Regulation regarding AD review?

alfadog

alfadog

Final Approach
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
5,057
Location
Miami
Display Name
Display name:
alfadog
Isn't it normal for an IA to verify AD compliance at annual? But is that anywhere in the regs? FAR Part 43 App D does not mention it. Yes, ADs must be in compliance for an a/c to be deemed airworthy but that is always the case, not just at annual, no? Is it just a convention that an IA makes a comment about AD compliance in the annual entries. Yes, perhaps we could say that it is on the checklist used (if it is) but could we not make up a legal checklist just off App. D and not mention the ADs?

Also, do the 100-hr logbook entries usually include similar wording to the annual entries regarding AD compliance?
 
Generally speaking, a 100 Hour is an airframe/engine inspection and can be done by an A&P without IA. The Annual Inspection is a paperwork review which must be signed off by an A&P with IA saying a/c is airworthy. He (she) may not even have to look at the airplane if an A&P has performed a 100 hour inspection.
 
What alfa dog said, for an annual The IA MUST do the inspection.
Also, because the ia is determining that the aircraft is airworthy, and if an ad is not done it's not airworthy, he/she had better check them all. Their but and certificates are on the line
 
N3368K said:
Generally speaking, a 100 Hour is an airframe/engine inspection and can be done by an A&P without IA. The Annual Inspection is a paperwork review which must be signed off by an A&P with IA saying a/c is airworthy. He (she) may not even have to look at the airplane if an A&P has performed a 100 hour inspection.
Click to expand...

That is so very wrong.
 
What I am coming up with is that 91.417 requires the owner, not any mechanic or IA, to maintain records of AD compliance. I am sure that owners' routinely consider it part of the annual inspection to pay an IA to do that record-keeping for them.
 
alfadog said:
What I am coming up with is that 91.417 requires the owner, not any mechanic or IA, to maintain records of AD compliance. I am sure that owners' routinely consider it part of the annual inspection to pay an IA to do that record-keeping for them.
Click to expand...

I think you’re interpreting the reg a little different than I do. It is the owner’s responsibility to retain the paperwork documenting that the ADs have been complied with. The majority of the time it is a mechanic that generates the paperwork that they must retain.

But you bring up a valid point. It has been my experience that 99.9% of the aircraft owners I’ve dealt with think that just because an airplane had an annual inspection within the last 12 calendar months they are good. Some of these guys will fly around with ADs not complied with for a lot of hours because they never take the time to educate themselves on what their responsibilities really are.
 
mondtster said:
I think you’re interpreting the reg a little different than I do. It is the owner’s responsibility to retain the paperwork documenting that the ADs have been complied with. The majority of the time it is a mechanic that generates the paperwork that they must retain.

But you bring up a valid point. It has been my experience that 99.9% of the aircraft owners I’ve dealt with think that just because an airplane had an annual inspection within the last 12 calendar months they are good. Some of these guys will fly around with ADs not complied with for a lot of hours because they never take the time to educate themselves on what their responsibilities really are.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whooooa! You’re saying pilots have responsibilities now?
 
mondtster said:
I think you’re interpreting the reg a little different than I do. It is the owner’s responsibility to retain the paperwork documenting that the ADs have been complied with. The majority of the time it is a mechanic that generates the paperwork that they must retain.
...
Click to expand...

Reread the reg. There is no mention of who generates the records but it is clearly the owner's responsibility to keep them and keep track of compliance in subpara (2). Subpara (1) mentions mechanics, not (2).

"each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records "
"(2) Records containing the following information:"
"(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required."
 
alfadog said:
Reread the reg. There is no mention of who generates the records but it is clearly the owner's responsibility to keep them and keep track of compliance in subpara (2). Subpara (1) mentions mechanics, not (2).

"each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records "
"(2) Records containing the following information:"
"(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required."
Click to expand...

My point is, who can actually do the AD compliance in most cases? It’s not the owner, so they wouldn’t be obligated to generate the entry stating that the AD was complied with.

As I said before, it is most definitely the owner’s responsibility to make sure the ADs are complied with and it is their job to make sure there is documentation that they are complied with as well.
 
Owners are required to maintain their aircraft PERIOD, all that language is in part 91 (operations). That's why AD signoffs include when they are next due, if an owner can't figure it out, they need educating.

IA cannot be held responsible for an owner flying passed an hourly recurring AD, that's on owner/operator.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
My point is, who can actually do the AD compliance in most cases? It’s not the owner, so they wouldn’t be obligated to generate the entry stating that the AD was complied with.

As I said before, it is most definitely the owner’s responsibility to make sure the ADs are complied with and it is their job to make sure there is documentation that they are complied with as well.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement :)
 
This is a part of the US system that I don't fully agree with. An IA certifies that an aircraft is airworthy, which by definition includes AD compliance. Yet the owner is also responsible for AD compliance as well. Seems like double dipping to me.

Here in Canada, an annual is treated just like any other maintenance task. The owner asks for an annual inspection, I perform the inspection and certify that it has been completed. The owner wants me to do the seat rail AD and the heater muff AD inspection? That is a separate task. The owner wants the worn out brake pads I found during the inspection to be replaced? That is a separate task. I only certify the work I perform.

Imports and exports are the only times I can think of where an AME would certify an aircraft as airworthy.
 
91.407 is a huge one that gets taken for granted. Like we just had an autopilot installed, I flew it and document that check flight before I flew it home.

Big operators have separate reporting forms to document each item affected on the airplane that requires a check flight, that list is then presented to the crew when they show up for the flight.
 
Last edited:
My mistake for spreading misinformation. For Part 91 ops I’ve seen more than one shop where A&Ps without IA do the physical work of 100 hour inspections “under the supervision” and the IA comes behind and does the AD compliance and checks behind the A&P and signs off the airplane. I’ve also seen A&P log entries for 100 hour inspection with IA entry for annual as two separate entries on the same date.

Maybe not correct or possibly just my misunderstanding but I’ve seen it done that way before. Seemed pretty common many years ago when I was young.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JAWS said:
This is a part of the US system that I don't fully agree with. An IA certifies that an aircraft is airworthy, which by definition includes AD compliance. Yet the owner is also responsible for AD compliance as well. Seems like double dipping to me.

Here in Canada, an annual is treated just like any other maintenance task. The owner asks for an annual inspection, I perform the inspection and certify that it has been completed. The owner wants me to do the seat rail AD and the heater muff AD inspection? That is a separate task. The owner wants the worn out brake pads I found during the inspection to be replaced? That is a separate task. I only certify the work I perform.

Imports and exports are the only times I can think of where an AME would certify an aircraft as airworthy.
Click to expand...

And there's another HUGE difference between the USA and Canada. In the US an AME certifies that a human being is airworthy. In Canada an AME is only qualified to wrench on aircraft. ;)
 
when an IA signs off the Annual Inspection.....he certifies that it's "Airworthy"....that means two things - 1.) It's Safe to operate and 2.) It "conforms" to the type certificate. AD's are a mechanism that addresses an unsafe condition.
 
Last edited:
N3368K said:
My mistake for spreading misinformation. For Part 91 ops I’ve seen more than one shop where A&Ps without IA do the physical work of 100 hour inspections “under the supervision” and the IA comes behind and does the AD compliance and checks behind the A&P and signs off the airplane. I’ve also seen A&P log entries for 100 hour inspection with IA entry for annual as two separate entries on the same date.

Maybe not correct or possibly just my misunderstanding but I’ve seen it done that way before. Seemed pretty common many years ago when I was young.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You are not wrong in that it is often done that way but it is a clear violation on the part of the IA.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
when an IA signs off the Annual Inspection.....he certifies that it's "Airworthy"....that means two things - 1.) It's Safe to operate and 2.) It "conforms" to the type certificate. AD's are a part of the TC.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in Part 39 nor Order 8040.1C that makes ADs part of the TC. Do you know of a reference for that?

§39.3 Definition of airworthiness directives.
FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances.

Order 8040,1C
1. Purpose of This Order. This order describes the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority and assigns responsibility for the development and issuance of Airworthiness Directives (AD) in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.
 
an A&P can sign off the 100 hour inspection.....but that doesn't negate the Annual Inspection (IA does this). An annual still needs to be signed every year.
 
The annual inspection, as noted, doesn’t include AD compliance. An aircraft can be inspected and signed off and remain unairworthy due to an AD. An AD can be issued that puts the aircraft in an unairworthy condition the day after an annual inspection has been done, you don’t get to glide to the next annual but at the same time you don’t need another inspection. The two things are separate. An IA is not needed for AD compliance, only the INSPECTION.
 
OK....an AD fixes an unsafe condition. I was wrong wrt TC....it's a mechanism that fixes an unsafe condition.

§39.3 Definition of airworthiness directives.
FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances.

§39.5 When does FAA issue airworthiness directives?
FAA issues an airworthiness directive addressing a product when we find that:

(a) An unsafe condition exists in the product; and

(b) The condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Click to expand...
 
Silvaire said:
The annual inspection, as noted, doesn’t include AD compliance. An aircraft can be inspected and signed off and remain unairworthy due to an AD. An AD can be issued that puts the aircraft in an unairworthy condition the day after an annual inspection has been done, you don’t get to glide to the next annual but at the same time you don’t need another inspection. The two things are separate. An IA is not needed for AD compliance, only the INSPECTION.
Click to expand...

I agree but...
Do you think that if an IA signed off an annual and approved for return-to-service in accordance with an annual inspection and specifically did not look at anything regarding ADs that he would be in hot water if there were pending ADs that rendered the a/c unairworthy when he RTS'ed it?
 
Yes....he would be in hot water, but the operator is also in hot water cause they are responsible for an airworthy aircraft too.
 
alfadog said:
I agree but...
Do you think that if an IA signed off an annual and approved for return-to-service in accordance with an annual inspection and specifically did not look at anything regarding ADs that he would be in hot water if there were pending ADs that rendered the a/c unairworthy when he RTS'ed it?
Click to expand...

Depends. Did he sign off the airplane as being airworthy or unairworthy at the end of the inspection?

If it was signed off as airworthy when it clearly wasn’t, I think that IA is going to be in hot water if/when it is caught by the wrong person.
 
mondtster said:
Depends. Did he sign off the airplane as being airworthy or unairworthy at the end of the inspection?

If it was signed off as airworthy when it clearly wasn’t, I think that IA is going to be in hot water if/when it is caught by the wrong person.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the IA need use the word "airworthy" in his sign-off. What if he just said "Performed an annual IAW ... and approved for return to service."? And it would not necessary be clear that it wasn't airworthy due to a pending AD, quite the opposite, in fact.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
I don't think that the IA need use the word "airworthy" in his sign-off. What if he just said "Performed an annual IAW ... and approved for return to service."? And it would not necessary be clear that it wasn't airworthy due to a pending AD, quite the opposite, in fact.
Click to expand...

Far 43.11 tells you what the entry needs to say. I’d say the entry should say “airworthy” if it is.

Edit: this type of question is exactly the kind of stuff on the IA test. The FAA wants to know that you know what your obligations are.
 
A person (IA) performing the annual has two options: authroize the aircraft as airworthy and return it to service or prepare a list of discrepancies as to why not.
It is absolutely required by the regs to verify AD compliance to do either one of those options.
 
mondtster said:
Far 43.11 tells you what the entry needs to say. I’d say the entry should say “airworthy” if it is.

Edit: this type of question is exactly the kind of stuff on the IA test. The FAA wants to know that you know what your obligations are.
Click to expand...

That is a good reference. Not a big fan of it but it is a good ref for this issue. According to that, the A&P or IA is required to make the call as to airworthiness. Which means a thorough check of AD's on each annual and 100-hour inspection.
 
alfadog said:
But is that anywhere in the regs?
Click to expand...
Yes. In Part 43. But it's a bit hidden and included with a few others things:
"If the person performing any inspection required by part 91 or 125 or §135.411(a)(1) of this chapter finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet the applicable type certificate data, airworthiness directives, or other approved data upon which its airworthiness depends, [...] "
 
alfadog said:
That is a good reference. Not a big fan of it but it is a good ref for this issue. According to that, the A&P or IA is required to make the call as to airworthiness. Which means a thorough check of AD's on each annual and 100-hour inspection.
Click to expand...

That reg just gives guidance for the content of the log entry. 43.15 is probably more what you’re looking for.

But yes, an IA absolutely does determine airworthiness at the time of the inspection. The airplane not only needs to be safe to operate but it must conform to the TC or its properly altered state.
 
mondtster said:
That reg just gives guidance for the content of the log entry. 43.15 is probably more what you’re looking for.

But yes, an IA absolutely does determine airworthiness at the time of the inspection. The airplane not only needs to be safe to operate but it must conform to the TC or its properly altered state.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is good...

§ 43.15 Additional performance rules for inspections.
(a)General. Each person performing an inspection required by part 91, 125, or 135 of this chapter, shall -
(1) Perform the inspection so as to determine whether the aircraft, or portion(s) thereof under inspection, meets all applicable airworthiness requirements; and
 
I’m just pointing out that the annual inspection is a separate entity, one that requires an IA. You can have the inspection done, it is now complied with but the aircraft might still have an uncomplied with AD. You don’t need an IA to do that. Normally an IA is going to do the AD compliance check and the return to service but that’s not an annual inspection requirement.
 
As an interesting sideline, if I am performing an inspection not required by Part 91, then I think it would fall back under RTS only for work performed. This whole thing came about because I was asked to do a 100-hour in advance of an annual for a privately-used a/c that has been sitting out-of-annual for a year. So my 100-hour was not required; the IA just wanted to inspect and not do any maintenance/repair - I did all that. The owner did not want to pay me to do the AD's as he knew he would be paying the IA to do that. I was concerned if I needed to look at them for a 100-hour but since this was not a REQUIRED 100-hour...
 
Silvaire said:
I’m just pointing out that the annual inspection is a separate entity, one that requires an IA. You can have the inspection done, it is now complied with but the aircraft might still have an uncomplied with AD. You don’t need an IA to do that. Normally an IA is going to do the AD compliance check and the return to service but that’s not an annual inspection requirement.
Click to expand...

I think the gist here is that the IA MUST say if the a/c is or is not airworthy in his maintenance entry so, yes, he would have to do the AD's.
 
Silvaire said:
I’m just pointing out that the annual inspection is a separate entity, one that requires an IA. You can have the inspection done, it is now complied with but the aircraft might still have an uncomplied with AD. You don’t need an IA to do that. Normally an IA is going to do the AD compliance check and the return to service but that’s not an annual inspection requirement.
Click to expand...

What you suggest is not uncommon. For example, there are some propellers with ADs on them requiring inspections that the average Mechanic cannot complete. One way around this would be to sign off the annual and fly the plane to the prop shop for AD compliance. If that AD is past due then it would get an “unairworthy” signoff and would require a ferry permit for the flight. If the AD is not yet out of compliance the annual could be signed off like normal then the owner would be on the hook for making sure the prop AD was complied with before the remaining time ran out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top