Airborne_Again wrote:
and had no complaints about missing signatures for pre-flight checks
) agency doesn’t require these signatures.”
Airborne_Again wrote:
On the other hand, we sign each flight as PIC and it is possible that this signature is taken to include that a pre-flight check was done by the named person.
Always which paragraph of Part-NCO that is so you can find it. :)
Airborne_Again wrote:
There is a place to put the name of the person doing the check, but no place for a signature
The preflight/daily check is by initials, not signature in Norway by the way. What’s the difference between initials and signing (legally or whatever), I have no idea.
In the gliding world we have a daily inspection book and if we weren’t the pilot that completed it, the first item of the pre-flight inspection is to check the DI book.
We wouldn’t however sign off a document prior to every flight unless there was a change to the serviceability of the aircraft.
We have a column in the logbook for the pre flight check and we have to sign before departure. But I usually do it together with the flight entry.
The requirement for a pre-flight check signature is not in Part-NCO but Part-M as “AMC M.A.306(a) Aircraft technical log system”. Only a CAT operator is required to have a technical log system.
Emir wrote:
Do you somehow sign off each preflight check in your aircraft documents?
No log of any kind has ever been on board my plane, and no flight has ever been logged. The only aircraft documents that exist for my plane (maintenance logs) are typically pulled out of my file once a year for the annual inspection and any other work done at that time, plus anything that may come up in between, oil changes for example.
bookworm wrote:
The requirement for a pre-flight check signature is not in Part-NCO but Part-M as “AMC M.A.306(a) Aircraft technical log system”. Only a CAT operator is required to have a technical log system.
It’s particularly odd to me that the inspectors are unable to learn the difference between an airliner and a individually owned and flown private aircraft, and that they are never held accountable for their lack of knowledge. Presumably they go on for years living in their own little false world. Truly amazing.
“It’s particularly odd to me that the inspectors are unable to learn the difference between an airliner and a individually owned and flown private aircraft, and that they are never held accountable for their lack of knowledge. Presumably they go on for years living in their own little false world. Truly amazing”
I know of a major airliner getting a finding from a SAFA check because the number of NOTAMs didn’t match. They were operating a A320 and the missing NOTAM? No avgas was available…
Silvaire wrote:
It’s particularly odd to me that the inspectors are unable to learn the difference between an airliner and a individually owned and flown private aircraft, and that they are never held accountable for their lack of knowledge. Presumably they go on for years living in their own little false world. Truly amazing.
In their defense, try to read EASA regulations yourself
LeSving wrote:
In their defense, try to read EASA regulations yourself
In particular part-M!
