On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:42:42 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote:

On 6/17/2007 12:44:21 PM, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

Aren't they supposed to list the "start date" for the annual, not when
they finish. Seems like there was a big ruckus over this a while back.

That wouldn't make sense, especially for those one or two month annuals.

Those two month and longer annuals were the reasoning they used. They
wanted the date from the oldest work, not the most recent. IOW, if a
lot of engine work were done on day one and two months later it was
signed off they wanted to date to go back to the engine work, or first
work done in the annual. Rephrashed, they didn't want an annual where
the oldest work would be more than a year old at the next annual.