"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...


Are you saying that, if you perform an inspection, and the aircraft has
unairworthy items, that you make no entry in the aircraft records? If so,
do you believe this is legal?

Case in point ... I'm "getting ready" to do the final inspection day after
tomorrow on a 150 for a fellow I've known for 30 years. He just busted a
medical and has to sell his airplane. The "pre-inspection" a month ago
found a bunch of piddledies like missing placards, filters that were due on
time, and the rest of it. I wrote these up on a bitch sheet and told him
that when they were taken care of, I'd finish the inspection.

Had I written the items up in the logbook and signed the annual, he would
have had to get a mechanic to either do the work or inspect the work after
he was done. This way he does, I inspect, and the whole thing gets taken
care of in one labor charge instead of two.

Which one do you think is more legal AND ethical?



I've owned several Pacers and Tripacers, and inspected scores of them.
I've never seen one that had only "On" and "Off" positions for the magneto
switch. Nor have I seen any such thing in the parts catalog or
maintenance data.

The OP said that the switch was original equipment. I've never seen one on
a 'pacer series either, but that doesn't say that they don't exist. I can't
debate the OP assertation because I'm not there.



Punch testing fabric covering is not a sufficient test for determination
of airworthiness IF the fabric condition is questionable. I leave you to
reference AC43.13-1B for the only acceptable method of determination if a
covering either fails or barely passes a punch test.


Yes, the famous lab test. How many swatches have YOU sent in for lab
testing? And how do you know that the swatch you cut out is representative
of the covering as a whole?

Jim