Justin DeStories
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 4
- Display Name
Display name:
DeStoriesAir
Hi,
I have a more technical question in regards to a general aircraft annual inspection performed by an IA and the Weight and Balance / Records Review.
Let's say a customer brings there rotorcraft for an annual inspection. The IA will be performing the maintenance and signing out under Part 65 and not Part 145 repair station.
The aircraft is re-weighed on electronic weight scales and a new Basic empty weight of the aircraft is found.
*Is the IA required to give the customer the equipment configuration of the aircraft as weighed?
Or can he just provide the customer the new empty weight and balance record and it is up to the owner/operator to update there Chart A/Equipment List/verify installed/removed equipment?
*What if during the records review primarily of the Chart A/equipment list, some discrepancies are found. Is it the requirements of the IA to correct the Chart A? Or does the IA just inform the owner of the discrepancies and it is there responsibility?
The big thing is, if the IA finds errors in the Chart A, and he legally does not need to update it, and the owner does not update it even after they have been informed, how can an accurate running total of the aircraft weight and balance be accurate?
*Example: The Chart A lists 2 transponders in the aircraft, but after getting the Chart A from the owner, it is found that only 1 transponder is actually in the aircraft and no records of the other transponder ever being removed is listed. Now when the IA does the re-weighing of the aircraft, adds the new empty weight and balance of the aircraft in the Chart A, there will become a discrepancy when the operator finally decides to update there Chart A with the entry of the removal of the transponder that was not actually in the aircraft AFTER the aircraft had been re-weighed (the transponder was technically not installed at the time of the aircraft weighing).
I hope this paints a picture to where an answer can be derived.....looking for a more legal interpretation.
Thank you in advance.
Jusitn
I have a more technical question in regards to a general aircraft annual inspection performed by an IA and the Weight and Balance / Records Review.
Let's say a customer brings there rotorcraft for an annual inspection. The IA will be performing the maintenance and signing out under Part 65 and not Part 145 repair station.
The aircraft is re-weighed on electronic weight scales and a new Basic empty weight of the aircraft is found.
*Is the IA required to give the customer the equipment configuration of the aircraft as weighed?
Or can he just provide the customer the new empty weight and balance record and it is up to the owner/operator to update there Chart A/Equipment List/verify installed/removed equipment?
*What if during the records review primarily of the Chart A/equipment list, some discrepancies are found. Is it the requirements of the IA to correct the Chart A? Or does the IA just inform the owner of the discrepancies and it is there responsibility?
The big thing is, if the IA finds errors in the Chart A, and he legally does not need to update it, and the owner does not update it even after they have been informed, how can an accurate running total of the aircraft weight and balance be accurate?
*Example: The Chart A lists 2 transponders in the aircraft, but after getting the Chart A from the owner, it is found that only 1 transponder is actually in the aircraft and no records of the other transponder ever being removed is listed. Now when the IA does the re-weighing of the aircraft, adds the new empty weight and balance of the aircraft in the Chart A, there will become a discrepancy when the operator finally decides to update there Chart A with the entry of the removal of the transponder that was not actually in the aircraft AFTER the aircraft had been re-weighed (the transponder was technically not installed at the time of the aircraft weighing).
I hope this paints a picture to where an answer can be derived.....looking for a more legal interpretation.
Thank you in advance.
Jusitn