First Annual - problem with IA brewing...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bell206 said:
Typical. An owner posts about his first annual, claims the IA is screwing him without any examples, and there is already a few who want to hang the IA without a trial. And people wonder why mechanics are suspicious of most pilots/owners.

To OP: post a scanned copy of the IA's discrepancy list so that we may give you the wisdom you so desperately request.
Click to expand...

Well written!
 
Witmo said:
It may be a very fine point but an IA/mechanic does not declare (or sign off) an aircraft as unairworthy.
Click to expand...
As you've shown the discrepancy list is not mandatory until the sign off is completed.
Wasn't that the discussion?
 
Hey, if the OP doesn't want to post a list (without comment or annotation) of the discrepancies, then I say we stop this foolishness right here and now. Bashing the OP for not giving us further information or bashing the IA for padding the bill is simply floobydust. Horsefeathers. Bushwa. Pick your word.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Hey, if the OP doesn't want to post a list (without comment or annotation) of the discrepancies, then I say we stop this foolishness right here and now. Bashing the OP for not giving us further information or bashing the IA for padding the bill is simply floobydust. Horsefeathers. Bushwa. Pick your word.

Jim
Click to expand...

Seconded!
 
weirdjim said:
Hey, if the OP doesn't want to post a list (without comment or annotation) of the discrepancies, then I say we stop this foolishness right here and now. Bashing the OP for not giving us further information or bashing the IA for padding the bill is simply floobydust. Horsefeathers. Bushwa. Pick your word.

Jim
Click to expand...

I agree!
 
This feels like a thread that could reasonably be locked for being, whether intentional or not, just a trolling us. The OP provided nothing more than an emotional vent. It was probably genuine emotion. But the result produced nothing for us to work with.
 
I was the part owner of a HP complex aircraft for 20+ years, I can recall every discrepancy discovered at annual inspection. The reason is there weren’t many, most were very very minor or just stuff wearing out. Many annuals nothing was discovered because we always kept up on all the preventative maintenance and had the other stuff fixed as soon as we discovered it.

So I have to wonder what kind of trash cans people fly when an AP advises the owner something should be addressed and owner defers it. You already got the plane sitting in the shop, if you aren’t fixing it at that time, then when? And if you are such a good wrench why is an IA finding a bunch of stuff that should be addressed?
 
Why would you present any aircraft for annual that you knew had airworthiness issues? unless of course you intended to have them repaired.

I've 2 aircraft owners that are A&Ps I never find any discrepancies.
 
Clip4 said:
I was the part owner of a HP complex aircraft for 20+ years, I can recall every discrepancy discovered at annual inspection. The reason is there weren’t many, most were very very minor or just stuff wearing out. Many annuals nothing was discovered because we always kept up on all the preventative maintenance and had the other stuff fixed as soon as we discovered it.

So I have to wonder what kind of trash cans people fly when an AP advises the owner something should be addressed and owner defers it. You already got the plane sitting in the shop, if you aren’t fixing it at that time, then when? And if you are such a good wrench why is an IA finding a bunch of stuff that should be addressed?
Click to expand...

I've seen some pretty ugly aircraft over the years, but one must remember cosmetic stuff doesn't matter when you are declaring airworthiness.
 
weirdjim said:
Hey, if the OP doesn't want to post a list (without comment or annotation) of the discrepancies, then I say we stop this foolishness right here and now. Bashing the OP for not giving us further information or bashing the IA for padding the bill is simply floobydust. Horsefeathers. Bushwa. Pick your word.

Jim
Click to expand...

You forgot these, haha.

0:14 in...

 
Tom-D said:
I've seen some pretty ugly aircraft over the years, but one must remember cosmetic stuff doesn't matter when you are declaring airworthiness.
Click to expand...

I get it, but there no way stuff like tires, brakes, plugs, mag inspections, inop instruments, filters, batteries, missing knobs, leaks, broken seats, bad seat belts, ect should not be obvious to the owner.
 
Clip4 said:
I get it, but there no way stuff like tires, brakes, plugs, mag inspections, inop instruments, filters, batteries, missing knobs, leaks, broken seats, bad seat belts, ect should not be obvious to the owner.
Click to expand...
those things are not cosmetic.
 
weirdjim said:
Hey, if the OP doesn't want to post a list (without comment or annotation) of the discrepancies, then I say we stop this foolishness right here and now. Bashing the OP for not giving us further information or bashing the IA for padding the bill is simply floobydust. Horsefeathers. Bushwa. Pick your word.

Jim
Click to expand...
You're new here, huh? :)
 
Witmo said:
It may be a very fine point but an IA/mechanic does not declare (or sign off) an aircraft as unairworthy. All he can do is find discrepancies and the ones that affect airworthiness have to be listed and provided to the owner. If he finds discrepancies that negatively affect the airworthiness of the aircraft, he simply says he's completed the inspection, provided the owner with the list of unairworthy discrepancies, and doesn't say anything about the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but at my first annual 18 years ago the IA put a sticker in the log book stating "This airframe is NOT approved for return to service. A list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner" and same for the engine. Is that not declaring it unairworthy per the FAA? At the time I assumed it was and got a ferry permit to take it to take it elsewhere. Are you saying the ferry permit was technically not required?
 
flyingbrit said:
Is that not declaring it unairworthy per the FAA?
Click to expand...
Maybe. The more appropriate log entry is listed in 43.11. However, some AP/IAs prefer to use there own versions as 43.11 also includes the vague option "or similarly worded statement" within the regulation. However, I've seen more problems over using personal versions versus the 43.11 example.
flyingbrit said:
ferry permit was technically not required?
Click to expand...
Any time there is a write up stating a possible airworthiness issue there would need to be a corresponding write up correcting/deferring that issue. In your case the Ferry Permit would still be needed.
 
flyingbrit said:
Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but at my first annual 18 years ago the IA put a sticker in the log book stating "This airframe is NOT approved for return to service. A list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner" and same for the engine. Is that not declaring it unairworthy per the FAA? At the time I assumed it was and got a ferry permit to take it to take it elsewhere. Are you saying the ferry permit was technically not required?
Click to expand...

The IA found discrepancies that in his opinion were unairworthy and provided a (separate) written list to the owner. If they were legitimate, you would need a ferry permit to fly the aircraft, or correct them first. If you chose to ignore legitimate serious discrepancies and fly the aircraft, you would be guilty of flying an unairworthy aircraft. The pilot/owner determines airworthiness each and every flight, not the mechanic. Just like any pilot who does a preflight and finds something wrong and chooses to not fly the aircraft because he thinks it unairworthy--if he were to fly it anyway and have an accident, the FAA would probably sanction the pilot for knowingly flying an unairworthy aircraft. If the discrepancy that caused the first (preflight) pilot to reject the aircraft was in fact minor, and a second pilot accepted the airplane and flew it and didn't have any accident, the FAA would not be involved to review the situation. If he were ramp checked, he would be okay if the inspector agreed. Just because a mechanic thinks a discrepancy affects airworthiness and logs it as such doesn't make it cast in concrete and ground the aircraft as unairworthy. You are hiring the mechanic for his expertise so ignoring his findings is at your own risk but it's the owner/pilot who decides. If a second mechanic has a different opinion and clears the discrepancy as either non-existent or minor and the owner/operator decides to go with the second opinion he can do so. Now if an accident occurs due to the discrepancy, the second mechanic has some 'splainin' to do to the FAA because he has responsibility for the advice/inspections/work that the mechanic personally accomplishes and the owner/operator has a legal defense to ignore the first mechanic's finding of an unairworthy discrepancy. The whole point I'm making is the owner/operator is the responsible party in determining the airworthiness of his aircraft. To do this he utilizes the opinion of mechanics/IAs as well as his own experience and training. The IA who provides a list of unairworthy discrepancies to the owner of an aircraft is just like your buddy pilot you let fly your airplane and have him tell you, "no thanks, the brake pads are worn down too much and the left tire doesn't have enough tread showing." Should he have placarded your aircraft UNAIRWORTHY ,BRAKES AND TIRE NEED TO BE REPLACED BEFORE FLIGHT! The pilot doesn't have the right to declare your aircraft UNAIRWORTHY anymore than a mechanic. All either can do is inform you and you as the owner decides. Make the right decision and you're golden. It doesn't have to always be exactly what some mechanic says if he's mistaken or perhaps overly pedantic.
 
Here's a hypothetical. Upon annualing a certified standard category aircraft, the IA tells the owner he can't return to service the aircraft due to an unairworthy discrepancy listed separately as "non-TSOd aircraft comm radio installed." He tells the owner that he has a used TSOd Narco radio that he can install for $500 and complete the annual. Unless the owner installs it or some other TSOd comm radio, he will have to make the FAA standard write-up for a "failed" annual ie. Words to the effect of completing an annual IAW appendix d of part 43 and provided a list of unairworthy discrepancies. Is the aircraft UNAIRWORTHY because the IA says so? No. The owner could return the aircraft to service by stating that the mechanic who installed the non TSOd radio determined it's airworthiness and nothing in the regulations require comm radio to be TSOd for Part 91 operations. Oh by the way, the hypothetical owner decided to have a different IA for future annuals.
 
A couple points.
Agreed !
to start with avionics are not airworthiness items. we are allowed to go nordo. Secondly TSO is not required in part 91.

If the operator is operating in part 135 the IA may have a point, (other wise) Sign it off anyway you like, my A&P will fix it. "scribble scribble" good to go.
 
Is a A&P-IA required to sign it off at all?
 
Witmo said:
The owner could return the aircraft to service by stating that the mechanic...
Click to expand...
Almost. You still need a write up stating the non-TSO radio is not applicable to your Part 91 aircraft with a subsequent A&P sign off which provides the "approval for return to service." Then the owner can return the aircraft to service. The IAs original annual w/ disc sign off "disapproved" the aircraft for RTS. Airworthiness and ARTS/RTS are separate determinations. An aircraft can have a signed ARTS and still be unairworthy.
 
Certainly an aircraft with a signed aircraft return to service after annaul can be unairworthy. I see pencil-whipped annuals all the time. Again, the IA does not determine whether an aircraft is unairworthy, he just finds discrepancies, rectifies them on the spot or characterizes them as minor or unairworthy and if they are unairworthy writes them down separately and provide a copy to the owner. Just like declaring a discrepancy an unairworthy discrepancy when it is not, is an error, missing a serious discrepancy that is unairworthy is also an error. In my hypothetical example the aircraft was not unairworthy just because the IA said he found an unairworthy discrepancy (erroneously). Since it was never unairworthy, a log entry saying (politely why) the IA was full of **** suffices. There is no requirement to declare the entire aircraft "airworthy" after an annual as long as all "unairworthy" discrepancies are addressed and individually or collectively signed off by an individual authorized to return to service that discrepancy (ies). I can make an argument that the owner can sign the return to service for a discrepancy that is not a discrepancy provided he can cite what basis he has. I'd have a mechanic sign it just to be overly cautious but since the annual was accomplished and no legitimate unairworthy discrepancies were listed, the aircraft is by default airworthy. No IA is ever required to certify an aircraft airworthy and return to service said aircraft after all unairworthy discrepancies are rectified. The return to service for individual discrepancies can be signed off by any person authorized to rectify that particular discrepancy. When the owner sees all unairworthy discrepancies rectified properly and to his satisfaction, the aircraft can be flown legally. He has the list, he has the responsibility to see things that need to be fixed are fixed. If he gets killed because he ignored the cracked spar found during annual, he alone is responsible. The IA that found the cracked spar has met his legal obligation by informing the owner in writing (the List). He has no obligation to call the FAA although he might consider it his moral duty if he sees the owner disregard a legitimate safety of flight discrepancy.
 
Witmo said:
a log entry saying (politely why) the IA was full of **** suffices.
Click to expand...
Witmo said:
I can make an argument that the owner can sign the return to service for a discrepancy that is not a discrepancy provided he can cite what basis he has
Click to expand...
Witmo said:
The return to service for individual discrepancies can be signed off by any person authorized to rectify that particular discrepancy.
Click to expand...
Still not quite. Approved for return to service (ARTS) and return to service (RTS) are two very different and separate actions. Only a person authorized under 43.7 can sign an approval for return to service. So in your hypothetical example unless the owner has an A&P or similar certification, he can not sign off the required write up approving the aircraft for return service.

As I stated, once the IA signed the 43.11(a)(5) entry and provided the discrepancy list (non-TSO radio) per 43.11(b) the aircraft was disapproved for return to service. In order to reverse that, an entry must be made correcting/deferring the non-TSO radio discrepancy by a person under 43.7 with a signature per 43.9 which will provide the required "approval for return to service."

Only then can the aircraft be "returned to service" by the owner which does not require a signature. A "return to service" is accomplished by accepting and flying the aircraft. Without this paper trail you violate several Part 91 regs. Throw in the "IA was full of s***" sign off by the owner and you can add several more Part 43 violations. You had the right idea when you began, but this route is not correct.
 
Okay. I said I would have a mechanic sign for rectifying the (non) discrepancy out of an abundance of caution. Turns out it should be a mechanic signing the determination that the IA was wrong in listing it as a discrepancy in the first place and not just the owner since an owner with at least a private pilot certificate only approves rts for preventive maintenance.
 
Last edited:
In the maintenance records.
"This aircraft N-xxxx s not returned to service as safe to fly due to the following discrepancies".
and list them.
1.
2.
try to throw that list away.
 
Witmo said:
Okay. I said I would have a mechanic sign for the (non) discrepancy out of an abundance of caution. Turns out it should be a mechanic signing the determination that the IA was wrong in listing it as a discrepancy in the first place and not just the owner.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that the owner could make the entry returning the aircraft to service, providing they could state why.
" TSO'ed radios not required in Part 91", then state the reference. sign it with their pilots number.

I do not see that as a violation of FAR 43.7
(f) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the provisions of §43.3(g).

It isn't exactly preventive maintenance, but I don't see the FAA splitting hairs.

An actual maintenance discrepancy, NO I don't believe that would work no matter how trivial the discrepancy was .
 
Why not ask for the a&p/IA to write/type all information down on a sticky that can be placed in the log book???

I would never give a shop my log books, but you say I have to so they can complete annual.
NO they don't, give them a copy in the form of digital or paper. My logs don't leave my possession.
 
1RTK1 said:
Why not ask for the a&p/IA to write/type all information down on a sticky that can be placed in the log book???

I would never give a shop my log books, but you say I have to so they can complete annual.
NO they don't, give them a copy in the form of digital or paper. My logs don't leave my possession.
Click to expand...
If you can't trust your A&P-IA with your logs, why would you trust them with your aircraft?
 
Tom-D said:
It isn't exactly preventive maintenance, but I don't see the FAA splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
Tom-D said:
An actual maintenance discrepancy
Click to expand...
Technically it is a mx disc since it was found during a required inspection and the insp was signed off per (a)(5). This TSO radio example is a bit weak but preventive mx does not apply due to how the disc was discovered and its associated paper trail. It would definitely make for an interesting question at an IA renew meeting.
 
Tom-D said:
In the maintenance records.
Click to expand...
1RTK1 said:
Why not ask for the a&p/IA to write/type all information down on a sticky that can be placed in the log book???
Click to expand...
If talking about the discrepancy list, most owners don't want that in the logbooks. And it's their regulatory right not to have it entered. There are numbers of examples of mechanics doing this or trying to do this and every one lost the argument at the FSDO level.
 
Tom Agreed, and I DO trust my a&pI/A, I have known him for years, I let him write in my logs:)
It seems a lot of people are taking their planes to places that they have no experience with or knowledge of then reporting back here with horror stories. That was the just of my post if I were to take my plane to an unknown shop.
 
Last edited:
I'm so lucky. My IA knows I don't defer maintenance, and I trust him implicitly.

I dropped off my Citabria last week for an annual. They called to tell me it's finished. Field condition and Wx make it impossible to pick it up. I called today and asked how much I owe so I can send a check. I'll know what was fixed, if anything, when I pick it up.

I'll quit flying when I have to question someone my life depends on.

Ernie
 
So do we know what the problems were or are we being trolled?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wow. I wrote the whole story and then thought- nah these guys don’t want all this drama. I was wrong! Very impressive response.

So- I don’t have the list in hand right now but went to the shop the 2nd day he was working on it. I will try to bullet down some answers and details to prior posts.
  1. First annual with my first plane
  2. Prior mechanic was top notch and fully maintained the plane very well for an owner with deep pockets, fixing every item with no deferrals. I bought the plane while in annual and thought the third party pre-buy/annual shop did a thorough job as well.
  3. In December 2018 I had the panel redone. New cut panel, IFD-550, aspen efd, EI cGr-p and CGr-c, adsb in and out. Local shop was expensive and I tried hard but couldn’t make it work at their cost. Flew the plane to Saint Aviation at Marion FL and got a better panel at lower cost. I want to think the local shop wouldn’t be ****y about losing the business, but here we are.
  4. I stop by and the IA is focused WAY too much on the install and not the rest of the plane. I am fine if a thorough and competent mechanic finds items that keep me and my family safe- I get it, and I know planes are stoopid expensive. That said, he spends the first two days just going over the install. Nothing yet about what the plane needs to stay fit. I cringe, loudly.
  5. A few examples of dead wrong items he brings up:
    1. EFD requires a separate master breaker switch. NO is does not. Install manual says “optional”. Strike 1
    2. CGR requires the red and yellow warning lights. NO it does not. Install says only if 8” outside pilots center of vision. Strike 2
    3. Aspen RSM must go in the the back of the plane. NO it does not. Install says alternate location is above and forward of the pilot, given the pilots head is more than 12” away. Strike 3
    4. Avidyne FAA 337 must be filled out by a “Repair Station” which is irrelevant to the FAA. BUT this guy starts quizzing me on where I bought the equipment and was the shop authorized... WHAT?
  6. IA contacts Avidyne without my knowing, telling them I have installed a STOLEN unit and sending some pictures of the unit. Avidyne laughs, and sends the email to Saint Aviaiton, who then calls me and asks “what’s up”. Note that I paid Saint, and Avidyne drop shipped the unit to me directly prior to flying to Florida. Fencing is impossible here.
We haven’t even touched any actual airworthy items and before this if he said you gotta replace XYZ I would say, you bet, I’m on it- at whatever cost to keep my wife and kids safe. But this is NUTS.

Items 5 and 6 is why I think this needs to be reported to the FSDO.

I would obviously like to get my plane from them and go elsewhere, but I have to assume I now owe for an “annual” and will be out that at least. Not sure what else I can do...

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top