Direct supervision by A&P

And then there is the owner is responsible for maintaining (which generally means work) an aircraft.
§ 91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.
 
SkyDog58 said:
That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
My supervision, my rules. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

The FAA allows me great latitude in what I allow. I tell my folks, there is some very cold water around here, it your sweet cheeks that are exposed not mine. Want to be safe? keep me in the loop.

And I require them to sign off every thing they do. prior to me signing under their entry.
 
Norman said:
Tom,

There are no rules stating what owners can or cannot do under supervision. It is up to the A&P/IA who he has trust enough in to make that determination.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Except,, When I'm not allowed, you aren't either.
 
Tom-D said:
....and I require them to sign off every thing they do. prior to me signing under their entry.
Click to expand...
I'm not worried with their signature....I just name them in my sign-off.

"Supervised John Doe with the following repairs....."
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I'm not worried with their signature....I just name them in my sign-off.

"Supervised John Doe with the following repairs....."
Click to expand...

But how would you sign off something that was not logged? "Major change to electrical system system by persons unknown"? I sure as hell wouldn't. OTOH he had done that in compliance with regs I might feel different about placing my certificate in the hands of the feds.

Every situation is at the discretion of the individual who places his name in the logs. Some of us are more picky than others. When I was signing logs my prime directive was to protect my ass.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Surprised that no one has yet to mention 43.3 (d).

(d) A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.
Click to expand...

The bolded part (I did the bold) precludes standing over your shoulder. But he/she must be somewhere nearby, and able to come over for consultation. Those words which I have made bold type, contain many variables. When your mechanic/inspector, has seen your work enough times to feel confident that his/her cert is in no danger by allowing you to complete the task at hand while he/she runs to the store, or goes to lunch, then so be it.
Some folks think that it means that the A&P must be standing there watching your every move. Which, BTW, is required for some, but not all.
It's up to the individual A&P/IA to decide the "extent necessary", Based upon the past performances of the individual performing the work.
 
GlennAB1 said:
I guess, due to the lack of supervision of my AFSC, I was never told that. LOL
Click to expand...

Well if you had an AFSC, then you were in the Air Force. So are you telling me that you came straight out of tech school and worked without any supervision? That's crazy. My guess is that you worked back shop and not on the flight line. If you worked back shop, then the avionics you worked on was bench checked for operation - it either worked or didn't. But someone signed it off as FMC and as a 3 or a 5 level, it wasn't you.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Well if you had an AFSC, then you were in the Air Force. So are you telling me that you came straight out of tech school and worked without any supervision? That's crazy. My guess is that you worked back shop and not on the flight line. If you worked back shop, then the avionics you worked on was bench checked for operation - it either worked or didn't. But someone signed it off as FMC and as a 3 or a 5 level, it wasn't you.
Click to expand...
Obviously, Air Force. Not E-3 out of tech school. First year, F-4, avionics bench, repair capability for several components (CADC was one), and also flightline. Remainder of enlistment was T-38 flightline. I signed off everything I ever did. And, I was definitely not back shop when I had to repair or replace wiring and cannon plugs because engine troops didn't disconnect them before removing the engine.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
My supervision, my rules. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

The FAA allows me great latitude in what I allow. I tell my folks, there is some very cold water around here, it your sweet cheeks that are exposed not mine. Want to be safe? keep me in the loop.

And I require them to sign off every thing they do. prior to me signing under their entry.
Click to expand...
yup....I'm currently supervising a removal of a complete vacuum system and new panel. So, far the vacuum pump, instruments and plumbing are out. The equipment list is redone, W&B is redone.....and it looks fine. But, this guy is an engineer friend of mine....who use to work for Lycoming. So, he's a good wrench....and knows when to stop and call me.

All's I need to do is take a look see....and sign the aircraft records. ;)
 
GlennAB1 said:
Obviously, Air Force. Not E-3 out of tech school. First year, F-4, avionics bench, repair capability for several components (CADC was one), and also flightline. Remainder of enlistment was T-38 flightline. I signed off everything I ever did. And, I was definitely not back shop when I had to repair or replace wiring and cannon plugs because engine troops didn't disconnect them before removing the engine.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you are younger than I am and were in the Air Force, specifically the maintenance field more recently than I. I was an engine mechanic in 1982 and retrained into ATC in 1992. By "signing off" things, do you mean red X's, diagonals, and dashes, in other words, signing off things that would otherwise ground the aircraft? Was your sign off more of a shop checklist kind of thing? In my experience, 7 levels and above were the only ones authorized to sign off things to make the aircraft airworthy again.

By the way, I never failed to unhook a cannon plug prior to removing an engine. So....it wasn't me. ;)
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'm going to assume you are younger than I am and were in the Air Force, specifically the maintenance field more recently than I. I was an engine mechanic in 1982 and retrained into ATC in 1992. By "signing off" things, do you mean red X's, diagonals, and dashes, in other words, signing off things that would otherwise ground the aircraft? Was your sign off more of a shop checklist kind of thing? In my experience, 7 levels and above were the only ones authorized to sign off things to make the aircraft airworthy again.

By the way, I never failed to unhook a cannon plug prior to removing an engine. So....it wasn't me. ;)
Click to expand...
LOL
I was in from Nov '76 to Sep '80. Took 59 days terminal leave, the maximum allowed.
I know I signed off diagonals, I don't recall anything being red x that I signed... but, that was a long, long time ago...
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
yup....I'm currently supervising a removal of a complete vacuum system and new panel. So, far the vacuum pump, instruments and plumbing are out. The equipment list is redone, W&B is redone.....and it looks fine. But, this guy is an engineer friend of mine....who use to work for Lycoming. So, he's a good wrench....and knows when to stop and call me.

All's I need to do is take a look see....and sign the aircraft records. ;)
Click to expand...
Your friend, your rules.
I've seen owners that couldn't wind their own watch.
 
yetti said:
And then there is the owner is responsible for maintaining (which generally means work) an aircraft.
§ 91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.
Click to expand...
Yetti:
If you check paragraph (b) of the same part it directs who can work on the aircraft. Paragraph (a) simply puts the entire responsibility of airworthiness on the shoulders of the owner. As an owner you are responsible to ensure all required maintenance is performed and logged in the aircraft record, all ADs are logged, all inspection requirements are complied with, etc, etc. HOW that maintenance, inspection, or AD is performed falls onto the qualified person performing the task.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Civil penalties. $$
Click to expand...
Sky:
FAA has no jurisdiction over un-certified individuals. Zero. There's nothing in the FARs or USC that gives them legal authority to apply "civil penalties" to non-certified people. The DOT or the DOJ would be the agency to apply those penalties.
 
Bell206 said:
Sky:
FAA has no jurisdiction over un-certified individuals. Zero. There's nothing in the FARs or USC that gives them legal authority to apply "civil penalties" to non-certified people. The DOT or the DOJ would be the agency to apply those penalties.
Click to expand...
I took it as the FAA would turn the case over to proper authorities to handle it.
 
GlennAB1 said:
LOL
I was in from Nov '76 to Sep '80. Took 59 days terminal leave, the maximum allowed.
I know I signed off diagonals, I don't recall anything being red x that I signed... but, that was a long, long time ago...
Click to expand...


Thanks for making me young again Glenn. ;)
 
Bell206 said:
Sky:
FAA has no jurisdiction over un-certified individuals. Zero. There's nothing in the FARs or USC that gives them legal authority to apply "civil penalties" to non-certified people. The DOT or the DOJ would be the agency to apply those penalties.
Click to expand...

You may be right as the Barefoot Bandit was not prosecuted by the FAA for what he did only the theft of aircraft or property.
On December 16, 2011, Harris Moore was sentenced in Island County court to more than seven years in prison. Superior Court Judge Vickie Churchill stated, "This case is a tragedy in many ways, but it's a triumph of the human spirit in other ways." Describing Harris Moore's childhood as a "mind numbing absence of hope," she stated the 20-year-old was genuinely remorseful for his crimes. Harris Moore has said that he plans to spend his time in prison studying in preparation for applying to college in order to earn a degree in aeronautical engineering.

On January 27, 2012, Judge Richard Jones of Federal District Court in Seattle sentenced Harris Moore to six and a half years in prison for his infamous, international crime spree. During sentencing, Harris Moore addressed the court and U.S. Judge Richard Jones saying that it is "no stretch of the imagination to say that I'm lucky to be alive." His federal sentence will be served jointly with state prison time.
 
If the Barefoot Bandit was not Prosecuted by the FAA what do the feds do with people in Alaska that fly around with no license. Also fly around in Aircraft that have not had any inspections in years and people that do what they want.
 
Bell206 said:
Sky:
FAA has no jurisdiction over un-certified individuals. Zero. There's nothing in the FARs or USC that gives them legal authority to apply "civil penalties" to non-certified people. The DOT or the DOJ would be the agency to apply those penalties.
Click to expand...
Think of it another way, those owners that do maintenance beyond FAR 43- allowances never make log book entries any way, so How can you pin it on them.
If it ain't in the logs it never happened.
So NTSB reverts to the last certified person to sign the log.
 
brien23 said:
If the Barefoot Bandit was not Prosecuted by the FAA what do the feds do with people in Alaska that fly around with no license. Also fly around in Aircraft that have not had any inspections in years and people that do what they want.
Click to expand...
brien23:
Well first it's Alaska. There are "different" rules. And second there's like a one blue badge for every gazillion square miles. Did I mention it is Alaska.

If there's anyplace the quote "only if you got caught" applies to it's up there. So I have no real answer for that question except don't f-up.
 
Tom-D said:
Think of it another way, those owners that do maintenance beyond FAR 43- allowances never make log book entries any way, so How can you pin it on them.
If it ain't in the logs it never happened.
So NTSB reverts to the last certified person to sign the log.
Click to expand...

Tom:
NTSB may revert back to the last sign off during the investigation, but in actually assigning any official blame rarely unless there was a smoking gun. Now in civil court very possible since the GARA Act passed in the 90s
 
Bell206 said:
Tom:
NTSB may revert back to the last sign off during the investigation, but in actually assigning any official blame rarely unless there was a smoking gun. Now in civil court very possible since the GARA Act passed in the 90s
Click to expand...
If you remember nothing else I say remember this, It is much more difficult to prove I had any thing to do with your aircraft, than it is to defend a statement made in a log book.
 
Bell206 said:
Tom:
NTSB may revert back to the last sign off during the investigation, but in actually assigning any official blame rarely unless there was a smoking gun. Now in civil court very possible since the GARA Act passed in the 90s
Click to expand...
I've just been thru a case where the NTSB laid the total blame for the accident on me, and the civil lawyers wouldn't touch it.

So that is not always the case.
 
Fly experimentals. Part 43 does not apply to them.
 
Tom-D said:
So, who is the lawyer to tell us what this really means?

(d) A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.
Click to expand...

Chief Counsel.

dtuuri said:
What's aviation coming to when it requires a lawyer to explain what this means?

dtuuri
Click to expand...

A world where the Chief Counsel writes law instead of lawmakers, just by writing a letter and hiding it in a thousand others in a website instead of in the law books.
 
Tom-D said:
If you remember nothing else I say remember this, It is much more difficult to prove I had any thing to do with your aircraft, than it is to defend a statement made in a log book.
Click to expand...

Granted. But if it is proven work was performed without a sign off you'll wish you had a write up. With the general consensus around most FBO coffee shops of it only matters if you get caught--believe me you don't want to get caught.
 
Tom-D said:
I've just been thru a case where the NTSB laid the total blame for the accident on me, and the civil lawyers wouldn't touch it.

So that is not always the case.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned rarely, but it does happen. Without knowing more details I couldn't give options, but it matters on how the ntsb laid blame. There are recourses to pursue if their conclusion is in error (i.e., blame the last sign off example.)

As for the civil side, they follow the money. Period. No money no touch. One civil case I'm very familiar with saw 4 of the 5 defendants released by plaintiffs/court after 18 months: 2 for proven no cause; 1 no insurance coverage; 1 had written proof were not first person to work on failed part. And the operator wasn't included due workman comp laws.
 
Isosceles said:
Fly experimentals. Part 43 does not apply to them.
Click to expand...

Isos:
Yes, but Part 91 and the operating limitations attached to your airworthiness certificate are applicable and carry the same weight as 43 to a TC'd aircraft,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top