Interesting article by Mike Busch in the last US AOPA magazine.
In short, somebody had an engine overhauled. Then somebody else was involved with the aircraft and decided that since there was no record that some engine ADs had been complied with, the aircraft had to be grounded.
This is quite a serious area and does come up from time to time, placing an aircraft owner over a barrel.
It was resolved that since the engine was overhauled that implies all applicable ADs had been complied with at the time. Had the engine been IRAN’d (inspected and repaired as necessary) that would not have been the case, and the engine would have had to be opened up etc – a huge and expensive job.
There is a basic principle that previous signoffs must be accepted at face value. To do otherwise would undermine the whole certification process. But there are exceptions such as the above, when a signoff is in some way conditional.
Peter, MB is way out of line on this one. Several of us have been constantly on AOPA, EAA and other trade magazines to start to censure Mike, On this last article, you mentioned, we complained and wrote op eds to AOPA to no avail. Apparently money is more important . If you were to ever find a bio on mike, you would see that he used time working on his own plane in order to get hi mechanic ratings. He never worked for a living trying to fix and restore junk we sometime get in the shops . I can guarantee, he has never and would probably never put HIS name on the above referenced aircraft mentioned in his rant.
I routinely see log books missing all kinds of critical information. Have friend looking for a aerobatic Chipmunk or a RV8. I am stunned at what we have found lacking in data. Would you buy a plane if you didn’t know the status of the engine and prop, even if it was experimental , or certified.
Example.
When i finally found a 172n after 2 years of looking a 26 of them across the country, this engine had 12 hrs since a overhaul. Supposedly the dual mag was overhauled at the same time by someone else outside the shop. Well and good you say ( based on MB ) . But as i tend to know, the only place i trust to do a D3000 is a quality accessory shop. After putting 50 hrs on the engine, i ordered a exchange unit, to replace my “Overhauled unit” . Sure enough, opened the 50hr unit, the capacitors were never changed, distributor block screws not torqued and the cam bolt, a main fail unit on these, was not replaced.
So you tell me how much reliability i had left based on the word “overhauled” ?
If you want Mike to read your analyzer data, go for it. When it come to him wrenching,, I would double check him doin a landing light. Sorry.
I and my co IA"s would not have signed off on the engine.
Carl
I think the title of the thread is probably misstating the issue, in a confusing way.
A mechanic doing aircraft maintenance as per the thread title neither accepts nor does not accept previous signoffs because that’s not his job. He does the work requested by the owner of the plane and makes appropriate logbook entries to describe what he did. If he did an engine overhaul he states the authorized data he used to support doing so – because he is not authorized to overhaul anything without that data and is required to comply with it.
An authorized inspector (e.g. an A&P IA mechanic in FAA parlance) doing an inspection (not repairs or maintenance) that by definition requires his approval needs to be sure that the plane or engine is airworthy in accordance with the TC plus any STCs or other relevant approved data, and therefore does whatever he thinks is necessary to be sure before issuing an approval. If he has reason to believe previous mechanics did work without compliance to applicable authorized data or made inaccurate logbook entries, and he has to do work to verify it, he negotiates that with whoever is paying his bill. If that individual thinks his curiosity is unfounded, the two stop doing business and he doesn’t sign off on the inspection. That’s his prerogative but if he is unreasonable it soon gets around and the phone stops ringing.
The mention of a Chipmunk brings to mind a situation an A&P IA friend ran into a while ago. He himself owns a highly modified Super Chipmunk but this one was mostly standard and operated as an FAA certified type (a few are). However it had a Cleveland brake conversion that was not in detail STC compliant and a Slick mag conversion that was not applicable (for some bizarre paperwork reason) to the particular minor variant of the Gipsy engine installed on the plane. After some discussions and suggestions etc. my A&P IA friend and the owner agreed to disagree and the owner found another IA who would sign it off. The new A&P IA was not as familiar with Chipmunks, and sometimes that’s how it goes. He’s OK until next year 
Both mods were BTW nice improvements.
Silvaire, the leader for the article in AOPA was this:
OPINION: A MATTER OF TRUST
HOW FAR DOES YOUR IA HAVE TO GO TO VERIFY THAT YOUR AIRCRAFT IS AIRWORTHY?
All i can say is that there are MANY times I and (we) have found AD’s that have never been compliexd with within the time frames required. So if there is a crankshaft AD, and it is never mentioned in the recent overhaul, and the OWNER never noticed it missing in the overhaul statement, it not fair to ask a IA to haphazardly ignore and just ASSUME it was complied with . Unfortunately there are owners and mechamics that do just that. Yes the option to go somewhere esle. Assuming you might get a ferry permit for a long overdue or unknown issue. Nothing like putting safey down to the level of shopping for a sign off. It happens.
The Recent Chipmunk logs i looked at the past couple of month, some of the worst record keeping i have seen in long time, on such a unique aircraft. With no records to substantiate time and items, can you ask fair market values?? Same for typed aircraft.
On one rv8 recently, i managed to track the engine back to a Mooney that was balled up short of landing, engine went into 2 additional planes with NO record of ever being overhauled or repaired. Thank goodness some mechanics listed planes and serial numbers of the airframes ,,,allowing me to trace. I was stunned.
Good recordkeeping is the best thing a owner can have for safety and value.
CArl
Of course I agree with your drift here. If something smells, it is probably rotten, and certainly you’d be advised to not buy it
But MB is right in the way the system is supposed to work. It is the way every QA system is supposed to work. Trust is placed (vested) in approved individuals (A&P/IA in the US, EASA66 to a limited extent in Europe) or organisations (145, etc, everywhere; Europe prefers organisations). Once these sign off on something, they have discharged their duty and that item is “perfect” IAW the signer’s approval scope. We have had lots of debates here, and you might enjoy this one.
The system has to work that way; the contrary view would be that every Annual (particularly on an aircraft not seen previously) would be a 100% “back to birth” job, which would grind everything to a halt. And indeed there is a certain amount of aircraft owner exploitation going on this way. Some justified, some not. This guy got really unlucky; we never saw him again.
It is the same everywhere else e.g. ISO9000. You get certified, publish a Quality Manual, and issue certificates for the stuff (can be total crap) that you push out of the door. The customer’s ISO9000 quality manager looks at the certificate and with a nice warm feeling in his stomach he files it, and another bit of bread magically appears on the table at home
I hear you on the D3000; I use only QAA (Tulsa, Oklahoma) to OH these, and actually most other stuff. I keep a shelf spare so no downtime; the drawback is that the warranty has always expired before it gets installed
The other thing mentioned was whose responsibility it is to retain records. I don’t know about the US but over here requesting the work pack is seen as quite aggressive. The company here refused to give it to me, citing every possible excuse including “our work packs are of world leading quality and are confidential” It is much easier to get and keep a work pack if you use freelance maintenance than if you use a company, hence I have a big stack of work packs. But most owners don’t keep this stuff.
The other thing mentioned was whose responsibility it is to retain records. I don’t know about the US but over here requesting the work pack is seen as quite aggressive.
I don’t know what a ‘work pack’ is but in the US what you get when an A&P works in your plane is logbook entries. Plus 8130s for overhauled components if you’re smart and want to e.g. maintain a record that an engine was overhauled to new limits versus service limits. You’d also get copies of any 337s filed for a major repair or alteration, I’ve typically mailed them to FAA myself to ensure they get there, and they are also publicly accessible data.
You might also get a receipt for payment from the mechanic, or not, but that is not part of the aircraft records.
I’m not aware that any records are mandatorily kept by an A&P but I understand repair stations specifically are required to keep them for component overhauls. An IA generally keeps a record of inspections because he needs a certain number per year to maintain IA currency.
A work pack here is a pile of paper, usually stuffed into a ring binder or an envelope, containing all the details of the job, including papers which came with parts, STCs, 337s, etc.
The work pack for an engine rebuild (OH or IRAN) would be about 1cm thick.
I normally collect work packs and keep them safely stored, because maintenance companies or individuals are often not around for ever.
Silvaire wrote:
If that individual thinks his curiosity is unfounded, the two stop doing business and he doesn’t sign off on the inspection.
If an IA does an annual inspection, they are in violation of 43.11 if they don’t sign of the annual.
43.11 Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.
(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, § 135.411(a)(1), or § 135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:
(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.
(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service.
(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof.
(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement – “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”
(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 date of the annual inspection, approved or not approved, meets the annual requirement required by 91.409 but if the annual was not approved for return to service, a separate log book entry is required for the return to service by an A&P who makes an appropriate logbook maintenance entry. The regulations are clear that the list of discrepancies found by an IA during an annual inspection are to be provided to the owner/operator and there is no requirement to log them. Most IA will keep a copy of the discrepancies signed by the owner/operator.
If an IA does an annual inspection, they are in violation of 43.11 if they don’t sign of the annual.
That surely applies if the IA competes the inspection, but in the case I mentioned the inspection was not completed – it was started but not finished. Obviously in the eyes of the IA that will be the case in any such situation and the customer will not want it any other way, so that’s the end of it.
The inspection doesn’t stop just because a discrepancy is found.
