Toasted my engine

Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes
************************************************** *****
Yup, true fact...

Though one local recently got into a ****ing match with his API over
some annual inspection issues on a well worn TriPacer (couple of 3
year olds in adult bodies)-
including the CAR 23 original equipment single mag switch that has only
two positions - off and on -
and the fabric passing the punch test though at the lowest allowable
reading, and the mechanic refused to sign it off..

The owner (an AP but not an I) demanded the mechanic turn the plane
back to him now, or else... The mechanic did, but he put an entry in
the log book that the airplane was unairworthy and called the FSDO and
faxed them a copy of the log entry... It took a ferry permit to get it
off the field...
So, the plane was shopped around to several API mechanics before he
found one that would touch it... 6 months later and it is still not
flying... The story I hear is that the FSDO inspector is demanding
documentation that they are having problems coming up with...

While an mechanic cannot "ground" an airplane he can do a fair
imitation if he is determined...

denny

If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should
have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given
that to the owner. At that point the annual was complete.

An ordinary A&P could then bring the aircraft back to airworthinness
condition without the need for the IA.

I don't believe that there is anywhere where the FSDO could have
demanded anything except to do a ramp inspection after the aircraft had
been flying.


Denny wrote:
Oh, and BTW, mechanics cannot ground airplanes
************************************************** *****
Yup, true fact...

Though one local recently got into a ****ing match with his API over
some annual inspection issues on a well worn TriPacer (couple of 3
year olds in adult bodies)-
including the CAR 23 original equipment single mag switch that has only
two positions - off and on -
and the fabric passing the punch test though at the lowest allowable
reading, and the mechanic refused to sign it off..

The owner (an AP but not an I) demanded the mechanic turn the plane
back to him now, or else... The mechanic did, but he put an entry in
the log book that the airplane was unairworthy and called the FSDO and
faxed them a copy of the log entry... It took a ferry permit to get it
off the field...
So, the plane was shopped around to several API mechanics before he
found one that would touch it... 6 months later and it is still not
flying... The story I hear is that the FSDO inspector is demanding
documentation that they are having problems coming up with...

While an mechanic cannot "ground" an airplane he can do a fair
imitation if he is determined...

denny

wrote in message
...

If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should have
generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that to
the owner. At that point the annual was complete.

I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list of
unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.

If the airplane is "ratty" but the mag switch(es) had been installed in
accordance with the type certificate in effect as of date of manufacture and
there were no subsequent ADs to change it, then the IA cannot on his own
hook declare them unairworthy.

Similarly, if the fabric punched "at the bottom of the airworthy scale" then
the fabric is airworthy. THe IA does not get to set a higher standard than
the FAA requires.



An ordinary A&P could then bring the aircraft back to airworthinness
condition without the need for the IA.

That's true, but the aircraft still does not have a current annual
inspection.



I don't believe that there is anywhere where the FSDO could have demanded
anything except to do a ramp inspection after the aircraft had been
flying.

They can demand green cheese. What they get or are entitled to get are two
separate matters.

Jim

RST Engineering wrote:
wrote in message
...


If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should have
generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that to
the owner. At that point the annual was complete.


I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list of
unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.

I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that
point and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended
to. The IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he
signs off the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the
inspection is complete and current.


If the airplane is "ratty" but the mag switch(es) had been installed in
accordance with the type certificate in effect as of date of manufacture and
there were no subsequent ADs to change it, then the IA cannot on his own
hook declare them unairworthy.

Similarly, if the fabric punched "at the bottom of the airworthy scale" then
the fabric is airworthy. THe IA does not get to set a higher standard than
the FAA requires.



An ordinary A&P could then bring the aircraft back to airworthinness
condition without the need for the IA.


That's true, but the aircraft still does not have a current annual
inspection.

The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That
inspection will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy
it can be brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period.
The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process.



I don't believe that there is anywhere where the FSDO could have demanded
anything except to do a ramp inspection after the aircraft had been
flying.


They can demand green cheese. What they get or are entitled to get are two
separate matters.

Jim

wrote in message ...


RST Engineering wrote:
wrote in message
...


If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should
have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that
to the owner. At that point the annual was complete.


I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list
of unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.

I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that point
and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended to. The
IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he signs off
the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the inspection is
complete and current.

(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
neither complete nor current.



The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That inspection
will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy it can be
brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period.
The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process.

Citation from regulation, please? Otherwise I maintain as above, not
current, not "in annual".


Jim

A&P, IA

In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

[a bunch of stuff snipped]
(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
neither complete nor current.

Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that
an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of
unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the
aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was
finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of
those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm
asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in
the thread).

thanks

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On 9/20/05 19:28, "Bob Noel" wrote:

In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

[a bunch of stuff snipped]
(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
neither complete nor current.

Maybe I haven't followed this thread well enough. Are you saying that
an Annual Inspection is not complete and valid if there is a list of
unairworthy items given to the owner? I don't mean to imply that the
aircraft is airworthy or "in annual", rather that the inspection was
finished and that any appropriate A&P could sign off the repair of
those unairworthy items (as appropriate), right? (In this case I'm
asking about a hypothetical case, not the specific stuff earlier in
the thread).

thanks

That's what I thought, Bob. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm this.

- Don
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will
always long to return. - Leonardo da Vinci

RST Engineering wrote:
wrote in message ...


RST Engineering wrote:

wrote in message
...



If the airplane was going through an annual inspection, the IA should
have generated a list of discrepancies of what didn't pass and given that
to the owner. At that point the annual was complete.


I'm not sure what you are saying. That the airplane has a current valid
annual at this point? That isn't so. THe logbook should have contained
words to the effect that the aircraft was inspected on (date) and a list
of unairworthy items given to the owner or operator.

I was saying the annual inspection was complete and current at that point
and if there were any unairworthy items, they need to be attended to. The
IA had completed his duties and is no longer involved. Once he signs off
the annual inspection, whether airworthy or not, the inspection is
complete and current.


(S)he cannot sign off the annual inspection. 43.11 (a)(5) is quite specific
as to what has to happen when the aircraft is inspected and not found
airworthy. If you have another section of the regs that countermands this
section, please post it. Otherwise I maintain that the inspection is
neither complete nor current.

Cut from 43.11:
=========================
(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not
approved for return to service because of needed maintenance,
noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives,
or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement--
``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with
(insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or
operator.''
=========================

The annual inspection is an annual inspection.
Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of
the inspection.
No other inspection is necessary for the next year.

91.409
=========================
Sec. 91.409 - Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it
has had --
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter
"and" has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by
§43.7 of this chapter;
=====================================
The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft.




The inspection is current and complete, but not airworthy. That inspection
will be current for the next year and if it was not airworthy it can be
brought into airworthiness and flown during that time period.
The A&P has 0% authority with the inspection process.


Citation from regulation, please? Otherwise I maintain as above, not
current, not "in annual".


"in annual" is a slang term for an annual inspection that has been
returned to service.


I think we're stuck on the term "annual" meaning two different things.

Cheers

Dave

Jim

A&P, IA

Probably so. I see where you are coming from. It has always been my policy
to neither charge for nor sign a logbook when there are unairworthy items to
be taken care of. I see your point -- but I don't operate that way.

In any case, refusing to sign a legitimate annual when the mag switch(es)
were in conformance with the type certificate and the fabric punched at the
lower limit of acceptable strength was unethical in the least sense of the
word.

Jim



Cut from 43.11:
=========================
(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not
approved for return to service because of needed maintenance,
noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives,
or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement--
``I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with
(insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or
operator.''
=========================

The annual inspection is an annual inspection.
Whether or not it is "approved for return to service" is the outcome of
the inspection.
No other inspection is necessary for the next year.

91.409
=========================
Sec. 91.409 - Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it
has had --
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter "and"
has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of
this chapter;
=====================================
The big word here is "and" for allowed operation of the aircraft.