brien23
Cleared for Takeoff
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.
...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.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.
Someone wrote "unairworthy" in your logs, I'd have a chit fit if some knuckle dragged wrote that in my logs.
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.
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?
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.
No question there, but you can't just say, "I think the IA is wrong" and fly it "as is."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."
Word from the shop today is that FSDO how wants a copy of any such list.
What if it"s the light bulb in the stall warning and the horn works but the light bulb is burned out?If the light bulb isn't an airworthy issue?
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.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
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.
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.
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.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)?
Any Experimental owners willing to chime in? What does your letter of limitations say?...
So, does the letter of limitation say all installed equipment must work?
Someone wrote "unairworthy" in your logs, I'd have a chit fit if some knuckle dragged wrote that in my logs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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
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.