On 21 Dec 2006 11:04:34 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:


wrote:
On 20 Dec 2006 09:30:34 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:
Also, as I've indicated previously, if the service facility considers
a .407 flight necessary, it must write it into the maintenance record
sign-off as such, and the bird is not approved for return to service
until after that flight is performed and duly noted.

I just had my aileron replaced at the factory service center this last
summer. I'll double check my log books but I believe there are two sign
offs. The first is the IA who signed off the work, the second is the
test pilot who signed off the test flight.
sig snip

Which takes us all the way back to your original question:

On 19 Dec 2006 13:30:20 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

snip
Isn't that required by regulation (although only minimum crew is
allowed)? Doesn't the pilot have to sign the aircraft log as RTS after
the break in?
sig snip

I am by no means saying that a 91.407 flight MAY be performed after
just about ANY maintenance.

What I am trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out that it is
NOT required by regulation for approval for return to service. Also,
that I could/would (and in other similiar situations have allegedly
actually had to) stand nose-to-nose with the FAA and tell them to pack
sand if they told me it WAS required.

The only way that it would be clearly required by regulation is under

Sec. 43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
noted in Sec. 43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test
apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance
with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test
apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use
that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the
Administrator.

Again, if the AMM states that a flight test be performed after a
specific maintenance task, it must be performed prior to approval for
return to service.

Again, on specific aircraft, there are specific tasks that do call out
a flight test.

Again, I can NOT speak for the AMM on your particular aircraft, but I
personally have NEVER seen an AMM that requires a flight test after
an engine change. I also seriously doubt that your Mooney AMM requires
a flight test after a flight control surface R/R.

If it IS called for in your specific AMM, then I am 100% WRONG, and a
flight test IS required by regulation.

If the approved repair station manual at a Pt 145 maintenance
facility for some strange reason requires a flight test, then again, I
am 100% WRONG and in this case a flight test IS also required.

While I have allegedly inspected/maintained/operated Pt 91 aircraft
type certificated under CAR3 & Pt 23, inspected/maintained Pt 135
aircraft under CAR3 & Pt 23, and inspected/maintained Pt 91 aircraft
under Pt 25 using my own hypothetical tickets; I have never had the
pleasure of working under a Pt 145 "roof". If you're not sure what all
that means, ask Mr. Weir.

As the Weir-meister has indirectly pointed out, the majority of 91.407
rides are performed because the certificated technician/authorized
inspector/repair station QA person responsible for the work has
decided that (s)he will sleep better at night with a .407 sign-off in
the aircraft maintenance record.

I positively agree in these cases that 91.407 can be used as a
justification for a test flight, but still cannot agree that it is
REQUIRED after routine maintenance unless the above condition (AMM
call out) exists.

In the past, I have allegedly performed major airframe alterations
under the STC/337 process that have absolutely positively
"appreciably changed its flight characteristics" AND "substantially
affected its operation in flight" and approved them for return to
service without a 91.407 flight. Vortex generator installations, for
instance-as Mr. Noel pointed out, another example is an STC'd engine
upgrade.

Again, unless the approved installation instructions specifically
require a flight test, it is up to the judgement of the warm body
responsible under the CFR, it is not required by the CFR.

TC