Annual Question

[mattaxelrod]

My plane had its last annual in August '04. I'd like to know exactly what my options are this year.

1. I've heard of the "13 month" annual, whereby I postpone this year's annual to the very end of August, meaning it actually gets completed and signed off in September, thus buying me a whole calendar month. Kosher?

2. Can I simply fly the plane all of August, and then just have the annual begun in September, (meaning, I guess that the plane is out of annual as of Sept. 1). Is that legal?

The reason I'm asking is both financial and practical. I'm off much of August and would like to have use of the plane as much as possible.

Thanks for the info.
Matt

 

[Ed Guthrie]

My plane had its last annual in August '04. I'd like to know exactly what my options are this year.

1. I've heard of the "13 month" annual, whereby I postpone this year's annual to the very end of August, meaning it actually gets completed and signed off in September, thus buying me a whole calendar month. Kosher?

2. Can I simply fly the plane all of August, and then just have the annual begun in September, (meaning, I guess that the plane is out of annual as of Sept. 1). Is that legal?

The reason I'm asking is both financial and practical. I'm off much of August and would like to have use of the plane as much as possible.

Thanks for the info.
Matt

Yes to all of the above for all of the reasons (especially wanting to use it in August).

 

[waldo]

Absolutely! The annual expires the last day of the month. If it was done August 1, 2004 then it will expire August 31, 2005. After August 31, 2005 the plane can not be flown until it has another annual. Call it a little "free gift" from the FAA. It's legal and it's done all the time.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I forgot to mention the one and only negative to the 13 month annual process--the aircraft is trapped. If the aircraft is in current annual and you have a falling out with the IA/shop you can always say, "Thanks for your opinion" and take the aircraft somewhere else. If it is out of annual you are trapped, in need of a ferry permit to go anywhere else. I have a great IA/shop (Dennis Glick, Dutchland Aviation) so this isn't a concern for me. I have used the 13-month annual as long as I have owned the airplane. However, it is something to consider, especially if the shop is a new entity to you.

 

[The Old Man]

Yes to all of the above for all of the reasons (especially wanting to use it in August).

The other side of that blade is just as sharp, Ed. Suppose you wish to use it the first week in September? Like Labor Day Weekend.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Any recuring, calendar based ADs that expire during the 12th month?

Len

 

[mattaxelrod]

No, but just for the sake of argument, let's say there's one.

If I'm not flying the plane as of midnight on August 31st, and the AD gets complied with as part of the annual, is that OK, even if it officially happens in September?

Just wondering.

 

[Anthony]

I fly more than 100 hours per year and I have a couple of 100 hour AD's on the Tiger. They're just inspections so not a lot of time is involved. I just have the shop do the AD compliance at an oil change interval before the 100 hours hits.

I also do the "13 month annual", but as my shop had the plane an entire month to do the annual, I still only get 12.

 

[Tom-D]

No, but just for the sake of argument, let's say there's one.

If I'm not flying the plane as of midnight on August 31st, and the AD gets complied with as part of the annual, is that OK, even if it officially happens in September?

Just wondering.

the wording on most of the ADs are" 100 Hours or the next annual".

It's the 50 Hour oil change ADs that get blown off.

 

[gismo]

The other side of that blade is just as sharp, Ed. Suppose you wish to use it the first week in September? Like Labor Day Weekend.

Yep, that very thing has stopped me from using the 13 month approach a few times including this year. There are other downsides as well. For instance, the end of the month is often a busier time for the shop doing your annual so on a complicated aircraft this practice could extend the time spent grounded waiting for the annual to be completed, thus deleting some of the "extra" time gained. Also this shifts your annual around the calendar which can cause some trouble in northern climates and anywhere if you typically use the plane more during one season than another.

Given that I really don't want the plane to be down during the summer, I may just hold at my current May annual schedule for a while.

 

[mattaxelrod]

Agreed. September is usually a bad month for me, whereas August is great. So I'll probably "freeze" my annual in September each year.

 

[poadeleted20]

the wording on most of the ADs are "100 Hours or the next annual".

I'm not sure which AD's to which Tom is referring, but the AA-5/A/B aileron AD inspection is very definitely 100 hours, period. Same for the 200-hour prop hub inspection on the Tigers with McCauley props. Can't speak to any others, but I would appreciate examples.

But to the original question, I am loath to schedule it that tight, especially since things can happen with the shop, and if they can't accept the plane by the last day of the expiring month, it's stuck where it is, out of annual and unflyable. Yes, you might be able to get a special flight ("ferry") permit to get it to the shop, but that's not something I want to be asking the FSDO for under those circumstances as it would reflect poorly on my foresightedness. The only way this works is if the shop is on the field where you're based and you can afford a week or two of extra down time if the shop gets behind.

 

[gismo]

The only way this works is if the shop is on the field where you're based and you can afford a week or two of extra down time if the shop gets behind.

Or you get a committment from the shop that you know they will honor, even if it means storing your airplane (in a hangar) while they catch up (the downtime issue is still there).

 

[waldo]

Good points here guys. I happen to have two different mechanics on the same field. Both want my business so I'm in pretty good standing with both of them. I also have a few 100 hr. AD's, but keep in mind that they CAN be completed, say at 85 hrs, and then be good for another 100 hrs. Also, I don't wait till the last day of the month that it is due. I was just stating what the FAA will allow. I usually bring it in the last week of the month that it is due. My mechanic always takes a full week on my plane and that will put the completed date on the first of the following month .

 

[Tom-D]

I'm not sure which AD's to which Tom is referring, but the AA-5/A/B aileron AD inspection is very definitely 100 hours, period. Same for the 200-hour prop hub inspection on the Tigers with McCauley props. Can't speak to any others, but I would appreciate examples.
.

The Cessna seat track AD for one, the crack check on the Piper yoke for another, but you really must read the AD, there is always the exception to the rule, that's why I said "most"

But to the original question, I am loath to schedule it that tight, especially since things can happen with the shop,

I had two customers try that with me last year, I simply told them "nope can't do it".

many of the Shops/IAs in Puget Sound are booked 6 months in advance, miss your slot you'll be waiting until some one has time to get you in. or you will be going to Galvin at BFI and paying the jet service center prices.

and in this area, it is going to get worse, I was talking to 5 other IAs that are quitting due to the insurance price increase.

If you have a shop that is treating you well, work with them, they have customers that pay the bills every month, your once a year visit may not be their bread and butter. And to make matters worse, their A&Ps may just give notice and move on, messing up the work schedual, and you have your aircraft setting on the ramp, unairworthy. Yeah you are right, don't wait untill the 30th of the month and spring an annual, and a list of discrepancies on your mech. he may be looking for a good excuse to dump you.

and if they can't accept the plane by the last day of the expiring month, it's stuck where it is, out of annual and unflyable. Yes, you might be able to get a special flight ("ferry") permit to get it to the shop, but that's not something I want to be asking the FSDO for under those circumstances as it would reflect poorly on my foresightedness. The only way this works is if the shop is on the field where you're based and you can afford a week or two of extra down time if the shop gets behind.

 

[poadeleted20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
I'm not sure which AD's to which Tom is referring, but the AA-5/A/B aileron AD inspection is very definitely 100 hours, period. Same for the 200-hour prop hub inspection on the Tigers with McCauley props. Can't speak to any others, but I would appreciate examples.
.

The Cessna seat track AD for one, the crack check on the Piper yoke for another, but you really must read the AD, there is always the exception to the rule, that's why I said "most"

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but IIRC, those AD's are 100 hours or annual, whichever comes FIRST. Thus, if you fly only 25 hours, you must get it done at annual even though the 100 hours haven't run out, but if you fly 150 hours, you must get the inspection done before you pass 100, i.e., you can't put it off if the 100 hours run out before the annual is due, and that could ground you where you are.

OTOH, the Grumman AD's (ailerons and prop) are purely hours, and need not be done at annual if they hours haven't been flown. Of course, nearly all affected Grumman owners have the aileron AD done at every annual just to avoid having to come back 25 hours later, but it's very easy to add that inspection to the annual compared to coming in to do it by itself.

 

[poadeleted3]

What is the 100 hour aileron check on the Tiger? The ailerons aren't prone to coming unglued or falling off, are they?

 

[Tom-D]

Correct me if I'm wrong,

you are correct, "which ever occures first".

But when it went down for annual it is also down for the co-current ADs

moot point.

Lycoming 50 hour snake oil AD is 50 hours no +-

You can do any AD early,

 

[Tom-D]

What is the 100 hour aileron check on the Tiger? The ailerons aren't prone to coming unglued or falling off, are they?

I'd look it up and paste it here if you can tell me who holds the type certificate.

It ain't grumman
It ain't American

see how much I know about Grummies

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I'd look it up and paste it here if you can tell me who holds the type certificate.

It ain't grumman
It ain't American

see how much I know about Grummies

Tiger Aircraft LLC

 

[poadeleted20]

What is the 100 hour aileron check on the Tiger? The ailerons aren't prone to coming unglued or falling off, are they?

No, they are not. The only glue issues involve some of the 1975 model year Grummans of all types (not just -5x's) when they used the infamous "blue glue," but that's another story entirely.

You can see the AD at http://www.aya.org/AD79-22-04.html, and it applies to all AA-5x's including Travelers and Cheetahs, not just the AA-5B Tiger. And you do NOT want to install the Service Kit, since it destroys the great roll response and feel.

This AD was a bad response to a non-problem and does not apply to the AG-5B Tiger even though their controls are absolutely identical. The AYA and Tiger Aircraft are working to have the repetitive inspection eliminated or at least make it an annual inspection item. There are no data as a result of these inspections to suggest that this problem is serious or even real, but the FAA is easy to push into an inspection and hard to push out of it (CYA among the bureaucrats).

 

[Tom-D]

What is the 100 hour aileron check on the Tiger? The ailerons aren't prone to coming unglued or falling off, are they?

79-22-04 GULFSTREAM AMERICAN CORPORATION (GAC):

Amendment 39-3600.

Applies to GAC Model AA-5, serial numbers AA5-0001 and subsequent, Model AA-5A, serial numbers AA5A-0001 and subsequent, Model AA-5B, serial numbers AA5B-0001 and subsequent, airplanes certificated in all categories, except those aircraft modified in accordance with AD 79-16-05 which required GAC Service Kit 150 be installed.

Compliance is required as indicated, unless already accomplished.

To prevent possible aileron oscillation, accomplish paragraphs (a) and (b) or paragraphs (a), (c), and (d):

(a) Inspect the aileron system within 25 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD as follows:

(1) Inspect aileron trim tabs for loose rivets and general condition. Replace or repair as necessary.

(2) Inspect the aileron for damage or delamination. Repair and rebalance as necessary pe r GAC AA-5 series Service Manual.

(3) Inspect aileron bearings and stops for wear, damage, and secure mounting. Repair per GAC AA-5 series Service Manual.

(4) Inspect and adjust rigging and cable tension per GAC AA-5 series Service Manual.

(5) Inspect aileron torque tubes for wear and loose joints. Repair per GAC AA-5 series Service Manual.

(b) Repeat the inspection in (a) every 100 hours time in service.

(c) Within 25 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD, modify the aileron in accordance with:

(1) GAC Service Kit No. 150 dated July 13, 1979, or later revision approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, FAA, Southern Region, or

(2) An equivalent method of compliance if approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, FAA, Southern Region.

(d) If the modification in (c)(1) is accomplished, any autopilot systeminstalled in the aircraft must be disconnected prior to further flight in a manner which will not permit use or reconnection during flight. Install a placard in full view of the pilot utilizing a minimum of 1/4 inch high letters with the wording "AUTOPILOT DEACTIVATED." The use of the autopilot system is prohibited until the STC holder provides instructions for reactivation which have been approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch of the appropriate FAA Regional Office.

(e) The repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) are not required when the aircraft is modified in accordance with paragraph (c).

(f) Make appropriate maintenance record entry.

This supersedes Amendment 39-3524, AD 79-16-05, as amended by Amendment 39-3586.

This Amendment 39-3600 is effective November 9, 1979.

 

[Richard]

I forgot to mention the one and only negative to the 13 month annual process--the aircraft is trapped. If the aircraft is in current annual and you have a falling out with the IA/shop you can always say, "Thanks for your opinion" and take the aircraft somewhere else. If it is out of annual you are trapped, in need of a ferry permit to go anywhere else. I have a great IA/shop (Dennis Glick, Dutchland Aviation) so this isn't a concern for me. I have used the 13-month annual as long as I have owned the airplane. However, it is something to consider, especially if the shop is a new entity to you.

Do you really need a permit for this? It seems like it should be like the 10 hours after the 100 hour inspection comes due.

 

[Gary Sortor]

Do you really need a permit for this? It seems like it should be like the 10 hours after the 100 hour inspection comes due.

Here's another question to add to Richard's post . . . How easy would it be to get a ferry permit for an out-of-annual aircraft, say by just a week or so? Would the application have to be signed off by an A&P? Or, is it basically automatic?

 

[Tom-D]

Here's another question to add to Richard's post . . . How easy would it be to get a ferry permit for an out-of-annual aircraft, say by just a week or so? Would the application have to be signed off by an A&P? Or, is it basically automatic?

It is easy to do, call FSDO tell them the answers to the question they need for the form. they fax it to you, and you get an A&P to sign the aircraft off as airworthy for a one time flight between XXX and ZZZ. be sure the A&P places a statment in the log that he inspected the aircraft. and found it to be airworthy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you really need a permit for this? It seems like it should be like the 10 hours after the 100 hour inspection comes due.

The 10-hour exception for 100-hours is specifically stated in 91.409(b):

The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done.
​

There is no equivalent in 91.409(a) covering annuals:

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
​

Note that paragraph (c) is where special flight ("ferry") permits are discussed. So yes, you need a ferry permit to fly the plane to another shop if your last annual was done in April of last year and it is now May 1 or later.

 

[gismo]

Do you really need a permit for this? It seems like it should be like the 10 hours after the 100 hour inspection comes due.

That's what the (partial) 13th month is intended for.

 

[Tom-D]

That's what the (partial) 13th month is intended for.

Not really Lance, wht would you call a cycle where the owner places their aircraft in for annual 2 weeks before the 12th calendar month has expired and during the annual it is diccovered they need an engine overhaul, 5-6 months elapse, before the engine is returned to service, and the annual is signed off.

are we going to call that an 18 month annual?

my fairchild hasn't had the 2001 annual signed off yet, can I call that a 4 year annual.

You see the 13 month annual is a mis nomer, that just tells every one the aircraft was unairworthy for a month. But Yes it does move the due date for the next annual back a month or 3 or a year or 2 or how ever long the repair cycle requires to complete.

 

[waldo]

Keep in mind, as mentioned, that if your plane is out of annual that you will need a ferry permit signed off. This may end up being by the same shop that you are shifting your business from . How quickly do you think they are going to look over your plane for the permit? And, how much is THAT going to cost you? Keep your mechanic happy, and work with him, so that he may want to work with you .

 

[Gary Sortor]

Keep in mind, as mentioned, that if your plane is out of annual that you will need a ferry permit signed off. This may end up being by the same shop that you are shifting your business from . How quickly do you think they are going to look over your plane for the permit? And, how much is THAT going to cost you? Keep your mechanic happy, and work with him, so that he may want to work with you.

I agree that you will have problems with the mechanic you are shifting your business from and he will be reluctant to sign the permit without a fat chunk of change (or refuse because of repairs he claims are airworthy issues). At best, he will take his sweet time, as you suggest. You don't want a mechanic, or anyone with whom you deal in business, to have you over a barrel. And, this could happen if your plane is sitting there "unairworthy" because you were pushing the annual forward a month. You still have options, such as the new mechanic signing the ferry permit, but this is awkward for everyone concerned. If you found yourself in this situation, a better solution might be to obtain an independent AI to sign-off for the ferry permit. He could address any airworthy issues and determine whether the ferry permit could be issued anyway.

 

[gismo]

Not really Lance,

What I meant was, I believe the reason the rule is written this way is it's intended to allow an owner to get a full year between annuals without having to schedule the inspection's exactly a year apart. If the reg said "within 364 days" most everyone would find their inspection date marching backwards.

 

[gismo]

Keep in mind, as mentioned, that if your plane is out of annual that you will need a ferry permit signed off. This may end up being by the same shop that you are shifting your business from . How quickly do you think they are going to look over your plane for the permit? And, how much is THAT going to cost you? Keep your mechanic happy, and work with him, so that he may want to work with you .

If you are switching from one FBO after they completed your inspection to have the sqawks addressed elsewhere, you'll have the same problem regardless of when the last annual was completed. A failed inspection means an unairworthy airplane period.

 

[L10MAN]

Interesting reading. http://avweb.com/news/columns/189103-1.html
Ron

 

[Ed Guthrie]

If you are switching from one FBO after they completed your inspection to have the sqawks addressed elsewhere, you'll have the same problem regardless of when the last annual was completed. A failed inspection means an unairworthy airplane period.

Please show me where the FAA grants an IA the authority to nullify the previous annual inspection.

 

[poadeleted20]

Please show me where the FAA grants an IA the authority to nullify the previous annual inspection.

14 CFR 43.11(a): 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 [note: annuals are performed in accordance with 91.409], 123, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:...(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.”

Any pilot who flies a plane with this written in the logs is in violation of 14 CFR 91.7(a) unless he can get another mechanic to sign off the items in the list provided to the owner/operator or he can prove to the FAA that the items on the list are erroneous -- and that is VERY hard to do.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

14 CFR 43.11(a): 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 [note: annuals are performed in accordance with 91.409], 123, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:...(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.”

Any pilot who flies a plane with this written in the logs is in violation of 14 CFR 91.7(a) unless he can get another mechanic to sign off the items in the list provided to the owner/operator or he can prove to the FAA that the items on the list are erroneous -- and that is VERY hard to do.

Ron, you need to RTFQ. The previous annual is still quite good, which was the question--the IA's statement does not concel the previous annual. As to the list the IA provides the owner it is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If the owner believes the IA is incompetent the owner my ignore (at his/her peril, of course), but the aircraft still holds a valid (previous) annual.

 

[gismo]

Ron, you need to RTFQ. The previous annual is still quite good, which was the question--the IA's statement does not concel the previous annual. As to the list the IA provides the owner it is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If the owner believes the IA is incompetent the owner my ignore (at his/her peril, of course), but the aircraft still holds a valid (previous) annual.

Ed, you might be technically correct about the pilot/owner's ability to ignore an unairworthy writeup in the logs (or even just evidence that the mechanic pointed out an airworthiness issue without writing in the logs) that pilot/owner is would need to prove to the FSDO that the mechanic was wrong. In the post that started this subthread, I was assuming that there actually was an airworthiness deficiency and that the issue was that the owner didn't want the repair done by the shop that had performed the inspection.

If, OTOH, the real issue was a difference of opinion as to whether the deficiency constitutes an airworthiness issue, then I would concede that the pilot would be legal to fly if the mechanic was truly wrong.

In either case the fact that a prior annual was still "valid" (more accurately that the calendar hadn't run out on the previous one) is irrelavent. An aircraft can become unairworthy at any time including 30 seconds after an annual is sucessfully completed.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

In the post that started this subthread, I was assuming that there actually was an airworthiness deficiency and that the issue was that the owner didn't want the repair done by the shop that had performed the inspection.

Okay, that would explain the difference(s) in opinion(s). I assumed the first thread held as an issue that the shop was thought to be bilking the owner for unwarranted repairs.

In either case the fact that a prior annual was still "valid" (more accurately that the calendar hadn't run out on the previous one) is irrelavent. An aircraft can become unairworthy at any time including 30 seconds after an annual is sucessfully completed.

Absolutely agreed. Or, in one case of which I became all too familiar the aircraft was never airworthy at all, despite the IA's signature and annual sign-off stating the contrary.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, you need to RTFQ. The previous annual is still quite good, which was the question--the IA's statement does not concel the previous annual. As to the list the IA provides the owner it is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If the owner believes the IA is incompetent the owner my ignore (at his/her peril, of course), but the aircraft still holds a valid (previous) annual.

I guess the question here is what question is being asked. If one is asking whether a pilot may fly a plane on the strength of an earlier annual once an IA has written in the logs that there are airworthiness discrepancies, the answer is "no" unless the pilot can prove to the FAA's satisfaction that the discrepancies are bogus. The FAA has been backed by the NTSB in saying that once a mechanic says the aircraft is unairworthy, the pilot cannot use his own judgement to override that finding. While the case of Administrator v. Bognuda is not precisely on point, the NTSB's analysis is relevant to this discussion:

"One purpose of the rule requiring the owner of the aircraft to receive a discrepancy list is to ensure he knows the condition of his aircraft so that he can knowingly make decisions regarding whether to fly. This purpose was satisfied, regardless of whether respondent actually was given a written list, and regardless of whether it was dated or signed.13 In accepting the testimony of the Valley mechanics, the law judge found that respondent was told of the discrepancies. Whether the mechanics complied with rules applicable to them does not control whether respondent violated the rules cited by the Administrator. The issue for us is whether respondent knew or should have known that the aircraft had discrepancies that rendered it unairworthy."

Also, see Administrator v. Seyedan and Administrator v. Giljam. (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4539.PDF and http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4542.PDF). I also refer to Administrator v. Alphin, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4643.PDF. Further, in Administrator v. Werve, the NTSB clearly sets the standard under which a pilot may ignore a mechanic's findings. In that case, involving a door which had been written up but was not fixed because the problem could not be duplicated, the pilot tested the door several times and it worked properly. The NTSB found in the pilot's favor, but very clearly limited their findings in that situation.

The bottom line is that unless you have PROOF that the discrepancies don't exist, the FAA and NTSB will consider the mechanic's findings telling, and the pilot will be done for.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I guess the question here is what question is being asked. If one is asking whether a pilot may fly a plane on the strength of an earlier annual once an IA has written in the logs that there are airworthiness discrepancies, the answer is "no" unless the pilot can prove to the FAA's satisfaction that the discrepancies are bogus.

This question, in entirety (including the limiting statement following "unless") is indeed the question at hand.

The FAA has been backed by the NTSB in saying that once a mechanic says the aircraft is unairworthy, the pilot cannot use his own judgement to override that finding.

Really? How do you reach this conclusion? You yourself provide a reference later that proves your statement here to be quite incorrect.

While the case of Administrator v. Bognuda is not precisely on point,

Not precisely on point? How about irrelevant? This case involves a pilot who ignored an unairworthy issue (actually, to be precise, tried to claim he was unaware of the unairworthy item(s)), not a pilot who determined that the item was indeed airworthy, contrary to a mechanics opinion.

Also, see Administrator v. Seyedan and Administrator v. Giljam. (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4539.PDF and http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4542.PDF). I also refer to Administrator v. Alphin, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4643.PDF.

These are equally irrelevant, again. Same issues--pilot ignored or claimed ignorance versus pilot determined that IA was mistaken.

Further, in Administrator v. Werve, the NTSB clearly sets the standard under which a pilot may ignore a mechanic's findings. In that case, involving a door which had been written up but was not fixed because the problem could not be duplicated, the pilot tested the door several times and it worked properly. The NTSB found in the pilot's favor, but very clearly limited their findings in that situation.

And here we have the only case actually on point, and it proves my point exactly. Furthermore, this case clearly contradicts what you wrote above. Contrary to what you have previously stated, a pilot may indeed ignore the IA's statements if the pilot can reasonably prove that the IA's opinion is in error.

The bottom line is that unless you have PROOF that the discrepancies don't exist, the FAA and NTSB will consider the mechanic's findings telling, and the pilot will be done for.

Absolutely true, but also absolutely a different tack from your previous statements.