Looks like the old maintainer & operator feud came out on this one. I would like to say this, there are just as much of bad operators as there are maintainers.
As a mechanic or an inspector, I am responsible for only the work I perform. Lets say this, I am doing an oil change and I see a crack in the cylinder flange. I promptly notify the pilot that he has a major discrepancy. It is HIS decision to deem the aircraft airworthy and his decision to fly it out of there. I cannot do a thing about it. Where mechanics and inspectors get on the offensive (in my own opinion) is if that pilot takes off and has catastrophic engine failure soon after and kills people and himself, who is getting audited and eventually faces legal battles? That mechanic. It is a big burden to carry. And financially scary. But that article is pretty spot on. One thing of note that is obvious- IA annual & 100hr inspection, A&P 100 hour ONLY.
chflyer wrote:
I would claim that an IA does not sign off anything as “unairworthy” and in fact doesn’t have any authority to make such an entry. .
… but this does not need to be and should not be written in the inspection record. Without a return to service as airworthy statement, the aircraft cannot be flown without a flight permit. There is nothing to prevent the owner/operator from getting another IA to come and take a different position and sign off the aircraft as airworthy and approve return to service without there ever being any comment or note of any kind in the record regarding “unairworthniness”.
This is just plain wrong.
Since you hold M Busch’s word as Gospel, then I will quote the article you posted:
In short, a mechanic performing a required inspection (e.g., annual or
100-hour) is always required to make and sign a logbook entry memorializing
the inspection, but he may sign off the aircraft as either airworthy or
unairworthy. If he signs it off as airworthy, he approves it for immediate return
to service. If he signs it off as unairworthy, he gives the owner a list of
discrepancies to be corrected
So, Chflyer, the IA MUST make a record following an Annual Inspection that must state that there are OR there are not Airworthiness Discrepancies.
There is NO OPTION to NOT provide a log-books statement if the IA finds the aircraft has airworthiness discrepancies, contrary to what you posted.
Do I need to remind you that it is NOT legal to operate an aircraft that has known Airworthiness issues ?
chflyer wrote:
The A&P can disagree and sign off the discrepancy and the aircraft as airworthy.
Whilst this may be true, in Europe :
- FAA certified A&Ps that are NOT IA are very rare, I know of just 1 ;
- An EASA Certified Mechanic and/or an EASA shop (FAA REpair Station status not-withstanding) CANNOT sign off and return to service;
- It is VERY UN-likely that another A&P is going to come behind the IA that performed the Annual Inspection, found and listed the discrepancies, then return the aircraft to service WITHOUT actually correcting the discrepancy or justifying taking no action.
- To “ferry” an aircraft to another location requires a Special Flight Permit from the FAA. IN Europe, that will require bringing over a DAR to the aircraft’s location, then convincing the DAR to issue the Special Flight Permit. The flight must also be approved by the local authorities where the Flight will occur. This process is very long and dear.
There is NO OPTION to NOT provide a log-books statement if the IA finds the aircraft has airworthiness discrepancies
I suppose that becomes a debate about who owns the logbooks. And if the IA produces a logbook insert (usually actually this is the case) then is anything illegal done if the owner refuses to insert it?
Loads of logbook inserts don’t get inserted 
and I know of a lot of cases of this, in the EASA regime, where defects want to be concealed in order to more smoothly sell the plane, but AFAIK this is illegal under EASA Part M.
FAA certified A&Ps that are NOT IA are very rare, I know of just 1
IME there are loads of them. Historically it has been relatively easy to become an A&P – you go on a course and do a couple of years of work experience or some such, and it was possible even wholly in Europe (without ever going to the USA). Also an EASA66 experience is acceptable towards A&P (and vice versa). A lot of A&Ps work inside companies, where a non FAA 145 company needs an A&P “around” to work on N-regs.
But the IA has been a lot harder and AFAIK almost impossible to do here.
For a freelance A&P to make a decent living he should be an IA because he can then do everything an N-reg owner needs (except the 2-yearly altimeter check).
An EASA Certified Mechanic and/or an EASA shop (FAA REpair Station status not-withstanding) CANNOT sign off and return to service
An FAA 145 company can return a plane to service if the type is on their approved list, surely? I was in this situation for about 10 years; hangared at a FAA 145 firm which didn’t have a TB20 on their list so they were happy with me not using them for maintenance, which was exactly what I wanted becuase tying hangarage to maintenance usually leads to a disaster
It is VERY UN-likely that another A&P is going to come behind the IA that performed the Annual Inspection, found and listed the discrepancies, then return the aircraft to service WITHOUT actually correcting the discrepancy or justifying taking no action.
Sure, because nobody wants to sh*it on their own doorstep.
Loads of logbook inserts don’t get inserted and I know of a lot of cases of this, in the EASA regime, where defects want to be concealed in order to more smoothly sell the plane
How come? They try to hide defects and then they tell you?
Peter wrote:
I suppose that becomes a debate about who owns the logbooks. And if the IA produces a logbook insert (usually actually this is the case) then is anything illegal done if the owner refuses to insert it?
Whilst I am not a legal specialist, it’s my belief that if the owner/operator uses the IAs record to wipe his derrière rather than putting it in the aircraft records, the FAA would take a very dim view of this and prob 90% take action if they became aware of such goings on.
How come? They try to hide defects and then they tell you?
I know this because I get contacted privately by many people looking at such and such a plane to buy, and it happens to be one where I know from the previous owner that it had a long string of issues, but the new owner gets a clean logbook…..
It gets more funny when the shop which generated a dozen logbook inserts gets the plane back under the new ownership and finds none of them In general they will say nothing; it’s not their business to do so.
it’s my belief that if the owner/operator uses the IAs record to wipe his derrière rather than putting it in the aircraft records, the FAA would take a very dim view of this and prob 90% take action if they became aware of such goings on
I have no idea either way but my understand of NCYankee’s posts is that the aircraft owner owns the logbooks and what gets recorded in them is his ultimate responsibility. It’s quite an interesting technical/legal point. Let’s face it – when you buy a plane, you (or your prebuy engineer) look at the logbooks and you are really trusting the seller to not have forged them. A visual / physical check of e.g. AD compliance works only with serially numbered parts.
In the EASA world, the owner is also responsible for airworthiness etc but the issue gets fuzzy because most are over the barrel of a Part M company, with the company keeping the logbooks in many/most cases.
Peter wrote:
look at the logbooks and you are really trusting the seller to not have forged them. A visual / physical check of e.g. AD compliance works only with serially numbered parts.
Exactly !
So why all the fuss about an IA wanting to do the proper due diligence and actually charging for it ???
We have two threads running concurrently on a similar issue. The basic issue was that somebody went off on their own initiative, run up a huge bill, and tried to present the owner (who was over a barrel, with AIUI a partially dismantled plane) with a fait accompli. That’s a completely wrong way of doing stuff. The fact that some owners are arrogant / combative/ / difficult people (just like some similar % of engineers are arrogant / combative / difficult people) doesn’t eliminate the requirement for civilised behaviour. No owner is required to use a specific engineer (although is many cases there is actually little choice) and no engineer is forced to work for a specific owner. Both can walk away, and probably often should. My IA won’t work for many owners…
Michael wrote:
So, Chflyer, the IA MUST make a record following an Annual Inspection that must state that there are OR there are not Airworthiness Discrepancies.There is NO OPTION to NOT provide a log-books statement if the IA finds the aircraft has airworthiness discrepancies, contrary to what you posted.
Yes, I stand corrected. Once this has been done, though, it only takes an A&P to address the deficiencies and sign off that work making the aircraft airworthy.
I don’t take Mike Busch’s word for gospel, but he does do a lot of work to educate owner/operators in maintenance areas so that they can discuss from a position of knowledge with A&P/IA’s who may or may not have any sensitivity regarding the cost impact of decisions.
Michael wrote:
Do I need to remind you that it is NOT legal to operate an aircraft that has known Airworthiness issues ?
Of course not. But having the paperwork complete and correct and operating an aircraft are different things. The paperwork documents (or should) the airworthiness at a given point in time. As soon as we take back the aircraft, we as pilots make a judgement on its airworthiness every time we fly. I’d never attempt to take off with a missing wing. ;-)
