George Patterson wrote:

Blanche wrote:

Personally, I was underwhelmed by ADLog. Most of the ADs sent to me
were not applicable and more than half the ADs that were applicable
did not appear.

The inspectors in this area want to see all of those inapplicable ADs with a
note by the IA that they are inapplicable and the reason why they are. I would
agree that there's no excuse for the company's failure to send out ADs that are
applicable to the engine or airframe (though they can't be expected to know what
extra equipment you might have added via STC).

Besides, it's the IA's responsibility to ensure all the ADs are
tracked. My efforts are a convenience to him but if he doesn't
verify everything, then he's not doing his job properly.

ADlog makes his job much easier and saves about an hour of his time at annual.
That more than pays for the yearly cost of the system.

I agree that the inapplicable ADs need to be tracked. But when most
of the applicable ADs were never identified by ADlog, then I have
very little confidence in the product. And far too many inapplicable
ADs were not identified, either.

As I said, I was underwhelmed. I took the info that ADlog sent me,
went to the FAA website and started cross-referencing to verify
everything. That's when I discover far too many discrepancies for
me to have a high level of confidence.

My experience. Others really like it. I used the service for one
year based on the enthusiasm of someone who owns an aircraft and I
respect. I gave it a try. I didn't like it. But at least I tried
the product.