First Annual - problem with IA brewing...

[flyingcheesehead]

You need to get your airplane out of that shop yesterday. You're absolutely, 100% asking for nothing but trouble and a HUGE bill at the end if you don't. Get the plane out first, fight over the bill second.

This. And take a lot of notes about what was discussed, when, and what you actually agreed to. I would take a letter with you stating that you do not consent to any additional work, with a statement at the bottom for the IA to sign saying "I have read and understand that the owner of N_____ does not consent to, and will not pay for, any further work." Sadly, I think it's highly likely there will be lawyers involved at some point, so best to have your ducks in a row.

In fact, I would go to the shop with a camera and document the current state the plane is in, and then hand over the letter and get the signature. If you asked for an annual inspection and all that has been done is to look under the panel (ie, no inspection ports opened, etc), then he hasn't done any approved work and I wouldn't pay a cent.

I would verbally explain that you're sorry to have to do this, but he has lost your trust through his actions.

I agree with the others that say get your plane away from this guy and take it elsewhere. Although I fear this won’t be the end of it for you. If the guy will call the manufacturer claiming you’ve got stolen equipment, I wouldn’t put it past him to call the FSDO on you the first time he sees you flying it after someone else signs off the annual.

It might actually be worth it for the OP to contact the FSDO himself and state what happened, especially with this "stolen equipment" thing. Provide copies of the relevant documentation (and get a statement from the person at Avidyne who let you know about it). State that you're aware that this isn't something the FSDO will negotiate, but that you want to be on the record right away that your plane has been properly maintained and that because of the IA's actions you want to cover your bases. Maybe even name the new shop you'll take it to for the annual instead of this guy.

After all, if someone's plane actually isn't airworthy, the LAST thing they're gonna do is contact the FSDO! If you contact them first, then the IA reporting you afterwards is going to raise their suspicions about him, not you.

 

[tom28z]

I think your best bet would be to tell them to sign off the annual with their discrepancies, pay the bill and find another shop and chalk it up to a bad experience. I’ve had an airplane come into my shop for an annual with blatant airworthiness problems and the FSDO wanted nothing to do with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3393RP]

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.

The space bar on keyboards is your friend.

 

[Punkinhead]

This. And take a lot of notes about what was discussed, when, and what you actually agreed to. I would take a letter with you stating that you do not consent to any additional work, with a statement at the bottom for the IA to sign saying "I have read and understand that the owner of N_____ does not consent to, and will not pay for, any further work." Sadly, I think it's highly likely there will be lawyers involved at some point, so best to have your ducks in a row.

In fact, I would go to the shop with a camera and document the current state the plane is in, and then hand over the letter and get the signature.

I don't know about you, but I don't sign anything just because someone asks me to. There's absolutely nothing to compel the IA to sign some home made document like that.

 

[bnt83]

Let me see if I have this right,

The guy that put the panel in followed the manuals, skipping optional equipment that was not required for the particular airplane, and a different guy (IA) is calling it unairworthy? I have no issues with the IA guy asking if you would like the optional stuff installed but if the radios are installed per the FAA approved data, then airworthy is airworthy. Trying to force someone to install options because of personal preference is...unethical.

Hell almost every Cessna out there has those crappy flush circuit breakers, I don't like them, doesn't mean I can force anyone replace them.


A hypothetical, some radio installation manuals state very clearly "MSxxxxx-x breakers required" and someone may have ignored it an wired it to one like pictured above, that would be unairwothy. Take the Garmin GTN series for instance, there is no power switch in radio so power must be turned off from it to reset it, (IRRC) that manual requires a breaker part # that can be manually tripped. I don't remember for sure but you get the idea.



Another hypothetical, say a Bonanza owner has his 430 upgraded to 430w and all the paperwork points to full IFR capability operations, seems correct but the installer never reviewed the installation manual and checked to make sure the 430w matched an approved configuration or they would have discovered the 430 was well out of the pilots field of view and at the time the old 430 was installed no external annunciation panel was installed. That would be unairworthy. IOW they needed to install the external annunciation panel so the 430w installation matched an FAA approved configuration.

 

[Keith Diamond]

I get the feeling there is more to this story.

Nope - thats pretty much it.

 

[bflynn]

I don't know about you, but I don't sign anything just because someone asks me to. There's absolutely nothing to compel the IA to sign some home made document like that.

Documentation that the requirements in the letter were presented and the IA refused to acknowledge it would be highly prejudicial in a court. It wouldn't look good for him.

On the other hand, that's a bit formal. Just tell him to stop all work.

What state are we talking about?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Documentation that the requirements in the letter were presented and the IA refused to acknowledge it would be highly prejudicial in a court. It wouldn't look good for him.

On the other hand, that's a bit formal. Just tell him to stop all work.

That would work too, but I would not leave the shop without my airplane in that case.

 

[Witmo]

The space bar on keyboards is your friend.

ThanksI'llbesuretofollowyouradvice.

 

[Ravioli]

View attachment 71051

Thanks for the pic. I can honestly say I've never seen the part of the CB behind the panel. I thought they were more like a fuse.

Learning of the day for me.

 

[Tom-D]

Except inoperative equipment makes the plane without an MEL unairwothy under Part 91 until an AP deactivates or removes and makes the appropriate logbook entry.

Then why do we have 91.7 ? operating in part 91 with no MEL. aircraft are operated IAW placards POH.

 

[Tom-D]

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

Thanks

What makes you believe FSDO is going to do anything about a A&P-IA that is over zealous ?
5 is an IA doing exactly what they are supposed to
6 Is a civil matter FSDO isn't going to get involved.

 

[Tom-D]

Local shop across the taxiway. Good to have in a pinch. Not this one...

Sorry lesson,, hope you learned.

Will they listen to your logic ?

 

[Clip4]

Then why do we have 91.7 ? operating in part 91 with no MEL. aircraft are operated IAW placards POH.

An MEL is an FAA authorization to operate with certain items inop for a defined period. Before making than authorization the FAA is provided an equipment list for the aircraft to make that determination.

In the absence of an MEL, the FAA requires an AP to inspect (maintenance by definition) the problem, make a determination if the aircraft is airworthy with that equipment inop, remove or deactivate the inoperative equipment and placard the cockpit and logbook entry.

With the exception to remove radios, a pilot is not authorized to remove, or inactivate as preventative maintence, nor is the pilot authorized to return the plane to service. Nor can a pilot just placard an item inop fly the plane. Once the AP is done, the pilot then determines if he wants to fly the plane with the inop stuff.

i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or

(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter;

 

[Bell206]

With the exception to remove radios, a pilot is not authorized to remove, or inactivate as preventative maintence, nor is the pilot authorized to return the plane to service. Nor can a pilot just placard an item inop fly the plane.

Not quite. You must of missed the FYI I posted in the previous page. There is FAA guidance that does allow this to include pilot performed removals provided it falls under the types of mx allowed under 43 App A(c). And even though the AC 91-67 I listed previously is cancelled and being updated it mirrored what is in the 8900.1, Volume 4:

1) Removal. Removal of any items that are not preventative maintenance requires an appropriately certificated maintenance person to:

2) Deactivation. A certificated pilot may accomplish deactivation involving routine pilot tasks, such as turning off a system. These actions fall under the definition of preventive maintenance in part 43 subpart A. In all cases, a person authorized to approve the aircraft for return to service under § 43.7 must make the maintenance record entry required by § 43.9. No person may operate the aircraft without the entry required by § 43.9.

The AC went even farther with log entry examples:

 

[Clip4]

Not quite. You must of missed the FYI I posted in the previous page. There is FAA guidance that does allow this to include pilot performed removals provided it falls under the types of mx allowed under 43 App A(c). And even though the AC 91-67 I listed previously is cancelled and being updated it mirrored what is in the 8900.1, Volume 4:

1) Removal. Removal of any items that are not preventative maintenance requires an appropriately certificated maintenance person to:

2) Deactivation. A certificated pilot may accomplish deactivation involving routine pilot tasks, such as turning off a system. These actions fall under the definition of preventive maintenance in part 43 subpart A. In all cases, a person authorized to approve the aircraft for return to service under § 43.7 must make the maintenance record entry required by § 43.9. No person may operate the aircraft without the entry required by § 43.9.

The AC went even farther with log entry examples:
View attachment 71086

You might want to read this opinion. It states the owner must have inoperative stuff fixed at the next inspection. That is why I am saying an IA signing of an annual cannot do so with inop equipment.


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2017/francis de joseph - (2017) legal interpretation.pdf

to your final question: "s it truly the intent of these provisions of the regulations to allow a 14 CFR Part 91 aircraft to operate indefinitely with inoperative equipment installed," as stated above, the answer is no. Section 91.405(c), which specifically references the § 91.213(d)(2) exceptions, states that the aircraft owner or operator must have those items "repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection."

 

[PaulS]

ThanksI'llbesuretofollowyouradvice.

Lol, that was really aggravating to read, nice work.

 

[Tom-D]

(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided—

(1) The flight operation is conducted in a—

(i) Rotorcraft, non-turbine-powered airplane, glider, lighter-than-air aircraft, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list has not been developed; or

This leaves it up to the pilot under 91.7

 

[Bell206]

You might want to read this opinion.

I'm familiar with it. I was responding to the comment that a pilot could not deactivate or remove items per 91.213(d). They can.

It states the owner must have inoperative stuff fixed at the next inspection.

The key word your missing here is "required" inspection as it states in the LOI. It could be a 100hr inspection in some cases. As whether a mechanic can sign a 100hr or an IA can sign an annual with inop equipment, he can per 43.11(a)(5) and provide a list of disc.

Where the debate still continues, on POA and other places, is that 405(c) states plainly: "... Must have those items "repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection..." which leaves open the possibility that a mechanic/IA could sign off the 100/annual listing the inop item as a disc per 43.11(b) then address this "new" disc separately and apply 91.213(d) exception. The rule is not settled on this. If 405 didn't reference "inspection: it would be a done deal.

There have also been discussions that the statement "the aircraft to operate indefinitely with inoperative equipment installed" means to operate with out any "review" of the inop item over an indefinite period. Even in the Part 135 MEL side there is/was a similar situation. In the course of operations certain aircraft would have a squawk which would be MEL'd then repaired within the required time period but the disc comes back at a later time/date. For example, a radar altimeter goes blank and is MEL'd cat B. An antenna is replaced and the MEL is cleared with a function check good. The next return flight the same problem and so on.

Each clearing of the MEL is legal per the FARs (same as the annual disc list above-its "inspected" per 405) but the problem would sometimes go on for a period of time. The Feds couldn't force a change to the operator MEL system via the FARs but they could through their OpSpecs. So in some cases the operator was required to quarantine that aircraft from revenue flights for a specific test time. Part 91 GA aircraft have no other route for the Feds to follow. Time will tell.

 

[Tom-D]

I'm familiar with it. I was responding to the comment that a pilot could not deactivate or remove items per 91.213(d). They can.


The key word your missing here is "required" inspection as it states in the LOI. It could be a 100hr inspection in some cases. As whether a mechanic can sign a 100hr or an IA can sign an annual with inop equipment, he can per 43.11(a)(5) and provide a list of disc.

Where the debate still continues, on POA and other places, is that 405(c) states plainly: "... Must have those items "repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection..." which leaves open the possibility that a mechanic/IA could sign off the 100/annual listing the inop item as a disc per 43.11(b) then address this "new" disc separately and apply 91.213(d) exception. The rule is not settled on this. If 405 didn't reference "inspection: it would be a done deal.

There have also been discussions that the statement "the aircraft to operate indefinitely with inoperative equipment installed" means to operate with out any "review" of the inop item over an indefinite period. Even in the Part 135 MEL side there is/was a similar situation. In the course of operations certain aircraft would have a squawk which would be MEL'd then repaired within the required time period but the disc comes back at a later time/date. For example, a radar altimeter goes blank and is MEL'd cat B. An antenna is replaced and the MEL is cleared with a function check good. The next return flight the same problem and so on.

Each clearing of the MEL is legal per the FARs (same as the annual disc list above-its "inspected" per 405) but the problem would sometimes go on for a period of time. The Feds couldn't force a change to the operator MEL system via the FARs but they could through their OpSpecs. So in some cases the operator was required to quarantine that aircraft from revenue flights for a specific test time. Part 91 GA aircraft have no other route for the Feds to follow. Time will tell.

My question is simple, the original discrepancy concerns a TSOed radio, which isn't an airworthiness issue to start with so why was it listed ? or why can't the owner pilot remove it as preventive maintenance?

 

[Keith Diamond]

Went to the shop trying to keep an open mind. Walked straight to the shop owner, not the IA. MUCH more reasonable compared to IA and what I have been hearing. He did admit they jumped the gun a bit with the whole paperwork thing. I don’t mind them wanting to see more paperwork but they weren’t talking to me first about it. Instead the IA hauled off and started asking Avidyne if my equipment was stolen. Embarrassing to say the least.
So- I get it, but they should have talked to me FIRST. Aside from that, I told him the dead wrong panel discrepancies on the install were not going to see the light of day, and he and I went over the whole list thus far it was otherwise reasonable.

At this point in time-crisis averted. Thanks all for the deep insight and technical guidance.

 

[Bell206]

My question is simple, the original discrepancy concerns a TSOed radio,

The discussion has moved on. This reply was to a comment that a pilot could not deactivate or remove items per 91.213(d). In the original post I agreed the non-TSO radio is a weak example but in my view the context was in repairing a disc found after an inspection not deferring as inop.

 

[JAWS]

Went to the shop trying to keep an open mind. Walked straight to the shop owner, not the IA. MUCH more reasonable compared to IA and what I have been hearing. He did admit they jumped the gun a bit with the whole paperwork thing. I don’t mind them wanting to see more paperwork but they weren’t talking to me first about it. Instead the IA hauled off and started asking Avidyne if my equipment was stolen. Embarrassing to say the least.
So- I get it, but they should have talked to me FIRST. Aside from that, I told him the dead wrong panel discrepancies on the install were not going to see the light of day, and he and I went over the whole list thus far it was otherwise reasonable.

At this point in time-crisis averted. Thanks all for the deep insight and technical guidance.

Good to hear.

 

[JAWS]

That is why I am saying an IA signing of an annual cannot do so with inop equipment.

I have, several times. If the piece of equipment is not required in the basis of certification or the operating rule, it does not need to be there. I give the owner the option of fixing it and if he declines, I inspect it to make sure it doesn't pose a hazard and placard it if not already done.

 

[Tom-D]

The discussion has moved on.

You mean thread creep has taken over. again

 

[Darter 100]

Better him being dead wrong about some unneeded maintence items than you being dead wrong about unneeded maintenance problems.

Yup yup

 

[bflynn]

Huh....does the 405 rule mean I’ll have to remove a LORAN unit? Definitely inop....

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

You mean thread creep has taken over. again

Jeepers.....creepers Tom. Fix it pal. Lol.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You mean thread creep has taken over. again

Yeah, that happens.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Huh....does the 405 rule mean I’ll have to remove a LORAN unit? Definitely inop....

Prove that your unit is inop.

(You can't... The LORAN chains are inop, but your receiver could be just fine! )

 

[Tom-D]

Prove that your unit is inop.

turn it on,, do you have a position?? no,, it's inop. doesn't matter why.

 

[Salty]

turn it on,, do you have a position?? no,, it's inop. doesn't matter why.

So you gonna placard everyone’s gps when they are testing the system?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

turn it on,, do you have a position?? no,, it's inop. doesn't matter why.

What about when testing a GPS under a metal roof?

 

[weirdjim]

What about when testing a GPS under a metal roof?

It will not matter. The GPS transmitter is reasonably strong and the GPS receiver is a marvel of sensitivity and multipath correlation. Perhaps inside a copper septic tank you'll not get a signal, but "metal roof"? Pshaw.

Jim

 

[Tom-D]

So you gonna placard everyone’s gps when they are testing the system?

what's a GPS have to do with a Loran?

or aren't you old enough to know what a Loran is?

 

[Salty]

what's a GPS have to do with a Loran?

You play dumb very well.

 

[Tom-D]

You play dumb very well.

OK,, tell us what a Loran is.

 

[Salty]

OK,, tell us what a Loran is.

A doctor Seuss character.

 

[Tom-D]

A doctor Seuss character.

I figured you didn't know the difference.

 

[Salty]

I figured you didn't know the difference.

A normal person would have just explained it.