When my plane receives its Annual Inspection, the A&P-IA usually finds some discrepancies. Hangar tank indicates that there is a great deal of subjectivity in what is simply a repair need versus an airworthiness issue. Apparently the discrepancies don’t actually have to all be fixed, in order for the Inspection itself to actually be signed off. What is the straight story on the log entries and discrepancy list associated with the Annual Inspection?
Bob Steward, A&P-IA:
This issue is covered in FAR 43.11 “Content, form, and disposition of
records for inspections conducted under Parts 91…”
43.11 (4-5)
(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.”
While one must be vigilant in protecting one’s butt (and certificates) in the increasingly litigious environment today, one is not empowered to declare in the logs that an airplane is “unairworthy” in any way, except that an inspection has been performed and a list of unairworthy items was given to the owner.
We as mechanics are just the hired hands that assist owners in meeting
their airworthiness responsibilities. Before each flight the owners must
assure themselves that the plane is airworthy, and we get hired to
periodically help the owners know that things outside the scope of a
pre-flight are in conformity with the Type Design, and in a condition for
safe operation.
As an inspector, I can (and do) find that an aircraft has discrepancies
that prevent me from stating that it is airworthy, if the AR(R)OW paperwork
is not in the plane. This doesn’t mean that the owner can’t pull it out of
his flight bag and display it as required, when he cranks up to leave.
We have two levels of criteria to inspect for during an annual.
#1) Does the plane meet its Type Design or properly altered condition?
— Which means is it as it left the factory, just like the Type Certificate was approved by the FAA, subject to any legal and documented repairs or alterations; which is a Yes or No question. It can not be ALMOST meeting its Type Design and be signed off as airworthy.
#2) Is it in a condition for safe operation?
— Which means are the wear items in suitable condition for safe operation? Will that tire hold air even though the tread is worn off? Are
the spark plugs within the manufacturer’s limitations for electrode wear?, etc.
There is no gray area in the items covered by #1. There can be things that
are open to interpretation and subjective judgment in item #2.
In every case, it is up the the owner/pilot to satisfy themselves, BEFORE
EACH FLIGHT, whether the plane is currently airworthy, regardless of what the logs say.
Bob Swaim, A&P:
Bob Steward is (as usual) on the money in his references. Further boiling down what Bob Steward wrote are the following words straight from the FAA Inspectors Handbook 8300.10:
• If the person conducting the inspection finds the aircraft to be unairworthy, appropriate entries must be made in the aircraft maintenance records. The owner/operator must be furnished with a list of discrepancies or unairworthy items. Note that the list is a separate document). It is totally correct that the owner could go to another mechanic and lie that his brake pads were the only problem. However, the owner has to produce the
list of discrepancies written by the first inspector. Seeing a log entry like this would be a HUGE red flag to any mechanic . No matter what was on the list provided by the owner, the second mechanic will most likely at least talk to the first one!
• The owner/operator must ensure that the maintenance records contain proper entries in accordance with FAR § 91.417. The owner/operator must correct discrepancies found during the inspection before the aircraft is returned to service. [Like the other Bob said!]
Another person posted that “I don’t feel that an IA can determine
what is “airworthy” as it seems to go beyond his/her authority.”
However, note the last 3 words of the specific wording that the FAR
gives the IA in 43.11(4):
(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.”
I’m not sure about Canadian regs and what is described as a “conditional annual” for our friends north of the border, so can’t respond to those posts.
There are all sorts of old wives tales about annuals, but posting this info on the web is one thing the FAA has been pretty good at.