"Owner assisted" annual

[Tom-D]

I didn't say that there were no examples, just that there were none appealed to the NTSB. There may well be plenty of examples where the pilot didn't try appealing -- we just can't find out from the Internet.

After talking to fsdo this afternoon, they stated that they would never violate any renter for a maintenance issue, unless there were evidence that they ignored the rental agency's advisories, that the aircraft was down.

When they inspect the FBOs that rent aircraft, if they find the agency has not complied with an AD/maintenance issues/time life/etc, and has been allowing pilots to fly the aircraft, they will violate the agency not the pilot. He will advise FSDO to remove any operations certificarte and hold the certificate until such time as they comply and are re-inspected by FSDO.

He believes that the FBO has the greater responsibility thus the violation, but the pilot has no method to track time on AD compliance, there for they do not violate them, but FSDO has the option by the way the FAR is written.

I also understand that no violation will be written until the case has been discussed by FSDO ops and airworthiness inspectors and the Gov lawyers, they deside if they can win and is it worth chasing. (or does the perp go on the FSDO scat list and bear watching)

This is my interpertation from other conversations.

 

[TMetzinger]

That's been the attitude I've noticed as well. Aside from basic stuff (documents and things that should have been noticed on preflight), airworthiness is generally the primary responsibility of the operator.

Now if you get ramped and don't have the registration or airworthiness cert on board, or you took off with a completely bald tire... well then that's primarily on the pilot.

 

[Dean]

When you bought the 172 you became the owner, the operator, and the pilot, with responsibility for complying with FAR 21, 23, 43, and 91.

Is it realistic to think the Renter pilot should get a violation for an AD that ran over the time limit while the aircraft was in custody of the rental agency?

Or is it realistic to to hold the owner responsible for maintenance related items when the aircraft is on lease back to a rental agency?

IMHO the FAA needs to clarify the FARs as to who is the "OPERATOR" in these circumstances.

Your mech is probably grumpy because he just got off the phone with FSDO.

I guess I don't understand your point here. All the paper work was in order and all ADs had been complied with. I was just referring to how he put everything in a nice binder for future reference. He did the pre-buy and flew it home, so while he had all the books, he took it upon himself to make the binder. Most IAs would have handed them back the way he got them.
So whats your point here?

 

[poadeleted20]

After talking to fsdo this afternoon, they stated that they would never violate any renter for a maintenance issue, unless there were evidence that they ignored the rental agency's advisories, that the aircraft was down.

Considering that flying a plane with an uncomplied-with AD or other maintenance defect can get you and your passengers killed, I find this absolute statement as emphasized lacking in credibility. While I would not necessarily go through all the maintenance records on a plane if I knew and trusted the FBO, my first rental at a new FBO will include a review of all the logs on the plane I'm going to fly.

 

[Tom-D]

I guess I don't understand your point here. All the paper work was in order and all ADs had been complied with. I was just referring to how he put everything in a nice binder for future reference. He did the pre-buy and flew it home, so while he had all the books, he took it upon himself to make the binder. Most IAs would have handed them back the way he got them.
So whats your point here?

Basically I simply wanted to point out that you are now the one who is owner, operator, and pilot responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft from all respects.

What your mechanic did was to make life easier for himself later by arranging every thing nice a tidy. good logs are never a bad thing.

But if he makes a mistake who hangs? him or you?

Lets say he does not sign off the AD properly, you know it was due, you know it was done, but do you know the proper sign off verbage?

most owners won't, thus won't be able to comply with 91.405 (b) they see an entry and assume it is correct. when it isn't ? what then, should the owner get the violation or the A&P?

 

[Dean]

I understand now, and agree that most, not all ,owners take the word of their IA and assume all is done correctly and never check for them self.

 

[Tom-D]

Considering that flying a plane with an uncomplied-with AD or other maintenance defect can get you and your passengers killed, I find this absolute statement as emphasized lacking in credibility. While I would not necessarily go through all the maintenance records on a plane if I knew and trusted the FBO, my first rental at a new FBO will include a review of all the logs on the plane I'm going to fly.

You must keep the statement in the context it was given. Considering the FSDO is usually doing checks on their respective FBO's as a part of monitering the system. but when their is blood shed the whole matter of reviewing changes.

During the inspection process the FSDO inspectors both ops and airworthiness are on scene, when they find a problem, they are going after the party that has the most responsibility. And during these inspections it is very seldom the student or rental pilot.

Youir method of building trust in the FBO is a good thing, because we both know that people make mistakes.

 

[poadeleted20]

During the inspection process the FSDO inspectors both ops and airworthiness are on scene, when they find a problem, they are going after the party that has the most responsibility. And during these inspections it is very seldom the student or rental pilot.

Gotcha -- not at all the same as getting ramp checked or a post-accident investigation.

 

[Witmo]

Ther renter is not an owner or operator.

but as pilot, they have a the resopnsibility of PIC as per 91.7 that rule says "safe for flight" and if an aircraft is not safe for flight it is not airworthy. see (a) of the rule.

Assuming the renter is also going to pilot the aircraft, why do you say "the renter is not an owner or operator"?

From FAR Part 1, Definitions: "Operate," with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in Sec. 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

 

[Stache]

As example say the AD was signed off and it was not completed properly doesn’t make much difference. Who is at fault and what do you do?

First every pilot should carry a NASA form in their flight bag, if not get some they are white in color for pilots. The ones for mechanics are yellow and both are free. If you suspect something is not correct fill one out and mail it in. If there is an accident the NASA form will not help you.

In all cases when it comes to AD’s it is a shared responsibility for both the mechanic A&P/IA and owner/operator (pilot) and is recorded in accordance with part 91.417 which includes the following information:

1. A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; (How was it accomplished).
2. The date of completion of the work performed.
3. The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.
4. The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.
5. Method of compliance reference item (1) above if recurring when due next.

In the eyes of the FSDO inspector say the AD was missed for example. Both pilot and mechanic are responsible. The pilot for not checking the AD’s and records (preflight information) and operating a unairworthy aircrft. And the mechanic for missing a required inspection and approving aircraft for return to service in an unairworthy condition.

Now lets say the AD was reoccurring every 100-hours. The pilot over flies it by 0.5 hours. If it was recorded properly and now over flown the pilot is responsible. If the AD was not recorded when do next both are responsible because it a record issue. So the FSDO Inspector will have to determine was the AD over flown intentional or not this is what makes a difference in how it will be handled. FSDO inspecotor have a ENFORCEMENT DECISION TOOL (EDT) worksheet they have to fill out to determime if a violation did occur.

My recommendation is for all pilots to request from the FBO if a rental a list of all current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD number, and revision date. If you rent an aircraft the pilot has a responsiblity to inspect the aircraft records for certain things like inspections, which include ADs. Remember the pilot is responsible for airworthiness. The FBO would take a lot of responsibility if they dispatched an aircraft as airworthy and missed or allowed an AD to be over flown. This is why it is important for pilots to know when reoccurring ADs are due so NOT to over fly a required AD and on the preflight inspection this should be noted.

If the AD involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. This should be part of the preflight inspection checklist and then AD’s should not be missed. As a owner I would keep the same type of list with the preflight material.

Just one man’s opinion.

 

[poadeleted20]

The bottom line is that when you release the brakes to taxi out, you have bought whatever the provider of the aircraft has given you. This could not be more clearly stated than it is in the definition of PIC in 1.1, as well as 91.3(a) and 91.7(a). Like McCroskey said in the movie, when anyone accepts the duties of PIC, "Its his ship now, his command, he's in charge, he's the boss, head man, top dog, big cheese." And with that absolute authority comes commensurate absolute responsibility. If you think the FAA will let you off the hook after someone gets hurt in a plane of which you were PIC just because the FBO which provided the plane didn't tell you they didn't do an applicable AD, you are dreaming in Technicolor(TM). If you trust your FBO to give you only a plane that is fully up to legal speed, fine; if not, verify it yourself by reviewing the books. Just don't expect the FAA to forgive you if the FBO violates your trust.

 

[Tom-D]

I feel that the owner or rental agency acting as operator of any aircraft should be held responsible for maintenance related items as the rule is written. But I think the FAA has unrealistic expectations for compliance from renters. They in most cases they do not have access to the logs, plus the training tract for the PPL has no training related to any maintenance items such as researching AD compliance.


The FAA is now asking for your in put to change rules like this.

I suggest that each of you make an input to get 91.7(b) changed to place the owner or rental agency responsible for maintenance related items such as AD compliance. and, or a realistic diffination of the Operator and their duties.

That, or ask for proper training be placed in the Practical test standards.

 

[Tom-D]

As example say the AD was signed off and it was not completed properly doesn’t make much difference. Who is at fault and what do you do?

First every pilot should carry a NASA form in their flight bag, if not get some they are white in color for pilots. The ones for mechanics are yellow and both are free. If you suspect something is not correct fill one out and mail it in. If there is an accident the NASA form will not help you.

In all cases when it comes to AD’s it is a shared responsibility for both the mechanic A&P/IA and owner/operator (pilot) and is recorded in accordance with part 91.417 which includes the following information:

1. A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; (How was it accomplished).
2. The date of completion of the work performed.
3. The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.
4. The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.
5. Method of compliance reference item (1) above if recurring when due next.

In the eyes of the FSDO inspector say the AD was missed for example. Both pilot and mechanic are responsible. The pilot for not checking the AD’s and records (preflight information) and operating a unairworthy aircrft. And the mechanic for missing a required inspection and approving aircraft for return to service in an unairworthy condition.

Now lets say the AD was reoccurring every 100-hours. The pilot over flies it by 0.5 hours. If it was recorded properly and now over flown the pilot is responsible. If the AD was not recorded when do next both are responsible because it a record issue. So the FSDO Inspector will have to determine was the AD over flown intentional or not this is what makes a difference in how it will be handled. FSDO inspecotor have a ENFORCEMENT DECISION TOOL (EDT) worksheet they have to fill out to determime if a violation did occur.

My recommendation is for all pilots to request from the FBO if a rental a list of all current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD number, and revision date. If you rent an aircraft the pilot has a responsiblity to inspect the aircraft records for certain things like inspections, which include ADs. Remember the pilot is responsible for airworthiness. The FBO would take a lot of responsibility if they dispatched an aircraft as airworthy and missed or allowed an AD to be over flown. This is why it is important for pilots to know when reoccurring ADs are due so NOT to over fly a required AD and on the preflight inspection this should be noted.

If the AD involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. This should be part of the preflight inspection checklist and then AD’s should not be missed. As a owner I would keep the same type of list with the preflight material.

Just one man’s opinion.

Do you believe it is realistic to expect the airambulance pilot to do the reasearch to comply with the FAAs rule in real life when in almost every case the pilot and crew are on the run when they man up?

 

[Henning]

Considering that flying a plane with an uncomplied-with AD or other maintenance defect can get you and your passengers killed, I find this absolute statement as emphasized lacking in credibility. While I would not necessarily go through all the maintenance records on a plane if I knew and trusted the FBO, my first rental at a new FBO will include a review of all the logs on the plane I'm going to fly.

Exactly, you will review the logs, the logs read everything is good and signed off and in date/time. You do a preflight in accordance with the A/FM, everything is good. You takeoff and the prop falls off the airplane. The NTSB/FAA investigates and finds there has been an AD not complied with (it was missing from the compilation list as well). Under what grounds can you the renter pilot be held accountable? How were you to know that AD existed/applied?

 

[Henning]

In all cases when it comes to AD’s it is a shared responsibility for both the mechanic A&P/IA and owner/operator (pilot) and is recorded in accordance with part 91.417 which includes the following information:

.

Hold it, you added (Pilot) in there, 91.417 reads:

§ 91.417 Maintenance records.

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:


Please show me one piece of official information that says that a renter/pilot is an operator. You have 135 Air Taxi Operators, 137 Agricultural Applications Operators, 121 Scheduled Airline Operators, FBOs Fixed Base Operators.

The certificate I have in my says Commercial Pilot, not commercial aircraft operator. As a renter, I do not authorize or cause to use an aircraft, I use it. The person renting it to me causes and authorizes it to be used by putting it on a rental line, that's why they call them Fixed Base Operators. In the case of private rental, there is no operator so the entire onus falls on the Owner.

As a non IA renter pilot, I have absolutely NO POSSIBLE MEANS of knowing what ADs apply to an aircraft or their actual state of compliance. All I can do is look at the log book for the plane and see that all inspections are in date and to preflight the aircraft in accordance with the A/FM-POH. I have NO MEANS OF DOING ANYTHING FURTHER outside of that. I'll tell you this, if you as an inspector violate me, a renter pilot for an uncomplied with AD on a plane where the logs were current, you can expect to be sued for malicious prosecution and defamation of character, and you can bet I'll include your boss and your bosses boss.

 

[Tom-D]

Exactly, you will review the logs, the logs read everything is good and signed off and in date/time. You do a preflight in accordance with the A/FM, everything is good. You takeoff and the prop falls off the airplane. The NTSB/FAA investigates and finds there has been an AD not complied with (it was missing from the compilation list as well). Under what grounds can you the renter pilot be held accountable? How were you to know that AD existed/applied?

Knowing that the FAA won't allow their own web page to be used as an A&P-IA recert, stating they require us to have our own subscription to the FARs/TCDS/ and Service information. I doubt any pilot can do a proper AD search without their own subscription to TDATA.com or the like.

The way the rule is written the FAA could bust any pilot for not complying with 91.7 properly without a subscription to an AD research page/list.

If you except that the pilot is the operator of the aiurcraft, then every pilot that ever flew an aircraft did so illegally. Unless they did a complete AD search, and verified every AD was complied with and loggged properly. Plus they would have been required to track the time and compliance of every re-occuring AD on every component in the aircraft at the time they flew it. Plus every time lifed peice of equipment aboard.

The concept of pilots being the operator of the rental aircraft is absurd, unrealictic, and unobtainable for all but a very few pilots that are owners of their own aircraft, and hold an A&P-IA certificate also.

 

[Witmo]

...

The certificate I have in my says Commercial Pilot, not commercial aircraft operator. As a renter, I do not authorize or cause to use an aircraft, I use it. The person renting it to me causes and authorizes it to be used by putting it on a rental line, that's why they call them Fixed Base Operators. In the case of private rental, there is no operator so the entire onus falls on the Owner.

My earlier post quotes the FAR Part 1 definition of "Operate." Since using an airplane as a renter pilot does, is included in the definition of "operate", that renter pilot is also an "operator."

As an operator, the renter pilot is required by FAR to do due diligence in determining that the aircraft is airworthy. Of course that might mean asking the FBO or owner if all maintenance actions are complete and taking their word. If, upon an accident, the review of records indicates that the FBO or mechanic screwed up and the aircraft had not had an AD complied with, the renter pilot is off the hook and responsibility falls on the entity most responsible for the screw up--if the AD was good at the last annual/100hr inspection and had come due since then, the FBO/owner is responsible for it. If the mechanic/IA missed it at the 100hr/annual--he's responsible. The poor renter/pilot is the last guy in the food chain that will get hammered but if he rented it for say two weeks and sometime during that time he became aware of an AD coming due--you bet he'd be responsible for getting it complied with before flying again. At least that's the way I read the rules.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hold it, you added (Pilot) in there, 91.417 reads:

§ 91.417 Maintenance records.

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:


Please show me one piece of official information that says that a renter/pilot is an operator. You have 135 Air Taxi Operators, 137 Agricultural Applications Operators, 121 Scheduled Airline Operators, FBOs Fixed Base Operators.

The certificate I have in my says Commercial Pilot, not commercial aircraft operator. As a renter, I do not authorize or cause to use an aircraft, I use it. The person renting it to me causes and authorizes it to be used by putting it on a rental line, that's why they call them Fixed Base Operators. In the case of private rental, there is no operator so the entire onus falls on the Owner.

As a non IA renter pilot, I have absolutely NO POSSIBLE MEANS of knowing what ADs apply to an aircraft or their actual state of compliance. All I can do is look at the log book for the plane and see that all inspections are in date and to preflight the aircraft in accordance with the A/FM-POH. I have NO MEANS OF DOING ANYTHING FURTHER outside of that. I'll tell you this, if you as an inspector violate me, a renter pilot for an uncomplied with AD on a plane where the logs were current, you can expect to be sued for malicious prosecution and defamation of character, and you can bet I'll include your boss and your bosses boss.

I guess you plan to go pro se, because it is unlikely you'd find a lawyer dumb enough to take your case, or a judge who wouldn't dismiss it on a summary motion. True, the FBO renting out the plane, not the pilot renting the plane, is by this rule responsible for keeping the records, but that does not obviate the renter pilot's responsibility under 91.7(a) for reviewing them before taking the plane to ensure the plane is legally airworthy. If you don't check the AD list with those records (and that's something on which you should have been tested on your PPL ride, as well as a required part of the annual), you are on the hook for whatever wasn't done.

 

[poadeleted20]

Exactly, you will review the logs, the logs read everything is good and signed off and in date/time. You do a preflight in accordance with the A/FM, everything is good. You takeoff and the prop falls off the airplane. The NTSB/FAA investigates and finds there has been an AD not complied with (it was missing from the compilation list as well). Under what grounds can you the renter pilot be held accountable? How were you to know that AD existed/applied?

I will agree that if the AD was missing from the AD list prepared at the last annual and reviewed by you before taking the plane, you probably have a good defense, and the FAA will fry the FBO and IA who signed the annual, not you. OTOH, if you didn't even look at the list, I'd say you have no defense. And that's the only point I've been trying to make -- there is a degree of reasonableness here, but if you don't review the books, you can't effectively argue that you fulfilled your responsibilities under the FAR's, especially if the AD list in those books showed the compliance time for an AD had passed when you flew the plane -- in that case, even though the FAA will probably go after the FBO, too, you will be the first person they hang.

 

[Henning]

The way the rule is written the FAA could bust any pilot for not complying with 91.7 properly without a subscription to an AD research page/list.

Not really, the way the rule is being interpreted by some here says that.

If you accept that the pilot is the operator of the aircraft, then every pilot that ever flew an aircraft did so illegally. Unless they did a complete AD search, and verified every AD was complied with and loggged properly. Plus they would have been required to track the time and compliance of every re-occuring AD on every component in the aircraft at the time they flew it. Plus every time lifed peice of equipment aboard.

The concept of pilots being the operator of the rental aircraft is absurd, unrealictic, and unobtainable for all but a very few pilots that are owners of their own aircraft, and hold an A&P-IA certificate also.

Ahh, you see, I don't accept that a renter pilot is the operator. There is obviously confusion on this, and it is generated once again by the FAA's **** poor wording of the definition whether intentionally or out of ineptitude. Can a pilot be an operator? Sure, If I am a 1 man 135 service who owns the aircraft as well, I am owner operator and pilot. If I lease the plane from you, you are the owner, I'm the operator and pilot. If it's your 135 cert, and you lease the plane from me and employ me to fly it, I am the owner and pilot while you are the operator. The owner, operator and pilot are THREE seperate legal entities, they can all be carried out by the same person, although if there is no commercial enterprise you don't necessarilly have an operator (Say I come out and you rent me your Fairchild for a week to fly up to Alaska and back, owner and pilot, no operator).

There also seems to be some confusion between the act of operating and being an operator.

 

[Henning]

I guess you plan to go pro se, because it is unlikely you'd find a lawyer dumb enough to take your case, or a judge who wouldn't dismiss it on a summary motion. True, the FBO renting out the plane, not the pilot renting the plane, is by this rule responsible for keeping the records, but that does not obviate the renter pilot's responsibility under 91.7(a) for reviewing them before taking the plane to ensure the plane is legally airworthy. If you don't check the AD list with those records (and that's something on which you should have been tested on your PPL ride, as well as a required part of the annual), you are on the hook for whatever wasn't done.

Let's get this clear finally I can review the records all day long, those are records, it can appear that everything in the records is fine as far as I can see, the plane has proper signoffs on all required inspections. I have always stated that I as pilot have a duty to inspect the records. What I CANNOT DO is assure that the records and inspections are ACCURATE. In order to do that, I would have to be an IA and do an annual inspection on every aircraft. If there is an AD that is not listed, or that has been signed off as complied, how can I be held liable for it? How was I as a renter private pilot to know about it. Even if I do a search on the FAA website, there are ADs that ARE NOT THERE! I show that I know how to check for the required inspections, Annual, 100hr, Transponder, Altimeter. NOT AD COMPLIANCE, SHOW ME THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE PTS PLEASE!

 

[Witmo]

Ahh, you see, I don't accept that a renter pilot is the operator...
There also seems to be some confusion between the act of operating and being an operator.

You can be an operator without being a pilot but you can't be a pilot without also being an operator. You are saying that pilots are not operators and I don't see anything in the regs that supports this.

 

[Henning]

You can be an operator without being a pilot but you can't be a pilot without also being an operator. You are saying that pilots are not operators and I don't see anything in the regs that supports this.

You can be a pilot and an operator, you can be a pilot and not an operator in the context provided. It's just poor wording by beaurocrats.

 

[Henning]

I will agree that if the AD was missing from the AD list prepared at the last annual and reviewed by you before taking the plane, you probably have a good defense, and the FAA will fry the FBO and IA who signed the annual, not you. OTOH, if you didn't even look at the list, I'd say you have no defense. And that's the only point I've been trying to make -- there is a degree of reasonableness here, but if you don't review the books, you can't effectively argue that you fulfilled your responsibilities under the FAR's, especially if the AD list in those books showed the compliance time for an AD had passed when you flew the plane -- in that case, even though the FAA will probably go after the FBO, too, you will be the first person they hang.

I never said I wasn't dutied to review the books, I stated that I can't be held liable for what's not there.

 

[Stache]

I would like to take one more stab at the example situation of a propeller failing because an AD was not accomplished or was not listed in the aircraft log books (maintenance records) on a rental aircraft.

It is the responsibility of the operator (FBO) to substantiate that its record keeping system produces sufficient and accurate data to determine how the current status was obtained for the ADs.

When a pilot does the preflight inspection the FAA would not require a pilot to disassemble something to look at it. Like take off the spinner and check the propeller bolts for safety wire. But to continue the prop fails FAA investigates did the pilot perform a diligent preflight inspection?

Assume the pilot looked at the aircraft being rented and is given a status sheet showing the aircraft to be airworthy. Again the FAA does not expect the pilot to take the spinner off. So if a pilot checked the aircraft records and status sheet due diligent it would be considered prudent in this case.

So who would be at fault? The operator (FBO) who caused the aircraft to be operated with out an AD accomplished when they rented it to someone and the A&P/IA for missing it and of course the registered owner.

The pilot would also be considered an operator, but in the above example would not be at fault even as their hands were on the controls. The pilot caused the aircraft to be operated/flown this is a fact. It still comes down to could of known the AD was not accomplished or should of known. If the pilot did not have a complete AD list could he have known I would say no, as long as he was diligent in reviewing documents and records that are available.

In some cases pilots are held responsible for what is not in the records it all depends on the situation and who caused the aircraft to be operated. This is one reason in my humble opinion that part 91 needs to be covered more in ground school and what are the responsibilities of pilots.

I also believe because we are discussing this matter so much it has educated many pilots on what to look or look out for in the future.

Just one man’s opinion.

 

[poadeleted20]

I never said I wasn't dutied to review the books, I stated that I can't be held liable for what's not there.

Guess we're saying the same thing but from different directions. Let's review the bidding, and see if we do agree on the following basic points:

• If the pilot reviews the records and they're in order (current annual, AD list shows no items open, etc), the pilot has fulfilled his/her responsibility.
• If the books are not in order, and the pilot flies anyway (either fails to review them or doesn't realize they're not right), the pilot eats any discrepancies found in the books (out of annual, AD's showing overdue, etc).
• Either way, the FBO eats the weenie, but that's a separate issue which will not save the pilot's ticket if the books show the airplane wasn't legal.

Agreed? Which comes down to my original point -- either review the books yourself or bet your ticket that the unreviewed books show it is legal.

 

[jesse]

Is it just me or are Stache's posts really hard to read due to the font?

Are you writing in word and pasting onto POA? If so--paste into Notepad first and then copy that into POA. The non-standard font is distracting. It's enough to make me skip the post entirely.

 

[Henning]

Guess we're saying the same thing but from different directions. Let's review the bidding, and see if we do agree on the following basic points:

• If the pilot reviews the records and they're in order (current annual, AD list shows no items open, etc), the pilot has fulfilled his/her responsibility.
• If the books are not in order, and the pilot flies anyway (either fails to review them or doesn't realize they're not right), the pilot eats any discrepancies found in the books (out of annual, AD's showing overdue, etc).
• Either way, the FBO eats the weenie, but that's a separate issue which will not save the pilot's ticket if the books show the airplane wasn't legal.

Agreed? Which comes down to my original point -- either review the books yourself or bet your ticket that the unreviewed books show it is legal.

I agree with all that, however, in the other thread you commented

As I said originally, the practicality of checking isn't the FAA's concern. If you fly a plane subject to an AD, and the AD is not complied with, 91.7(a) has been violated, and as PIC, your ticket is on the line no matter whose plane it is.

and my point was always, that even checking the books, you cannot be assured that all the ADs were complied with. You cannot know unless you personally research and inspect them all. That is an unattainable standard. All you can do is your due dilligence which is to look in the logs for the sign offs of the required inspections and do the preflight as proscribed in the A/FM. If you do that, that is all that the renter pilot can be held accountable for. If there is an AD that has been failed to have been complied with that doesn't show in the books, the renter pilot cannot be held accountable for that.

 

[Tom-D]

I'd be willing to wager that there isn't a pilot reading these messages that can determine airworthiness by reviewing the logs.

There is simply no method for the pilot to know if an STC is properly installed, recorded, and logged properly. without the complete history records from OKC.

The pilot is reduced to faith in the maintenance department.

The rule does nothing for safety of flight.

 

[Henning]

I'd be willing to wager that there isn't a pilot reading these messages that can determine airworthiness by reviewing the logs.

There is simply no method for the pilot to know if an STC is properly installed, recorded, and logged properly. without the complete history records from OKC.

The pilot is reduced to faith in the maintenance department.

The rule does nothing for safety of flight.

That's been my point all along, all we can be held accountable for is to see if the plane is within inspection requirements. Outside of that, we have to trust that the people, owners and operators, (renter pilots are not operators) for properly performing their duties.

 

[Henning]

Guess we're saying the same thing but from different directions. Let's review the bidding, and see if we do agree on the following basic points:

• If the pilot reviews the records and they're in order (current annual, AD list shows no items open, etc), the pilot has fulfilled his/her responsibility.
• If the books are not in order, and the pilot flies anyway (either fails to review them or doesn't realize they're not right), the pilot eats any discrepancies found in the books (out of annual, AD's showing overdue, etc).
• Either way, the FBO eats the weenie, but that's a separate issue which will not save the pilot's ticket if the books show the airplane wasn't legal.

Agreed? Which comes down to my original point -- either review the books yourself or bet your ticket that the unreviewed books show it is legal.

BTW, by that concession, you have shown that the renter pilot is not catagorized as an operator otherwise this would not be the case.

 

[Witmo]

BTW, by that concession, you have shown that the renter pilot is not catagorized as an operator otherwise this would not be the case.

Hardly. It's obvious that you will not be convinced that a renter pilot is an operator. Picking apart Ron's words won't convince the rest of us that you can be a renter pilot and still not be an operator in an FAA context. Now if you can cite an FAA source...

 

[brien23]

That's been my point all along, all we can be held accountable for is to see if the plane is within inspection requirements. Outside of that, we have to trust that the people, owners and operators, (renter pilots are not operators) for properly performing their duties.

What if it is a club of 6 people who own the plane all pilots not A&P types and one goes 5 hr over the Bendix 76-07-12 AD that could have been done by a pilot, who gets the blame pilot or IA.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd be willing to wager that there isn't a pilot reading these messages that can determine airworthiness by reviewing the logs.

No, but there shouldn't be a licensed pilot reading these messages who cannot determine that the logbooks are in order, specifically that all entries in the books have been made IAW with 43.11(a), that there is an AD list from the last annual and that no listed AD's are not c/w, and that all required inspections (the AV1ATE list) have been accomplished and properly logged.

 

[poadeleted20]

What if it is a club of 6 people who own the plane all pilots not A&P types and one goes 5 hr over the Bendix 76-07-12 AD that could have been done by a pilot, who gets the blame pilot or IA.

The IA is not responsible for the operation of the aircraft after it leaves the shop, only its condition and documentation at the time s/he signs the annual. If a pilot overflies a recurring AD that is listed in the maintenance records, the FAA will hold that individual pilot responsible. If it was not listed in the AD list from the last annual inspection, they will go after the IA who signed the annual. A well-run club will have some method (grease board in the hangar, currencies page in the aircraft time book, tracking system in the scheduling computer, etc) to keep track of applicable items ranging from oil changes to 100-hour inspections to ELT battery expiration to recurring AD's so individual pilots can see at a glance whether the plane is good to go that day.

 

[Henning]

Hardly. It's obvious that you will not be convinced that a renter pilot is an operator. Picking apart Ron's words won't convince the rest of us that you can be a renter pilot and still not be an operator in an FAA context. Now if you can cite an FAA source...

No, no, this is America, innocent until proven guilty (except with the IRS) you show me anywhere in the FARs, ACs, or Interpretation Search of Chief Counsel Findings that states that a renter pilot for private use is catagorized as an operator.

 

[Henning]

What if it is a club of 6 people who own the plane all pilots not A&P types and one goes 5 hr over the Bendix 76-07-12 AD that could have been done by a pilot, who gets the blame pilot or IA.

The owner and/or clubs operations director and the pilot as long as the pilot was aware that the AD was in existance (listed in the log book). The IA has no liability as long as it was within service limits when he signed off the last inspection.

 

[Stache]

Sorry I will change the font, but maybe it just me.

To put it simple the annual inspection is only good until the ink dries on the logbook entry. Once an aircraft leaves the control of the A&P/IA they are not responsible for the aircraft unless they missed something on an inspecton in accordance with part 43.11.

Say as the example went 6 club members all owners. Keep in mind clubs are set up different and in some cases all of the club members are considered owner/operators depending on the charter so if something is wrong all member could be at fault (operational control).

I have to agree with Cap’n Ron he nailed it on the head.

 

[Tom-D]

No, but there shouldn't be a licensed pilot reading these messages who cannot determine that the logbooks are in order, specifically that all entries in the books have been made IAW with 43.11(a), that there is an AD list from the last annual and that no listed AD's are not c/w, and that all required inspections (the AV1ATE list) have been accomplished and properly logged.

OBTW the record of AD complince does not need to be a portion of the logs.... The ADlog system is a separate book. I see aircxraft that when you see the A/F engine and prop log you will not see any records of AD compliance.

How many times have you seen an entry that says " made major repair as per work order #xxx on file this facility"

 

[tdager]

I will agree that if the AD was missing from the AD list prepared at the last annual and reviewed by you before taking the plane, you probably have a good defense, and the FAA will fry the FBO and IA who signed the annual, not you. OTOH, if you didn't even look at the list, I'd say you have no defense. And that's the only point I've been trying to make -- there is a degree of reasonableness here, but if you don't review the books, you can't effectively argue that you fulfilled your responsibilities under the FAR's, especially if the AD list in those books showed the compliance time for an AD had passed when you flew the plane -- in that case, even though the FAA will probably go after the FBO, too, you will be the first person they hang.

And they wonder why GA is dying? This is ridiculous. I know when I went through PPL training, and the operators of the new local FBO/Flight training place do NO training in AD compliance or major aircraft log book review beyond the minimums required.

This is just plain getting out of hand. And before ANYONE says anything about PIC, dammit you can kill someone in a car if it malfunctions, yet I know I have never asked to se the maintenance records of the rental cars I have rented, or the PWC, or boat, or ANYTHING else.

We need to bring reasonableness back to GA flying. I have just gone through this with my first annual, and fortunately it was not too bad, but damn I can see how this can get insanely confusing and out-right stupid on a 30-year old airplane with various pieces and parts.