A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TBO and airworthiness



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 12th 07, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default TBO and airworthiness


In Canada, we have it well-defined he
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...ards/a625c.htm

Scroll down to "6. Engines" and see the note in italics. Do the FARs
have a similar requirement? I couldn't find it, but it's likely there
somewhere.
"Airworthiness" is a legal term meaning "safe and fit for
flight." Doesn't mean "perfect."

Dan

  #22  
Old April 12th 07, 11:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Blanche
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default TBO and airworthiness

Jim Stewart wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:

Yes, many IA's I've worked with refuse to sign after 200 over TBO.
Its probably a liability issue.

Sounds like a competency issue - on what basis did they 'fail" the
aircraft?


They don't have to fail anything. If it's not returned to service, the
owner is at liberty to find another IA who is willing to return it to
service. An IA is not obligated to explain why he chooses not to return
an aircraft to service.


He's supposed to make a log entry regarding the
results of his inspection isn't he? Even if the
FAR didn't specifically require such an entry,
common business ethics and practices would demand
it should the owner request it.


Beg pardon? "Common business ethics and practices" and the FARs in
the same sentence?

As another poster explained, the IA is required by the FARs to provide
a written explanation identifying each item that is unairworthy. A
log book entry is the second written documentation entry.

14CFRPart 43.11 - content, form and disposition of records for
inspection conducted under Parts 91 & 125....

(a)(5)..."...I certify this aircraft has been inspected...and a list
of discrepancies ...has been provided for the aircraft owner..."

(b)Listing of discrepancies and placards

"if the person performing any inspection required by Part 91 or 125..
finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet applicable type
certificate data, airworthiness directives or other approved data upon
which its airworthiness depends, that person must give the owner or
lessee a signed and data list of those discrepancies..."

  #23  
Old April 13th 07, 02:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
JB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default TBO and airworthiness

On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:42 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:





"Dave Butler" wrote in message


...


Yes, many IA's I've worked with refuse to sign after 200 over TBO.
Its probably a liability issue.


Sounds like a competency issue - on what basis did they 'fail" the
aircraft?


They don't have to fail anything. If it's not returned to service, the
owner is at liberty to find another IA who is willing to return it to
service.


Note the "" around _fail_.


An IA is not obligated to explain why he chooses not to return an aircraft
to service.


I seriously doubt they would stay mute on the subject.


In fact, once the inspection has started, the IA is required by
FAR to sign the aircraft off as un-airworthy
and give the owner a list of things to fix to make it airworthy. Part
43.

But ahead of time, you could quiz him informally about what
he would do. If he has an idea about TBO that you don't
like, you could learn that before you start.

Bill Hale A&PIA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


While not directly related to the engine/TBO question, I ran into this
exact problem on the recent annual for my 79 Warrior. We used a new
FBO this year (Landmark) and they took a "lets make it new" approach
on the initial inspection and estimate. The list of issues ran 3
pages long even though many had been there for many years and signed
off by 2 other smaller FBOs in previous annuals. The cost estimate
was 3x what we were used to!!

THe point being that after I recovered from heart failure over the
estimate, we considered having Landmark close it up and take it
somewhere else. But we learned that once a shop flags something as
unairworthy, its too late to "change your mind", ignore the
inspection, and start over someplace else. You can go elsewhere, but
an A&P must now sign off that the plane is safe to fly and ferry to
another shop, a FSDO has to sign off on a ferry permit, and then the
new A&P must either the fix the flagged items or note in the logbook
why he/she didn't agree with the initial diagnosis. This process
requires permits, signatures, more permits, more signatures. (In the
end, we decided it was too hard and we let Landmark suck our wallets
dry.)

--Jeff

  #24  
Old April 13th 07, 03:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,119
Default TBO and airworthiness


"JB" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:42 am, "Matt Barrow"

I seriously doubt they would stay mute on the subject.


In fact, once the inspection has started, the IA is required by
FAR to sign the aircraft off as un-airworthy
and give the owner a list of things to fix to make it airworthy. Part
43.

But ahead of time, you could quiz him informally about what
he would do. If he has an idea about TBO that you don't
like, you could learn that before you start.

Bill Hale A&PIA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


While not directly related to the engine/TBO question, I ran into this
exact problem on the recent annual for my 79 Warrior. We used a new
FBO this year (Landmark) and they took a "lets make it new" approach
on the initial inspection and estimate. The list of issues ran 3
pages long even though many had been there for many years and signed
off by 2 other smaller FBOs in previous annuals. The cost estimate
was 3x what we were used to!!

THe point being that after I recovered from heart failure over the
estimate, we considered having Landmark close it up and take it
somewhere else. But we learned that once a shop flags something as
unairworthy, its too late to "change your mind", ignore the
inspection, and start over someplace else. You can go elsewhere, but
an A&P must now sign off that the plane is safe to fly and ferry to
another shop, a FSDO has to sign off on a ferry permit, and then the
new A&P must either the fix the flagged items or note in the logbook
why he/she didn't agree with the initial diagnosis. This process
requires permits, signatures, more permits, more signatures. (In the
end, we decided it was too hard and we let Landmark suck our wallets
dry.)


http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/189710-1.html

The Savvy Aviator #18: Avoid an Annual Calamity

Pay particular attention to the part titeld, "Mismanagement Of The Annual"



  #25  
Old April 17th 07, 05:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default TBO and airworthiness

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:02:46 -0700, JB wrote:

But we learned that once a shop flags something as unairworthy, its
too late to "change your mind", ignore the inspection, and start over
someplace else.


It is not true if the previous annual has not yet expired.

- Andrew

  #26  
Old April 17th 07, 05:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default TBO and airworthiness

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:08:32 +0000, Blanche wrote:

As another poster explained, the IA is required by the FARs to provide a
written explanation identifying each item that is unairworthy. A log book
entry is the second written documentation entry.


In fact, Mike Busch recommends (and I see the reasoning) that the
discrepancy list *not* be placed in the log. There's no reason that this
information should be "preserved" at that level.

The list is required, but there's no requirement that it be logged.

- Andrew


  #27  
Old April 17th 07, 05:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default TBO and airworthiness

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:06:53 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

There are lots of
TBO-related old wives tales that are widely believed by owners and
mechanic alike, and they can cost owners a great deal of money.


What's amazing is that some owners are almost religious about this. That
is, it matters not what articles you put before them counting their
beliefs. They still believe.

- Andrew

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Restricted Airworthiness Brad Mallard Aviation Marketplace 1 May 20th 04 05:18 PM
Airworthiness Cert Still Valid? Carl Orton Owning 12 February 13th 04 11:21 PM
Teaching airworthiness Roger Long Piloting 28 October 2nd 03 09:08 PM
Airworthiness certification of an experimental Ace Pilot Home Built 0 July 16th 03 03:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.