Owner annual vs. buyer annual. What gives?

no....calender time will take the aircraft out of annual. If non-airworthy items are found it can be released with a list and the owner can have another A&P return it to service addressing the discrepancies.

BTW.....I'm also an A&P/IA. ;)

If the A&P-IA does an annual, and signs it off as unairworthy with a discrepancy list, the aircraft can not be flown until the airworthiness issues are corrected.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm an IA also, and not to start a holy war but ...

Yes, the aircraft can be RETURNED to the owner with a list of nonairworthy items but not RELEASED (as in released for service). The owner can have another A&P repair/fix/replace the nonairworthy items but the A&P cannot return it to service without an IA (either the same one or a different one) signing off the annual with the airworthy items noted and repaired.

That's the way I learned it. YMMV.

Jim

When the inspection has been completed, the IA can sign it off as unairworthy, then the inspection is complete. then any allowed mechanic can return it to service as airworthy.
 
Have you taken or defended a lot of depositions? I always advise my clients that the absolutely, without a doubt, unquestionably most important rule is to tell the truth. Lying is much worse than the truth. I don't think I'm unique in that. The standard of proof in a civil case is the "preponderance of the evidence."In what jurisdiction does a defendant's choice override the plaintiff's demand for a jury?
I would think a sharp lawyer would coach a defended to say as little as he could. How do you depose someone who cant remember what he saw or did not see. I understand proof in a civil case is the preponderance of evidence but doesn't the judge decide what is acceptable evidence that will be introduced in the trial, not the jury. Seems a lawyer job is to argue the law if the facts do not support his case or argue the facts if the law does not support his case.
 
did you read any of this?....I'll post it again for your benefit.:rolleyes:
If the A&P-IA does an annual, and signs it off as unairworthy with a discrepancy list, the aircraft can not be flown until the airworthiness issues are corrected.

Aircraft With Discrepancies or Unairworthy Conditions
If the aircraft is not approved for return to service after a required inspection, use the procedures specified in 14 CFR part 43, § 43.11. This will permit an owner to assume responsibility for having the discrepancies corrected prior to operating the aircraft. Discrepancies or unairworthy conditions can be resolved in the following ways:
1.The discrepancies can be cleared by a person who is authorized by 14 CFR part 43 to do the work. Preventive maintenance items could be cleared by a pilot who owns or operates the aircraft, provided the aircraft is not used under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135; except that approval may be granted to allow a pilot operating a rotorcraft in a remote area under 14 CFR part 135 to perform preventive maintenance.
2.The owner may want the aircraft flown to another location to have repairs completed, in which case the owner should be advised that the issuance of FAA Form 8130-7, Special Flight Permit, is required. This form is commonly called a ferry permit and is detailed in 14 CFR part 21, § 21.197. The certificate may be obtained in person or by fax at the local FSDO or from a Designated Airworthiness Representative.
3.If the aircraft is found to be in an unairworthy condition, an entry will be made in the maintenance records that the inspection was completed and a list of unairworthy items was provided to the owner. When all unairworthy items are corrected by a person authorized to perform maintenance and that person makes an entry in the maintenance record 18 for the correction of those items, the aircraft is approved for return to service. (Refer to appendix 1, figures 8 and 9.)
 
I would think a sharp lawyer would coach a defended to say as little as he could. How do you depose someone who cant remember what he saw or did not see. I understand proof in a civil case is the preponderance of evidence but doesn't the judge decide what is acceptable evidence that will be introduced in the trial, not the jury. Seems a lawyer job is to argue the law if the facts do not support his case or argue the facts if the law does not support his case.

So... What you are saying is a crooked A&P /IA can cook up a fraudulant annual with the owner, even if he sees a broken spar.. The owner knows the plane is highly devalued and the mechanic can then go to court and claim he didn't see anything wrong with the plane.....

Problem is the IA signs the log book that he/she finds the plane airworthy, when it is NOT....

Just another reason to follow the "buyer beware" attitude..:yes:
 
So... What you are saying is a crooked A&P /IA can cook up a fraudulant annual with the owner, even if he sees a broken spar.. The owner knows the plane is highly devalued and the mechanic can then go to court and claim he didn't see anything wrong with the plane.....

Problem is the IA signs the log book that he/she finds the plane airworthy, when it is NOT....

Just another reason to follow the "buyer beware" attitude..:yes:
If you could break the owner to say he set it up with the IA then the game is over. If they stick to their story of neither seeing the broken spar just how do you prove that they saw the broken spar. They could still say that just as much chance that the new owner broke it on the flight home.:dunno:
 
did you read any of this?....I'll post it again for your benefit.:rolleyes:

You forget, we were talking buying the aircraft when you said

" Originally Posted by Checkout_my_Six View Post
no....calender time will take the aircraft out of annual."

The annual may not be due for months. Time would not take it out of annual. the un-airworthy discrepancies would make it un-airworthy.
 
You forget, we were talking buying the aircraft when you said

" Originally Posted by Checkout_my_Six View Post
no....calender time will take the aircraft out of annual."

The annual may not be due for months. Time would not take it out of annual. the un-airworthy discrepancies would make it un-airworthy.
see #2....:rolleyes:
 
I would think a sharp lawyer would coach a defended to say as little as he could. How do you depose someone who cant remember what he saw or did not see. I understand proof in a civil case is the preponderance of evidence but doesn't the judge decide what is acceptable evidence that will be introduced in the trial, not the jury. Seems a lawyer job is to argue the law if the facts do not support his case or argue the facts if the law does not support his case.

The IA signed off on the annual, right? He's certifying for the benefit of the public and the purchaser, with the expectation that they will rely on his certification, that the plane is airworthy. Now, he's going to be sworn in on the stand and testify that he doesn't remember whether he removed inspection cover 'A' and checked the spar? Then the second IA is going to testify about how easily he discovered the broken spar after asking a few questions and taking a peek. I do not think that is going to work out very well for the guy who can't remember whether he actually did the inspection he signed off on.
 
The IA signed off on the annual, right? He's certifying for the benefit of the public and the purchaser, with the expectation that they will rely on his certification, that the plane is airworthy. Now, he's going to be sworn in on the stand and testify that he doesn't remember whether he removed inspection cover 'A' and checked the spar? Then the second IA is going to testify about how easily he discovered the broken spar after asking a few questions and taking a peek. I do not think that is going to work out very well for the guy who can't remember whether he actually did the inspection he signed off on.
cept....IA #1 will adamantly, emphatically, swear it wasn't like that when he last inspected it.....:rolleyes:
 
Bringing your mechanic to a remote /different airport to do a ( thorough annual) without all his tools, jacks, etc etc... is not realistic.. IMHO...

It depends, it makes it more complex and expensive, but as long as you pay everybody for their time and equipment, normally you can find local facilities that will accommodate your mechanic.
 
cept....IA #1 will adamantly, emphatically, swear it wasn't like that when he last inspected it.....:rolleyes:
Jimmy obviously has some reason to believe that the spar was broken when he bought it. So the IA offers his evidence, Jimmy offers his, and the jury decides who's more likely right. Happens everyday. That is, if the case doesn't settle first. :yes:
 
Jimmy obviously has some reason to believe that the spar was broken when he bought it. So the IA offers his evidence, Jimmy offers his, and the jury decides who's more likely right. Happens everyday. That is, if the case doesn't settle first. :yes:
You have high hopes that the legal system is fair and just, not just for those who can afford the best lawyer. Once the expert witnesses get through who knows what the real truth was. :rofl:
 
Back
Top