Wes -
I copied the FAR, copied the handbook the FAA inspectors use, have
discussed this with FSDO guys I've worked with, and it comes up in
IA refreshers, so I'm pretty comfortable with what I wrote. The
reality is that only the owner of a plane you've rejected the annual
on will be upset. It'd be a rare owner who would even know about
this whole topic.

As an IA, I'm sure you could write a sermon about technically
incorrect log entries you've seen. Even if an IA did write the
squawks in the log to reject the annual, and an owner knew, and was
idiot enough to complain to the FSDO about how the IA wrote it
(prompting the inspector to wonder if he shouldn't look at this
airplane too); the FAA guys have pointed out that they are so
understaffed that they'll probably thank him for the bringing it to
their attention and it'll drop there. FWIW, you might ask your
local FSDO or IA refresher for their interpretation sometime.


--- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, Wes K <wsknettl@c...> wrote:
> Bob Sw,
> I have to disagree again. You are assuming the FAR writer's intent
> for the list to be a seperate document. This assumption has
evolved into
> the current mis-interpretation of that rule. Owners like pretty
logs and
> they have over the years tried to interpret that entry as a
> document. The FAR merely says I will enter the unairworthy
> and provide a list in the maintenance records . It does not say
the two
> must be on seperated media.
> In todays legal environment it is foolish to trust the owner's
> familly when you only know him. Attorneys would have a field day
> any lack of "in the official record" entries when chasing down
> pockets to sue for a loss. When that attorney approaches the
owners next
> of kin and describes the wealth just waiting around the corner you
> bet your booty the Carnahans of the world will try to collect.
> Bob St,
> I disagree that an IA cannot determine and state airworthiness. We
do it
> every day. Every scheduled inspection return to service, every FAA
> 337 return to service. The FAA does not determine the aircraft is
> airworthy each annual or major repair/alteration, WE do. Yes the
> is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of his aircraft
> includes insuring all necessary maintenance and inspections are
> and properly logged, the fuel loading is correct, the weight and
> balance is correct, the required equipment for the intended flight
is on
> board correct and functioning and list can go on. But when he
feels you
> declared his ship airworthy when in his opinion it was not then
you are
> subject to license action by the FAA and civil liability in court.
Or if
> you declare his aircraft unairworthy when in fact the FAA or the
> determines it is air worthy then you are exposed to the same
> again. If as you say we as IA's cannot declare an aircraft
airworthy or
> unairworthy then how do all the above disciplinary actions happen?
> believe me they do happen in very large numbers.
> I know I do not have the power to ground a civilian aircraft or to
> physically stop an owner from operating it. The owner and the FAA
> the only folks who can do that. But declaring airworthiness or the
> of is a seperate act from grounding the aircraft.
> Wes Knettle

Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: