temporary w/b changes

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I really hope none of you really believe that an airplane becomes grounded because a radio is taken out of it?

Nope. Just update the logs and do a new W&B even though it won't make as much of a real difference as all the crap floating around in the baggage area.

 

[bflynn]

They aren't your logs, it isn't your aircraft, you are a renter. How are you going to update logs, you can't even get to the log book.

The mechanic who does own the log tells you it's updated. Do you not trust him? Do you think you'll be allowed to do a logbook review every time you rent?

No of course not. And you aren't going to go back to them and tell them their aircraft isn't airworthy, you'll be an ex-renter. If that bugs you because a radio got taken out, that's probably a good solution.

 

[flyingron]

He can easily look up on internet how heavy a KX155 is. He doesn't have to take my word for it.

I have plugged in the actual W&B for my plane and run the calls every time I change the loading but I never really come close to the envelope so 5 pounds either way isn't a concern.

It doesn't mean squat if the w&b didn't change at all. Absent the paperwork to reflect that conclusion, the aircraft is not airworthy.

 

[PPC1052]

That's the logic that leads to taking horse dewormer.

Or to people dismissing a pharmaceutical that has been used by hundreds of thousands of people since the 1970s as "horse dewormer."

 

[PPC1052]

They aren't your logs, it isn't your aircraft, you are a renter. How are you going to update logs, you can't even get to the log book.

If he can't get to the logs, then he can't use the plane to take the check ride.

 

[Bell206]

Do you think you'll be allowed to do a logbook review every time you rent?

You don’t? How do you know if the aircraft is airworthy per 91.7? Regardless, anytime I was asked for input I would point the individual to 3 docs. I found a link to only one, but I did find a little tidbit on the AOPA site that summed up the other 2 and pasted it below. Perhaps you will learn something from them as well.
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2011/media/SepOct2011Trust.pdf

 

[bflynn]

Of course they have to have the logs for a check ride. But otherwise, show up at a rental place and tell them that as the PIC, you have to review the logs before each flight to determine airworthiness. Let us know how that goes.

 

[bflynn]

Or to people dismissing a pharmaceutical that has been used by hundreds of thousands of people since the 1970s as "horse dewormer."

Not at all the same. Horse dewormer is a super powerful strength of a medicine that other countries are using to treat COVID. However, the veterinary strength form is too powerful, yet people are taking it and poisoning themselves based on something they read on the internet. That’s just about as dumb as trusting something you read here over what the mechanic that fixes the plane for a living tells you.

 

[PPC1052]

Not at all the same. Horse dewormer is a super powerful strength of a medicine that other countries are using to treat COVID. However, the veterinary strength form is too powerful, yet people are taking it and poisoning themselves based on something they read on the internet. That’s just about as dumb as trusting something you read here over what the mechanic that fixes the plane for a living tells you.

Certainly, people who take veterinarian grade drugs are foolish. But the media and others have gone out of their way to discredit a human grade pharmaceutical as "horse dewormer." So, to throw that out without further clarification is spreading falsehoods.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Which should he give more weight to?

I see what you did there.

But, does the PIC absolutely KNOW that the equipment removed was substantial? He's gotten two opinions, one from SGOTI and one from the mechanic.

Hopefully one our both have provided references to support their positions, in which case the pilot should evaluate those references and determine a suitable course of action.

 

[Bell206]

But otherwise, show up at a rental place and tell them that as the PIC, you have to review the logs before each flight to determine airworthiness. Let us know how that goes.

It always goes well. The rental places in this region always allow for a records review with some requiring an appointment or other similar requirement. You must rent from some shoddy outfits if they don't allow a review. But to each their own. The funny thing is the minute you jump in and take off you now become the "owner" of all their screw ups.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Of course they have to have the logs for a check ride. But otherwise, show up at a rental place and tell them that as the PIC, you have to review the logs before each flight to determine airworthiness. Let us know how that goes.

Renting for a burger run? Don't give a ****. Renting for a checkride where I am throwing lots of time and money down the toilet if there is an issue? I want the logs to be right.

 

[Witmo]

It's called due diligence. If I asked to see the maintenance record for an aircraft I was renting and the owner/fbo refused to produce them. I'd call that a red flag. I'm not asking to take them home or even leave the room with them but if I were refused, I'd find another fbo/owner to rent from. As for trusting your mechanic, by all means, if you know him personally and trust his work, fine. But in the case where you have no personal or professional relationship with an fbo or owner's mechanic and he verbally says anything to you about the condition of the aircraft you intend flying, it's worth the paper it's written on (which is none).

 

[Joe_B1]

Years ago I had to take a medical check ride with an FAA examiner out of the local FSDO, I was renting at the time. He wanted to see the logs and the owner of the school told me to tell the examiner that the logs were kept at a different field. Eventually the examiner said never mind and I took the test. I was glad he didn't pitch a ***** about it but I thought the whole thing was pretty bizarre. Imagine a flight school telling an FAA examiner that they could not examine the logs and the examiner accepting that answer!

 

[TommyG]

I have been working at flight schools for over 20 years, I have yet to see someone come and review the logs prior to renting.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have been working at flight schools for over 20 years, I have yet to see someone come and review the logs prior to renting.

Many pilots seem to be willing to pretend that ignorance makes it OK.

 

[PPC1052]

I have been working at flight schools for over 20 years, I have yet to see someone come and review the logs prior to renting.

I never did it renting a plane (although maybe I should have) until it was time for the check ride. Then I got the logs well before, and tabbed all of the entries that I wanted to find quickly to show the examiner that the plane was legal to fly. The examiner asked specifically to look at the logs, and I had them ready to go.

 

[Clip4]

You don’t? How do you know if the aircraft is airworthy per 91.7? Regardless, anytime I was asked for input I would point the individual to 3 docs. I found a link to only one, but I did find a little tidbit on the AOPA site that summed up the other 2 and pasted it below. Perhaps you will learn something from them as well.
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2011/media/SepOct2011Trust.pdf

View attachment 100040

Nice link, but as a renter you better pack a big lunch to determine if all the maintenance requirements are met. To do so would require the AD information for the aircraft and performing an AD search of the logs.

 

[Clip4]

Many pilots seem to be willing to pretend that ignorance makes it OK.

Hopefully you are provided an inspection status report for the aircraft.

 

[Bell206]

but as a renter you better pack a big lunch to determine if all the maintenance requirements are met. To do so would require the AD information for the aircraft and performing an AD search of the logs.

You’re over thinking this. A simple check back to the last 100hr or annual will meet the requirement and shouldn’t take hardly anytime. All required mx should be current at the time of the 100/annual sign off to include ADs. But given determining airworthiness is very subjective to the person, if a pilot wanted to confirm ADs from the 100 hour to present day they most certainly could if they wanted.

 

[Clip4]

You’re over thinking this. A simple check back to the last 100hr or annual will meet the requirement and shouldn’t take hardly anytime. All required mx should be current at the time of the 100/annual sign off to include ADs. But given determining airworthiness is very subjective to the person, if a pilot wanted to confirm ADs from the 100 hour to present day they most certainly could if they wanted.

People are human. They make mistakes and some ADs only effect a subset of engine, airframe, propeller or appliance serial numbers. There are GA aircraft with unaddressed ADs due to human error.