…or more likely to be in a position to impound the aircraft.
NeilC
no-one has ever asked me for interception proceddures on a ramp check in Europe
I agree that no one has asked me either but I thought it was a requirement to always carry these with you. I carry everything in a folder which I can give to someone if asked and I think that when I was checked in Stuttgart they looked at the interception document but can’t be sure. Apologies if I am wrong and it isn’t a requirement any more.
Fenland_Flyer wrote:
This thread is most interesting and brings to mind that there are many who do not have a list of documents required to be carried (me included!). Is there published a definitive list anyone? If not can anyone list what is regarded as the requirement please?
NCO.GEN.135
(a) The following documents, manuals and information shall be carried on each flight as originals or copies unless otherwise specified:
(1) the AFM, or equivalent document(s);
(2) the original certificate of registration;
(3) the original certificate of airworthiness (CofA);
(4) the noise certificate, if applicable;
(5) the list of specific approvals, if applicable;
(6) the aircraft radio licence, if applicable;
(7) the third party liability insurance certificate(s);
(8) the journey log, or equivalent, for the aircraft;
(9) details of the filed ATS flight plan, if applicable;
(10) current and suitable aeronautical charts for the route area of the proposed flight and all routes along which it is reasonable to expect that the flight may be diverted;
(11) procedures and visual signals information for use by intercepting and intercepted aircraft;
(12) the MEL or CDL, if applicable; and
(13) any other documentation that may be pertinent to the flight or is required by the States concerned with the flight.
(b) Notwithstanding (a), on flights:
(1) intending to take off and land at the same aerodrome/operating site; or
(2) remaining within a distance or area determined by the competent authority, the documents and information in (a)(2) to (a)(8) may be retained at the aerodrome or operating site
GM1 is important:
(a) In case of loss or theft of documents specified in NCO.GEN.135, the operation may continue until the flight reaches the base or a place where a replacement document can be provided.
(b) The documents, manuals and information may be available in a form other than on printed paper. An electronic storage medium is acceptable if accessibility, usability and reliability can be assured.
Silvaire wrote:
If somebody asked me to produce a “release to service” I’d have no idea what to show them. On an N-registered aircraft like Peter’s (I can’t speak for others) a mechanic does not “release the aircraft for service” as part performing maintenance, and is not legally qualified to do so. The aircraft is never removed from service.
I am afraid this is completely untrue.
Under pt91.405
Maintenance required.
Each owner or operator of an aircraft -
(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;
(b) Shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service;
The mechanics signature constitutes a return to service in all cases except for inspections under FAR43.9. For inspections the aircraft should be explicitly released to service.
Interception Procedures are in the Jepp European Manual Emergencies section, so if you hav JeppFD you have them with you.
JasonC wrote (extracting from Part 91):
(b) Shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service;
Release and return are two different words. Indication is not certification.
JasonC wrote:
The mechanics signature constitutes a return to service in all cases except for inspections under FAR43.9. For inspections the aircraft should be explicitly released to service.
No A&P mechanic has ever written any logbook entry explicitly returning my aircraft to service. His entry may indicate the work was completed in accordance with regs, to somebody familiar with FAA methods, but he does not complete any document to return (and definitely not to “release”) the plane to service. Do you think an A&P mechanic can (legally) hold a plane out of service?
If I were to produce the most recent maintenance logbook entry that says (for example) “installed stabilator bearings p/n xxxxx, checked for sarisfactory operation, signature”, hand written, would that satisfy some European inspector looking for a ‘release to service’ document?
An A&P fixing something on a plane is not an IA or an FAA Repair Station. It would obviously be silly to carry a copy of the above maintenance logbook entry and produce it for some ‘inspector’ of paperwork, and equally silly to carry the log itself in the plane in flight.
Silvaire wrote:
No A&P mechanic has ever written any logbook entry explicitly returning my aircraft to service. His entry may indicate the work was completed in accordance with regs, to somebody familiar with FAA methods, but he does not complete any document to return (and definitely not to “release”) the plane to service. Do you think an A&P mechanic can (legally) hold a plane out of service?
Yep. an approving a return to service is a release. As I said, his signature is an implicit release. Just as it is written wrt to inspections below in 43.11.
(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.”
Foreign aircraft inspectors presumably are not experts on FAA regulations, having no qualification in them. What I imagine matters to them is what their own regulations for ramp inspection require, and in Europe that is apparently not aligned with FAA practice. Again, no maintenance or inspection logbook entry on my aircraft has ever said the mechanic has “released the aircraft to service” or even “returned to service” (which would be a much less substantial statement). The regulation quoted above makes it clear that is not recommended for an inspection. A maintenance logbook entry by an A&P contains even less, nothing at all in relation to the airworthiness of the aircraft, and by asking an A&P to fix something on my plane I do not give him authorization to legally remove it from service! And I don’t ever carry maintenance records in the aircraft.
In relation to an annual inspection by an A&P IA, specifically…
JasonC wrote:
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.”
JasonC wrote:
f 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.”
Those are possible maintenance logbook entries for an annual inspection, commonly used. The first (which is the one that matters most in the context of this thread) says the aircraft was found in airworthy inspection when inspected, and makes no reference to “release to service”. Under FAA rules generally the previous inspection is still valid for airworthiness when plane is inspected, and regardless no document produced by an FAA mechanic makes any reference to him removing or releasing the aircraft from service. If you want that wording for your use with a European paperwork inspector, I would ask the IA to make explicit reference to 43.11 (a) (1), stating the words in that regulation… which would be unusual but OK. I’ve never seen that done and again, would have no idea how to demonstrate that my aircraft had ever been “released to service” by anybody given that my A&P IA uses the entry as quoted above for an annual inspection. Same for any A&P maintenance logbook entry subsequent to the inspection, where no mention whatsoever is made of airworthiness at all never mind “release.”
In relation to removing/releasing a plane from legal service under Part 91, what did happen to one of my planes once, interestingly enough, was a snafu in which an FAA inspector walking around at Oshkosh long before my ownership decided that the plane was not in compliance with an AD, and removed it from legal service with a form taped to the propeller. That is a situation in which the plane needed to be “released to service” (by FAA) after the AD issue was sorted out, although in this case the FAA CD shows it was done by a letter from the FSDO not any kind of mechanics logbook entry other than that for incorporating the AD.
JohnR wrote:
I agree that no one has asked me either but I thought it was a requirement to always carry these with you. I carry everything in a folder which I can give to someone if asked and I think that when I was checked in Stuttgart they looked at the interception document but can’t be sure. Apologies if I am wrong and it isn’t a requirement any more.
No, you are quite right! A few years ago a friend had the engine stop in his V35 over Italy by running a tank dry, and took some time to restart as he descended from about FL130 to 110. He advised ATC and turned towards “nearest airport”. After restart he resumed normal nav. Then he saw the Typhoon on his wing. Then the one behind. I think by the time he located his intercept procedures they were gone 
. Definitely a Hangar Talk story.
I have these from CAA that I loaded as user document in SD, many will have hard copies in the back of the aircraft but I don’t think one will be able to reach it in the heat of the moment
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=1165
In the Part.NCO list there is a reference to the aircraft/journey log? I guess TechLog does it? Also, does one have a legal requirement to carry aircraft/pilot logbooks?
