Open Defects entered at Annual Inspection

[Schooner69A]

Makes me glad I built my own...

[photofly]

If you want to fly with unserviceable equipment and you don't have a MEL then 605.10 applies.

You as the PIC have to ensure that the equipment is not required by any of the items listed in 605.10(1), and then make sure the equipment has been removed, secured or isolated, placarded (as required), and that work has been logged, all as described in 605.10(2).

Note that 605.10(1) is a decision to be made by the PIC, as made clear in the notes to CAR625.10. Also note that the actions required by 605.10(2) are elementary work, listed in para. 27 of CAR625 Appendix A, for certain classes of systems. For those systems there is no requirement to involve an AME at all.

[Glasnost]

I snag whatever I see is unairworthy.

If you want to go flying with it, fill your boots.

At least I used to. I quit aviation because of cheapskate owners and cheapskate pilots.

People who don’t even blink at $150 rates for their truck or boat no owner assistance whatsoever are going to argue about replacing $20 worth of brake pads or a fuel sender they legally need... because they know AMEs will bend over and take it up the ass.

[photofly]

Here's a relevant TATC case where Transport Canada itself argues that not all defects entered in the Journey Log are airworthiness issues:

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... 5&lang=eng

The pilot was fined because he failed to enter a defect in the Journey Log as required. Transport Canada accepted that the defects that should have been entered did not constitute airworthiness issues, and that the PIC committed no offence in flying the aircraft knowing those defects existed.

From the record (my emphasis):

[23] While the CARs and the Act fail to define a defect, the Minister submits that a defect is an imperfection. The Minister further submits that a defect need not be an airworthiness issue but rather simply means that something is not operating as it should be. The Minister submits that the Applicant is incorrect to equate a defect with unairworthiness.

The tribunal member said as follows (my emphasis, again):

[40] In considering the term ‘defect' in the larger context of the CARs and the Act, one must consider that the statute and regulations allow for some defects to be deferred. This in and of itself points to a definition of defect that is far more broad than the definition suggested by the Applicant. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the legislative scheme would allow for the deferral of defects if a defect were only equated with issues of airworthiness. If this were the case, it would mean that the CARs and the Act would condone flying an aircraft that is unairworthy. Clearly, this would not be harmonious with the scheme and object of the CARs and the Act, nor the intention of Parliament.

[41] While some defects may be more serious and affect the airworthiness of an aircraft, I do not find this to be an inherent part of the definition of the term ‘defect'. Indeed, not all defects are created equal: a defect may be a smaller issue that can be deferred and addressed at a later date, or it may be a bigger problem that requires immediate attention.

The actual defects that the pilot should have entered in the Journey Log (and the failure to log resulted in the fine) were:

right manifold low at a maximum of 30' on take-off;
fuel flow was low on take-off; and
the right RPM lever was mechanically sticking and unable to get full RPM on take-off.

Transport Canada itself argued that these were NOT defects of a nature to ground the aircraft.