![]() |
|
Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
Rating: ![]() |
Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
No ill intent to any hard working A&P but the evidence here would clearly indicate that this is not even close to being a requirement. That being said, it is understandable that some mechanics may push for this inspection for a variety of reasons. Likewise we as operators can easily find other mechanics.
All this Arm-Chair lawyering about liability and what constitutes "current" after reading the actual document from the FAA/NTSB brings to mind the quote by Will Rogers: "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that ain't true." |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
A note about IA's in the court room. Case law favors the IA usually, because the IA only certifies the airworthiness on the day, hour, and minute the annual is signed off. What gets IA's in trouble is non compliance with ADs. However, any one can sue any one else in our country -- and you can counter sue as a matter of your rights. One should always have a lawyer if sued in such an event.
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|