Annual inspection

Tom-D said:
That in my humble opinion is what will kill GA.
Click to expand...
Eventually. But I think the higher costs are driven by a reduced market of services. In a 200 mile region we have lost 10+ IAs with no replacement. The remaining IAs have upped their prices in response. There are a couple IAs succeeding as traveling IAs but they're at the same price as the shop based IA due to travel expenses. Their market opened because the shop based IAs didn't have any openings like in your area. But even the traveling IAs are getting booked up. Unfortunately, I hear more people talking about getting out than moving over to E/AB or LSA.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
no....your lack of knowledge is incredible. o_O
Click to expand...
I’ve yet to see much evidence of knowledge from you either. I’m also not an A&P - IA, so yes, my lack of knowledge on subjects like these is quite large.
Checkout_my_Six said:
cause it's perfectly legal.... ;)...you're reading way more into this Tom.
Click to expand...

Checkout_my_Six said:
so maybe....you're not doin it right? :D
Click to expand...

Checkout_my_Six said:
impossible...
Click to expand...
None of which provides much benefit. Just my 2c.
 
Ryanb said:
Statements like these have one purpose only - to poke and jab and to create tension. Stop being an instigator.
Click to expand...
88aa5a9708fe10faa3529b8420fc07aa.png
 
Tom-D said:
OBTW,, I priced an annual inspection at 2 different FBOs, both were $2500.00 for the inspection and $125 per hour to repair discrepancies.

That in my humble opinion is what will kill GA.
Click to expand...
...and that, Tom, is precisely why I have an experimental LSA and a light sport repairman-inspection certificate.
 
Tom-D said:
All you really need to know you can get by viewing his posts, He's a tom hater, and will post any thing he thinks will re-rail any thread I started or comment in.
In doing so shows us who he really is.
Click to expand...

Oh come on Tom, you really think it’s all about you personally and not what you write? No one hates you. But some of us with the experience and knowledge will call BS whenever we see it. And it just so happens that frequently the BS comes from your posts. And when it comes to derailing threads (I assume you meant derail and not re-rail), you do a pretty good job at that yourself. Just look at the OP in this thread. He was simply posting a little tidbit on what was going on with his plane and wasn’t asking for any verification or validation from you or anyone else on whether it was a best practice, an industry standard, or even strictly in line with the regulations. Yet you decided to call into question what he and his IA were doing. So don't throw stones from your glass house.

As to any animosity that you or your fan boys might think that I and some others have towards you, it simply ain't so. I just don't like when someone who some others consider highly knowledgeable make statements that are false or misleading. I personally think that you have a great amount of knowledge in aviation maintenance, especially when it comes to various makes and models of light aircraft and the differences between their various series. You also frequently (but not always) give solid information on how to perform various tasks and troubleshoot some issues. However, when it comes to interpreting the regulations and guidance and knowing what is and is not acceptable in this regard, your posts are very frequently far from accurate. You also have a tendency to not so subtly encourage people to violate regs if they can get away with it. Comments like "if no one knows about it then it didn't happen" or other words to that effect when discussing any aviation maintenance action is reprehensible.

Also when you are proven wrong, you seem to dig in your heels, double down, and even frequently reverse course and act like that was what you meant all along. Several of us see this. It is obvious. It does not serve you or anyone else well.

So do yourself and especially the impressionable low experienced folks a favor and focus on the areas that you excel at and stay away from offering regulatory advice. It is not your strong point.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Oh come on Tom, you really think it’s all about you personally and not what you write? No one hates you. But some of us with the experience and knowledge will call BS whenever we see it. And it just so happens that frequently the BS comes from your posts. And when it comes to derailing threads (I assume you meant derail and not re-rail), you do a pretty good job at that yourself. Just look at the OP in this thread. He was simply posting a little tidbit on what was going on with his plane and wasn’t asking for any verification or validation from you or anyone else on whether it was a best practice, an industry standard, or even strictly in line with the regulations. Yet you decided to call into question what he and his IA were doing. So don't throw stones from your glass house.

As to any animosity that you or your fan boys might think that I and some others have towards you, it simply ain't so. I just don't like when someone who some others consider highly knowledgeable make statements that are false or misleading. I personally think that you have a great amount of knowledge in aviation maintenance, especially when it comes to various makes and models of light aircraft and the differences between their various series. You also frequently (but not always) give solid information on how to perform various tasks and troubleshoot some issues. However, when it comes to interpreting the regulations and guidance and knowing what is and is not acceptable in this regard, your posts are very frequently far from accurate. You also have a tendency to not so subtly encourage people to violate regs if they can get away with it. Comments like "if no one knows about it then it didn't happen" or other words to that effect when discussing any aviation maintenance action is reprehensible.

Also when you are proven wrong, you seem to dig in your heels, double down, and even frequently reverse course and act like that was what you meant all along. Several of us see this. It is obvious. It does not serve you or anyone else well.

So do yourself and especially the impressionable low experienced folks a favor and focus on the areas that you excel at and stay away from offering regulatory advice. It is not your strong point.
Click to expand...
Bull Sh-t,, We all know you are one of his groupies, and would praise him for any thing derogatory he had to say about me.
Look at his posts, see how many time he has tried to re-rail threads.
The evidence is in his own posts, but you will only see what you want.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Look at his posts, see how many time he has tried to re-rail threads.
.
Click to expand...

Uh, according to the dictionary, "rerail" means to put back on track. So yes, when someone "derails*" a thread, what's the harm in getting it back on track? o_O

*derail: to run off a track.
 
I just went back to page one. Blue posted, Tom asked a question and then the pile on started. I was gonna ask the same question Tom did. Glad I didn't.
 
Tom-D said:
Bull Sh-t,, We all know you are one of his groupies, and would praise him for any thing derogatory he had to say about me.
Look at his posts, see how many time he has tried to re-rail threads.
The evidence is in his own posts, but you will only see what you want.
Click to expand...
Exactly right, Tom!

They all feed off of each other. Just ignore.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Oh come on Tom, you really think it’s all about you personally and not what you write? No one hates you. But some of us with the experience and knowledge will call BS whenever we see it. And it just so happens that frequently the BS comes from your posts. And when it comes to derailing threads (I assume you meant derail and not re-rail), you do a pretty good job at that yourself. Just look at the OP in this thread. He was simply posting a little tidbit on what was going on with his plane and wasn’t asking for any verification or validation from you or anyone else on whether it was a best practice, an industry standard, or even strictly in line with the regulations. Yet you decided to call into question what he and his IA were doing. So don't throw stones from your glass house.

As to any animosity that you or your fan boys might think that I and some others have towards you, it simply ain't so. I just don't like when someone who some others consider highly knowledgeable make statements that are false or misleading. I personally think that you have a great amount of knowledge in aviation maintenance, especially when it comes to various makes and models of light aircraft and the differences between their various series. You also frequently (but not always) give solid information on how to perform various tasks and troubleshoot some issues. However, when it comes to interpreting the regulations and guidance and knowing what is and is not acceptable in this regard, your posts are very frequently far from accurate. You also have a tendency to not so subtly encourage people to violate regs if they can get away with it. Comments like "if no one knows about it then it didn't happen" or other words to that effect when discussing any aviation maintenance action is reprehensible.

Also when you are proven wrong, you seem to dig in your heels, double down, and even frequently reverse course and act like that was what you meant all along. Several of us see this. It is obvious. It does not serve you or anyone else well.

So do yourself and especially the impressionable low experienced folks a favor and focus on the areas that you excel at and stay away from offering regulatory advice. It is not your strong point.
Click to expand...
Except I rarely ever see you contribute anything that’s positive toward Tom. It’s usually something disparaging or antagonistic along with the other usual handful of members.

Like I’ve said before - it’s so easy to fling poo at each other when you’re sitting behind a keyboard, but I know darn well the behavior wouldn’t be the same if you were face to face, and by that, I don’t just mean you. I’ve also realized that many of the noisiest members are typically the most quiet in real life, funny how that works.
 
Tom-D said:
Bull Sh-t,, We all know you are one of his groupies, and would praise him for any thing derogatory he had to say about me.
Look at his posts, see how many time he has tried to re-rail threads.
The evidence is in his own posts, but you will only see what you want.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really do think it's all about you. Sad. So Sad.
 
Silvaire said:
I just went back to page one. Blue posted, Tom asked a question and then the pile on started. I was gonna ask the same question Tom did. Glad I didn't.
Click to expand...
Had you have posted the question, things likely would’ve unfolded differently.
 
SkyDog58 said:
If that quote applies to any two folks on this site, it's the two of you.
Click to expand...
Look at your own post, time to except the responsibility of your own actions.
This ain't about me, I don't make your posts.
 
What is that saying? You reap what you sow?

I reread the first page. Guess who sowed the seeds of discontent? Maybe Mr Tom is the most wonderful person face to face, but his online presence leaves a lot to be desired.

I try to limit my posts these days, as it just isn't worth the frustration I have encountered in discussions with him in the past.
 
Silvaire said:
then the pile on started.
Click to expand...
The "pile on" started with Post #2. There was nothing in the 1st post that led to the progressive question to include the OP title. Anybody with progressive program experience would tell you that. The last statement in #2 ending with…”check the FARs”… same thing. There’s zero guidance in how long and in what manner any inspection should be performed: 91.409 indicates which inspections are required at what intervals; 43.15, 43.16, and 43 App D give what must be inspected; and, 43.11 shows how to complete the written record of those inspections.

The second post was nothing more than a troll post based on personal opinion which was proven after dozens of follow up posts. The same has happened in other similar threads to include my 1st post on POA. But to each their own. However, when I see opinion/fact blurred I will call it out as in Post #2.

Tune in next week for another episode… As the Rotor Turns.;)
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Look at your own post, time to except the responsibility of your own actions.
This ain't about me, I don't make your posts.
Click to expand...
That’s a classic modus operandi for him.

Keyboard warriors will be keyboard warriors.
 
187 post to prove I was right, you can't fly aircraft legally with out a return to service entry, no matter where, when, or how much maintenance was done.
What FAR triggers a annual inspection totally irrelevant
 
I still don't understand how you could come up with the idea that it would be flown between inspection stages.

Anyway, I installed the prop today, and undressed the wings, and undercarriage. Service, and inspection of those parts will take place in the AM.
 
bluerooster said:
I still don't understand how you could come up with the idea that it would be flown between inspection stages...
Click to expand...

Can't speak for anyone else but for me it was the line - "good to go 'till the end of the month" that led me to think you intended to keep flying it.
 
So just removing inspection panels to have a look see requires a return to service? Owners do that all the time.
Tom-D said:
187 post to prove I was right, you can't fly aircraft legally with out a return to service entry, no matter where, when, or how much maintenance was done.
What FAR triggers a annual inspection totally irrelevant
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
So just removing inspection panels to have a look see requires a return to service?
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic, but I'm curious. Is "a log entry by a A&P or better" and "return to service" always the same thing?

Asked another way. Is any entry that requires an A&P or IA signature considered a "return to service"?
 
I would have preferred a 5 page discussion on why planes are at a much higher accident risk after getting their mandatory annual to make them safer.

:)
 
Salty said:
Is any entry that requires an A&P or IA signature considered a "return to service"?
Click to expand...
In general, an APIA signature "constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed." (43.9). Same for most inspections. For some reason 43.11(6) suggests in the sign off example for progressive inspections that the "approval or disapproval" should be spelled out in the entry. I do not know why. Also technically, an AP can only approve for return to service and not RTS the aircraft.
 
Ryanb said:
Tom said it only requires a return to service after maintenance has been done. You can remove inspection panels without doing any maintenance you know...:mad2:
Click to expand...
Not for an "inspection" i/a/w FAR Pt 1:

"Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance."
​
 
Ryanb said:
There you go twisting the words into something that was never said again.

Tom said it only requires a return to service after maintenance has been done. You can remove inspection panels without doing any maintenance you know...:mad2:

Geez.
Click to expand...
Lol you just directly contradicted tom.
 
Tom-D said:
When the IA does the inspection, as soon as they pull the first panel the aircraft becomes unairworthy until it is returned to service. If the IA stops the inspection an entry returning the aircraft to service must be made, The Annual sign off can not be made until the inspection is complete.
Click to expand...
 
Yes? And he’s correct.

I mis-typed my reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top