Michael, you’ve answered a different question than I asked. Obviously, if you had no reason to believe that the Ranger piston ring modification was either non-conforming or had been removed, but did not verify compliance as part of the inspection, you would sign off the inspection and would be fully entitled to do so without fear of violating any regulation. That is an example of why the scope of an annual inspection does not require the A&P IA to re-verify compliance with a STC or field approval during an annual inspection. There is difference between that and requiring the A&P IA to report “clear” non-conformance, with the definition of “clear” being open to interpretation.
Michael – this scenario is played out on EASA-regs too. No way can one be liable for stuff that cannot be detected using procedures which are normal for the type of inspection being performed. Otherwise, if you take your plane to some firm that you haven’t been to before, for a 50hr check, they would become liable for the whole aircraft. Why aren’t they, exactly? The reason is that the procedures documented for the 50hr check do not have a sufficient scope to detect stuff elsewhere. If however during the 50hr check they failed to detect that the sump was hanging 1/2" off the crankcase and the oil they put in pissed out onto the floor, they would be liable for that. And quite possibly would be unable to release the aircraft to service until the engine had been overhauled – due to it having been running without oil. Similarly if having removed the plugs to clean them they saw corrosion inside the cylinders, they would be entitled to refuse a return to service until engine overhaul (an engine with rust inside is unairworthy, AFAIK). But they would not be liable for e.g. a satellite antenna on the tail having been installed without a logbook entry – because checking that is not within the scope of a 50hr check. Similarly an Annual is not a “back to birth” logbook check – notwithstanding the fact that if you take your G-reg to certain UK firms they will treat it as such (and sometimes, given the condition, it’s hard to blame them).
The FAA has its full share of knuckleheads (I did once have the whole office at the NY IFU say that an EHSI = EFIS!) so you could be unlucky if you rub somebody up the wrong way. But that doesn’t mean an IA becomes liable for something which only a back-to-birth inspection would reveal, because that would make maintenance unworkable.
AFAIK only a transfer to N-reg is a full TC and STC and mod compliance check. But even then they don’t pull out the avionics and check serial numbers to see if they match the logbook trail. Also, there are many planes which don’t have a full logbook trail and it is still possible to declare them FAA compliant.
Do you disagree?
AFAIK only a transfer to N-reg is a full TC and STC and mod compliance check. But even then they don’t pull out the avionics and check serial numbers to see if they match the logbook trail. Also, there are many planes which don’t have a full logbook trail and it is still possible to declare them FAA compliant.
I believe an FAA DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative) is authorized to verify compliance to the Type Certificate, any STCs, ADs and any Field Approvals (a complete Conformity Inspection) without any logbooks at all. As a DAR he has direct Internet access to the FAA maintenance records for N-registered aircraft, including all 337s and the like. FAA mechanics are not granted direct Internet access to individual aircraft data, only to the generic TC and AD databases. Obviously the DAR’s task without good maintenance logbooks would be much easier if it were a simple aircraft type being operated ‘on condition’ under Part 91… Beyond that at some point, with an increasingly complex aircraft incorporating ‘lifed’ components, I’m sure it would become impractical lacking adequate maintenance records supplied along with the aircraft.
After the plane is on N-register an FAA A&P IA (Aircraft and Powerplant Mechanic with Inspection Authorization) can perform an Annual Inspection in accordance with the FAA regulated scope of that inspection: 14 CFR Appendix D to Part 43 – Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections Reviewing the link will make it obvious that the requirements are very much less than a Conformity Inspection that would be performed by a DAR for transfer to N-register.
The FAA has its full share of knuckleheads (I did once have the whole office at the NY IFU say that an EHSI = EFIS!) so you could be unlucky if you rub somebody up the wrong way. But that doesn’t mean an IA becomes liable for something which only a back-to-birth inspection would reveal, because that would make maintenance unworkable.
I agree. It does seem that the responsible FAA offices are increasingly staffed by people with relatively low GA knowledge, ex-military people seem to be preferentially hired nowadays. I think its fun to read Martha Lunken’s column in Flying and see her perspective after having worked in FSDO starting in 1980 Link
You guys are ignoring the brutal and obvious reality :
An FAA Inspector opens an investigation regarding a given aircraft, whatever the reason, (ex. ramp check, accident investigation, etc.), and you’re the last IA that signed it off as airworthy, believe me, your @ss is on the line.
It’s up to the IA to defend himself and it better be good.
Ditto in a court of law.
You guys are ignoring the brutal and obvious reality :
I think the brutal reality is for A&P/IAs who are not in mainland USA. If the FAA doesn’t like something, the guy just gets summarily struck off and cannot defend himself. If he was in the USA, he could defend himself using the usual channels.
Ditto in a court of law.
That will never happen though, surely, unless you (having been struck off) are willing to travel to the USA and spend some serious $$$. They aren’t going to prosecute you in Europe.
It’s better to just keep your nose very clean if you are in Europe.
Hence my earlier comments about it can be easy to find oneself in a situation where the IA who was going to do your aircraft mysteriously stops replying to emails. He decided your job is too complicated for his liking. Most companies over here who work on N-regs will have more than one IA they can call on, for this reason. So N-reg ownership does involve building the right team of reliable people. But to be honest, having seen what I have seen of maintenance practices generally, I would do the same if I was on G-reg.
Peter – What makes you think that we have it any different being based on this side of the pond ?
I have absolutely no reason to believe that it’s any different.
BTW: Have you ever been to a court hearing involving a GA incident ?
I have and it made me sick to my stomach. I was called upon a s witness in the pilot’s defence following an accident that resulted in a totaled Piper and a small facial cut to one of the pax.
Both the Aero Club that owned the Pier and the injured pax sued the pilot.
The absolute cr@p that I heard from the prosecutions’ lawyer was outrageous.
Example:
Prosecution: “Mr. Pilot, is it not right that you PURPOSELY loaded the aircraft to it’s Maximum Authorized take-off Weight ?”
Pilot: “Yes, that’s correct”
Prosecution: "There, you see judge, the pilot willfully loaded the aircraft so that it was at it’s very physical limits ! "
And the judge ate that sh!t with a spoon ….
I was so disgusted I had to leave the courtroom to vomit.
Partly because I have not heard such issues reported from US based IAs I know, and partly because the whole system would collapse due to fear.
The only people maintaining aircraft would end up being companies structured so they can hide behind their company approval. Now…. where have I seen such a system? 
Everybody is “scared” of the FAA in the same way everybody here is “scared” of their national CAA, but abuse of justice by the authority is at a different level. So many organisations today are full of knuckleheads and so much injustice does take place at the low level (I am not going to start listing issues I have at work with some suppliers) but as soon as an issue gets elevated to somebody with a brain (usually about two layers above the “customer interface”) they realise they are not doing the right thing after all. The system works because most people are too scared / too busy to defend themselves properly. Same with tax, etc.
I can well believe that if the FAA finds a nonconforming aircraft, the last IA to sign it will be their first port of call, but that is IMHO likely to be because the very fact that the FAA inspector found something on a ramp check means it must have been blindingly obvious, so the IA should have spotted it. I know “nothing official” about maintenance but give me 5 minutes with almost any plane and I will find several indicators of negligent maintenance, on every one, and that’s without unscrewing anything. One thing FAA inspectors love is placards like this. If that’s missing, the aircraft is unairworthy. It’s an easy job because the POH lists them all.
Also it’s a bit like flying to an airport for which there is a 50G75 kt wind forecast, right across the runway, in a PA28, with an instructor as a “passenger”. In Europe, nothing will happen to the instructor (at least, I have never heard of any action) but in America the FAA will reportedly go after him.
The absolute cr@p that I heard from the prosecutions’ lawyer was outrageous.
Yes, I have been to Magistrates’ Courts in the UK, and they were totally kangaroo courts. Nobody with more than $1 will stop there, unless the penalty is not worth pursuing. If the Magistrate is active in GA and thus knows something about the subject, he will be disqualified (I have read of such a case a year or so ago). Same with a Planning Committee (building permissions). You get 11 councillors, none of them can read a drawing (or read anything much). Everybody who wants to actually build the thing will appeal. I can totally understand your vomit comment.
Michael, are you an IA, or an A&P or both?
Both, one cannot hold an IA licence alone, so it’s A&P or A&P/IA
Peter- I’m not scared of the FAA, but I do have a healthy respect for most of their representatives and what they do.
