What's wrong

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
With this sign off:
 

Attachments

  • Scan.jpeg
    Scan.jpeg
    225.2 KB · Views: 194
As per the rules, abbreviations are not allowed, e.g. IAW for In Accordance With.
 
I'm not an IA but IIRC the proper signoff would be as stated but finish statinhg the aircraft is unairworthy and the owner has been provided with a written list of discrepancies. Once the discrepancies have been cleared and repairs logged the aircraft is then airworthy?
 
Mechanics/IAs don't declare aircraft unairworthy. They either find an aircraft in an airworthy condition after inspection, meaning no unairworthy discrepancies were found, or they provide a list of unairworthy discrepancies. This may seem trivial but it's the existence of unairworthy discrepancies that make an aircraft unairworthy, not the mechanic declaring the aircraft is unairworthy. Correcting the dicrepancies automatically returns the aircraft to airworthiness provided they were properly accomplished and logged. No one has to make an overall declaration that the aircraft is airworthy again after a failed annual. Any mechanic with the proper certificate can correct discrepancies that cause unairworthiness. It's up to the owner/operator to ensure the list of discrepancies is addressed and that his aircraft is returned to airworthiness by virtue of correcting the deficiencies. So, the requirement for a 100 hour or annual is met by completion of the inspection regardless whether discrepancies were found or not. If discrepancies were found, they need to be addressed and their rectification and signoff(s) would collectively return the aircraft to service.

This particular maintenance record entry references 100 hour initially and later ANNUAL --which is it? The mechanic says the "airframe" was inspected IAW an ANNUAL inspection--should have said the aircraft since aircraft includes powerplant while airframe does not.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Airworthy with exception.
Click to expand...
Witmo said:
Mechanics/IAs don't declare aircraft unairworthy. They either find an aircraft in an airworthy condition after inspection, meaning no unairworthy discrepancies were found, or they provide a list of unairworthy discrepancies. This may seem trivial but it's the existence of unairworthy discrepancies that make an aircraft unairworthy, not the mechanic declaring the aircraft is unairworthy. Correcting the dicrepancies automatically returns the aircraft to airworthiness provided they were properly accomplished and logged. No one has to make an overall declaration that the aircraft is airworthy again after a failed annual. Any mechanic with the proper certificate can correct discrepancies that cause unairworthiness. It's up to the owner/operator to ensure the list of discrepancies is addressed and that his aircraft is returned to airworthiness by virtue of correcting the deficiencies. So, the requirement for a 100 hour or annual is met by completion of the inspection regardless whether discrepancies were found or not. If discrepancies were found, they need to be addressed and their rectification and signoff(s) would collectively return the aircraft to service.

This particular maintenance record entry references 100 hour initially and later ANNUAL --which is it? The mechanic says the "airframe" was inspected IAW an ANNUAL inspection--should have said the aircraft since aircraft includes powerplant while airframe does not.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is just a play on words. when the aircraft has unairworthy items it can't be airworthy.
 
What you can't see (because I blocked out the mechanic's signature) is he was just an A&P.
He starts the entry as a 100 hour, but signs it off as an annual.
 
Tom-D said:
What you can't see (because I blocked out the mechanic's signature) is he was just an A&P.
He starts the entry as a 100 hour, but signs it off as an annual.
Click to expand...

so is there a way we could have known that?
 
Fearless Tower said:
WTF? How can an A&P do that?
Click to expand...
That is why this was E-Mailed to me with the question "is this OK". I told my friend not to paste that into his log book, and added make the A&P use the verbiage given in FAR 43, for what he did, then make a separate entry for the IA to sign. using that proper verbiage too.
 
Witmo said:
This particular maintenance record entry references 100 hour initially and later ANNUAL --which is it? The mechanic says the "airframe" was inspected IAW an ANNUAL inspection--should have said the aircraft since aircraft includes powerplant while airframe does not.
Click to expand...

Which is it?? kinda hard to tell isn't it. this is why we should use the verbiage given in the FARs.
And remember the engine log gets no annual sign off. the FAR 91 says the AIRCRAFT must have the annual.
 
...because we ALWAYS apply full rudder in one direction while applying maximum braking in the other.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...because we ALWAYS apply full rudder in one direction while applying maximum braking in the other.
Click to expand...
This is a prime example of why we owners of antique aircraft should never allow those of whom know nothing about their operation to go joy riding.
 
Mike Smith said: "You are kidding, right? That is the correct spelling when talking about the things that make the plane stop."
Click to expand...

I know, but the log entry consistently uses "break."
 
Tom-D said:
Your interpretation is just a play on words. when the aircraft has unairworthy items it can't be airworthy.
Click to expand...
I knew you wouldn't discern the subtlety between declaring an aircraft unairworthy and the finding of specific unairworthy discrepancies. The former implies someone has to declare an unairworthy aircraft has become airworthy after maintenance which isn't true. What's required is that every unairworthy discrepancy be rectified and a proper return to service for each discrepancy be made by an authorized person. It's the owner/operator who has to ensure everything gets fixed. Ten mechanics might each address one of ten different discrepancies and each of their signatures only certifies that the work each did is correct. Collectively, their ten returns to service makes the aircraft airworthy again.
 
Witmo said:
I knew you wouldn't discern the subtlety between declaring an aircraft unairworthy and the finding of specific unairworthy discrepancies.
Click to expand...
6 of one, half dozen of the other.
Just because the inspector has not written "this aircraft was found in an un-airworthy condition," doesn't mean it ain't.
When you sign off the annual, in any other way than "airworthy" it isn't.
 
It's not an A&P license, it's a certificate.... really, who gives a flying f.... the aircraft is grounded, it's unairworthy, and the mechanic/inspector did it with the stroke of his pen.
 
I once had my old PMI show me a special flight permit that he had returned to him.
It read, " I have inspected this aircraft and found it unsafe to fly". and was signed by a A&P.
So when you believe we A&Ps can't declare any aircraft un-airworthy think again, we some times get the opportunity :)
 
GlennAB1 said:
It's not an A&P license, it's a certificate.... really, who gives a flying f.... the aircraft is grounded, it's unairworthy, and the mechanic/inspector did it with the stroke of his pen.
Click to expand...
yep. or with out one.
 
Tom-D said:
I once had my old PMI show me a special flight permit that he had returned to him.
It read, " I have inspected this aircraft and found it unsafe to fly". and was signed by a A&P.
So when you believe we A&Ps can't declare any aircraft un-airworthy think again, we some times get the opportunity :)
Click to expand...
You started this thread by showing us a poorly worded maintenance entry by an A&P and now have shown us another.
 
Witmo said:
You started this thread by showing us a poorly worded maintenance entry by an A&P and now have shown us another.
Click to expand...
IOWs you don't know the difference between showing you and telling you about something.
Your always trying to spin it.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Did you happen to catch the quote from the Engineer I posted in another thread?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't remember. Would you mind linking to it or repeating it?
 
This one was my favorite:

"I understand that aerospace documentation can be hard to understand just because Engineers had written them... and Engineers are generally not good writers."

But then this one was posted:

deonb said:
There are 2 types of Engineering orgs:
a) Those who promote their best Engineers to managers, because they need to do that to justify paying them more.
b) Those who promote their worst Engineers to managers, since that's where they can do the least damage.
I've worked in both but I prefer (b). Working with incompetent managers is amusing. Working with incompetent engineers is depressing.
Click to expand...

In this thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/average-pay-for-swa-300k-by-2020.97842/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top