Cessna C337 SID

[sns3guppy]

Someone entered into a discussion about signing off an aircraft at an annual inspection, with the possibility that the Part 91 airplane be subsequently sold into or placed into commercial service. This is a non-issue.

An aircraft which is inspected annually is declared airworthy at the time of the inspection, and the mechanic/inspector (IA) assumes liability with that declaration for the moment the signature is entered in the maintenance records, working backward. It's often said that he or she "buys" the history of the aircraft with that signature. If prior improper maintenance has been done, the inspector signing the aircraft off must either repair it (or set it right), or note it as a discrepancy before completing and signing the inspection.

A mechanic/inspector who signs off an aircraft, airframe, powerplant, appliance, or accessory does not "buy" the future. If a Skymaster is signed off without SID inspections done, he or she has signed off an airworthy airplane. The inspections aren't required under Part 91. If the owner subsequently elects to put the Skymaster into commercial service, the owner/operator is responsible for seeking compliance; the mechanic/inspector who performed the prior inspection is NOT responsible for that.

14 CFR 91.409(a) dictates the 12 month inspection term for the "annual" inspection.

91.409(c)(2) provides that the provision of 91.409(a) doesn't apply to aircraft operated under a maintenance program for Part 135. In other words, if you inspect a Skymaster for Mr. Bob, who operates the airplane under Part 91, you aren't obligated to perform that the SID inspections have been performed. You're not obligated to perform them, either. If you do the work following the inspection that's necessary to bring the airplane into compliance with the regulation, and you sign off the aircraft as airworthy, you're done when you sign the logbook. If Mr. Bob then puts the airplane into commercial service with a Part 135 operator, the aircraft is no longer airworthy until it's brought into compliance with the Part 135 maintenance program under which it's operated. Furthermore it must continuously be operated under that program, in full compliance with that program, so long as it's in Part 135 service. That's not your responsibility. It's the responsibility of the owner/operator.

The owner/operator is substantively responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft and it's records. This is firmly established by 91.403(a), which clearly states "The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter." Part 39 encompasses AD's.

Each foreign operator must take up the legal requirements of operating his or her aircraft in accordance with the respective airworthiness authority. It's beyond the scope of most, if not all, to attempt to dictate this or address this. It's certainly beyond my intent to address, consider, concern, or comment on such a vast and variable topic.

A couple of other points, as many owners aren't aware: by it's nature, an inspection does not include maintenance. Many seem to view an annual inspection as inclusive of all the things necessary to fix the airplane or bring it into compliance. This isn't the case. An inspection is just as it sounds: it's an examination of the aircraft and it's records. An owner may elect to have the inspector perform the maintenance to bring it into compliance, or may elect to have the work done elsewhere. The owner may also elect to seek determination that not all the work is necessary.

The other point is that while a mechanic holding an Inspection Authorization can declare an aircraft airworthy as part of an annual inspection, he or she cannot return the aircraft to service. The same applies when work has been performed on an aircraft; the person performing the work declares that work acceptable for return to service, but doesn't return the aircraft to service. Only the pilot does that, by flying the aircraft.

There are really only two times that a mechanic declares an aircraft airworthy (generally a mechanic only approves an aircraft for return to service; this is a significant distinction from declaring the aircraft airworthy): one is when signing a special flight permit ("ferry permit"), and the other is upon completion of an annual inspection.

One doesn't need to cite the airplane as airworthy at the conclusion of an annual inspection. One can also state that the aircraft isn't airworthy, and that a list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner.

Sometimes owners feel hostage to the shop or mechanic/inspector who does the inspection, as though they're stuck paying for all the work to be done. This isn't necessary and it's incorrect.

Years ago I served as the Director of Maintenance for a Part 135 operation that flew King Airs in medical service. Upon taking that position, I elected to do a records inspection, and found numerous discrepancies. Among them was an AD that was 20 years out of date, and missing phase inspections. I gave the operator an ultimatum: I'd begin providing service after an independent Beech center had performed two major inspections (a "C" and a "D" inspection) to bring the airplane into compliance, as well as addressing the AD.

Following the inspection, the owner received the estimate for the work that needed to be done: it came to over nine hundred thousand dollars. He came unglued. He ordered me to go to the service center and see that half that bill was "removed." I traveled to the service center, reviewed the records, and found a lot of items that didn't need doing. Some could be deferred, some weren't necessary. One that I recall was an oil line which had a slight dent. The line cost about nine hundred dollars. I inspected the line, and found that it wasn't out of tolerance, as the center suggested it was. Although the center insisted on all their items being done if they were going to sign off the phase inspections, I was still able to knock several hundred thousands of dollars off the cost by finding unnecessary work or work that could be deferred. Simply because an inspector or shop tells you they want this or that done to sign something off, doesn't make it so...any more than Cessna saying the SID inspections are mandatory makes them mandatory. Say it ain't so...because it ain't.

--Sorry for the length. Larry Bowdish did say it's okay to be verbose, and I felt it had to be said. I also divided the reply into two parts, because it's too long for one post.

[Gord Tessier]

Boy that clears up a lot of confusion. Obviously from your comments you have thorough understanding of the position the owners are in. To help validate your comments can you tell us a little more about yourself? expertise etc.
Well done.

[sns3guppy]

Gord,

I'm afraid that my own resume won't change the validity of what's been said, although I believe I provided adequate information to enable anyone to establish the information for themselves.

I fly internationally, and work as both a pilot and mechanic and inspector. I'm also a flight and ground instructor (and flight engineer, if that makes any difference). Presently I'm abroad, operating a large aircraft, primarily in hostile areas. I would prefer to say no more than that.

[WebMaster]

Be as verbose as you please.
The software has limits of how big a post can be, but I don't.

[Gord Tessier]

SIDS not mandatory...

SID inspections are NOT mandatory for Canadian registered, small, privately owned aircraft.

From Transport Canada

"For non-commercial owner/operators of small piston aircraft who are operating under Standard 625 Appendix B however the ability to operate to the general annual inspection requirements of this appendix removes the requirement to perform the SID inspections.The Regulations state only the minimum requirements in order to comply however Transport Canada encourages all owners to assess manufacturer’s recommendations for their aircraft".

So now we know.

[hharney]

That is great news Gord

[hharney]

The rest of fleet is joining the fun.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan