Another screwed by someone elses mechanics thread

[hindsight2020]

There are some silver linings on it happening on an airplane with EAB allowances. There's cheaper ways of getting back in the air. Swapping engines with a cheap used one of a different suffix variant (which opens up a ton of market that simply isn't available to a fac-built airplane largely married to a single specific engine variant model) being the biggest advantage. Likewise, IRAN on an engine bolted to an RV has cheaper options since you can put pretty much put/work on whatever the hell you want on that engine, to include widely available clone components. Hell even a used clone engine would be cheaper than going the tired full-on fac-built oVeRhAuL route.

I certainly empathize and share your frustration with the rank moral hazard of the recreational "aviation recall" cost-shifting onto the consumer, dynamic we're captive audience to in the AD system, in stark contrast with what American motorists experience as their status quo.

 

[David Megginson]

Every year at annual time, I go thru all the AD's for the engine, airframe and components. It normally takes me most of the afternoon. I don't have a fancy AD search App that most of the IA's use and go to the FAA site. I give my search to the IA who sighs off the annual for review.

For a privately-owned plane in the U.S., does your IA have to sign off that the plane is airworthy?

In my Canadian logs, they never write that my Piper itself is airworthy, only that they've carried out the annual inspection, found A, B, and C, and done work X, Y, and Z to CARs standard <whatever>.

 

[AKBill]

For a privately-owned plane in the U.S., does your IA have to sign off that the plane is airworthy?

Here is a sample of my last sign off for the airframe. "I certify this airframe has been inspected IAW annual inspection App D, part 43 and found to be airworthy"

 

[David Megginson]

Here is a sample of my last sign off for the airframe. "I certify this airframe has been inspected IAW annual inspection App D, part 43 and found to be airworthy"

Interesting. My last annual entry in my (Canadian) tech logs has a list of work items starting with carrying out an annual inspection in compliance with CAR 625.86 and the aircraft-specific manual, and ending with "The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements" and the mechanic's signature (exactly the same as for any non-annual-related maintenance in my logs). There's no assertion that the aircraft has been found airworthy.

 

[JAWS]

Very sorry to hear that. My next paragraph notwithstanding, it's a sh*tty position to find yourself in.

I'm not sure about the rules in the U.S., but in Canada, it's the owners who are responsible for ensuring AD compliance. We could accuse mechanics of giving us bad advice, but the buck stops with us.

Yep. Better system.

 

[JAWS]

For a privately-owned plane in the U.S., does your IA have to sign off that the plane is airworthy?

In my Canadian logs, they never write that my Piper itself is airworthy, only that they've carried out the annual inspection, found A, B, and C, and done work X, Y, and Z to CARs standard <whatever>.

That is correct. An annual is just another maintenance event. If the owner wants me to do an AD search and verification, that is another task.

 

[JAWS]

Interesting. My last annual entry in my (Canadian) tech logs has a list of work items starting with carrying out an annual inspection in compliance with CAR 625.86 and the aircraft-specific manual, and ending with "The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements" and the mechanic's signature (exactly the same as for any non-annual-related maintenance in my logs). There's no assertion that the aircraft has been found airworthy.

Nope. It is a bunch of inspection items and the results reported back to the owner. If he doesn't want to fix the cracked muffler, his decision. But I will be noting that in the entry, as required in the CARS.

 

[Bell206]

I'm not sure about the rules in the U.S., but in Canada, it's the owners who are responsible for ensuring AD compliance.

While there is a similar rule in the FARs holding owners responsible for Part 39 AD compliance, there is also a parallel Part 39 AD compliance responsibility for APs/IAs when performing certain inspections per Part 43.

For a privately-owned plane in the U.S., does your IA have to sign off that the plane is airworthy?

Yes. It’s a regulatory requirement per 43.11. And it also includes any inspection sign-off as noted in 43.11 regardless if by an IA or an AP. But it’s not just private aircraft as certain 125 and 135 aircraft have the same record entry requirements as well.

 

[Dan Thomas]

For a privately-owned plane in the U.S., does your IA have to sign off that the plane is airworthy?

In my Canadian logs, they never write that my Piper itself is airworthy, only that they've carried out the annual inspection, found A, B, and C, and done work X, Y, and Z to CARs standard <whatever>.

In Canada the AME certifies the work he did, or supervised, as meeting the standards of airworthiness. He doesn't certify the airplane as airworthy. In Canadian law that airplane is considered airworthy if there are no outstanding airworthiness defects, is within calendar/hour time limits, has been inspected and maintained in accordance with Canadian law, and so on. It has a "continuing" Certificate or Airworthiness.

There used to be problems under old law, where the AME signed the airplane off as "airworthy." It left him responsible for all the work previous mechanics had done to it. Inspections are supposed to catch previous mistakes, but often it's just a tire change or some similar job, and no AME should have to certify anything other than the work he did in a case like that. Aside from that, there might be flaws left by previous mechanics such as a poor metal repair job on a spar, hidden by doubler plates. No inspection will catch that unless there's evidence of fretting or shifting or buckling or whatever.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Owners are responsible for their airplane's airworthiness. They're responsible for AD compliance. Most owners wisely contract that out to a mechanic that understands what the AD is addressing; they're supposed to know this stuff and be careful about whether the AD applies or not. And yet, I have found many ADs mislabelled as N/A, or doing an unnecessary or wrong recurring AD inspection, simply because the mechanic was careless or rushed or something. For example, I found one AD signed off as N/A, an AD against some aftermarket cylinders on an IO-520 that limited them to more more than 1000 hours TIS. I had a closer look, and you have to get right down between the cylinders and find the part numbers stamped into the cylinder flanges. Not easy. Five of the six were indeed affected by that AD. The cylinders have been installed and the original Continental rocker covers installed, so the mechanic had probably looked at those covers and marked it N/A because they weren't aftermarket. Had OEM covers, see? A really common one is the Bendix ignition switch AD that dates back to 1976, and mechanics keep testing that switch every year without ever getting under the panel to verify the make and part number. Half the switches out there are ACS switches that have a completely different AD on them, so doing the Bendix AD recurring inspection is not only a waste of time, it risks keeping an ACS in service until it fails. And many Bendix switches were modified at the factory and identified with a date code; the AD didn't apply to them. Found lots of those signed off as checked at annual, too. Some of them were signed off for 30 years without catching the mistakes.

 

[David Megginson]

Owners are responsible for their airplane's airworthiness. They're responsible for AD compliance. Most owners wisely contract that out to a mechanic that understands what the AD is addressing; they're supposed to know this stuff and be careful about whether the AD applies or not. And yet, I have found many ADs mislabelled as N/A, or doing an unnecessary or wrong recurring AD inspection, simply because the mechanic was careless or rushed or something. For example, I found one AD signed off as N/A, an AD against some aftermarket cylinders on an IO-520 that limited them to more more than 1000 hours TIS. I had a closer look, and you have to get right down between the cylinders and find the part numbers stamped into the cylinder flanges. Not easy. Five of the six were indeed affected by that AD. The cylinders have been installed and the original Continental rocker covers installed, so the mechanic had probably looked at those covers and marked it N/A because they weren't aftermarket. Had OEM covers, see? A really common one is the Bendix ignition switch AD that dates back to 1976, and mechanics keep testing that switch every year without ever getting under the panel to verify the make and part number. Half the switches out there are ACS switches that have a completely different AD on them, so doing the Bendix AD recurring inspection is not only a waste of time, it risks keeping an ACS in service until it fails. And many Bendix switches were modified at the factory and identified with a date code; the AD didn't apply to them. Found lots of those signed off as checked at annual, too. Some of them were signed off for 30 years without catching the mistakes.

That makes sense. Personally, I treat it as a partnership — the AME brings a lot of expertise that I don't have, but in the end, it's my legal responsibility (and my bank account), so I'm the decision-maker, while the AME is my expert advisor and implementer.

For example, I spent a lot of time both reading and reading about the new spar-inspection AD for some PA-28s (including mine), then I met with the head of my AMO and we pooled what we knew and came up with a plan for addressing it. I would never try to make these decisions alone, but I know I can't just offload them onto an AME/AMO and say "here are the keys; make it legal," because I'm the owner — the person Transport Canada will come after first, and the person the insurance company might refuse to pay out to after an accident (and most importantly, the one who will be hurt if something breaks at 8,000 ft AGL).

 

[kmacht]

So much wrong in this thread. No, ADs do not apply to EXAB aircraft. EXABs get a condition inspection once a year and are not signed off as airworthy by the person doing the inspection, only that the inspection was done. There is no requirement to check or doccument applicability of ADs or SBs during that conditional inspection. Experimental aircraft are just that, experimental. The AD doesn’t apply because the builder of that engine could have done anything they wanted to while building it and those changes may no longer make the cause of the AD applicable. They could have put custom made low compression pistons in it, cut the crank in half and welded it back together shorter, bored the case out and put additional or larger bearings in, etc, etc. The only time an AD would possibly apply is if the owner decided to keep the original data plate for the engine. In that case the engine could be sold to put back in a certified aircraft if all the ADs were complied with and it was doccumented to have been maintained as if it were a certificated engine. Once the engine is modified or the data plate removed ADs no longer apply. With that being said it doesn’t mean you as the owner can’t review ADs for parts that might be in your engine and determine if you want to comply with them. In most cases it is a good idea to so but as far as the FAA is concerned you have no obligation to.

 

[Bell206]

No, ADs do not apply to EXAB aircraft.

FYI: Not quite. But only when noted in the AD applicability statement and regardless if item was modified or has a data tag or not. This guidance was clarified in 2012 if you care the read it. But you are correct there is no AD review required for a condition inspection... And there is a different regulatory track taken when an E/AB owner does not comply with a required AD. It is what it is.

 

[hindsight2020]

So much wrong in this thread. No, ADs do not apply to EXAB aircraft. EXABs get a condition inspection once a year and are not signed off as airworthy by the person doing the inspection, only that the inspection was done. There is no requirement to check or doccument applicability of ADs or SBs during that conditional inspection. Experimental aircraft are just that, experimental. The AD doesn’t apply because the builder of that engine could have done anything they wanted to while building it and those changes may no longer make the cause of the AD applicable. They could have put custom made low compression pistons in it, cut the crank in half and welded it back together shorter, bored the case out and put additional or larger bearings in, etc, etc. The only time an AD would possibly apply is if the owner decided to keep the original data plate for the engine. In that case the engine could be sold to put back in a certified aircraft if all the ADs were complied with and it was doccumented to have been maintained as if it were a certificated engine. Once the engine is modified or the data plate removed ADs no longer apply. With that being said it doesn’t mean you as the owner can’t review ADs for parts that might be in your engine and determine if you want to comply with them. In most cases it is a good idea to so but as far as the FAA is concerned you have no obligation to.

The whole "nope, that's not a Lycoming xyz you're looking at" stunt has been debated before. Removing the engine data plate in order to represent it as not a Lycoming because [I said so/well I modded it so there/potato] is not gonna fly with the FAA with regards to that crank. If that crank has a S/N that matches the list pursuant to the tables within the AD et al, they want that crank out of service. Pulling data plates and mutilating S/N is not gonna change the FAA's stance on it.

Fwiw, AC 39-7D states ADs do have to define the scope of applicability with specificity in order to account for the potential for these installations in non-TC aircraft, if they wish to include said installations in the scope. Reading the OPs AD, the applicability section makes it pretty clear it's cut and dry: If the crank S/N is in the list, it's gotta go. Getting cute with the FAA by saying this engine doesn't apply because I've trashed the originating identification for the part, fiddled with the appliance to my satisfaction and anointed it as my own concoction-by-modification-proxy, is not an avenue I'd personally be willing to pursue to front the FAA with, and lord knows I'm as anti-AD/fac-built as they come on here.




Which is why I recommended to the OP he just look for a different engine altogether to install as opposed to throwing good money after bad by overhauling his engine as though it was being installed in a fac-built airplane. More affordable options in the (1) used Lycoming clone and or (2) serviceable Lyco of a different variant suffix and of the same power rating, that's not affected by that crank AD. Either avenue not generally available to fac-built airplanes who are hamstrung to the one engine(s) model in their TCDS (or rando STC, for even more stupid $$$) for posterity, which is the beauty of EAB.

 

[Silvaire]

We got hit with that AD on our Maule and opted to buy the kit for yea, I think it was around $1600. We just kept it and sold it with the airplane a number of years later. It was an odd AD that basically said you "might" have a defective crankshaft in your airplane but hey, it's okay to fly it for the next ten years