All ad's current this date - sufficient?

D

darylp

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
14
Display Name
Display name:
darylp
Is the phrase "all AD's current" and certification that "inspection IAW annual inspection and found to be airworthy" sufficient log entry to satisfy that a 200 hour recurring AD was performed. Specifically concerned with AD 70-26-04.
 
wabower said:
What do "all" mean?
Click to expand...

I means that when the next A&P/IA comes along and looks for compliance with AD 70-26-04 he'll see nothing convincing him that it was complied with and might insist that it be complied with again, I wouldn't blame him.

If I'm buying the plane in question, the AD wasn't complied with as far as my checkbook is concerned.

A friend of mine had an Arrow that had an AD that wasn't complied with for nearly 40 years.
 
Last edited:
Good question, I think I will end up having to have this work done again to get the log recorded right. The prior mechanic says the work was done, but I'm don't believe the log entry would pass.
 
darylp said:
Is the phrase "all AD's current" and certification that "inspection IAW annual inspection and found to be airworthy" sufficient log entry to satisfy that a 200 hour recurring AD was performed. Specifically concerned with AD 70-26-04.
Click to expand...

Short answer, no way.
 
During a conversation with an aviation attorney last week, we discussed a similar issue. He said all means all and more harm than good typically comes from additional verbage. It helped cut down a lengthy provision that was being kicked back and forth, so I was happy to hear his answer and explanation.

Maybe this is different.

bartmc said:
I means that when the next A&P/IA comes along and looks for compliance with AD 70-26-04 he'll see nothing convincing him that it was complied with and might insist that it be complied with again, I wouldn't blame him.

If I'm buying the plane in question, the AD wasn't complied with as far as my checkbook is concerned.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I suppose a more clear question would be is this log entry sufficient for FAA requirements.
 
darylp said:
I suppose a more clear question would be is this log entry sufficient for FAA requirements.
Click to expand...

Not really. The A&P is opening himself up to a real hassle if the FAA ever had a reason to look at the logbooks.

The A&P in your example is being real sloppy with paperwork, which is not unusual. They get away with it for years until something happens then it comes under scrutiny.

I wouldn't accept such a sign off on an AD.
 
wabower said:
During a conversation with an aviation attorney last week, we discussed a similar issue. He said all means all and more harm than good typically comes from additional verbage. It helped cut down a lengthy provision that was being kicked back and forth, so I was happy to hear his answer and explanation.

Maybe this is different.
Click to expand...

Yep, in the example in post 1 if the airplane and A&P came under scrutiny and the FAA discovered an old little known AD was never complied with the A&P in question just falsified a document.
 
darylp said:
Is the phrase "all AD's current" and certification that "inspection IAW annual inspection and found to be airworthy" sufficient log entry to satisfy that a 200 hour recurring AD was performed. Specifically concerned with AD 70-26-04.
Click to expand...

Here's the question.....when was the AD performed prior to that annual? If it had been 150 hrs since the AD had been done, I suppose the IA could technically say that at the time of the inspection, it was "current". Doesn't say he actually did the AD at annual.
 
wabower said:
During a conversation with an aviation attorney last week, we discussed a similar issue. He said all means all and more harm than good typically comes from additional verbage. It helped cut down a lengthy provision that was being kicked back and forth, so I was happy to hear his answer and explanation.

Maybe this is different.
Click to expand...

I would simply like to see at a minimum

AD 70-26-04 C/W

Mechanics miss ADs.

My buddies Arrow was a victim of "All ADs complied with" for nearly 40 years before it was discovered that all didn't really mean all. IIRC it was the AD that that OP is concerned about. If your attorney want's to argue the meaning of "all" to the widows's attorney, by all means. The pre-buy and/or annual inspection should sort this stuff out, and if it's my check that needs the signature, it ain't complied with.
 
bartmc said:
I would simply like to see at a minimum

AD 70-26-04 C/W

Mechanics miss ADs.

My buddies Arrow was a victim of "All ADs complied with" for nearly 40 years before it was discovered that all didn't really mean all. IIRC it was the AD that that OP is concerned about. If your attorney want's to argue the meaning of "all" to the widows's attorney, by all means. The pre-buy and/or annual inspection should sort this stuff out, and if it's my check that needs the signature, it ain't complied with.
Click to expand...

To properly sign it off it should read:

AD 70-26-04 previously complied with, see logbook page XX dated xx/xx/xxxx

Always include a reference to previously accomplished work, it's a CYA maneuver.
 
We were talking about a $3.5 million Encore. Your checkbook didn't come up during the conversation.

bartmc said:
I would simply like to see at a minimum

AD 70-26-04 C/W

Mechanics miss ADs.

My buddies Arrow was a victim of "All ADs complied with" for nearly 40 years before it was discovered that all didn't really mean all. IIRC it was the AD that that OP is concerned about. If your attorney want's to argue the meaning of "all" to the widows's attorney, by all means. The pre-buy and/or annual inspection should sort this stuff out, and if it's my check that needs the signature, it ain't complied with.
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
"All ADs complied with"
Click to expand...

Fools use this phrase. I won't even use "previously complied with" without adding "by A&P XXXXXX ?meathod of compliance? see log entry dated ?????"
 
wabower said:
In which case it must be better than when I was picking up G-V's for customers or dealing with the service center on warranty items. If promised on Tuesday we might get to leave on Friday but no guarantee.
Click to expand...

Gulfstream engineering is slower than snot for competitor MRO's. Maybe it's not just competitors :dunno:
 
Let's say you mess up one number in that stream of stuff. Is "all" better or worse than your longer entry that includes the error?

bnt83 said:
Fools use this phrase. I won't even use "previously complied with" without adding "by A&P XXXXXX ?meathod of compliance? see log entry dated ?????"
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Let's say you mess up one number in that stream of stuff. Is "all" better or worse than your longer entry that includes the error?
Click to expand...

Right. I bet I could still prove where that AD was located where the "all" doesn't give you a damn clue where to look.
 
Who cares? You bought the condition of the plane when you signed the book. Whose problem is it other than yours?

bnt83 said:
Right. I bet I could still prove where that AD was located where the "all" doesn't give you a damn clue where to look.
Click to expand...
 
RotorAndWing said:
To properly sign it off it should read:

AD 70-26-04 previously complied with, see logbook page XX dated xx/xx/xxxx

Always include a reference to previously accomplished work, it's a CYA maneuver.
Click to expand...

If it was signed off in 1970 when the AD came out, there is no need or requirement to sign it off again.

When you see no entry that it was completed then you must figure out if it applies, if it does THEN it must be complied with.

But,,,, to sign it off just to see an entry, there is no requirement to do that.
 
wabower said:
Let's say you mess up one number in that stream of stuff. Is "all" better or worse than your longer entry that includes the error?
Click to expand...

Just one more thing, you are aware of the thousands of pages heavy MRO's produce? You think the FAA is gonna burn you at the stake for mistyping my phase which clearly leads to a valid entry, or burn you for using the "all AD's complied with" and missing?

Mechanics are not English majors and some type/write even worse...
 
To clarify, I use that phrase when doing a complete research to have a fresh page to research from the next time.
 
darylp said:
Is the phrase "all AD's current" and certification that "inspection IAW annual inspection and found to be airworthy" sufficient log entry to satisfy that a 200 hour recurring AD was performed. Specifically concerned with AD 70-26-04.
Click to expand...

There actually is no requirement to state that "All ADs current" on the annual sign off. you state the aircraft is airworthy, that implies that FAR part 39 is complied with.

See FAR 43 for the proper annual sign off, there is nothing in that statement about ADs.
 
Most attorneys aren't English majors either, but they'll read all those pages looking for your mistakes if necessary to help their case. If the issue arises, there's a pretty good chance it will be a part of some adversarial situation. Whatever you write is on you.

bnt83 said:
Just one more thing, you are aware of the thousands of pages heavy MRO's produce? You think the FAA is gonna burn you at the stake for mistyping my phase which clearly leads to a valid entry, or burn you for using the "all AD's complied with" and missing?

Mechanics are not English majors and some type/write even worse...
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
If it was signed off in 1970 when the AD came out, there is no need or requirement to sign it off again.

When you see no entry that it was completed then you must figure out if it applies, if it does THEN it must be complied with.

But,,,, to sign it off just to see an entry, there is no requirement to do that.
Click to expand...

The AD in question here is a recurring AD. Please reread the original post.
 
Last edited:
You have to list every one and the evidence.
This is like not line by line endorsing everything in 61.89 and 61.105, 61.107, and 61.109 respectively, as a CFI.

"UNSAT".
 
When my annual is done I get a print out of AD's of the power plant and airframe. Some are signed off, some say retired with a date out of my log book, some say NA due to serial number etc. But every year I get it, I thought that was standard procedure. On re occurring AD's my IA will write in "due at xxxxxx" and sign it.
 
Last edited:
darylp said:
I suppose a more clear question would be is this log entry sufficient for FAA requirements.
Click to expand...

I think yes.
Wise? No.
The arguments that "if you missed one the FAA would hang you" do not answer the question asked.
The argument that "I'd never do that" do not answer the question asked.

The A&P is certifying that all applicable ADs are complied with, and the aircraft is airworthy.

Now comes the other part. I would not accept it, wouldn't pay for it, and would not fly a plane with that in the logs.
The legal thing isn't necessarily smart, and smart thing isn't necessarily legal.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The AD in question here is a recurring AD. Please reread the original post.
Click to expand...
reoccurring ADs are complied with and signed off as required, the annual sign off is not the place.

many aircraft have separate AD compliance records.

All ADs complied with, is not a proper verbiage for ANY AD entry.
 
bbchien said:
You have to list every one and the evidence.
"UNSAT".
Click to expand...

I beg the differ Dr.

when you have an AD that applies to your make and model, but not your S/N there are no requirements to list it. ( that's legal) listing it and making a note to the fact it does not apply by S/N =Smart, because it is easier than looking it up every annual.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The AD in question here is a recurring AD. Please reread the original post.
Click to expand...

It's better to read the AD -

Inspect in accordance with instructions below within the next 50 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD and repeat after each subsequent 200 hours in service.

The aircraft has 105 hours on it since the last compliance with the AD does it need a new sign off at this annual?
 
Tom-D said:
It's better to read the AD -

Inspect in accordance with instructions below within the next 50 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD and repeat after each subsequent 200 hours in service.

The aircraft has 105 hours on it since the last compliance with the AD does it need a new sign off at this annual?
Click to expand...

Since you have obvious comprehension issues I'm not going to enter into an argument with you. Find someone else to argue with.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Since you have obvious comprehension issues I'm not going to enter into an argument with you. Find someone else to argue with.
Click to expand...

simple yes or no would have answered the question.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Not for you. Your games and lack of comprehension skills don't make for an honest intellectual discussion.

Find someone else.
Click to expand...

Yep, you can't answer the question So, I'm the one with the problem.

typical.
 
Seemed like a reasonable question to me. What are you two all ****y about all of a sudden?
 
"...inspected IAW annual inspection and found to be airworthy" may seem terse but it's fine and dandy both from a legal standpoint and from the perspective of the next mechanic to do an annual on the aircraft. If the recurring AD is in compliance and no action is taken at the time then no mention needs to be made of it. To do so would be like making an entry such as: "Checked tires and found them not to be worn out" - kind of silly.

The statement above implies that all facets are covered. If you look at it with an attitude of skepticism and suspicion then why would a more verbose entry be an improvement? I mean if the guy's a fraud, cheat and a liar how does more words out of his mouth make it better?......:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top