a registration? how can you sign it off as airworthy if the AROW is not aboard?

those documents are not replaced quickly, and you can't even get a ferry permit approved by any A&P with out them aboard.

In cases that I have been involved with, in particular, pre-buy annuals, I would get any discrepancies fixed by the shop that performed the inspection that would prevent a ferry flight if it was needed to continue with repairs. The ferry permit is signed by the FSDO as well as an A&P certifying that the aircraft is safe for the intended ferry flight. I have made this clear to the IA prior to the inspection taking place. When I represent a seller, the purchase agreement states who pays for what and how discrepancies will be dealt with. The shop's annual inspection fee is contracted for as a fixed fee and does not include any repairs of any discrepancies other than replacing normal fluids, filters, and gaskets. The fee is held in escrow, so there are never any payment issues on this part of the annual.

irrelevant to the thread.

An IA always has the choice if they are willing to perform the inspection or not, but they don't have a choice of performing an inspection and not appropriately logging and signing off their work. I have never come across a case where an IA refused to make the logbook entry and provide a copy of the discrepancies to the owner. If they did refuse, I would report them to the FSDO myself and recommend that the owner take legal action against them. Non payment for the inspection and enforcement of a mechanics lean, might be a legitimate reason for the IA to not release an aircraft in their custody until payment was made, but I am assuming this is not the case.

again irrelevant to the thread.

I found a long time ago, do the preliminary look, make the decision to do the work or walk. some owners are not worth the hassle of trying to sort it all out going away.

 

[Tom-D]

A long time ago at an airport far far away, I looked at an aircraft, it was so bad that I thought to my self, if the owner was stupid enough to buy this, he's probably too stupid to write a check.

bye bye Cya.

 

[Silvaire]

The IA does not have the option of performing an annual inspection and not making one of the two required log book entries (airworthy or unairworthy) as they would be in violation of regulations.

The IA doesn't have to write anything in the logbook if the owner doesn't want him to but in such a case the owner will have to find another IA to sign off on the INSPECTION. The reason an annual would be signed off as unairworthy is because once that is done the inspection requirement is complied with. Any discrepancies can then be signed off by an A&P. Any A&P can differ in opinion to the IA as to an airworthiness issue but he must sign it off and release the aircraft and he's going to have to base that on some criteria.

If you are talking about fraudulence then obviously that's a different issue but fraud is not automatically assumed. The IA is going to provide the list of discrepancies to the owner and he's going to have a copy for his own records that he'll most likely have the owner sign. If something subsequently happens to bring the issue up then everyone is going to have to have themselves covered one way or another. The A&P who signed off on the discrepancies is going to need either documentation or record of action - simple as that.

 

[Silvaire]

...
and you as the IA finds a safety of flight issue with the aircraft.

How are you going to insure the aircraft doesn't fly until the issue is resolved?...

I'm not because I am an IA, not a policeman. It is not my job to do that outside of simply not signing it off. How on Earth could I possibly ensure an aircraft is not going to be flown outside of disabling it or locking it up where the owner can't get to it? Which, BTW, would be completely illegal.

Not gonna happen

 

[Tom-D]

I'm not because I am an IA, not a policeman. It is not my job to do that outside of simply not signing it off. How on Earth could I possibly ensure an aircraft is not going to be flown outside of disabling it or locking it up where the owner can't get to it? Which, BTW, would be completely illegal.

Not gonna happen

As soon as that aircraft flys, and you had any thing to do with it. go get a lawyer.

yer going to need one.

You as an A&P- are the eyes and ears of the FAA, You see any difficulty getting the owner to repair the safety issue, you best get the FSDO involved, pronto.

 

[Tom-D]

When I start an inspection and find a major concern, I'm having a conversation with the owner, if they are not willing to get it repaired prior to me signing off the inspection, I'm walking.

no signature in the log means it never happened, the FAA can only hold you to what you write, with no name it just becomes a shouting match.

 

[Silvaire]

You as an A&P- are the eyes and ears of the FAA, You see any difficulty getting the owner to repair the safety issue, you best get the FSDO involved, pronto.

Well then I guess that for all these years they must have been sending the checks to the wrong address.

Tom - I am not a regulations enforcement official nor am I a government informer, I'm just a mechanic. My duty lies with the AIRCRAFT, not the pilot so I fail to understand how I could encounter "difficulty getting the owner to repair a safety issue". It's not my business whether or not he wants to do a repair. I have no authority, nor desire, to stalk an owner or conduct surveillance on an aircraft to ensure an airworthiness item is complied with. My job and the extent of my legal power in the matter is to NOT sign the aircraft off as airworthy and ends right there. If I am going to sign an inspection off as un-airworthy the owner WILL sign and date my copy of the list of discrepancies. Without that signature he gets no logbook signature - straight forward and simple.

 

[Tom-D]

Well then I guess that for all these years they must have been sending the checks to the wrong address.

Tom - I am not a regulations enforcement official nor am I a government informer, I'm just a mechanic. My duty lies with the AIRCRAFT, not the pilot so I fail to understand how I could encounter "difficulty getting the owner to repair a safety issue". It's not my business whether or not he wants to do a repair. I have no authority, nor desire, to stalk an owner or conduct surveillance on an aircraft to ensure an airworthiness item is complied with. My job and the extent of my legal power in the matter is to NOT sign the aircraft off as airworthy and ends right there. If I am going to sign an inspection off as un-airworthy the owner WILL sign and date my copy of the list of discrepancies. Without that signature he gets no logbook signature - straight forward and simple.

It's simply how you see your responsibility to the system, and how you do the CYA thing.