Options After Items Flagged as Unairworthy (was TBO and Airworthiness)

On 16 Apr 2007 07:59:09 -0700, "Denny" wrote:

In retrospect, I also wonder what the
insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?

Tom

We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
inflight risk... Who defines what is/not airworthy - the FAA... The
form you have from the FAA says it IS legally airworthy for the
duration of that listed flight...

Yup! The form has to be signed off, after inspecting it, by an IA or
A&E stating the aircraft is airworthy for that flight. I've done a
number of ferry flights like that. Just ask your insurrance carrier
if in doubt. I've not had one say no, yet.

denny

On Apr 16, 3:32 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
Denny wrote:
In retrospect, I also wonder what the
insurance company would have had to say if anything had gone wrong?

Tom

We are getting deep into 'what if's', but think it through... The Ins.
Co. says the plane must be kept legally airworthy to be covered for
inflight risk... Who defines what is/not airworthy - the FAA... The
form you have from the FAA says it IS legally airworthy for the
duration of that listed flight...

Maybe not. Every policy I've had stated that the airplane must comply with
its standard airworthiness certificate. If it's out of annual, it's out of
compliance. A special airworthiness certificate (represented by the Ferry
Permit) is not the same as the standard airworthiness certificate. At least
according to the aviation insurance policies I've had experience with.

I've made flights under ferry permits and in all cases, the insurance
companies had to approve the flight and fax a waiver.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)



All of you raise very valid issues and there is abit of debate of
exactly how many forms, permits, and signatures are required when
"ferrying" a plane that has airworthy issues flagged. So I go back to
my original post......

You can either A) "suck it up" and let the 1st shop do the work, OR B)
go thru the process that we both described with ferry permits, etc.
But if you choose B, in
addition to the hassles of permits, signatures, reviews, etc., you
have to ask yourself whether taking it someplace else will really make
enough of a difference to make all those time-consuming hassles
worthwhile? In the end, will you save $50 or 50%??

In our case, we figured we save $50 not 50% so it wasn't worth the
hassle.

--Jeff

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:41:07 -0700, JB wrote:

My major point is that once items are flagged as unairworthy during an
inspection, the comparison between cars and planes no longer applies and
the hassle-factor goes up considerably.

This is only true if the previous annual has expired.

It opens up an interesting policy decision. Do you do your annuals
"late" (ie. at the last possible minute, perhaps letting the work flow
into the next month), thereby getting maximum value? Or do you leave
yourself a buffer by doing the annual early in the month?

- Andrew

On Apr 17, 12:13 pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:41:07 -0700, JB wrote:
My major point is that once items are flagged as unairworthy during an
inspection, the comparison between cars and planes no longer applies and
the hassle-factor goes up considerably.

This is only true if the previous annual has expired.

It opens up an interesting policy decision. Do you do your annuals
"late" (ie. at the last possible minute, perhaps letting the work flow
into the next month), thereby getting maximum value? Or do you leave
yourself a buffer by doing the annual early in the month?

- Andrew

In my case, we do it late in the cycle. But I'm not sure it matters.
Won't an item(s) flagged as unairworthy during an inspection make the
plane unairworthy regardless of the time?? I can't imagine that you
could legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet
by the calendar.

--Jeff

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:20:57 -0700, JB wrote:

But I'm not sure it matters.
Won't an item(s) flagged as unairworthy during an inspection make the
plane unairworthy regardless of the time??

Not merely by an IA's claim.

I've never seen a discrepancy list. I'm told, though, that the wording
will be something like "the inspection has been performed and that the
aircraft had the follow discrepancies...".

I can't imagine that you could
legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet by the
calendar.

This is actually a very interesting point. If there is a real issue on
the discrepancy list, then I would opine that this wouldn't be legal
because the pilot would know about the item. But if there's no real
issue?

BTW, this is all part 91 flying. I've no idea what additional issues
arise out of 121 etc.

- Andrew

I can't imagine that you
could legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet
by the calendar.

--Jeff

That technicality doesn;t really matter because if they want you, they
will get you for flying an airplane with known defects regardless of
the status of the logs...

denny

In article .com,
JB wrote:

In our case, we figured we save $50 not 50% so it wasn't worth the
hassle.

In that case, that IA wasn't ripping you off.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

BTW, this is all part 91 flying. I've no idea what additional issues
arise out of 121 etc.

None of this applies to part 121. part 121 airplanes don't use "annual" inspections, but rather "phase" inspections. Also, most part 121 operators use minimum equipment list.

I was involved in a big donnybrook with a repair station on a
friend's Bonanza annual. Because they were a big time
factory repair station,
they felt a need to comply with all Beech service bulletins.
They were condeming this Bonanza because the wing bolt
replacement service bulletin hadn't been complied with.

This is a Beech mandatory SB; there is no AD or legal requirement
to comply for part 91. There has never been a failure. Conventional
wisdom is to not mess with them if there is no corrosion.

They wouldn't budge.

So finally we had them sign it off as unairworthy with the bolts
as the discrepancy. I went down, visually inspected the bolts
signed it off as airworthy as an A&P and flew it home. As good
as an annual because it WAS an annual!

Your mileage may vary. I would guess that if an issue has
been logged it should be resolved before flight.

Bill Hale A&P


On Apr 17, 12:15 pm, Denny wrote:
I can't imagine that you

could legally fly around just because your annual hasn't expired yet
by the calendar.

--Jeff

That technicality doesn;t really matter because if they want you, they
will get you for flying an airplane with known defects regardless of
the status of the logs...

denny

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:59:45 -0700, wrote:

So finally we had them sign it off as unairworthy with the bolts as the
discrepancy. I went down, visually inspected the bolts signed it off as
airworthy as an A&P and flew it home. As good as an annual because it WAS
an annual!

Oh, right. That's a point about which I forgot and which I've yet to see
in this discussion.

An IA must perform the inspection. But an A&P can resolve any
discrepancies.

- Andrew