One thing FAA inspectors love is placards like this. If that’s missing, the aircraft is unairworthy.
When I trained for the IR at American Flyers in Hayward, CA, there was an FAA inspector that came on very frequent inspections. It seemed like he had decided to shut down the school. One of the things he had found and made a big deal of was a missing luggage net in a C172S. The net was listed in the equipment list of the W&B.
As Michael is an IA/A&P he would seem closer to the truth that those of us who are not, so I don’t see why there seems to be disagreement with what he says?!!
I don’t wish to disagree with Michael and I am sure he is 100% right in his recounting of his experiences.
I was questioning the technical point which is that an IA is liable (on a strict liability basis) for all cockups made by others before him regardless of how undetectable. As I said, if that was true, the system would collapse.
The example where the FAA inspector grounded an aircraft due to a missing luggage net…… well of course that is 100% correct. The plane is not airworthy
If I was the FAA inspector I would ground it too. It’s my job. Why doesn’t the school just buy a luggage net? They are making some $100 on every flying lesson
The implied contrary argument is that the FAA should allow some degree of non-airworthiness, which is like expecting the police to allow you to do some small amount of domestic burglary, say just stealing $1000 per year and only from people who can afford it, and it’s OK if you make sure there is nobody at home when you break in.
In reality both scenarios are the de facto truth (the FAA does not bust everybody they could bust, and the police have various unpublished limits on what sort of criminal activity they go after). And every 747 departhing LHR right now is not airworthy; every one will have a missing placard somewhere (and usually much much worse).
If I was the FAA inspector I would ground it too. It’s my job.
I guess we are lucky you’re not 
If he really looks into such irrelevant things, then an appropriate reaction would be to inform the operator about the discrepancy and ask him to address it in the future. Otherwise there is no limit. You can ground every GA aircraft on the planet based on some formal discrepancy.
If I didn’t ground it, and my boss found out, I could lose my job. Yes, one should just do a warning but if say I have done several over that luggage net already…?
In reality, of course, the system is manpower limited, and they will be going after the usual suspects initially.
If I didn’t ground it, and my boss found out, I could lose my job.
I don’t know about the US, but here ramp inspectors don’t need to ground the plane because of minor discrepancies, they can require you to rectify it within a certain time (which is different from immediately).
According to this, the EC SAFA programme classifies findings into three categories, and AFAIK only for category 3 findings an immediate grounding might be requested. I’m having a hard time to believe that a missing baggage net could be considered as anything but a category 1 finding.
Note to self: must make up a new baggage net at some point in the future Mine was missing, frame and all, but a friend sent me a frame from a crashed aircraft. Unfortunately the netting is rotted and I have no idea who could re-do it…
(There’s always another project waiting… at least I don’t need an 8130 or EASA Form 1 for the baggage net frame!)
I was questioning the technical point which is that an IA is liable (on a strict liability basis) for all cockups made by others before him regardless of how undetectable. As I said, if that was true, the system would collapse.
But just what IS a “strict liability basis” ?
The real-life situation is, you sign it = you “own” it and when the sh!t hits the fan, they WILL point the finger at you and then you have to DEFEND yourself. If that isn’t “strict liablity” then I don’t know what is …
The thread has come full circle, and (in my eyes) regardless of the intent of subsequent discussion, the truth of what Peter said several pages ago has been demonstrated by reading subsequent posts.
An IA does need to be very careful what he signs off and some (that I have known) have been burnt by people they trusted and should not have trusted. It’s one thing for a CAMO to sign off some 30 year old wreckage under their organisation approval (not least because nobody will be able to prove the defect(s) existed when they signed it off) but it’s another thing for an IA to sign off the same and then the thing gets sold and the new owner discovers something the IA clearly didn’t spot, so the IA gets summarily banned by the FAA, and now with the European offices closed he may have a job getting his IA rating back. So the chances of getting a “mail order signoff” (you get what I mean?) are already negligible and will become zero.
The FAA ‘system’ works on the basis of people just as much as it works on the basis of what is actually written down in regulations. Further, most of the people on the front lines of maintenance in the US, under FAA regulations (e.g. A&P mechanics, FSDO personnel and most owners) probably haven’t had the luxury of being paid to fight and win arguments based on actual written facts – they’re too busy working, doing something useful. Regardless, the FAA ‘system’ functions as it does, based on empowering and motivating individuals to positive effect, under very simple written regulations.
The fact remains that you statement is completely wrong and misguided :
The IA who approves an annual inspection is not responsible for the validity of a previous 337 signoff done by a different IA, he is only responsible to make sure prior approval exists for any mods on the plane.
