"Owner assisted" annual

[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.

That's the problem, there are no one trains the pilot during their training as a private pilot.. why should they be required to know when there is no training in the area required?

 

[poadeleted20]

That's the problem, there are no one trains the pilot during their training as a private pilot.. why should they be required to know when there is no training in the area required?

What makes you think that training is not required? Check the PTS for PPL if you doubt me, specifically Area I, Task B:

B. TASK: AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 91; AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.

Objective. To determine that the applicant exhibits knowledge of the elements related to airworthiness requirements by:
1. Explaining—
a. required instruments and equipment for day/night VFR.
b. procedures and limitations for determining airworthiness of the airplane with inoperative instruments and equipment with and without an MEL.
c. requirements and procedures for obtaining a special flight permit.
2. Locating and explaining—
a. airworthiness directives.
b. compliance records.
c. maintenance/inspection requirements.​

d. appropriate record keeping.

Any instructor who signs an 8710 for PPL without ensuring the applicant is trained in this Task is remiss in his/her responsibilities. If an applicant fails to produce and explain the AD records on the aircraft provided for the test, and tells the examiner the instructor never taught that material (and it isn't in the applicant's logbook/training record), the examiner will file with the FSDO both a pink slip on the applicant and a report on the instructor.

 

[Tom-D]

What makes you think that training is not required? Check the PTS for PPL if you doubt me, specifically Area I, Task B:Any instructor who signs an 8710 for PPL without ensuring the applicant is trained in this Task is remiss in his/her responsibilities. If an applicant fails to produce and explain the AD records on the aircraft provided for the test, and tells the examiner the instructor never taught that material (and it isn't in the applicant's logbook/training record), the examiner will file with the FSDO both a pink slip on the applicant and a report on the instructor.

Its in an AC ? There are a bunch of PPLs that are "re-Miss" in this ..

 

[Tom-D]

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.

Amen,,,,,, what we are talking about is over regulation, and ambiguous definitions of the terms use in writing the FARs, which gives total control to the Government.

 

[brien23]

REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 91; AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Cant find this AC 61-23 does it exist.

 

[poadeleted20]

Its in an AC ?

To be technical, the PTS is not an AC, but the requirement to know this material is there.

There are a bunch of PPLs that are "re-Miss" in this ..

No doubt, and I've run into some of them when they go for their IR -- at which time that gets fixed. I only wonder how they got through their PPL practical test, although I met one who was sent home without his plane when he showed up with an overdue AD in the records he brought with him to the examiner's location. He was pretty concerned about making sure the AD's were all c/w when he went for his IR test.

 

[poadeleted20]

REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 91; AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Cant find this AC 61-23 does it exist.

It's the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, the current edition being AC 61-23C. See Chapter 2, pages 2-18 through 2-22 for this material.

 

[Tom-D]

To be technical, the PTS is not an AC, but the requirement to know this material is there.No doubt, and I've run into some of them when they go for their IR -- at which time that gets fixed. I only wonder how they got through their PPL practical test, although I met one who was sent home without his plane when he showed up with an overdue AD in the records he brought with him to the examiner's location. He was pretty concerned about making sure the AD's were all c/w when he went for his IR test.

To bring your story into focus in reality, We had a young man here take a well maintained PA28-140 to the FSDO examiner, the ops guys downed the aircraft for non compliance to the hose AD in the engine compartment. ( it was signed off inthe logs) and sent the student home.

My and Briens PMI was called into this mess and was asked to inspect and violate the IA who signed off the last annual (Brian) when our PMI look at the aircraft he left mad as he-- and told us the OPS examiner did know a teflon hose from his elbow.

So, Its not just being able to inspect the logs or explane to the examiner that you have had the minimal trainging to pass the Practical, it is knowing what you are looking at that really matters.

I find from talking to owners and pilots alike, they are for the most part clueless.

 

[poadeleted20]

To bring your story into focus in reality, We had a young man here take a well maintained PA28-140 to the FSDO examiner, the ops guys downed the aircraft for non compliance to the hose AD in the engine compartment. ( it was signed off inthe logs) and sent the student home.

That Ops Inspector violated his own Handbook which requires consultation with an Airworthiness Inspector before doing that. In any event, that event it is not germane to the discussion on whether or not pilots are required meet the standards in the Private PTS.

BTW, when the applicant in my story above objected to leaving the plane at the testing site, the DPE offered to call one of the Airworthiness folks at the FSDO to support his position. The applicant wisely declined the offer.

 

[Henning]

That Ops Inspector violated his own Handbook which requires consultation with an Airworthiness Inspector before doing that. In any event, that event it is not germane to the discussion on whether or not pilots are required meet the standards in the Private PTS.

BTW, when the applicant in my story above objected to leaving the plane at the testing site, the DPE offered to call one of the Airworthiness folks at the FSDO to support his position. The applicant wisely declined the offer.

I would have asked for a ferry permit

 

[Tom-D]

That Ops Inspector violated his own Handbook which requires consultation with an Airworthiness Inspector before doing that. In any event, that event it is not germane to the discussion on whether or not pilots are required meet the standards in the Private PTS.

BTW, when the applicant in my story above objected to leaving the plane at the testing site, the DPE offered to call one of the Airworthiness folks at the FSDO to support his position. The applicant wisely declined the offer.

I didn't mean to imply that the ops guys are the sharpest tool at FSDO.

But as I said before FSDO doesn't violate pilots for maintenance related items unless the pilot ignores warnings that the aircraft is not airworthy.

Your example and mine both prove this. (of course there will be one example to the contrary)

FSDO knows the guidance given. Most examiners know students are not capable of determening airworthines, and are not expected to.

When the examiner feels the aircraft presented to them is unairworthy, all thet they can do is fail the student, on the refference you gave in the PTS and send them home with a pink slip.

After the fact, they have the option to go for the cause of the noncompliance. In my example the DE wanted the IA's ticket, turns out the DE was wrong. In your example the student did not get a violation, and would not have gotten one until he tried to fly the aircraft home. You didn't give the FAAs action after the sudent went home, So I won't speculate what happened as a result.

The FAA knows it is impratical to prosecute the student or renter for maintenance related items. The student wanting to retake the exam will wait 30 days anyway. and the renter pilot wasn't responsible for the maintenance. but the FBO/A&P/A&P-IA was, and that is who the FAA wants.

For Henney, the ops guys at FSDO can't give a Ferry permit. only the Airworthiness inspectors can. Even after the Ferry permit is issued the A&P must sign off on it, So many times it is just easier to go fix the compliance issues.

 

[Tom-D]

It's the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, the current edition being AC 61-23C. See Chapter 2, pages 2-18 through 2-22 for this material.

Then it is an AC, I wonder how that applies to regulatory enforcement?

IOWs How can you hold a CFI responsible for training that is not a regulation?

 

[poadeleted20]

I would have asked for a ferry permit

"And how did this aircraft come to be at this location?" Better not to let the FSDO know the airplane had been flown by the applicant, which is what the examiner told the applicant.

 

[poadeleted20]

Then it is an AC, I wonder how that applies to regulatory enforcement? IOWs How can you hold a CFI responsible for training that is not a regulation?

It is a regulation. See 14 CFR 61.107, which specifically requires training from one's instructor in "Preflight Preparation," which is defined by the PPL-A PTS to include those items from AC 61-23.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

BTW, when the applicant in my story above objected to leaving the plane at the testing site, the DPE offered to call one of the Airworthiness folks at the FSDO to support his position. The applicant wisely declined the offer.

There's a story 'round these parts where an applicant showed up at the FSDO for his CFI checkride with an airplane that was out of annual. Similar ending - He had to take a pink-slip on the ride and ground-pound it home.