![]() |
I'm with Sam kinda. If you look at entries by the mfg. for things accomplished before delivery or warranty you'll find them to be pretty terse. Rule one, don't leave out required items. Rule two, don't add unrequired items (its ammunition).
|
Quote:
I had a highly experienced A&P/IA tell me years ago to be careful and not put too much in the logs of my experimental aircraft that I maintain. A very fat logbook might make the plane look like a maintenance horror show... |
Sam,
I understand where you are coming from, I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one. Please don take my statements out of context: "And I don't care what the reg's say or if that gives you a 'legal" out, you have a responsibility to comply with industry standards both as an airman and a maintenance technician, end of story and off my soapbox for now." The point I was trying to make is that IMO you have a moral and ethical responsibility to make log book entries IAW standard practices and FAA guidelines: Ref CFR 43.9(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information: (1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed. (2) The date of completion of the work performed. (3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. (4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed. I don't believe that "replaced nose gear bolt" is an adequite description of the work performed in this case and is not in the 'spirit' of the rules. |
Back to the question that was raised by Brad who started this thread, I agreed that ""Replace AN5 bolt on holding nose gear strut to engine mount" adequately states the maintenance performed.
I would differ with those who think it is necessary to write a novel describing this operation in order to meet experimental, builder-maintained regs or even to demonstrate ethical responsibility. My signature in the logs following the condition inspection implies that all maintenance has been performed in a way that promotes safe operation of the aircraft. Trying to divine the 'spirit' of regs is a slippery slope open to individual interpretation. I much prefer to be directed by what is actually written (or not written). I'm confident we all are concerned about protecting the welfare of our families, passengers and our hobby. We just have differing opinions on the mechanics of documenting our efforts. :) |
Quote:
Second, I always thought that an A&P or an IA signature in a logbook meant that "At the time I signed this inspection or work off, all was well." One day later something could fail on a plane, that was not "discoverable" during the inspection yesterday. IMHO, the FAA recognizes that fact, and doesn't hold A&P/IA's accountable to predict the future. An annual inspection doesn't guarantee trouble-free operation for another year, or any other indefinite time. AMT's are held accountable to do the work properly, and in accordance with the regulations. And that's for TC'd aircraft. Experimental aircraft have no TC or set standards. A condition inspection merely means that in the inspector's opinion, the machine is in a condition for safe operation "At the time the CI was conducted." Am I missing something? |
Quote:
|
Why the rules?
I think they are to aid the FAA in determing what happened when things go bad. I have been called to account a few.times in my carreer, and although the law offers some protection in deteriming who is ultimatly resposible, it ( who is legally resposible) does't allways.lead the investigators to exactly why something went bad. The FAA understands that I trust the people who worked on an aircraft before me, and my experiance in this specific matter with an FAA investigation kept them from violating me, even though they legally could. Maintenance history led then to the guy that.actually did the work. My PM with Sam shed some light on th?s topic. I will avoid working on AB aircraft that.do not have enough maintenance history. My expectation has allways been that I need to kn?w whats been done. Besides, I am pulling in a good income in a well supplied shop, and have complete spending authrity. Something that is rare in Part 91 or the AB world.
Like my dad once told me, I'm not charging for this insight, so it's either priceless, or worthless.:) |
Wow, thanks for all the great discussion. At the very least, I don't feel bad knowing that even greatly respected folks within the VAF community have different opinions on this topic :-)
A further question regarding an alternator belt: should this be a separate entry? Since the prop was off, I thought that I might as well replace the alternator belt since the old one had two years / 390 hours on it. Would you expect to see this as it's own line item, or could this be "Replace mount, engine, and installed new alternator belt Napa PN#xxxx. Installed prop, ..." ? |
Quote:
If you are going to work on aircraft then you need to take responsibility for and document the work you performed, "one word" signoffs are not considered a complete description of the work performed. Been down that road with the FAA and I can tell you that a sign-off like that on a certified aircaft would be a clear violation, and it should be. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM. |