Is this true?

[Tom-D]

This piece was copied from another aviation web page I frequent, your opinions please is he right or wrong?

Quote
I think that you misunderstand what the A&P is doing by signing your aircraft's log at the end of a condition inspection. That signature in a legal sense, means that the A&P does indeed certify that the aircraft is airworthy. Using the words "in condition for safe operation", in a strict legal sense, is another way of saying "airworthy". So the A&P accepts responsibility and liability by signing off that condition inspection. That is likely why some A&P's are not comfortable doing those inspections as they are not knowledgeable or comfortable with the airworthiness standards for that class of aircraft.

end quote.

 

[poadeleted21]

I would agree with him.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The bait has been tossed out.........

 

[poadeleted21]

The bait has been tossed out.........

I'm waiting for the hair splitting to begin, did my part.

 

[Tom-D]

The bait has been tossed out.........

It's been a long thread there too.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4529-Repairs-on-an-Experimental-AB

 

[Geico266]

It's been a long thread there too.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4529-Repairs-on-an-Experimental-AB

Thanks for posting the entire thread, and not just a post taken out of context.

The plane is safe to operate as of the time the A&P signed off on the condition inspection. It is no longer valid as of the next flight, or 2 minutes latter, which ever comes first.

It is up to the PIC to make sure the plane is airworthy from then on until the next required condition inspection.

That's the way it has been explained to me.

 

[poadeleted21]

Thanks for posting the entire thread, and not just a post taken out of context.

The plane is safe to operate as of the time the A&P signed off on the condition inspection. It is no longer valid as of the next flight, or 2 minutes latter, which ever comes first.

It is up to the PIC to make sure the plane is airworthy from then on until the next required condition inspection.

That's the way it has been explained to me.

I heard a story about an AP that was hounded by the FAA for a sign off 5 years prior to a ramp check on one of his customers planes.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

E/AB, S-LSA, and E-LSA don't get airworthiness inspections, they get condition inspections. It is as simple as that.

Jim

 

[poadeleted21]

E/AB, S-LSA, and E-LSA don't get airworthiness inspections, they get condition inspections. It is as simple as that.

Jim

There's the hair split.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm waiting for the hair splitting to begin, did my part.

Yep, and the inane round and round arguing...

 

[flyingron]

Most operating limitations specifically state the declaration that needs to be made in the log.
Saying airworthy, as correct or as incorrect as it may be in the particular case, is also not the legal indication that the condition inspection has been completed as required.

 

[Geico266]

I heard a story about an AP that was hounded by the FAA for a sign off 5 years prior to a ramp check on one of his customers planes.

So what is new?

 

[poadeleted20]

I heard a story about an AP that was hounded by the FAA for a sign off 5 years prior to a ramp check on one of his customers planes.

That's entirely possible if there was a violation of the regulations seen in the log entry. The 180-day "stale complaint" clock starts ticking only when the FAA discovers the violation. But that doesn't mean a mechanic who signed an annual or condition inspection five years ago can be done for an issue discovered five years later on a ramp check unless the FAA can prove the issue existed at the time of the inspection (rather hard to do).

In any event, I think the statement is accurate. I know mechanics who don't do annuals on Grummans because they know there are some specific things which require some Grumman expertise which must be checked on the annual (e.g., the nose gear torque tube and horizontal stab forward spar attachment inspections), and they don't feel like taking the time to learn how to do them either from the manuals or by consulting someone who knows the type better. I'm sure this is an even bigger issue for condition inspections on E-AB's, because the mechanic may have even less expertise on homebuilts, especially the rarer types, and there may be no maintenance manual or type expert to help, not to mention any unique features the builder created.

 

[poadeleted21]

That's entirely possible if there was a violation of the regulations seen in the log entry. The 180-day "stale complaint" clock starts ticking only when the FAA discovers the violation. But that doesn't mean a mechanic who signed an annual or condition inspection five years ago can be done for an issue discovered five years later on a ramp check unless the FAA can prove the issue existed at the time of the inspection (rather hard to do).

In any event, I think the statement is accurate. I know mechanics who don't do annuals on Grummans because they know there are some specific things which require some Grumman expertise which must be checked on the annual (e.g., the nose gear torque tube and horizontal stab forward spar attachment inspections), and they don't feel like taking the time to learn how to do them either from the manuals or by consulting someone who knows the type better. I'm sure this is an even bigger issue for condition inspections on E-AB's, because the mechanic may have even less expertise on homebuilts, especially the rarer types, and there may be no maintenance manual or type expert to help, not to mention any unique features the builder created.

Noted a dent in a rudder, didnt fix, FAA found the dent 5 years later... Declared it not airworthy.

 

[N801BH]

I'm waiting for the hair splitting to begin, did my part.

 

[poadeleted20]

Noted a dent in a rudder, didnt fix, FAA found the dent 5 years later... Declared it not airworthy.

Well, if the FAA can prove it more likely than not that the dent hadn't changed in five years, and was unairworthy today, then that mechanic (and every one who signed an annual in the interim) is, by the legal book, toast. The pilots who flew it, however, if charged with a 91.7 violation, have a good argument that they relied on the mechanic's written and signed finding that it was airworthy.

However, none of that has anything to do with the statement Tom quoted in the original post regarding the need for a mechanic to understand specific type requirements when signing an annual/condition inspection -- and I doubt if the allowable size/nature of the dent in a rudder will change much between, say, a C-172, a PA28, and an AA5.

 

[Tom-D]

Well, if the FAA can prove it more likely than not that the dent hadn't changed in five years, and was unairworthy today, then that mechanic (and every one who signed an annual in the interim) is, by the legal book, toast. The pilots who flew it, however, if charged with a 91.7 violation, have a good argument that they relied on the mechanic's written and signed finding that it was airworthy.

However, none of that has anything to do with the statement Tom quoted in the original post regarding the need for a mechanic to understand specific type requirements when signing an annual/condition inspection -- and I doubt if the allowable size/nature of the dent in a rudder will change much between, say, a C-172, a PA28, and an AA5.

I believe that in this case it would be easy to prove the aircraft operated in this condition for 5 years _____ number of hours with no incidents, thus it was airworthy.

Specialty when it was an EXP/AB

 

[Tom-D]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always told that the letter of limitations applied to the aircraft the day the FAA/DAR certified the aircraft dictated the condition that the aircraft must meet to be in a condition for safe flight.
So, the problem as I see it is, how does any one know what has changed and what has not since it was built?

I only do one "conditional inspection" each year, and I had a hand in building it.
But as Ron implied I'd not have a clew if a composite EZ was in a condition for safe operation or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe that in this case it would be easy to prove the aircraft operated in this condition for 5 years _____ number of hours with no incidents, thus it was airworthy.

Your belief is false. The FAA is on record saying that the mere fact that an airplane didn't crash as the result of the condition is not evidence that the aircraft was airworthy unless that dent was in the aircraft's type certificate. See Administrator v. Martz (yes, that Martz -- this was the 230-day suspension he got before the revocation for the sex act in flight):

Overall, the law judge held that the Administrator had presented sufficient evidence to show that the aircraft did not fulfill the requirements of its type certificate, and therefore was unairworthy.

Specialty when it was an EXP/AB

Ain't gonna change the FAA's view on the effect of damage on airworthiness, specifically, that the mere fact that the airplane flew OK is not sufficient to prove airworthiness.

 

[Tom-D]

Your belief is false. The FAA is on record saying that the mere fact that an airplane didn't crash as the result of the condition is not evidence that the aircraft was airworthy unless that dent was in the aircraft's type certificate. See Administrator v. Martz (yes, that Martz -- this was the 230-day suspension he got before the revocation for the sex act in flight):

Ain't gonna change the FAA's view on the effect of damage on airworthiness, specifically, that the mere fact that the airplane flew OK is not sufficient to prove airworthiness.

I don't believe your reference applies to this situation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always told that the letter of limitations applied to the aircraft the day the FAA/DAR certified the aircraft dictated the condition that the aircraft must meet to be in a condition for safe flight.
So, the problem as I see it is, how does any one know what has changed and what has not since it was built?

I think the FAA would say that dents, dings, nicks, cuts, etc, are pretty clearly not "original condition", and must be evaluated against accepted standards (such as the pretty well-defined standards on prop nicks) to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft as it stands.

I only do one "conditional inspection" each year, and I had a hand in building it.

Then you have a real good idea what it was like when it was certified.

But as Ron implied I'd not have a clew if a composite EZ was in a condition for safe operation or not.

Wise decision.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't believe your reference applies to this situation.

Well, it's your privilege to believe or not believe almost anything, but I'm pretty darn sure that my statement reflects FAA policy. Here's a pretty good summary prepared by an aviation attorney. Note that the mere presence of a minor ding or dent is not in and of itself determinative of an unairworthy condition, there is a process to make the determination of whether or not it complies with its type certificate, and as Mr. Martz found out the hard way, whether or not the aircraft actually flew safely is not part of that process.

 

[Tom-D]

I think the FAA would say that dents, dings, nicks, cuts, etc, are pretty clearly not "original condition", and must be evaluated against accepted standards (such as the pretty well-defined standards on prop nicks) to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft as it stands.

What does prop nicks have to do with airframe dents?

There are a great many aircraft that operate daily on floats that have dock pole dents in the wing leading edge, If your assumption was correct they would all be unairworthy. yet we see them flying every day.

In the case of the ramp check dent 5 years ago, there must be more to this than what is stated here. Remember Bob Hover episode? we have rogue inspectors in every FSDO.

And in most cases they are over ruled and the case dismissed during review at the FSDO. That is the cause of the policy that the operations inspectors are no longer allowed to issue red tags with out an airworthiness inspector's approval.

 

[poadeleted20]

I say apples are red, you say "no, bananas are yellow". I give up.

 

[Skylane81E]

Thanks for posting the entire thread, and not just a post taken out of context.

The plane is safe to operate as of the time the A&P signed off on the condition inspection. It is no longer valid as of the next flight, or 2 minutes latter, which ever comes first.

It is up to the PIC to make sure the plane is airworthy from then on until the next required condition inspection.

That's the way it has been explained to me.

As explained to me by my POI when I got my IA

You buy the planes history with your signature, not its future.

 

[Tom-D]

I say apples are red, you say "no, bananas are yellow". I give up.

I'm still trying to figure out how a case against a guy who has tail rotor damage on a helo, has any thing to do with a dent on an experimental?

The FAA took the word of the helo manufacturer, as they always will, And they consider the builder the manufacturer of the Exp/AB, so I believe this dent can be proven to be airworthy as it flew 5 years with out incident.

 

[Bob Noel]

Your belief is false. The FAA is on record saying that the mere fact that an airplane didn't crash as the result of the condition is not evidence that the aircraft was airworthy unless that dent was in the aircraft's type certificate. See Administrator v. Martz (yes, that Martz -- this was the 230-day suspension he got before the revocation for the sex act in flight):

Ain't gonna change the FAA's view on the effect of damage on airworthiness, specifically, that the mere fact that the airplane flew OK is not sufficient to prove airworthiness.

That an interesting position of the FAA, considering that the FAA has allowed and continues to allow "service history" to be used in showing compliance with certification requirements.

wait a minute, what am I thinking? Consistency from the FAA? never mind.

 

[Tom-D]

That an interesting position of the FAA, considering that the FAA has allowed and continues to allow "service history" to be used in showing compliance with certification requirements.

wait a minute, what am I thinking? Consistency from the FAA? never mind.

Previous history is a big deal with the FAA. Lots and lots of Field approvals are approved after the fact by using the time flown as proof the alteration works.

The Cover letter starts by:

This field approval is to certify a change to________ system by people unknown and at a time unknown by this facility, this modification has been in place for the 10 years of ownership by the present owner with out incident.

As described in block 8 of the 337, part number _____ was replaced by part number ______ and the associated system upgraded by……… and so forth.

 

[poadeleted20]

Previous history is a big deal with the FAA. Lots and lots of Field approvals are approved after the fact by using the time flown as proof the alteration works.

The Cover letter starts by:

This field approval is to certify a change to________ system by people unknown and at a time unknown by this facility, this modification has been in place for the 10 years of ownership by the present owner with out incident.

As described in block 8 of the 337, part number _____ was replaced by part number ______ and the associated system upgraded by……… and so forth.

Alterations are not the same as damage.

 

[Tom-D]

Well, it's your privilege to believe or not believe almost anything, but I'm pretty darn sure that my statement reflects FAA policy. Here's a pretty good summary prepared by an aviation attorney. Note that the mere presence of a minor ding or dent is not in and of itself determinative of an unairworthy condition, there is a process to make the determination of whether or not it complies with its type certificate, and as Mr. Martz found out the hard way, whether or not the aircraft actually flew safely is not part of that process.

I do not believe your Mr.Martz case reflects a bearing on an airframe dent, in his case you have major tail rotor blade damage, and more. which the Helo manufacturer made a determination that the damage was major and the FAA believed them over a pilots determination, thus the violations. I do not see the FAA taking that stance with a airframe dent, specialty on a EAB. where there are no limitations for dents, or has any repair criteria in the letter of limitations, which I have never seen in any of the letters I read.
Cessna's 100 service manual gives criteria for structure damage, as does Piper, But I don't see the FAA holding the pilots responsible for not knowing what is in a maintenance manual.

That said,, a pilot should know what is safe to fly and what's not.
Your Mr. Kartz had big problems with his decision making process and got what he deserved, the OP? not so much.
JMHO