When to refuse to do an annual.

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
This week, I looked at a C-210, that was pitiful, sheets of paint peeling of the size of your hand.

some areas the alclad had been peeled off. and whole aircraft's blisters was involved.

IMHO, it was past the time of airworthy.

I guess the question is, how to tell the owner?
Should I declare it UN-worthy. or simply refuse to get involved
 
Depends, do you want to do the work or not?

As the IA, you don't declare a plane airworthy or not. You inspect it and deliver a list of discrepancies. It is up to the owner and operator to determine if those discrepancies make the aircraft unairworthy.

To be fair to the owner, I would point out the obvious things and warn them that you're going to list these things as discrepancies. They will decide whether or not they want to fix them.

Paint is not an airworthy item. Corrosion might be, depending on location and how advanced it is.
 
bflynn said:
Depends, do you want to do the work or not?

As the IA, you don't declare a plane airworthy or not. You inspect it and deliver a list of discrepancies. It is up to the owner and operator to determine if those discrepancies make the aircraft unairworthy.

To be fair to the owner, I would point out the obvious things and warn them that you're going to list these things as discrepancies. They will decide whether or not they want to fix them.

Paint is not an airworthy item. Corrosion might be, depending on location and how advanced it is.
Click to expand...
Pretty what's happen,
To put this aircraft airworthy again would replacing the entire skin. way too much work for me.
 
You could recommend that the owner get a second opinion. How close are you to the owner? Trust your instincts.
 
My advice is to tell him what you see and strongly advise him that you think the airplane should not be flown until those things are corrected. It would be underhanded to take on the inspection to “save” the owner from himself by refusing to return the plane to service no matter how badly you might think he needs it. That is how mechanics get a bad rep.
 
bflynn said:
My advice is to tell him what you see and strongly advise him that you think the airplane should not be flown until those things are corrected. It would be underhanded to take on the inspection to “save” the owner from himself by refusing to return the plane to service no matter how badly you might think he needs it. That is how mechanics get a bad rep.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly.
I have been informed that you need to tread lightly when your are giving advice about the condition of aircraft and what you writing in logs.

I prefer to simply say what is wrong, and leave it at that.
 
Tom, would you write something in the aircraft logs if you did an annual inspection and did not find the aircraft to be airworthy?
 
Just tell him the truth. You don’t think it’s airworthy and it’s too big a job for you right now.
 
Salty said:
Tom, would you write something in the aircraft logs if you did an annual inspection and did not find the aircraft to be airworthy?
Click to expand...

I think you have to. Then the owner can take it to another shop to get the squawk(s) fixed with needing another inspection, assuming it can get a ferry permit.
 
I think if it is your professional opinion that the airplane is unairworthy in its present condition, you should tell the owner that is how you feel and why and leave the next step up to him/her. I was interested in an airplane several years ago. I contacted a local mechanic for a prebuy, and he told me something like "you don't want that airplane." When I advised the owner so I could get my deposit back (thank goodness for a good purchase contract), he said it had been passing annual every year in that condition and he thought the mechanic was wrong. I have learned there is a big difference in the opinion of A&P/IA's. And, there are a lot of airplane owners who do not want to pay the price to keep their airplanes in tip top shape. Where do you draw the line?
 
Tom-D said:
To put this aircraft airworthy again would replacing the entire skin. way too much work for me.
Click to expand...

Tom, don't mix the inspection and the repair. Tell the owner you will do the inspection but not the repair. it is very likely the following discrepancies will show up on your list (blah blah blah), and that you are unable to do the repairs. Don't surprise the owner! Part as friends if you can.

-Skip
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
I think you have to. Then the owner can take it to another shop to get the squawk(s) fixed with needing another inspection, assuming it can get a ferry permit.
Click to expand...
Show me the reg. It doesn't exist. You inspect my plane and find discrepancies, that's the end. The log doesn't get a new entry for return to service after an annual inspection because the inspection wasn't completely satisfactorily. That's it. I've never had an A&P put anything into my logs. They give me a sticker with the work they did and their signature, and I put it in the logs. I'm not going to put something in the logs that isn't required to show airworthiness, and an inspection that doesn't result in a return to service is not required to show airworthiness. No modifications were done to the aircraft, no change to airworthiness, no log entry is required.
 
Salty said:
Show me the reg. It doesn't exist. You inspect my plane and find discrepancies, that's the end. The log doesn't get a new entry for return to service after an annual inspection because the inspection wasn't completely satisfactorily. That's it. I've never had an A&P put anything into my logs. They give me a sticker with the work they did and their signature, and I put it in the logs. I'm not going to put something in the logs that isn't required to show airworthiness, and an inspection that doesn't result in a return to service is not required to show airworthiness. No modifications were done to the aircraft, no change to airworthiness, no log entry is required.
Click to expand...

43.11 Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.
(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, §135.411(a)(1), or §135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection.

(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service.

(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof.

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”

(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”

(6) For progressive inspections, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that in accordance with a progressive inspection program, a routine inspection of (identify whether aircraft or components) and a detailed inspection of (identify components) were performed and the (aircraft or components) are (approved or disapproved) for return to service.” If disapproved, the entry will further state “and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator.”

(7) If an inspection is conducted under an inspection program provided for in part 91, 125, or §135.411(a)(1), the entry must identify the inspection program, that part of the inspection program accomplished, and contain a statement that the inspection was performed in accordance with the inspections and procedures for that particular program.

(b) Listing of discrepancies and placards. 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, that persons must give the owner or lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies. For those items permitted to be inoperative under §91.213(d)(2) of this chapter, that person shall place a placard, that meets the aircraft's airworthiness certification regulations, on each inoperative instrument and the cockpit control of each item of inoperative equipment, marking it “Inoperative,” and shall add the items to the signed and dated list of discrepancies given to the owner or lessee.
 
Also see https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/media/ia_info_guide.pdf

See page 18

Aircraft With Discrepancies or Unairworthy Conditions

If the aircraft is not approved for return to service after a required inspection, use the procedures specified in 14 CFR part 43, § 43.11. This will permit an owner to assume responsibility for having the discrepancies corrected prior to operating the aircraft. Discrepancies or unairworthy conditions can be resolved in the following ways: 1. The discrepancies can be cleared by a person who is authorized by 14 CFR part 43 to do the work. Preventive maintenance items could be cleared by a pilot who owns or operates the aircraft, provided the aircraft is not used under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135; except that approval may be granted to allow a pilot operating a rotorcraft in a remote area under 14 CFR part 135 to perform preventive maintenance.

2. The owner may want the aircraft flown to another location to have repairs completed, in which case the owner should be advised that the issuance of FAA Form 8130-7, Special Flight Permit, is required. This form is commonly called a ferry permit and is detailed in 14 CFR part 21, § 21.197. The certificate may be obtained in person or by fax at the local FSDO or from a Designated Airworthiness Representative.

3. If the aircraft is found to be in an unairworthy condition, an entry will be made in the maintenance records that the inspection was completed and a list of unairworthy items was provided to the owner. When all unairworthy items are corrected by a person authorized to perform maintenance and that person makes an entry in the maintenance record 18 for the correction of those items, the aircraft is approved for return to service. (Refer to appendix 1, figures 8 and 9.)

Incomplete Inspection If an annual inspection is not completed, the holder of an IA should:

1. Indicate any discrepancies found in the aircraft records.
2. Not indicate that an annual inspection was completed.
3. Indicate in the aircraft records the extent to which the inspection was completed and all work accomplished.
 
Salty said:
Show me the reg. It doesn't exist. You inspect my plane and find discrepancies, that's the end. The log doesn't get a new entry for return to service after an annual inspection because the inspection wasn't completely satisfactorily. That's it. I've never had an A&P put anything into my logs. They give me a sticker with the work they did and their signature, and I put it in the logs. I'm not going to put something in the logs that isn't required to show airworthiness, and an inspection that doesn't result in a return to service is not required to show airworthiness. No modifications were done to the aircraft, no change to airworthiness, no log entry is required.
Click to expand...

The assumption is, that you want annual inspection, It is my privilege to say no.
 
Skip Miller said:
Tom, don't mix the inspection and the repair. Tell the owner you will do the inspection but not the repair. it is very likely the following discrepancies will show up on your list (blah blah blah), and that you are unable to do the repairs. Don't surprise the owner! Part as friends if you can.

-Skip
Click to expand...
To me it's better to simply, say no. the owner is fully aware of the condition of the aircraft.
 
Salty said:
Show me the reg..
Click to expand...

43.11
If the inspection was completed it is the responsibility of the owner to insure the entry is made.
If you don't like the entry call FSDO.

and 91.405
pretty much says that too.
 
Last edited:
Remember folks,,, If I do an inspection and you don't like my findings, I simply don't sign the log.

now it becomes a matter, who said what.
 
Tom-D said:
Remember folks,,, If I do an inspection and you don't like my findings, I simply don't sign the log.

now it becomes a matter, who said what.
Click to expand...

Which is the shade tree way of doing things.

If you did an inspection IAW Part 43, you are required to make an entry. Reread 14 CFR Part 43.11 and also post #17.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Which is the shade tree way of doing things.

If you did an inspection IAW Part 43, you are required to make an entry. Reread 14 CFR Part 43.11 and also post #17.
Click to expand...
prove it .

The better way is to avoid ass ho--,
 
Tom-D said:
I guess the question is, how to tell the owner?
Click to expand...
You could also fill out a 337 detailing your thoughts on the aircraft just like you do with a W&B report. That way if the owner loses his form he has a copy on file in Oak City plus it covers your hind-end to boot.:eek::)
 
Tom-D said:
prove it .

The better way is to avoid ass ho--,
Click to expand...

You proved it. Either act like a professional and follow the CFR’s and guidance, or play silly games with the client.

BTW, getting on Internet forums and calling potential customers names such as a**h****s just is yet again, more shade tree antics.
 
Bell206 said:
You could also fill out a 337 detailing your thoughts on the aircraft just like you do with a W&B report. That way if the owner loses his form he has a copy on file in Oak City plus it covers your hind-end to boot.:eek::)
Click to expand...
Get real, you know that is not happening.

read post #23
 
Guy had it right a few posts ago. Just be honest. You see big problems, bigger than you can fix. Better off having someone else do the inspection who can repair the issues. Part on friendly terms.
 
steingar said:
Guy had it right a few posts ago. Just be honest. You see big problems, bigger than you can fix. Better off having someone else do the inspection who can repair the issues. Part on friendly terms.
Click to expand...
perfect !
 
Doc Holliday said:
Which is the shade tree way of doing things.

If you did an inspection IAW Part 43, you are required to make an entry. Reread 14 CFR Part 43.11 and also post #17.
Click to expand...
If it didn’t get logged, it didn’t happen. Regardless of what the reg says, who could prove any different?
 
Meh....why? Only maintenance is a required entry. Even then only if you want to return it to service.
Doc Holliday said:
Which is the shade tree way of doing things.

If you did an inspection IAW Part 43, you are required to make an entry. Reread 14 CFR Part 43.11 and also post #17.
Click to expand...
 
Bell206 said:
Spoken like a true shade tree mechanic. But don't take my word for it. Bill O'Brien addressed this issue in a number of his FAA Safety Seminars and was quoted equally as below. To each their own.;)
View attachment 89980
Click to expand...

Bell presumes I did some thing. wrong!

When reality all I did was give advice.

now he tries to make a mountain into a mole hill.. but that is what he does.
 
Tom-D is by and large correct (there are a few non return-to-service things that require log entries. Notably rebuilds and overhauls.
However, to get back to the "what if you inspect the aircraft and it isn't airworthy", you do have to make an entry in the log (43.11(a)(6)) but the actual discrepancies are merely "provided to the owner."

Amusingly, in the latter case, it's quite possible for the owner to return the aircraft to service provided the discrepancy is on the list of PM tasks the pilot-owner is allowed to do.
For instance, if the only discrepancy is the tires are shot. I can replace them, sign the logs, and go fly.
 
Re: effectively doing an annual inspection but not signing as such in the logbook - this is very similar to the idea of having a "consult" with an AME before you have the actual medical exam, a practice recommended over and over again on this board - you effectively have a medical exam, but it's not an official one because it's not signed off as such.

Heck, it's kind of like providing dual instruction as a CFI but the pilot doesn't have their logbook with them at the time. This happens every so often for me, typically it's someone who wants a little more training on how to use their GPS, or autopilot, doesn't normally carry their logbook around, and doesn't really care if it gets entered at all. As a CFI, I am required to sign their logbook for any dual training provided (61.189a), but if they don't have it, there's not much I can do. So, effectively, that training never happened.
 
A year ago I did an inspection.....found damage under a wing (looks like it was taxied over a fence post...probably at Oshkosh). So, it was ferried to another airport for repairs. No logs of anything on my part. That was a year ago. I have no idea if anything was signed off or completed.

I did my part....found the damage.....I also was not the guy who returned it to service.
 
flyingron said:
Tom-D is by and large correct (there are a few non return-to-service things that require log entries. Notably rebuilds and overhauls.
However, to get back to the "what if you inspect the aircraft and it isn't airworthy", you do have to make an entry in the log (43.11(a)(6)) but the actual discrepancies are merely "provided to the owner."

Amusingly, in the latter case, it's quite possible for the owner to return the aircraft to service provided the discrepancy is on the list of PM tasks the pilot-owner is allowed to do.
For instance, if the only discrepancy is the tires are shot. I can replace them, sign the logs, and go fly.
Click to expand...

What always amazed me about this situation is that the list of discrepancies is provided separately, and there is no indication in the logbooks about what the discrepancies are. So the owner is apparently free to just toss the list away, I suppose. I guess there should be at least one entry with some type of repair, but like in your example, if the tires were bad, but also the wing was completely corroded through and the landing gear had cracks (etc.), you could sign off the tires, not do anything else, and as far as the logbook looks, and as far as anyone can tell without asking the IA, you're airworthy. No?
 
It would seem intentional by the FAA. They don't mandate the discrepancies to be logged, just "provided to the owner."

You can always make your log book LOOK like the plane is airworthy, but nobody should return a plane to service if they haven't complied with all the discrepancies.
 
Before every flight the PIC determines the airworthiness of the aircraft he will fly. I don't see why anyone thinks this is any different than an owner getting a list of discrepancies and determining what makes his aircraft airworthy. The PIC who chooses to fly with an expired registration or a missing compass correction card is responsible for his decision. The owner who chooses to fly with a corroded wing spar is responsible for his decision. As a mechanic IA, it behooves him/her to retain a record of the discrepancies provided the owner in the event a dishonest owner claims a corroded spar wasn't on the list and the wing broke on the flight home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top