Finding more work.

Tom-D said:
43.9 (4) read it, There is no rule saying that a maintenance record must return the aircraft to service. There is a rule we must enter the work done. My entry would do just that. there is no airworthy statement there.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
43-9 does not require a statement stating the aircraft its airworthy.
plus the last statement in 43-9 (4) says that the write up is all that is required.

there also no rule saying that a mechanic can't place a statement in the log saying why the aircraft is unairworthy.

43-9 also says we are to make an entry, this entry is only required to state what we did, "(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

IMHO one of the fallacies of our system is the pilots are not required to write down the discrepancies. and there is no requirement that a mechanic state why they were required to work on the aircraft in the first place.
Click to expand...

Tom:
You are 100% correct on the write up requirements. But that was not the context of my replies to you or Salty. All maintenance, alteration , or preventative maintenance must be performed in accordance with 43.13 and inspections to 43.15. When completed you make the required entries per 43.9 and 43.11.

As far as I know the word "airworthy" in a write up is only required in an annual sign off, and as for the "approve return to service" your signature constitutes that per the same 43.9.

So to stick with your oil change example, if you perform half an oil change and find metal, but your customer is not concerned and demands you finish the oil change... what would be your regulatory defense to signing off half a maintenance task if the owner takes your entry to the fsdo and cites you violated 43.13(a)?

While the FARs may seem disorganized, there is a defined hierarchy. The owner is responsible for the overall airworthiness 91.403(a) to include how that airworthiness is documented in his record 91.405(b). Cherry pick at your peril.
 
Tom-D said:
Let us say it was not an inspection.
Supposed it was a simple oil / filter change, and they find metal in the filter.

does the mechanic have any leverage to require the owner to overhaul the engine, or even have it repaired?
Click to expand...
Is there not any maintenance manual guidance? Every engine I've ever worked on would require a high power engine run for a specific amount of time and if there was no metal in the filter it was good, if there was metal, it would be an engine change/overhaul.
 
§ 91.405 Maintenance required.
Each owner or operator of an aircraft -

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) Shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service;

(c) Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by § 91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection; and

(d) When listed discrepancies include inoperative instruments or equipment, shall ensure that a placard has been installed as required by § 43.11 of this chapter.

So what is an appropriate maintenance entry?

§ 43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, § 135.411(a)(1), and § 135.419 of this chapter).
(a)Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.

"Aircraft Registration: XXXXXX TTAF: xxxx
Cowls removed, engine oil drained, filter removed. Cowling re-installed. No further action taken at this time.
Mech: xxxxxxxx Licence: xxxxxxxx Date: xxxxxxxx"

That entry should satisfy both requirements. I would make a copy and add it to my own file on the aircraft. I have heard that getting the owner to counter sign is also a good idea, but have never gone down that road.

My entry will be good until the engine is touched again, either by me or by someone else.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Is there not any maintenance manual guidance? Every engine I've ever worked on would require a high power engine run for a specific amount of time and if there was no metal in the filter it was good, if there was metal, it would be an engine change/overhaul.
Click to expand...

See AC43.13-1B, Chp 8.
 
Bell206 said:
Tom:
You are 100% correct on the write up requirements. But that was not the context of my replies to you or Salty. All maintenance, alteration , or preventative maintenance must be performed in accordance with 43.13 and inspections to 43.15. When completed you make the required entries per 43.9 and 43.11.

As far as I know the word "airworthy" in a write up is only required in an annual sign off, and as for the "approve return to service" your signature constitutes that per the same 43.9.

So to stick with your oil change example, if you perform half an oil change and find metal, but your customer is not concerned and demands you finish the oil change... what would be your regulatory defense to signing off half a maintenance task if the owner takes your entry to the fsdo and cites you violated 43.13(a)?

While the FARs may seem disorganized, there is a defined hierarchy. The owner is responsible for the overall airworthiness 91.403(a) to include how that airworthiness is documented in his record 91.405(b). Cherry pick at your peril.
Click to expand...
First of all the customer can not demand you finish any thing.
I entered what I did, that is all that is required.
 
JAWS said:
See AC43.13-1B, Chp 8.
Click to expand...
ACs are not regulatory. and I see no relationship to the subject.
JAWS said:
§ 91.405 Maintenance required.
Each owner or operator of an aircraft -

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) Shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service;

(c) Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by § 91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection; and

(d) When listed discrepancies include inoperative instruments or equipment, shall ensure that a placard has been installed as required by § 43.11 of this chapter.

So what is an appropriate maintenance entry?

§ 43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, § 135.411(a)(1), and § 135.419 of this chapter).
(a)Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.

"Aircraft Registration: XXXXXX TTAF: xxxx
Cowls removed, engine oil drained, filter removed. Cowling re-installed. No further action taken at this time.
Mech: xxxxxxxx Licence: xxxxxxxx Date: xxxxxxxx"

That entry should satisfy both requirements. I would make a copy and add it to my own file on the aircraft. I have heard that getting the owner to counter sign is also a good idea, but have never gone down that road.

My entry will be good until the engine is touched again, either by me or by someone else.
Click to expand...

Why would you re-install the cowl?
 
JAWS said:
§ 91.405 Maintenance required.
Each owner or operator of an aircraft -

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) Shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service;

(c) Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by § 91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection; and

(d) When listed discrepancies include inoperative instruments or equipment, shall ensure that a placard has been installed as required by § 43.11 of this chapter.

So what is an appropriate maintenance entry?

§ 43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, § 135.411(a)(1), and § 135.419 of this chapter).
(a)Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.

"Aircraft Registration: XXXXXX TTAF: xxxx
Cowls removed, engine oil drained, filter removed. Cowling re-installed. No further action taken at this time.
Mech: xxxxxxxx Licence: xxxxxxxx Date: xxxxxxxx"

That entry should satisfy both requirements. I would make a copy and add it to my own file on the aircraft. I have heard that getting the owner to counter sign is also a good idea, but have never gone down that road.

My entry will be good until the engine is touched again, either by me or by someone else.
Click to expand...

JAWS:
All perfect examples of how YOU would determine what is an "appropriate maintenance entry." Unfortunately that determination is listed under Part 91 which applies to an owner/operator making that determination and not the mechanic. Our guidance in 43 on entries only states "shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:..." not what's "appropriate."

It might seem like splitting hairs but the USC/FARs put the owner as the head kahuna regulatory wise and from a legal stand point gives him more wiggle room than a mechanic. There is existing guidance on this.
 
Tom-D said:
First of all the customer can not demand you finish any thing.
I entered what I did, that is all that is required.
Click to expand...
Tom:
Maybe in your shop and rightly so. But as I explained in the post above an owner has more stroke in the matter than it may appear.

If an owner comes to your shop today for an annual and directs you to use an OEM annual form from 1962, the year he bought his plane, but you state I'll use the form I want to use per Part 43, who is correct per the FARs? The owner.

If a mechanic requires to make all his maintenance entries in a logbook only, but the owner hands him a bar napkin instead to make entry, who is correct per the FARs? The owner.

If an owner travels to your shop to pick up his aircraft after your annual, complete with your appropriate "found to be airworthy" sign off, but then determines during the pre-flight the aircraft is unairworthy, who is correct per the FARs? The owner.

If these are not examples of an owner demanding/insisting/mandating something then I guess I need a new dictionary.
 
Last edited:
My entry is just an example. In my example above, I would install the cowls to be a decent guy. Might also install the filter and add the oil. Might leave the cowl off.

But I would definitely be flagging the oil dipstick and throttle. Maybe some pictures as well.

Luckily for me, this is just a theoretical exercise. I have not had to deal with this kind of thing so far. My customers tend to take my advice.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Can the A&P sign the logbook noting the aircraft is unworthy, or can only an IA declare an aircraft unworthy?
Click to expand...
I think only the FAA or the pilot can declare unairworthiness.
 
Tom-D said:
Let us say it was not an inspection.
Supposed it was a simple oil / filter change, and they find metal in the filter.

does the mechanic have any leverage to require the owner to overhaul the engine, or even have it repaired?
Click to expand...
No.

Is this a CYA issue? :rolleyes:
 
paflyer said:
I think only the FAA or the pilot can declare unairworthiness.
Click to expand...

I once did a pre-buy on a PA28R that had some unauthorized repairs to the wings. I called the FSDO and one of the inspectors saw the upper wing skins were fastened with countersunk rivets; neither dimpled nor the normal button head rivet. He got me off the hook by hanging a "condition notice" on the plane effectively grounding it. He bailed me on that and I'm thankful for that.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Would a mechanic not declaring it airworthy be the same as rendering it unairworthy?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If it's in annual the owner can fly it away.
 
Tom-D said:
You hire me to do an oil & Filter change, I find metal in the filter, I show it to you, you tell me that's no problem it been doing that for several hundred hours.

What's my recourse?
Click to expand...

The owner sound like a real piece of ... er... work. I'd expect you to tell me what options are available to diagnose the source short of cracking the block. Have a friend that was told their case was cracked and he needed engine over-haul, etc. Second opinions at TWO major engine sites confirmed it was a "case crease mark" and not a crack. No leaking oil and he flew it another 900 hours to TBO without issue. At engine over-haul was also confirmed "not a cracked block".

Tom-D said:
Sorrowfully the NTSB does not look at it this way. I really do not know how a mechanic would prove what they wrote in a log book when the entry is no longer there.
Click to expand...

My mechanic sets up folders on his computer with the owners name and N number. When he prints a label, it is saved in the owners folder.

Now for the 180: Years ago I went to look at a Tiger that the owner said was NDH. In the logs after traveling, I noticed a new engine and prop due to prop strike (so I think "OK" the owner isn't very trustworthy), followed by a log entry 3 weeks after new engine install that states "Plane off airport "landed" into 8 feet of saltwater" (with "LANDED" in parenthesis) followed by a specific statement that there was no engine tear down (which I think the mechanic was covering himself). Now imagine there was no prop strike and no entry for the saltwater "landing"? There was no accident history for this N number.
 
Norman said:
I once did a pre-buy on a PA28R that had some unauthorized repairs to the wings. I called the FSDO and one of the inspectors saw the upper wing skins were fastened with countersunk rivets; neither dimpled nor the normal button head rivet. He got me off the hook by hanging a "condition notice" on the plane effectively grounding it. He bailed me on that and I'm thankful for that.
Click to expand...
I've done that once, with a rotted out longhorns on a Stinson 108-3. owner was there and saw the ASI pull the airworthiness certificate and got handed the letter grounding the aircraft. ended up selling the a/c for parts and the engine.
 
paflyer said:
I think only the FAA or the pilot can declare unairworthiness.
Click to expand...
Pilot options are " unsafe to fly " not unairworthy.

91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
 
Um, re-read the reg slowly...
 
danhagan said:
My mechanic sets up folders on his computer with the owners name and N number. When he prints a label, it is saved in the owners folder.
Click to expand...

How does he prove that, when you don't like the write up and throw it away. (assuming they gave you a sticker)

I simply don't give the sticker to the owner, my stickers do not have the N or the times on them. I place it in the book and write in the times as per 43-9.
 
Tom-D said:
How does he prove that, when you don't like the write up and throw it away. (assuming they gave you a sticker)

I simply don't give the sticker to the owner, my stickers do not have the N or the times on them. I place it in the book and write in the times as per 43-9.
Click to expand...

How do you prove it when the owner didn’t like the write up and cut the page out of the logbook?
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
How do you prove it when the owner didn’t like the write up and cut the page out of the logbook?
Click to expand...
That's the quandary isn't it?

it's a matter of who has proof, its the owners responsibility to get the sign off, but when there are pages missing form a log book, the NTSB will be asking a lot of questions about what that page contained. and when there is a smoking hole I'll bet the insurance companies will as well.
 
Tom-D said:
The only records we are required to keep are what we are required to show for renewal. and that's only an activity sheet.
Click to expand...
I don’t use that....so I don’t keep that.

I do keep files with every sign off ... but that’s for me.
 
Tom-D said:
How does he prove that, when you don't like the write up and throw it away. (assuming they gave you a sticker)

I simply don't give the sticker to the owner, my stickers do not have the N or the times on them. I place it in the book and write in the times as per 43-9.
Click to expand...

His have everything in fine detail and he stores everything. I imagine if something ever went to court over a single entry a mildly capable attorney could show the dozens of other entries that EXACTLY match the log book, and why would there be only one omission?

ZeroPapaGolf said:
How do you prove it when the owner didn’t like the write up and cut the page out of the logbook?
Click to expand...

By having a copy on your computer. If it floats your boat, shoot a picture with your phone and transfer to PDF. When I sold the Tiger this month and had nearly 2 suitcases of logs over 40 years, I was able to shoot each page of a book, transfer to computer and store using a JPG to PDF converter (free software). If I could do that many entries in about an hour and 15 minutes, I'm positive an A&P like Tom could do similar. Hell, you could shoot the customers entire log book, tell them you have a special support service storing their data and charge a nominal fee for that as well. I don't know anyone that likes to make logbook PDFs, but once in the work flow, it is quite easy.

Imagine the Scenario:

Customer: "Crap, I think I lost a log book"
Tom or A&P: "No worries, you paid me to make a backup for you"
 
danhagan said:
"No worries, you paid me to make a backup for you"
Click to expand...
I'd Bet that the number of freelanced A&P's that can do that is very low.

Simply because we choose to not deal with those we can't trust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top