Weekend Annuals.
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
Re: Weekend Annuals.
OK, that`s really splitting hairs, but... That means that it`s the owner`s responsibility to ensure that you (the person who discovered the defect) write it into the journey log.
Unless... you discovered it while something was disassembled (for example, with the cowlings off)
STD 571.03: (1) A person who performs maintenance or elementary work on an aeronautical product shall ensure that the following information is recorded in the technical records, established in accordance with Subpart 605 of the CARs, for the aeronautical product:
(f) where disassembly is required during performance of work, a general description of any defect found prior to re-assembly;
Then, it`s your responsibility.
Unless... you discovered it while something was disassembled (for example, with the cowlings off)
STD 571.03: (1) A person who performs maintenance or elementary work on an aeronautical product shall ensure that the following information is recorded in the technical records, established in accordance with Subpart 605 of the CARs, for the aeronautical product:
(f) where disassembly is required during performance of work, a general description of any defect found prior to re-assembly;
Then, it`s your responsibility.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Its amazing how many hundreds of hours a 50 year old A/C can fly without having a defect or an entry in a logbook !
The elephant in the room is that MOST private and commercial 703 ops do NOT fully comply with the CARS or their own MCM/ MPM Ops manuals with respect to entering defects and defect control !!!
I am accepting the occasional customer and one of two things will happen,,,,either the defects shall be rectified on the annual inspection OR they shall be entered in the logbooks !! I will NOT be nickel and dimed to death by a dozen cheapo owners

I am accepting the occasional customer and one of two things will happen,,,,either the defects shall be rectified on the annual inspection OR they shall be entered in the logbooks !! I will NOT be nickel and dimed to death by a dozen cheapo owners

-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Weekend Annuals.
No, that’s not the case. The subpart applies only to the pilots (and owners in some of the provisions). The requirement to enter defects only applies if the pilot found/discovered the defect. That is the purpose of the applicability section. Just like regulations in 703 only apply to 703 operators and pilots, and 573 only applies to AMO’s and their personnel. In the case of an AME finding a defect where the pilot is informed about it, the pilot has then discovered the defect and is required to enter it. Passengers, ramp workers, security people, FAs, and AMEs are not required to comply with 605.94 … pointe finale!Cranium wrote:That means that it`s the owner`s responsibility to ensure that you (the person who discovered the defect) write it into the journey log.
STD 571.03: (1) A person who performs maintenance or elementary work on an aeronautical product shall ensure that the following information is recorded in the technical records, established in accordance with Subpart 605 of the CARs, for the aeronautical product:
(f) where disassembly is required during performance of work, a general description of any defect found prior to re-assembly;
As for the incorporated-by-reference std 571.03 paragraph you refer to, you are interpreting it too broadly. It clearly applies in only limited circumstances of “where disassembly is required”; it is not a blanket you-must-enter-every-defect rule. It doesn’t make sense to apply it the way you think because of that first clause. For example, many of the inspection items looked at on an appendix B inspection require no disassembly — would one only be required to enter inspection findings for certain things where disassembly was performed during an inspection? Not a valid concept, so the 573.03 paragraph you quote does not really imply a general requirement to enter defects.
In any case, entering defects may be a good practice and completes the circle, but don’t confuse it with some regulated level of authority to control the aircraft operations — which unfortunately many AMEs working on private aircraft feel they should be doing; often much to the chagrin of their customers. You should, IMHO, discuss with the customer what their expectations are regarding logbook entries.
And also remember that your signature in a maintenance release for an annual has no bearing on the airworthiness of the aircraft. The maintenance release only states that you did the inspection properly, and does not imply an airworthy aircraft. The owner must determine if the aircraft is airworthy, based on, the aircraft’s compliance with 507.02, just like they must determine if they are in compliance with CAR 605.03 and 605.06. (which is not an AME’s responsibility).
At the end of the day, if you are working on private aircraft, you and the customer will be better served if each understands their role in the airworthiness of the aircraft, and a less adversarial or domineering, more service oriented relationship is nurtured.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
WRONG !! The release states " the maintenance described above has been performed IAW the applicable standards of airworthiness ( or similarly worded statement approved by TC for commercial operators/ AMOs )And also remember that your signature in a maintenance release for an annual has no bearing on the airworthiness of the aircraft. The maintenance release only states that you did the inspection properly, and does not imply an airworthy aircraft.
It does NOT state that you did the "inspection properly"
It states that the MAINTENANCE above has been PERFORMED IAW a known and accepted standard(s)
Your signature constitutes that you did indeed do ALL maintenance IAW the accepted standards
You cannot do an annual or repair deficiencies or replace parts that are of an airworthiness nature in an A/C without entering the work done followed by the release statement ,,,,THEREFORE the C of A REMAINS in force when the entry is completed and the release is signed. OTHERWISE , the A/C is NOT airworthy. If work is done on an aircraft and no one knows what it was,,,, how can the PIC know that the A/C is airworthy? The PIC must be able to , through the release statement, follow the trail back ( maybe through a work order etc) to ALL the work done, parts installed ( with certifications) and determine , if necessary, that it was done to the applicable standards of airworthiness!! think TRACE-ABILITY
If a person installs a 2000 hp engine in a C-150 it wont be airworthy. If that same persons signs a release, they are lying because that engine/A/C configuration does NOT conform to the applicable standards of airworthiness. If no entry was done in the JLB, the A/C is still not airworthy

If an AME, walking by an airplane, notices the elevator ready to depart the aircraft,,,,that is an airworthiness defect. If that AME does not: 1) report the defect to the PIC, he/she is negligent. 2) report the defect to the owner, he/she is negligent 3) report the defect in the journey logbook, he/she is negligent and i hope the court throws him/her in jail for awhile!!!
If the owner or PIC cannot be contacted, gain access to the JLB and make an entry. If you cannot do any of the above, I would suggest you disable the aircraft ( remove the propeller?) and leave your phone number !

Concerning AME s not making entries in logbooks i think you are smoking some major good shit man !!

-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Your misunderstanding of the regulations that pertain to aviation runs far too deep for me to help you with, so I hope you don't have much authority where you work, or at least that you don't maintain aircraft for a living.crazyaviator wrote:I would suggest you disable the aircraft ( remove the propeller?) and leave your phone number !![]()
To suggest that AMEs commit criminal acts to further their opinions ... well ... I can only say that having the word "crazy" prefacing what we can only hope is your avocation and not your profession, appears to be a gross understatement.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
If a doctor walked by an accident where a person was dying and didnt render help what would you think ? what would the courts think? Negligence?To suggest that AMEs commit criminal acts to further their opinions
Hornblower, are you the type of person who would just walk by and let the PIC crash the plane? If that is so, im sure no one here wants to see you in the aviation industry !!

Re: Weekend Annuals.
There's a great body of case law on that subject. There's no general extra duty imposed on a doctor to intervene in that circumstance (except in Quebec, apparently); many prefer not to, because of issues of liability.crazyaviator wrote:If a doctor walked by an accident where a person was dying and didnt render help what would you think ? what would the courts think? Negligence?To suggest that AMEs commit criminal acts to further their opinions
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Isn't that usually followed by a long (or short) list of what the AME/AMO actually did ? So what they did was done according to standards. It doesn't imply that they did *everything* that needed to be done. It's the responsibility of the PRM in commercial ops or owner in private ops that all the necessary tasks are being done in time for the flight.crazyaviator wrote: WRONG !! The release states " the maintenance described above has been performed IAW the applicable standards of airworthiness ( or similarly worded statement approved by TC for commercial operators/ AMOs )
Look at it this way:
50 hour inspecion is due and being done on oct 22
ELT battery needs to be replaced on oct 23
Can the AMO sign out the airplane on oct 22 for the 50 hour ? Of course he can.
Can the company / owner fly it on oct 23 ? No he can't. Does that concern the AMO ? Not at all.
It does when that is entered in the journey log and on all the other paperwork.crazyaviator wrote:
It does NOT state that you did the "inspection properly"
It states that the MAINTENANCE above has been PERFORMED IAW a known and accepted standard(s)
Eg: Oil change completed / control cables inspected - elevator cable found faulty (or however they want to word it)
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Crazy,crazyaviator wrote: If a doctor walked by an accident where a person was dying and didnt render help what would you think ? what would the courts think? Negligence?
Hornblower, are you the type of person who would just walk by and let the PIC crash the plane? If that is so, im sure no one here wants to see you in the aviation industry !!
perhaps you misunderstoood my last post, I'll try to clarify it for you; a gross understatement is 144 times more understated than a normal understatement.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Weekend Annuals.
digits,
I agree with what you are saying and I think you totally get that a maintenance release only applies to the maintenance that has been carried out. I agree with your comments that when signing a maintenance release for an annual inspection (I'll use the appendix B annual as an example rather than the 50 hr since that is the gist of this thread), an AME can sign a maintenance release for the inspection when the ELT battery (an appendix C item) is due to be replaced the next day for your stated reasons. Additionally, I’ll take it a step further — an AME can sign a maintenance release if the ELT battery replacement is past due — one has nothing to do with the other. The only time you should not sign a maintenance release for an annual (or any other maintenance for that matter) is when it was not done “in accordance with the applicable …”, or if not completed. Even then, one could, and should, sign a maintenance release as long as the outstanding uncompleted tasks are identified.
Signing a maintenance release for an annual does not mean:
1. the aircraft is airworthy,
2. all ADs are completed or in compliance
3. all appendix C items are completed
4. The C of A is in force or in effect
5. anything other than: that you have completed the annual inspection properly.
This is not some error in the regs, nor some safety deficiency. It is the way it should be. It places the responsibility for the condition and airworthiness of any aircraft squarely on the shoulders of the owner — as it should be.
An AME is responsible for ensuring that whatever maintenence was done, was done right!
I agree with what you are saying and I think you totally get that a maintenance release only applies to the maintenance that has been carried out. I agree with your comments that when signing a maintenance release for an annual inspection (I'll use the appendix B annual as an example rather than the 50 hr since that is the gist of this thread), an AME can sign a maintenance release for the inspection when the ELT battery (an appendix C item) is due to be replaced the next day for your stated reasons. Additionally, I’ll take it a step further — an AME can sign a maintenance release if the ELT battery replacement is past due — one has nothing to do with the other. The only time you should not sign a maintenance release for an annual (or any other maintenance for that matter) is when it was not done “in accordance with the applicable …”, or if not completed. Even then, one could, and should, sign a maintenance release as long as the outstanding uncompleted tasks are identified.
Signing a maintenance release for an annual does not mean:
1. the aircraft is airworthy,
2. all ADs are completed or in compliance
3. all appendix C items are completed
4. The C of A is in force or in effect
5. anything other than: that you have completed the annual inspection properly.
This is not some error in the regs, nor some safety deficiency. It is the way it should be. It places the responsibility for the condition and airworthiness of any aircraft squarely on the shoulders of the owner — as it should be.
An AME is responsible for ensuring that whatever maintenence was done, was done right!
Re: Weekend Annuals.
First off I'm NOT an AME just a pilot.
I get a call from someone who wants some instruction in a private aircraft to get recurrent.
So I have a look at the log book of his buddies plane, I read that Joe the AME signed off an annual last week, R/H tire changed, fixed this or that, oil changed, plugs cleaned..ELT is out for service and it has a label on the dash and in the book that says so (25 mile max from departure field). No other defects listed in journey log. I check the other documents and make sure I'm listed by name with his insurance. As far as I'm concerned the aircraft is airworthy if nothing jumps out at me on my walk around.
So we crash 1/2 mile off the end of the runway. Two dead guys, two widows, and two TSB guys from Ottawa in a blue crew cab Chevy.
The investigation shows that there were 3 airworthiness snags that were not rectified during the annual. For arguments sake we will say it was a crack in an elevator control "thingy" with obvious rust in the crack. A warn rudder cable with 1/2 a dozen frayed wires hanging out. The right hand wheel bearings were obviously warn beyond limits causing the brake to drag on that side. Turns out the AME that did the annual had known about the 3 snags and told the owner about them. A copy of his check sheet that listed recommend items to be repaired was found in the tech log along with the invoice for $500 marked paid cash.
What should my widow, and my life insurance company (say 500k policy) do with this information? Did the PIC do everything he could to make sure the aircraft was in 'airworthy' condition? Did the AME?
PLEASE PLEASE if you are a AME write the F*CHING defects in the log book OR don't sign out the annual with (airworthiness) defects. How is this even a discussion?
I get a call from someone who wants some instruction in a private aircraft to get recurrent.
So I have a look at the log book of his buddies plane, I read that Joe the AME signed off an annual last week, R/H tire changed, fixed this or that, oil changed, plugs cleaned..ELT is out for service and it has a label on the dash and in the book that says so (25 mile max from departure field). No other defects listed in journey log. I check the other documents and make sure I'm listed by name with his insurance. As far as I'm concerned the aircraft is airworthy if nothing jumps out at me on my walk around.
So we crash 1/2 mile off the end of the runway. Two dead guys, two widows, and two TSB guys from Ottawa in a blue crew cab Chevy.
The investigation shows that there were 3 airworthiness snags that were not rectified during the annual. For arguments sake we will say it was a crack in an elevator control "thingy" with obvious rust in the crack. A warn rudder cable with 1/2 a dozen frayed wires hanging out. The right hand wheel bearings were obviously warn beyond limits causing the brake to drag on that side. Turns out the AME that did the annual had known about the 3 snags and told the owner about them. A copy of his check sheet that listed recommend items to be repaired was found in the tech log along with the invoice for $500 marked paid cash.
What should my widow, and my life insurance company (say 500k policy) do with this information? Did the PIC do everything he could to make sure the aircraft was in 'airworthy' condition? Did the AME?
PLEASE PLEASE if you are a AME write the F*CHING defects in the log book OR don't sign out the annual with (airworthiness) defects. How is this even a discussion?
Re: Weekend Annuals.
I am not an AME.
Historically, the wording that "The maintenance described has been accomplished in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness" was a wise replacement for the preceding expected wording which went something like: "[AME] did the following work, and the aircraft is airworthy.
The big difference is that TC has changed the required wording so that the AME is not signing for a statement about the airworthiness of the entire aircraft, only the work they have accomplished. There's a big difference there.
If the AME is signing for an annual inspection, in my opinion one of two possible meanings shoudl be easily decernable by any pilot reading the log entry:
Either: "[AME] inspected the plane, and is is airworthy." - so go fly it.... Or,
"[AME] inspected the plane and the inspection was carried out in accordance with the applicable standards (the checklist, the maintenance manual, all AD's and all ICA's) of airworthiness, and the following defects were found." - and lists them. Now it's up to the owner to assure that they are attended to, and the pilot to assure do not detract from airworthiness for the intended flight.
I would think it irresponsible of an AME to perform an annual inspection and not record any defects which were found. The owner is responsible for assuring that the required maintenance is performed on the aircraft - including rectifying defects. The owner can hardly do that, if the defects found during inspection are not reported! The owner sets the standard for the work to be done, which would nearly always be "inspect in accordance with the inspection checklist, maintenance manual, AD's and ICA's". I would hope that owners have the common sense to require as a part of the scope of work that the AME report and record the defects, which might be a part of the inspection work package, describing how they have been rectified.
It is the owner's responsibility to assure that all of the required maintenance instructions are provided with the aircraft for inspection. This is best assured with a custom inspection checklist, which lists them - ICAs in particular. ICAs may contain "airworthiness limitations" which are mandatory. If the AME does not know about these, they cannot assure compliance.
It is certainly possible for a modification to an aircraft to result in an airworthiness limitation which is not applicable to the basic aircraft. Airworthiness limitations must be followed for an aircraft, just as other limitations, just the airworthiness limitations are not always plainly visible to the pilot. A fine example, fresh in my mind from a flight I rode last weekend, is the airworthiness limitation for a Sandel HSI light bulb. This has come up before many times. While completing an annual inspection on a Sandel HSI equipped aircraft, the AME might not know that the aircraft is not "airworthy" if that bulb has gone past it's limiting time. But this will not be mentioned in the basic airframe maintenance manual.
Casual pilots would be well advised to satisfy themselves, that maintenance on the aircraft of their interest is carried out in accordance with a checklist customized to that aircraft, and the results recorded where they can be easily reviewed.
Historically, the wording that "The maintenance described has been accomplished in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness" was a wise replacement for the preceding expected wording which went something like: "[AME] did the following work, and the aircraft is airworthy.
The big difference is that TC has changed the required wording so that the AME is not signing for a statement about the airworthiness of the entire aircraft, only the work they have accomplished. There's a big difference there.
If the AME is signing for an annual inspection, in my opinion one of two possible meanings shoudl be easily decernable by any pilot reading the log entry:
Either: "[AME] inspected the plane, and is is airworthy." - so go fly it.... Or,
"[AME] inspected the plane and the inspection was carried out in accordance with the applicable standards (the checklist, the maintenance manual, all AD's and all ICA's) of airworthiness, and the following defects were found." - and lists them. Now it's up to the owner to assure that they are attended to, and the pilot to assure do not detract from airworthiness for the intended flight.
I would think it irresponsible of an AME to perform an annual inspection and not record any defects which were found. The owner is responsible for assuring that the required maintenance is performed on the aircraft - including rectifying defects. The owner can hardly do that, if the defects found during inspection are not reported! The owner sets the standard for the work to be done, which would nearly always be "inspect in accordance with the inspection checklist, maintenance manual, AD's and ICA's". I would hope that owners have the common sense to require as a part of the scope of work that the AME report and record the defects, which might be a part of the inspection work package, describing how they have been rectified.
It is the owner's responsibility to assure that all of the required maintenance instructions are provided with the aircraft for inspection. This is best assured with a custom inspection checklist, which lists them - ICAs in particular. ICAs may contain "airworthiness limitations" which are mandatory. If the AME does not know about these, they cannot assure compliance.
It is certainly possible for a modification to an aircraft to result in an airworthiness limitation which is not applicable to the basic aircraft. Airworthiness limitations must be followed for an aircraft, just as other limitations, just the airworthiness limitations are not always plainly visible to the pilot. A fine example, fresh in my mind from a flight I rode last weekend, is the airworthiness limitation for a Sandel HSI light bulb. This has come up before many times. While completing an annual inspection on a Sandel HSI equipped aircraft, the AME might not know that the aircraft is not "airworthy" if that bulb has gone past it's limiting time. But this will not be mentioned in the basic airframe maintenance manual.
Casual pilots would be well advised to satisfy themselves, that maintenance on the aircraft of their interest is carried out in accordance with a checklist customized to that aircraft, and the results recorded where they can be easily reviewed.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:56 pm
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Great discussion.
I have found the knowledge of most aircraft owners to be lacking as to what their responsibilities are for the care of their aircraft. Usually they want "just an annual", done as cheap and fast as possible. "What inspection program are you using"? Blank stare. "What out of phase items do you want done"? Blank stare. "What AD's are due"? Blank stare.
FYI, AD compliance is the owner's responsibility as well. 625 Appendix H.
There should be much better training on this subject. The amount given in ground school is a joke.
I have found the knowledge of most aircraft owners to be lacking as to what their responsibilities are for the care of their aircraft. Usually they want "just an annual", done as cheap and fast as possible. "What inspection program are you using"? Blank stare. "What out of phase items do you want done"? Blank stare. "What AD's are due"? Blank stare.
FYI, AD compliance is the owner's responsibility as well. 625 Appendix H.
There should be much better training on this subject. The amount given in ground school is a joke.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Cant say it any clearer than that!PLEASE PLEASE if you are a AME write the F*CHING defects in the log book OR don't sign out the annual with (airworthiness) defects. How is this even a discussion?
As the example above attests to, IF a pilot takes off and crashes an airplane due to non-entered defect,s HOW was the pilot to make determination as to the airworthiness of the aircraft?
The reason WHY owners do not want airworthiness defects entered in the JLB are many: They think it makes the plane look like its a lemon/maintenance pig.
Reduces the value of the plane ???
May invalidate the insurance
May invalidate the airworthiness of the plane
May incur fines/suspension if caught
Prevents the pilot from flying the plane legally until he/she determines when to fix the
defect
Makes him/her look foolish to the aviation community
NONE of these reasons in any way should prevent an AME from doing his/her duty
by LAW and entering the defect

-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
There are 3 reasons why an AME would enter an airworthiness defect ( which is not rectified ) in a JLB
1) Its the Law
2) It provides the PIC with the information necessary to make a decision as to the airworthiness of the Aircraft
3) It protects the AME s arse ( As compared to the AME kissing the owners arse )
1) Its the Law
2) It provides the PIC with the information necessary to make a decision as to the airworthiness of the Aircraft
3) It protects the AME s arse ( As compared to the AME kissing the owners arse )
Re: Weekend Annuals.
torquey401 wrote:Great discussion.
I have found the knowledge of most aircraft owners to be lacking as to what their responsibilities are for the care of their aircraft. Usually they want "just an annual", done as cheap and fast as possible. "What inspection program are you using"? Blank stare. "What out of phase items do you want done"? Blank stare. "What AD's are due"? Blank stare.
FYI, AD compliance is the owner's responsibility as well. 625 Appendix H.
There should be much better training on this subject. The amount given in ground school is a joke.
I don't know what owners you talk to, but I'm one and know a number. Maybe my sample is wrong but I dispute your blanket assumptions about "most" private owners -- at least from my circle.
I attend my annual in person, (at least checking in) and am extremely dialed in to resolving issues. It's my responsibility. I'm likely more concerned about possible future issues than my AME is, it's him telling me "this is fine". Some of this is I'm a relatively new owner.
And he's thorough -- I'm simply anal on the maintenance side (and in safety in general). So are a number of pilots I know. We aren't going to be statistics, at least from gross negligence. I decided that mentality a long time ago, and accepted it before owning an airplane.
Re: Weekend Annuals.
I do $50/hr
I do you watch $75/hr
I do you help $150/hr
I do you watch $75/hr
I do you help $150/hr
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
what do you charge an hour if you scribble the snags on a napkin for me to do later after you sign the plane off ? 

Re: Weekend Annuals.
Quote from my award-winning AME's website:DonutHole wrote:I do $50/hr
I do you watch $75/hr
I do you help $150/hr
"Owner Participation Welcomed & Encouraged"
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Well the values are a little skewed, but the philosophy has some merit. It is great when owners become familiar with their aircraft, It will greatly aid in their understanding of systems when they fly, and how anomalies might be accepted during flight. But, no person can expect another person to take the time to train them for free! An extra set of skilled hands during maintenance can be a great help, an extra set of hands for which a lot of explanation will be needed nearly always extends the job.I do $50/hr
I do you watch $75/hr
I do you help $150/hr
If owners want to help, and save themselves a little bit of maintenance cost, before the plane and the maintainer meet, wash the plane completely (including the engine, if doing so is within your skill and capability). Your washing the aircraft lets the maintainer get right to things, without having to scrape off a layer of gunk, and better it allows the owner to actually perform one of the rather inspections - the external structure inspection - you'll be amazed what you might find, and then enter in the log as a defect you found! That's value added!
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Weekend Annuals.
I guess that is what you think should be happening, however the regs don't require that level of baby sitting for the pilots/owners that shouldn't really own an aircraft (not you). Rookie 50 has got it right. Man-up or buy a boat.PilotDAR wrote:I am not an AME.
If the AME is signing for an annual inspection, in my opinion one of two possible meanings shoudl be easily decernable by any pilot reading the log entry:
As an AME, I can't be responsible for being the pseudo PRM for every irresponsible pilot/owner who hires me to fix something or do some level of inspection. And the law does not require that for very obvious reasons.
What AME would be stupid enough to sign a maintenance release if signing meant that you were now responsible for everything that you didn't do, on an aircraft you are not the owner of ... well I guess there are some on here who are. Thank God the law is not like that because the courts would soon enough eliminate the profession.
Re: Weekend Annuals.
From the information notes with CAR 625...
625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List
Information Note: The following provisions, although considered advisory in nature, have been included in the main body of these standards due to their importance. They are not standards.
(ii) Although the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command, an error in this determination could result in a contravention under these regulations. It is for this reason that the regulations require that full details of all defects be entered in the journey log. The pilot in command must be fully aware of the condition of the aircraft if he is to make the correct decision regarding the intended flight. The manner in which the pilot makes this decision, however, will vary according to the type of operation of the aircraft.
And before anyone says that CAR 605 (and its related standard 625) don't apply do AMEs, CAR 605.84 - 605.88 are titled Division III - Aircraft Maintenance Requirements. Yes, it is the owner's responsibility to ensure the work is done, but - if he hires an AME to do some work, it becomes the AME's responsibility to do his job legally. That includes recording of defects per Part 6. Besides, if 605 does not apply to AMEs, it becomes impossible and illegal to use 625 Appendix B for an annual inspection.
625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List
Information Note: The following provisions, although considered advisory in nature, have been included in the main body of these standards due to their importance. They are not standards.
(ii) Although the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command, an error in this determination could result in a contravention under these regulations. It is for this reason that the regulations require that full details of all defects be entered in the journey log. The pilot in command must be fully aware of the condition of the aircraft if he is to make the correct decision regarding the intended flight. The manner in which the pilot makes this decision, however, will vary according to the type of operation of the aircraft.
And before anyone says that CAR 605 (and its related standard 625) don't apply do AMEs, CAR 605.84 - 605.88 are titled Division III - Aircraft Maintenance Requirements. Yes, it is the owner's responsibility to ensure the work is done, but - if he hires an AME to do some work, it becomes the AME's responsibility to do his job legally. That includes recording of defects per Part 6. Besides, if 605 does not apply to AMEs, it becomes impossible and illegal to use 625 Appendix B for an annual inspection.
Re: Weekend Annuals.
You Articulate why I as an owner hang around at the start of the annual for a bit, then come back for a (brief ) visit perhaps the next day (this time for the gear swing). I don't help (LOL!) and don't get in the way or become a distraction. I do ask questions, look over the engine bay myself carefully, and stay plugged in to what's happening with squawks being rectified.Hornblower wrote:I guess that is what you think should be happening, however the regs don't require that level of baby sitting for the pilots/owners that shouldn't really own an aircraft (not you). Rookie 50 has got it right. Man-up or buy a boat.PilotDAR wrote:I am not an AME.
If the AME is signing for an annual inspection, in my opinion one of two possible meanings shoudl be easily decernable by any pilot reading the log entry:
As an AME, I can't be responsible for being the pseudo PRM for every irresponsible pilot/owner who hires me to fix something or do some level of inspection. And the law does not require that for very obvious reasons.
What AME would be stupid enough to sign a maintenance release if signing meant that you were now responsible for everything that you didn't do, on an aircraft you are not the owner of ... well I guess there are some on here who are. Thank God the law is not like that because the courts would soon enough eliminate the profession.
Why wouldn't I? At the end of the day it's both my responsibilty and my butt up there flying in Northern Ontario sometimes 60-70 NM from the nearest airport. I want to know what's going on.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
I would prefer that i had 30 minutes to look for fretting rivets, rubbing wear, engine oil leaks and cracks evident by staining BEFORE the owner washes the entire airplanebefore the plane and the maintainer meet, wash the plane completely
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: Weekend Annuals.
Before that, the engine gets a thorough run-up with clipboard in hand to note snags and engine parameters,,,,ideally, a quick turn around the circuit would be the best prior to the annual inspection