Aircraft owners thoughts on IA requirement for annual inspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Half Fast said:
Yes, but in terms of who turns which wrench on what airplane, it makes no practical sense and should be fixed.
Click to expand...
Except it has everything to do with which pilot does turn the wrench. In this case a sport pilot does not meet ICAO requirements which allow a PP pilot, who does meet ICAO requirements, to turn a wrench on a TC'd aircraft and approve it for return to service. The TCCA owner maintained aircraft have a similar issue with ICAO requirements. As I've mentioned before, 80+% of the FARs are there to satisfy international agreements and standards.
 
akmetal said:
Yes that’s correct, just because you don’t have a licence or an annual does not mean you cause a violation while flying, only a corrupt judge would give a warrent for a fishing expedition
Click to expand...

If you bust a bravo or violate a TFR or the FAA has evidence you’re out of annual, they have all the evidence they need for a warrant.
 
Bell206 said:
Except it has everything to do with which pilot does turn the wrench. In this case a sport pilot does not meet ICAO requirements which allow a PP pilot, who does meet ICAO requirements, to turn a wrench on a TC'd aircraft and approve it for return to service. The TCCA owner maintained aircraft have a similar issue with ICAO requirements. As I've mentioned before, 80+% of the FARs are there to satisfy international agreements and standards.
Click to expand...

Then work for changing ICAO. When something is nonsensical it should be fixed. We need ICAO recognition of SP and also Basic Med. ICAO regs were not carved in stone by the finger of the Almighty.
 
akmetal said:
Fed

Fed Law should never trump state law unless it is a power expressly allowed by the constitution. This is a big reason we are in the situation we are in today

Unless the airport gets federal funding or your crossing state lines while commiting a crime the feds should have 0 jurisdiction

Not that this would fix anything but state level legislation is the way it should be per our own constitution
Click to expand...
There's this little thing called the "Supremacy clause" that disagrees with this line of thought:
 
akmetal said:
just because you don’t have a licence or an annual does not mean you cause a violation while flying
Click to expand...
Wrong. The second you start flying you would be in violation on both accounts. Key words are: No person.... You may want to brush up on your facts before you trip over yourself again.;)

1723075473495.png

1723075580752.png

Half Fast said:
Then work for changing ICAO. When something is nonsensical it should be fixed.
Click to expand...
Here you go. Any changes start here. Good luck! Then again I don't find the rule to be nonsensical...


1723075808638.png
 

Attachments

  • 1723075792357.png
    1723075792357.png
    46.8 KB · Views: 6
After you pass (if you pass) the three written exams, then comes the A&P check ride that is another three oral (aprox 2 hrs each) Q&A interrogation followed by a half day being observed doing airframe stuff and then returning the next day for another period of being observed performing powerplant maintenance.
Thank God that it is not easy to obtain an A&P. Just think about all those self maintained Honda, Toyota, and Ford leaking oil and exhausting smoke up and down the highways.
There certainly is a great argument for 'fix it if you can' but if flying heaps were to start raining from the sky we would really have a problem.
 
Half Fast said:
If you bust a bravo or violate a TFR or the FAA has evidence you’re out of annual, they have all the evidence they need for a warrant.
Click to expand...
B - yes, tft - yes
How would they know your out of annual just flying around absent these items?
 
StraightnLevel said:
There's this little thing called the "Supremacy clause" that disagrees with this line of thought:
Click to expand...
That is very interesting, so the supremecy clause is at odds with the 10th amendment. Not sure the founders were quite as smart as I give them credit. Either we have a federal dictatorship (which is what we have now) or we have states rights, there is not much in between. Looks like their indecision left us with a dictatorship anyways.
 
fabricgator said:
After you pass (if you pass) the three written exams, then comes the A&P check ride that is another three oral (aprox 2 hrs each) Q&A interrogation followed by a half day being observed doing airframe stuff and then returning the next day for another period of being observed performing powerplant maintenance.
Thank God that it is not easy to obtain an A&P. Just think about all those self maintained Honda, Toyota, and Ford leaking oil and exhausting smoke up and down the highways.
There certainly is a great argument for 'fix it if you can' but if flying heaps were to start raining from the sky we would really have a problem.
Click to expand...
Correct, I have already passed the writtens but they expired after I failed the O&Ps. So I am just going to start with power plant to make the process more digestible.

I am a dual PE so I think I can do it if I just get after it. Its just obnoxious how much of a hustle the FAA has allowed the certification process to become.
 
Bell206 said:
Wrong. The second you start flying you would be in violation on both accounts. Key words are: No person.... You may want to brush up on your facts before you trip over yourself again.;)
...
Click to expand...
Bell206 said:
...

The funny thing is most FAA checks/enforcements can be handled with a simple face-to-face meet or FSDO office visit. However, some people prefer to poke the bear for reasons that most others can’t fathom why.

...
Click to expand...
Still wondering why some people poke that bear?
 
Bell206 said:
Wrong. The second you start flying you would be in violation on both accounts. Key words are: No person.... You may want to brush up on your facts before you trip over yourself again.;)

View attachment 132214

View attachment 132215


Here you go. Any changes start here. Good luck! Then again I don't find the rule to be nonsensical...


View attachment 132217
Click to expand...
Bell206 said:
Wrong. The second you start flying you would be in violation on both accounts. Key words are: No person.... You may want to brush up on your facts before you trip over yourself again.;)

View attachment 132214

View attachment 132215


Here you go. Any changes start here. Good luck! Then again I don't find the rule to be nonsensical...


View attachment 132217
Click to expand...
Causing an observable violation is different from a non observable violation. One has evidence to get a warrant the other is a fishing expedition.
 
akmetal said:
How would they know your out of annual just flying around absent these items?
Click to expand...

It happens. Usually someone rats you out. Tip-off from a mechanic who worked on your plane, for example. Spouse in a contentious divorce for another.
 
The mechanical aspects of an annual and a condition inspection are exactly the same. An A&P receives training in determining whether an aircraft is in a safe condition to fly. What makes the two inspections different is the requirement for an annual to additionally determine whether a standard category aircraft conforms to its type certificate or is in a properly altered condition. This is where an IA whose experience and additional training/testing is needed to determine the legality of the aircraft. It has to do with protecting the public from any additional risk involved in getting into an aircraft that doesn't meet some minimum engineering and construction standard. I look at it as a primarily an exercise to ensure the aircraft hasn't morphed into something other than what the manufacturer certified through the FAA. It may be perfectly safe, but illegal. An experimental doesn't have a TC so all that needs to be checked is whether it is "safe." The public is duly warned by the "Experimental" placard and the accompanying verbiage saying "Passenger Warning – This Aircraft Does Not Comply With Federal Safety Regulations For Standard Aircraft". I don't see the FAA changing this to allow vanilla A&Ps to sign off annuals.
 
aterry1067 said:
Still wondering why some people poke that bear?
Click to expand...
Not really. Unfortunately, have seen people do that far too many times over the years than I care to admit. Even provided assistance to some in order clear their "error in judgement." But what gives me a chuckle are the number of these folks who prefer to prove their ignorance of the FARs and the system in public domain. Sometimes you just can't fix... :rolleyes:
akmetal said:
Causing an observable violation is different from a non observable violation. One has evidence to get a warrant the other is a fishing expedition.
Click to expand...
Ha. So you have to be caught to be guilty? I guess integrity is not your middle name.
Regardless, I think you missed the point above that some rules don't require a warrant. Ever wonder how an FAA ASI can perform a ramp check on anyone with no probable cause? The key words again... any time and any place.
 
Nah, popcorn ain’t gonna cut it......


Beef-Tacos.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top