Pencil Whipped Annuals

Rcmutz said:
aaahhhh..there is that word, "safe". Safe is a state of mind. What is safe to you may not be safe to the next person.

Airworthy does not equal safe, depending on your "state of mind". ;)
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, your decision of what is safe, better agree with that of FSDO's.

§91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Be that as it may, your decision of what is safe, better agree with that of FSDO's.

§91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
Click to expand...

The section you are quoting equates something that is safe as airworthy. We have already confirmed that airworthy means is conforms to its type certificate, or TC plus STC's and/or Field approvals. BUT, it leaves it up to the pilot to determine if it is "in condition for safe flight", without defining what that means.

To some pilots, a non-working AP in IMC conditions is un-safe. To some pilots, not having a working radio is un-safe. To other pilots, no tread on a tire is un-safe, while to others unless the chords are showing it is safe.

To understand safe one has to understand risk tolerance and/or avoidance. Each person is different has different levels of risk tolerance, hence what is safe to one person is not to another.

Also, I don't think the 14 CFR really tells us what is safe in total. Some of it is defined there, but a whole lot is based upon case and administrative law over the years. Hence Advisory Circulars which do not have regulatory enforcement.
 
Rcmutz said:
The section you are quoting equates something that is safe as airworthy. We have already confirmed that airworthy means is conforms to its type certificate, or TC plus STC's and/or Field approvals. BUT, it leaves it up to the pilot to determine if it is "in condition for safe flight", without defining what that means.

To some pilots, a non-working AP in IMC conditions is un-safe. To some pilots, not having a working radio is un-safe. To other pilots, no tread on a tire is un-safe, while to others unless the chords are showing it is safe.

To understand safe one has to understand risk tolerance and/or avoidance. Each person is different has different levels of risk tolerance, hence what is safe to one person is not to another.

Also, I don't think the 14 CFR really tells us what is safe in total. Some of it is defined there, but a whole lot is based upon case and administrative law over the years. Hence Advisory Circulars which do not have regulatory enforcement.
Click to expand...

Actually it says that airworthy = (conforms to TC or some other official approval) + (safe). Conformity being less subjective and safe being recognized as highly subjective. In the event of an accident an investigator will use the term unsafe and may also interchange with unairworthy if the part has been modified or not maintained in a manner consistent with its TC.
 
Rcmutz said:
The section you are quoting equates something that is safe as airworthy. We have already confirmed that airworthy means is conforms to its type certificate, or TC plus STC's and/or Field approvals. BUT, it leaves it up to the pilot to determine if it is "in condition for safe flight", without defining what that means.

To some pilots, a non-working AP in IMC conditions is un-safe. To some pilots, not having a working radio is un-safe. To other pilots, no tread on a tire is un-safe, while to others unless the chords are showing it is safe.

To understand safe one has to understand risk tolerance and/or avoidance. Each person is different has different levels of risk tolerance, hence what is safe to one person is not to another.

Also, I don't think the 14 CFR really tells us what is safe in total. Some of it is defined there, but a whole lot is based upon case and administrative law over the years. Hence Advisory Circulars which do not have regulatory enforcement.
Click to expand...

Good of you to notice, that is what part of 'command' is about, it's about more than being in command of aircraft control, it means being in command of everything. The FAA give you a whole lot of rope with which to hang yourself, it's up to you to decide how tight you want to pull it. This is in large part because you can't write rules to cover every circumstance, and you need operational leeway and are assumed to have sufficient training and intelligence to make correct choices. You are required to adhere to these set minimum standards, from there it's up to you to decide what is safe. They leave it to you because it's your life on the line. People not comfortable with that responsability probably shouldn't be PIC.
 
Rcmutz said:
The section you are quoting equates something that is safe as airworthy. We have already confirmed that airworthy means is conforms to its type certificate, or TC plus STC's and/or Field approvals. BUT, it leaves it up to the pilot to determine if it is "in condition for safe flight", without defining what that means.

To some pilots, a non-working AP in IMC conditions is un-safe. To some pilots, not having a working radio is un-safe. To other pilots, no tread on a tire is un-safe, while to others unless the chords are showing it is safe.

To understand safe one has to understand risk tolerance and/or avoidance. Each person is different has different levels of risk tolerance, hence what is safe to one person is not to another.

Also, I don't think the 14 CFR really tells us what is safe in total. Some of it is defined there, but a whole lot is based upon case and administrative law over the years. Hence Advisory Circulars which do not have regulatory enforcement.
Click to expand...
At the time of the last annual, the inspector is expected to know the aircraft and all its subsystems have been maintained IAW their ICAs and required manuals that are require to be used. prior to the aircraft being declared airworthy.

Would a pilot be required to know that, of course not. but they will be expected to know that a tire with no wear groove showing is not in compliance with its ICAs. They would be expected to know if the equipment aboard is required for the flight, and is in good working order.

Airworthiness requires two things to be compliant , and that has been beat to death already.
 
Jaybird180 said:
The condition of the engine is unknown. What we do know is that the seller said it had a bad mag, so he fixed that during his annual. What's on there now is a lightweight and a heavyweight mag. Danny says he's never seen one like it, but doesn't think the rules prohibit it.

We don't know if the engine is making metal. We don't know if there's corrosion. We don't know about the compression trends. We can only guess they will go up if the it's regularly flown. We suspect the prop is ready for overhaul.

Danny's most salient comment was that it just appears the airplane was neglected and that was my sentiment too. The seller did bare minimums and moreso just wanted to have a toy to look at every once in awhile. he put 1300hrs in 42 years of ownership on it. The factory/ dealer put the first 200 on it in the first 6months of it's life.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it's been neglected. The price tag gives that detail away.

So how about airframe corrosion? Did he note (or note the absence of) airframe corrosion? That's easy to check and just requires opening up inspection points and a flashlight.

As Henning hinted, this might be a good candidate for a top to bottom Katmai overhaul if the bones are functional.
 
Brad Z said:
I don't doubt that it's been neglected. The price tag gives that detail away.

So how about airframe corrosion? Did he note (or note the absence of) airframe corrosion? That's easy to check and just requires opening up inspection points and a flashlight.

As Henning hinted, this might be a good candidate for a top to bottom Katmai overhaul if the bones are functional.
Click to expand...
He didn't get to do it.
 
The funny thing is the plane is airworthy when the IA inspects it. Then the plane has to be put back together with covers needing to be put on and such. If that is not done properly is it still airworthy?
 
yetti said:
The funny thing is the plane is airworthy when the IA inspects it. Then the plane has to be put back together with covers needing to be put on and such. If that is not done properly is it still airworthy?
Click to expand...

no...
 
Jaybird180 said:
The condition of the engine is unknown. What we do know is that the seller said it had a bad mag, so he fixed that during his annual. What's on there now is a lightweight and a heavyweight mag. Danny says he's never seen one like it, but doesn't think the rules prohibit it.
Click to expand...

I want to know what a light weight mag is? or a heavy for that matter.
I don't think Danny does either
 
yetti said:
The funny thing is the plane is airworthy when the IA inspects it. Then the plane has to be put back together with covers needing to be put on and such. If that is not done properly is it still airworthy?
Click to expand...

Nope, the IA can give the owner a list of discrepancies and sign for the annual inspection. The aircraft will be airworthy after the discrepancies are addressed and an A&P approves it for return to service.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Nope, the IA can give the owner a list of discrepancies and sign for the annual inspection. The aircraft will be airworthy after the discrepancies are addressed and an A&P approves it for return to service.
Click to expand...

Replacing the panels is an owner do. The IA can sign it off as airworthy, but the pilot can't fly it until the panels are replaced and the aircraft is safe to fly.

When you use the list IAW FAR 43-D Appendix D to Part 43
It demands you open, but it does not require you close.

—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections
(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
He didn't get to do it.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're telling me that the dude who did your prebuy 'didn't get to' the most important, first step, of the inspection?!?:confused: WTF, is this dude your ATP/Airline mechanic...whatever partner you're talking about? If so, you need to end any thoughts of partnering with this guy, sorry, he's grossly incompetent at the roll he's serving in your relationship. If it's some guy you hired, never hire them again. That is the most significant part of the inspection. The first 10 minutes I spend pulling panels and looking for corrosion. I walk away from a lot of planes in that first 10 minutes. I buy planes and boats for people for a living, you are dealing with a numb nut that will cost you big.
 
Tom-D said:
(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I, the inspector, have to do this myself? You mean I can't have the hired help do that?
 
As with all FAR material people get wrapped way too tight on the literal text. For instance, with regards to appendix D, what if you're not a "he"? :dunno:
 
Tom-D said:
Replacing the panels is an owner do. The IA can sign it off as airworthy, but the pilot can't fly it until the panels are replaced and the aircraft is safe to fly.

When you use the list IAW FAR 43-D Appendix D to Part 43
It demands you open, but it does not require you close.

—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections
(a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine.
Click to expand...
And that would be the Inspector's responsibility to ensure everything is opened up for inspection. He can't come back and blame missing something on anyone else.
 
Silvaire said:
As with all FAR material people get wrapped way too tight on the literal text. For instance, with regards to appendix D, what if you're not a "he"? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Go read FAR's, it's covered. FAR 1.3 (a) (3)

"Words importing the masculine gender include the feminine."
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
And that would be the Inspector's responsibility to ensure everything is opened up for inspection. He can't come back and blame missing something on anyone else.
Click to expand...

That's rather obvious
 
Sorry, that was intended to be more a response to Norm. So, what's the point of that wording? Maybe you should contact the FAA and tell them your intelligence is insulated.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Sorry, that was intended to be more a response to Norm. So, what's the point of that wording? Maybe you should contact the FAA and tell them your intelligence is insulated.
Click to expand...

Yeah Glenn, I'm well aware of the responsibility. I was asking Tom If he thought I had to do those chores myself or could I have the dummies do them. Yes, the way it's worded is open to question.
 
Norman said:
Yeah Glenn, I'm well aware of the responsibility. I was asking Tom If he thought I had to do those chores myself or could I have the dummies do them. Yes, the way it's worded is open to question.
Click to expand...

Why ask me, it is in FAR 43.13&15
 
Norman said:
Yeah Glenn, I'm well aware of the responsibility. I was asking Tom If he thought I had to do those chores myself or could I have the dummies do them. Yes, the way it's worded is open to question.
Click to expand...
This was my point. The Dummies are the ones closing up the plane. If they break something they just invalidated the airworthy sign off from the IA. Then you pick up an unairworthy plane. Bad process flow
 
There should be a logbook entry/s for open up. If the annual is completed and no discrepancies are found the aircraft will be airworthy when the open up has been corrected.
 
Last edited:
yetti said:
This was my point. The Dummies are the ones closing up the plane. If they break something they just invalidated the airworthy sign off from the IA. Then you pick up an unairworthy plane. Bad process flow
Click to expand...

No they didn't. Like I said the sign-off pertains only to that instant in time. Running the right main over a nail pulling it out of the hangar has nothing to do with the annual sign-off. It may then be un-airworthy but it doesn't need another inspection.
 
He's correct. Any discrepancy invalidates the aircraft airworthiness. But the correction of that discrepancy re-validates airworthiness. That is why undocumented maintenance is such a big deal.
 
Silvaire said:
As with all FAR material people get wrapped way too tight on the literal text. For instance, with regards to appendix D, what if you're not a "he"? :dunno:
Click to expand...

The English language has a gender-neutral pronoun; "he". Way too many folks get wrapped around the axle about it. Some of them even mean well.
 
When I leave an aircraft open for following maintenance of discrepancies, am I required to wait until the maintenance is completed to sign off the annual, just because I left it open?:no:

But Should I do a CYA and wait until every thing is corrected and closed up to sign the annual off as airworthy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top