Renter's responsibility to ensure airworthiness

[gprellwitz]

Over in the maintenance bay we were discussing a renter's responsibility, if any, to ensure that an aircraft they are going to fly is airworthy. The FARs put responsibility to ensure airworthiness and to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition on the owner and/or operator. They explicitly put the responsibility to ensure that the airworthiness certificate is in the aircraft on the operator. They put the responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is safe to fly on the pilot in command.


That being said, what responsibility does a renter have to review ADs, ensure that the paperwork is current, etc.? If he is ramp checked, does he or the FBO get a bust if the airworthiness certificate is not in the plane?

I haven't been able to find a definition of "operator" in the FARs, but would be interested if someone could point to one.

Some Relevant FARs

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur

§ 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required.

(a) Except as provided in §91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following:
(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable operations specifications issued under §21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the operations specifications issued under §21.197(c), or an authorization under §91.611) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district office.
(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second duplicate copy (pink) of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in §47.31(b), or a registration certificate issued under the laws of a foreign country.
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under §91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

§ 91.403 General.

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

I guess part of this comes down to determining just what constitutes "determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight." Is viewing the airworthiness certificate necessary for that task? How about reviewing the ADs? Or is his responsibility merely ensuring those things that he can determine in a thorough pre-flight? Obviously, he has a vested interest in making sure that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight, since he's at greatest risk if it isn't.

 

[Tom-D]

The operator of the aircraft is an entity that is not the owner, but has authority to cause the aircraft to be operated.

IOW the agency that is leasing the aircraft from the owner.

or when you borrow my aircraft, you become the operator.

also, just to confuse the issue you can operate the aircraft but not fly it. any intended use Not for the purpose of flight is operation, but any operation for the purpose of flight, is.

 

[gprellwitz]

The operator of the aircraft is an entity that is not the owner, but has authority to cause the aircraft to be operated.

IOW the agency that is leasing the aircraft from the owner.

Such as the FBO. That's my understanding, too. That seems to mean, though, that the owner and operator cannot be the same entity.

or when you borrow my aircraft, you become the operator.

But not when I rent from the FBO? Or are there TWO operators then? So the PIC may be the owner or operator, but needn't be either of them, right?

also, just to confuse the issue you can operate the aircraft but not fly it. any intended use Not for the purpose of flight is operation, but any operation for the purpose of flight, is.

Do you mean not fly it as PIC, or do you mean, for example, that a maintenance shop taxiing an aircraft and doing a high-speed taxi test is an operator?

 

[Anymouse]

For the example you give (a renter) the FBO would be the operator (assuming it's the FBO that's renting it to you).

The way I understand it, it is the operator's responsibility to get things done. It is the PIC's responsibility to ensure they have been done.

As far as the AD's go, ensuring that the annual/100 hour has been done would normally cover this, but there could be exceptions.

 

[Tom-D]

Such as the FBO. That's my understanding, too. That seems to mean, though, that the owner and operator cannot be the same entity.
But not when I rent from the FBO? Or are there TWO operators then? So the PIC may be the owner or operator, but needn't be either of them, right?
Do you mean not fly it as PIC, or do you mean, for example, that a maintenance shop taxiing an aircraft and doing a high-speed taxi test is an operator?

When you rent, you are not the owner, you are not the operator, your just the pilot.

because you have no direct agreement with the owner, the FBO does.

complicate that with the way some clubs are set up as owner operator.

To correct my mistake, when you borrow my aircraft, you have no written agreement, I still am the owner AND the operator, you are just the pilot.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I'm perhaps one of the more anal aircraft renters indirectly described in this thread. I try to review the aircraft maintenance logs for each airplane I fly to make sure the required inspections were completed and all AD's complied with. I'm probably not as thorough as the FBO is (though perhaps I am?), but at least I have peace of mind that I checked the documents before I preflight and operate the aircraft as PIC. If the FAR's put the responsibility on me to safely operate the aircraft (PIC), it's also my responsibility to check the logs. It only takes me a few minutes, so I don't mind it.

This is also why I try to fly only one or two specific airplanes at the FBO, so I'm very aware of the maintenance issues on those planes.

 

[Tom-D]

When you borrow my aircraft I am going to place you on my insurance as a named pilot, and hold a check from you for the amount of the deductable.

When you have an accident, I can do 1 of 2 things, use the check to pay for the damage, or pay the deductable and collect the insurance check and walk.

Am I the owner, operator, or are you?

 

[markb5900]

Well, I could be 100% wrong here. And don't have the FAR's handy to really look them up.
BUT, as PIC you are responsible as "I" understand it to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (safety of flight) and to ME that would include making sure all AD's have been complied with.
No matter who owns it, or rents it to you. The PIC still has ULTIMATE responsibility for the safety of flight of the aircraft.
Personally, I have reviewed the log books of the rentals I fly at one time. NO I don't do it before every flight and if I didn't TRUST the head of maintenance here I might. But I have seen how he keeps the log books and can sleep at night that there is no rental on the line that has any sort of problem with it.
Mark B.

 

[gprellwitz]

Well, I could be 100% wrong here. And don't have the FAR's handy to really look them up.
BUT, as PIC you are responsible as "I" understand it to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (safety of flight) and to ME that would include making sure all AD's have been complied with.
No matter who owns it, or rents it to you. The PIC still has ULTIMATE responsibility for the safety of flight of the aircraft.
Personally, I have reviewed the log books of the rentals I fly at one time. NO I don't do it before every flight and if I didn't TRUST the head of maintenance here I might. But I have seen how he keeps the log books and can sleep at night that there is no rental on the line that has any sort of problem with it.
Mark B.

I think I quoted most of the relevant FARs above, but there are probably others. I've reviewed the log books of the planes in which I've taken checkrides, and am very comfortable with the maintenance done on the planes at my FBO. But I haven't reviewed all the planes' logbooks, nor can I do it before each flight. They're kept by the maintenance facility, which isn't open weekends, and there usually wouldn't be time to do it even if they were readily available.


And yes, the PIC definitely has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of flight. I'm not convinced, though, that this necessarily equates to "airworthy." In fact, the two parts to 91.7 seem to bear that out. Hence my hypothetical above of not having the certificate visible in the plane.

 

[markb5900]

I think I quoted most of the relevant FARs above, but there are probably others. I've reviewed the log books of the planes in which I've taken checkrides, and am very comfortable with the maintenance done on the planes at my FBO. But I haven't reviewed all the planes' logbooks, nor can I do it before each flight. They're kept by the maintenance facility, which isn't open weekends, and there usually wouldn't be time to do it even if they were readily available.


And yes, the PIC definitely has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of flight. I'm not convinced, though, that this necessarily equates to "airworthy." In fact, the two parts to 91.7 seem to bear that out. Hence my hypothetical above of not having the certificate visible in the plane.

Understand, but if the flight has outstanding AD's or anything else that falls within "maintenance' of the aircraft that hasn't been done. How can the flight be conducted SAFELY. Therefore, the PIC is responsible for making sure that all AD's, 100 hours inspections etc.. are complied with.
The aircraft is not SAFE to fly, if those things are outstanding. IMHO
Mark B

 

[taters]

Very hairy territory but in my eyes...You are responsible for A.R.O.W , AD's and required inspections to fly the airplane. Im not saying that the IA who did the annual wont get in hot water since it was thier research with thier signature and that the FBO wont get an anal exam out of it either. But the only person that the F.A.A will for sure violate is the PIC. I actually put the A/C logbooks in the planes that I rent out so people can see for themselves if they have a question. I just read in AOPA online about a renter who got busted/viloated for flying a plane out of Annual by 2 days. FBO got nothing but a mean look from the FAA saftey inspector. I dont want to start some FAR's war becase those are always a losing battle but IMHO IF YOU RENT A PLANE AND ARE THE PIC YOU ARE OPERATING IT. Think about how it went at your checkride, what all did you have to show the Examiner to get the flight off the ground.

 

[Henning]

Such as the FBO. That's my understanding, too. That seems to mean, though, that the owner and operator cannot be the same entity.

That's not true, an owner can be the operator and pilot in command. They are three seperate facets that can all be the same, or all be seperate entities, or any combination of the above.

I'll give you an example, when I had my Ag Cat, I was the owner and the PIC, I was not however the operator. The operator was the person who held the Pt 137 Operators certificate I was flying for and leasing my aircraft to. Had I gotten my own Pt 137 Operators certificate, I would have been all three. When I flew for Operators that owned their own planes, they were the Owner and Operator, and I was PIC. Now, when my buddy who had a Pt 137 Operators cerificate leased a Cessna Ag Husky from a guy in Tennessee, and I flew it on Boll Weevil contracts for him, The guy he leased it from was the Owner, my buddy was the operator, and I was PIC.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

...BUT, as PIC you are responsible as "I" understand it to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (safety of flight) and to ME that would include making sure all AD's have been complied with.
...

Personally, I have reviewed the log books of the rentals I fly at one time. NO I don't do it before every flight and if I didn't TRUST the head of maintenance here I might. But I have seen how he keeps the log books and can sleep at night that there is no rental on the line that has any sort of problem with it.
Mark B.

Ok. You reviewed the logbooks. You noticed that AD's have been complied with. How do you KNOW that ALL of them have been complied with? Unless you know how to research them, I almost guarantee that you would not find all of them that may be applicable.

 

[markb5900]

Ok. You reviewed the logbooks. You noticed that AD's have been complied with. How do you KNOW that ALL of them have been complied with? Unless you know how to research them, I almost guarantee that you would not find all of them that may be applicable.

Without doing an AD search you really don't know.
But you as PIC are STILL responsible as far as I can tell for making sure that they are.
So, do you need to do some extra home work to be sure? YES you do!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Without doing an AD search you really don't know.
But you as PIC are STILL responsible as far as I can tell for making sure that they are.
So, do you need to do some extra home work to be sure? YES you do!

Do YOU know how to research AD's???

§ 91.403 General.

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

 

[markb5900]

Do YOU know how to research AD's???

§ 91.403 General.

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

Actually YES I do after doing some research on it.
The Owner/Operator is on the hook also probably, but the PIC is the one that is going to have something done against his certificate if there is an issue and it arose from an AD not being complied with!

 

[jwriteclub]

Knowing that a plane is out of annual?

I guess I can see violating the pilot. Most places I fly put a slip with the annual and 100hr date/time in with the airworthiness cert. If I see ARROW and that I am within annual/100hr, then I fell comfortable to fly.

If I got a bust, I'd take the training, or fight it if they wouldn't offer the training. It makes no sense that the renter of an aircraft from an FBO would need to, for example, do an AD search.

If it is, then the FARs need to be amended.

~ Christopher

 

[jesse]

I try to make sure the rental plane isn't going to kill me and check for the things I'm aware of. Like Greg said--the chances of you knowing by heart every applicable AD is somewhat slim.

 

[Everskyward]

It makes no sense that the renter of an aircraft from an FBO would need to, for example, do an AD search.

It doesn't make any sense to me either. The operator is the FBO (they may be the owner too). If they rent it to you they are releasing it as an airworthy product, at least as far as inspections and ADs are concerned. At least that's how I see it. It's commendable and probably a good CYA thing to do to run down the logbooks and check to see that the inspections are done, but that shouldn't be necessary. I'll confess that I can't remember ever having done an AD search on an airplane I have rented although most of the time I CRS. How about in the workplace? What if you work for an company which has 10, 15 or 100 different airplanes that you could conceivably fly. Are you going to know the current maintenance history of each one? At some point you have to trust someone else.

FWIW I have overflown a required maintenance inspection as PIC. Did the FAA find out? Yes. The company self-disclosed and consequently had to make some modifications to their dispatch release program. Did I get in trouble with the FAA? No. I never had any contact with them. I'm not even sure if they knew or cared who the pilot was.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't check the logs, etc except when interviewing a potential FBO to rent from. I don't pretend to know all the ADs, but seeing that logs appear to be current and the other paperwork is kept well goes a long way towards peace of mind. The willingness to show the maintainance logs (and apparent pride in them) is 80% of the way there IMHO.

Beyond that, what Jesse said.

 

[Richard]

Do YOU know how to research AD's???

§ 91.403 General.

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

Given that the three FBOs I've rented from couldn't adequately maintain a squawk sheet on their a/c, I was not surprised that they could not present the logs for review.

Sure, I can research the ADs but what good it that? The pertinent aspect is it properly notated in the ship's logs.

To their credit, one FBO actually responded to my request for access to the logs but I was told I needed to wait a full week.

 

[Henning]

Without doing an AD search you really don't know.
But you as PIC are STILL responsible as far as I can tell for making sure that they are.
So, do you need to do some extra home work to be sure? YES you do!

No, you as PIC are not held responsible for the AD research, you are responsible to know that all the applicable inspections are current, that is your entire responsability as PIC with regards to the logs and ADs, and as a renter, I seriously doubt the FAA would hold you to even that task. The Manufacturers and FAA send the ADs & MSBs to the owners of the plane, not every pilot out there.

 

[Henning]

Actually YES I do after doing some research on it.
The Owner/Operator is on the hook also probably, but the PIC is the one that is going to have something done against his certificate if there is an issue and it arose from an AD not being complied with!

Unless you subscribe to one of the AD search/management programs, I doubt you'll find them all. There's quite a few you won't find on the FAA website.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, unless you're dealing with the holder of an operating certificate, like 121, 135, 127, etc., the PIC is the operator. That means for the vast majority of us here on PoA, the PIC is responsible if the FAA finds out the airplane is out of annual or otherwise not legal for flight. The FAA may go after the FBO/flight school, too, because responsibility may only be shared, not delegated, but that doesn't change the PIC's responsibility if the plane crashes and it turns out an AD wasn't complied with, and the FAA will shoot the pilot first (but maybe not last).

So from the renter's perspective, if you take the FBO/flight school's word that the airplane is legal to fly, you are trusting that FBO/flight school with your ticket. Is that trust justified? That's part of the screening process you should go through before you fly anyone else's airplane, whether it's an FBO/flight school or your pal in the next hangar. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you'd best review all the logs yourself before flight.

How do you determine if the AD's are all complied with? You look at the AD log in the aircraft records, as that should be part of every annual. If it isn't signed off at the last annual, you are buying whatever the IA failed to identify. I suppose that there is a certain amount of wiggle room if an AD came out since the last AD and the FBO/flight school missed it -- you've certainly got a good lawsuit against them for any damages you incur as a result under the implied warranty of merchantability. But at the end of the day, the FAA will go after you first, so it's a darn good idea to either deal with an FBO/flight school you trust, or check the paperwork darn closely before flying.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

How do you determine if the AD's are all complied with? You look at the AD log in the aircraft records, as that should be part of every annual.

And how am I as renter/PIC supposed to know if the AD list is complete? Yes, I can verify that what is there is up to snuff, but I can't verify if it is complete.

 

[Henning]

First, unless you're dealing with the holder of an operating certificate, like 121, 135, 127, etc., the PIC is the operator. That means for the vast majority of us here on PoA, the PIC is responsible if the FAA finds out the airplane is out of annual or otherwise not legal for flight. The FAA may go after the FBO/flight school, too, because responsibility may only be shared, not delegated, but that doesn't change the PIC's responsibility if the plane crashes and it turns out an AD wasn't complied with, and the FAA will shoot the pilot first (but maybe not last).

So from the renter's perspective, if you take the FBO/flight school's word that the airplane is legal to fly, you are trusting that FBO/flight school with your ticket. Is that trust justified? That's part of the screening process you should go through before you fly anyone else's airplane, whether it's an FBO/flight school or your pal in the next hangar. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you'd best review all the logs yourself before flight.

How do you determine if the AD's are all complied with? You look at the AD log in the aircraft records, as that should be part of every annual. If it isn't signed off at the last annual, you are buying whatever the IA failed to identify. I suppose that there is a certain amount of wiggle room if an AD came out since the last AD and the FBO/flight school missed it -- you've certainly got a good lawsuit against them for any damages you incur as a result under the implied warranty of merchantability. But at the end of the day, the FAA will go after you first, so it's a darn good idea to either deal with an FBO/flight school you trust, or check the paperwork darn closely before flying.

Pray tell, you do an AD search on every aircraft you get in? No way, preflight would take 3 hrs and you'd need a subscription to one of the AD services and you'd have scour the log books for evey part and component. This is Absurd. PIC is PIC, the FBO is the Operator and the Owner is the Owner. They are responsible for making sure the ADs are found and complied with. The pilot is responsible to see that all required inspections are within their time in the log book. As long as they are signed off correctly, and the aircraft passes preflight, the non owner pilot has met his burden.

 

[KennyFlys]

And how am I as renter/PIC supposed to know if the AD list is complete? Yes, I can verify that what is there is up to snuff, but I can't verify if it is complete.

As I understand it, PIC is held responsible for something he or she may be incapable of verifying?

Our school uses a service (I don't know the name) from whom they print a list of applicable ADs to that serial number. Each AD is marked off as completed as well as logged in the appropriate log book. That's what works for us and the students have regular access to the logs.

 

[Henning]

As I understand it, PIC is held responsible for something he or she may be incapable of verifying?

Our school uses a service (I don't know the name) from whom they print a list of applicable ADs to that serial number. Each AD is marked off as completed as well as logged in the appropriate log book. That's what works for us and the students have regular access to the logs.

So, you search and verify the serial number of the airframe, engine and every component for ADs and make sure each is complied with? Do you also have the burn test certificate for all the interior materials? How do you know that all the ADs have actually been complied with and the owner wasn't just pencil whipping?

This whole thread is turning into a great misinterpretation of the regs. Read what the reg says is the PIC responsibility, and don't read beyond it.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

You are resposible to look the plane over and make sure it is in safe condition to fly and if any mechanical, electrical or structural conditions occur. Note, all references to PIC are about physical things, not administrative issues. Administrative issues are the duty of the owner/operator, and a renter of a plane for recreational use is neither. He is not the operator. The operator is the FBO.

 

[Tom-D]

First, unless you're dealing with the holder of an operating certificate, like 121, 135, 127, etc., the PIC is the operator. .

I don't believe that is true, other wise why would the FAA make the distinction of owner, operator and pilot in their regulations.

Every IA seminar I have attended the FAA says the owner operator is responsible for maintenance and the pilot is responsible for safety of flight.

The regulations are written that way, in the fact that the A&P-IAs will be trusted by the owners for proper maintenance, the A&P will hang beside the owner when the AD is found out of compliance, after annual is signed off as airworthy. with the exception of the AD went out of compliance after the annual.

plus the Operator is the party in phisical custody of the aircraft that is required to maintain the aircraft, the renter is not nor have they ever been responsible for maintenance.

but then???

Far part 39.9
What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does not meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?

If the requirements of an airworthiness directive have not been met, you violate 39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or use the product.

Who was that written to? Operator, Owner, Pilot?

It all hinges upon the proper definition of "Operator" can you quote one from the regulations? (1.1 doesn't give a good one)

this is as close as it gets

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use, or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §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).

 

[gprellwitz]

It all hinges upon the proper definition of "Operator" can you quote one from the regulations? (1.1 doesn't give a good one)

I agree. That's one of the things I was hoping someone would be able to point to. They do seem to be making a distinction in many places between owner, operator, and PIC; presumably with purpose in mind.

 

[poadeleted20]

And how am I as renter/PIC supposed to know if the AD list is complete?

You can verify that the AD list was prepared and signed at the last annual. Beyond that, you just have to trust the FBO/flight school. Would the FAA bust you if there was an uncomplied with AD that was issued since the last annual? Dunno, but none of the seven cases before the NTSB since 1992 involving AD compliance have involved anyone but the mechanic. OTOH, if it's an AD, it may be something life-threatening, so personal safety interest might be more important than FAA enforcement in how aggressively you want to investigate whether there are any outstanding AD's on the plane you rent.

 

[poadeleted20]

Pray tell, you do an AD search on every aircraft you get in?

No, but I do verify the AD compliance list from the last annual before I get in a client's plane.

PIC is PIC, the FBO is the Operator and the Owner is the Owner.

The FAA might disagree with your statement that the PIC is not the operator of a rental aircraft.

The pilot is responsible to see that all required inspections are within their time in the log book. As long as they are signed off correctly, and the aircraft passes preflight, the non owner pilot has met his burden.

I do not believe the FAA will see it your way. In addition, I know for sure that if you show up for a practical test with an airplane without a properly prepared and signed AD compliance list from the last annual in the maintenance records you present, you may have to walk home with your pink slip, even if it's a rental plane.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't believe that is true, other wise why would the FAA make the distinction of owner, operator and pilot in their regulations.It all hinges upon the proper definition of "Operator" can you quote one from the regulations? (1.1 doesn't give a good one)

this is as close as it gets

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use, or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §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).

Take another look at that word before the red words -- "use." The PIC is using the plane, so the PIC is "operating" the plane. Given that AD compliance is a necessary condition for airworthiness, and 91.7(a) says "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition," the issue is pretty well open-and-shut. Since the PIC is, by definition, "operating" the aircraft, the definition of the term "operator" doesn't matter in this discussion -- 91.7(a) doesn't use the term, and the PIC operating the aircraft is responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft s/he is flying. How far will the FAA take that for a plane the pilot doesn't own? Can't tell for sure from case histories, but I'd do enough investigating of the FBO/flight school's maintenance records that I was comfortable betting my ticket on their recordkeeping.

 

[bobmrg]

Cap'n Ron is 100% correct, and those of you who assert that a renter pilot or borrower is somehow off the hook are guilty of sophistry. There is at least one article in the AOPA Legally Speaking series (which I am too lazy to look up) pointing out that the person who is going to fly the airplane as PIC does indeed carry the can for outstanding AD's, inspections, et al. The fact that hardy anyone looks them up, and that FBO's do not make such research easy, is no excuse.

Bob Gardner

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I just like to stir the pot occasionally.

The FAA might disagree with your statement that the PIC is not the operator of a rental aircraft.

I do not believe the FAA will see it your way.

Might. "do not believe". Those indefinites do not give me warm and fuzzys.

In addition, I know for sure that if you show up for a practical test with an airplane without a properly prepared and signed AD compliance list from the last annual in the maintenance records you present, you may have to walk home with your pink slip, even if it's a rental plane.

Well, yeah. Those are things a PIC CAN check on. And should. But before every flight? What about the AD that came out last week that the PIC as a non owner/operator has no way of knowing about? Even though they probably can, I think the FAA is unreasonable if they expect the non owner/operator to do an AD search before every flight. THAT is what we are ultimately talking about, I think.

 

[121Dispatch]

The link below is a pretty good place to start. You can find the AD's for the aircraft year/make/model you will be flying. I never really did this research until someone at our school was sent home from a checkride after the examiner found a non-compliant AD in the logbook. After that, I checked the logbooks for all the aircraft I rented to make sure the ADs were complied with.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

 

[Tom-D]

Take another look at that word before the red words -- "use." The PIC is using the plane, so the PIC is "operating" the plane. Given that AD compliance is a necessary condition for airworthiness, and 91.7(a) says "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition," the issue is pretty well open-and-shut. Since the PIC is, by definition, "operating" the aircraft, the definition of the term "operator" doesn't matter in this discussion -- 91.7(a) doesn't use the term, and the PIC operating the aircraft is responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft s/he is flying. How far will the FAA take that for a plane the pilot doesn't own? Can't tell for sure from case histories, but I'd do enough investigating of the FBO/flight school's maintenance records that I was comfortable betting my ticket on their recordkeeping.

If you take the approach of an operator is the one who is operating your take on the rule is correct.

If you take the approach as indicated in FAR 43 where the FAA separates the Owner operator responsibilities from the pilot in maintenance matters, you could draw a different conclusion.

Knowing the FARs require no training in the maintenance or AD compliance, I see no way the FAA can hold the renting pilot responsible for maintenance issues.

How would a pilot flying for a rental agency know the AD compliance of each aircraft they fly?

This is another example of a rule that is unrealstic and unenforcable. thus confuses the issues when one section of the FARs contradict another .

 

[poadeleted20]

If you take the approach as indicated in FAR 43 where the FAA separates the Owner operator responsibilities from the pilot in maintenance matters, you could draw a different conclusion.

The issue is 14 CFR 91.7(a) -- a Part 91 issue, not part 43. IOW, this is about airworthiness of aircraft being flown, not the performance of maintenance. As for the "might" and "do not believe," the only reason I'm not using stronger language is that I can't lay my hands on case law in which the pilot was fried for something like this, although I also cannot find anything which suggests that a pilot is not responsible for AD compliance on an aircraft s/he flies but does not own.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

More pot stiring.

The issue is 14 CFR 91.7(a) -- a Part 91 issue, not part 43. IOW, this is about airworthiness of aircraft being flown, not the performance of maintenance.

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

I submit that since it is not possible to do an AD search, for all practical purposes, prior to EVERY FLIGHT, in order to check that ALL airworthiness directives are complied with, it is not possible to comply with this regulation as you interpret it. I personally do not really believe the scope of that regulation is as broad as you do.

As for the "might" and "do not believe," the only reason I'm not using stronger language is that I can't lay my hands on case law in which the pilot was fried for something like this, although I also cannot find anything which suggests that a pilot is not responsible for AD compliance on an aircraft s/he flies but does not own.

In other words, it hasn't been tested. Until such test, I suppose you can believe what you want and I will do likewise.

Although, I will admit, the FAA can probably hang any pilot for darned near anything they want.

 

[gprellwitz]

Although, I will admit, the FAA can probably hang any pilot for darned near anything they want.

Probably the truest statement I've ever seen!

At my FBO, and probably many others, it's not even possible for renters to verify the ADs before every flight, since they're locked in the maintenance office, which is closed on weekends. So, if the regulation is read as requiring this, it certainly imposes a significant additional burden on both the FBO and the renter. It's not uncommon during the summer to have 6 or seven planes going out every two hours for training. Even if the front desk were logistically able to keep the log books available for inspection, a) few owners would be willing to put their planes on leaseback with the risk that a renter could easily walk away with their valuable logbooks and b) much less actual flying could take place during the two hour rental block because of the additional paperwork verification requirement.

So I guess my conclusion is that the PIC may be responsible for verifying AD compliance and the like, but that in actuallity it is done, in my experience at least, by perhaps spot-checking the FBO and maintenance facility, but largely by trusting them to do the maintenance properly. Of course, if the spot checks fail, then the trust level goes way down, and the renter must either take a more hands-on approach or begin renting elsewhere.

One thing in our favor is that many of the 15 or so planes on our line are used for checkrides, and therefore we know that the log books are reviewed as part of that process. Still not 100%, but comforting, nonetheless.

I guess this points out yet another reason to purchase our own plane! Of course then there's no QUESTION but that we're responsible!