Operator

That information may be difficult to find out but whether the PIC knows or not but it's still their responsibility to determine if the aircraft is airworthy. When the PIC is standing in front of the administrative law judge, he or she will be explaining why they operated the aircraft when they could not prove it was airworthy.

Please define "airworthy" and cite a reference for the definition.
 
The aircraft is in compliance with Parts 23, 43 and 91.

True, but the point I'm making is the FAA does not define "airworthiness". (btw, you missed a few FAR's in your response) They do this for a reason.

I tend to go with "Stache's" earlier post as a good guide to airworthiness. No two FAA Inspectors will give you the same answer on this either.

As far as "logbooks", there is no requirement for maintenance records to be placed in "logbooks". You could use a grocery sack and keep the entries on notebook paper.
 
True, but the point I'm making is the FAA does not define "airworthiness". (btw, you missed a few FAR's in your response) They do this for a reason.

I tend to go with "Stache's" earlier post as a good guide to airworthiness. No two FAA Inspectors will give you the same answer on this either.

As far as "logbooks", there is no requirement for maintenance records to be placed in "logbooks". You could use a grocery sack and keep the entries on notebook paper.
I hit the high points for airplanes. Others for airplanes would be Parts 35, 45 and 47. I see no others at my immediate disposal that may apply to airplanes alone.

But, I agree on the renegade inspectors. An A&P and PIC can make a diligent and honest effort to comply with all inspections, ADs and associated regulations. There's always something which may be argued.

I think the final argument before the NTSB would be was there insufficient performance by the responsible parties and was the event foreseeable?
 
Back
Top