FAA Audit

The FAA audited our flight school maintenance and flight records over
the last few days. Not sure if it had anything to do with the fatal
accident of a renter pilot last Sunday, but the timing is a bit too
coincidental.

They discovered that there had been a lapse in annuals and 100 hour
inspections of three airplanes. During that time, a page and a half
of flights occured with students and instructors.

There will be FAA letters going out to those folks, but the Chief
Flight Instructor thinks they will be just warning letters.

Be careful whom you trust.

Trust no one. When you are PIC, the buck stops with you.

--

Roger Long

The regulatory theory is that you should do that. The real world, of
course, is different.

Here are some scenario's:

1) You are ramp checked. The FAA inspector sees that you are renting and
asks if AD-xxxx was complied with. You look blank or say the FBO is
responsible for all that. He might bust you if he's in a really bad mood.
If you say you looked through the logbooks before the flight and all AD's
were complied with, there is a 99.9% chance that will be the end of the
story.

2) The airplane gets bent because something that is under AD failed. The
FAA will want to know if you looked at the logs. If you didn't, and the AD
was not complied with, they will probably tag you, the PIC, as well as the
FBO. If the logs say the AD was complied with, you can prove that you at
least looked through them briefly, and it is later established that the only
tool used in the compliance was a pen, they will probably only take action
against the FBO.

3) If there is a really serious accident and something that only could have
been found by very detailed examination of the maintenance records is
determined to be a primary cause, they may still cite you even though it
would have been impractical for you to have examined the records in such
detail. When people are hurt, the bar gets raised higher retroactively.

4) The FAA is pretty sure that you flew under a few bridges but can't prove
it. They can however, find a couple little glitches in the maintenance
record. They my use them to yank your chain.

The regulations are attempting to insure that you know a rental aircraft as
well as if you owned it. Sure it is impractical but, why should FAA
regulations be any more reasonable than other government regulations?

When you accept an airplane for flight, you are accepting a huge
responsibility. The real issue is whether you trust the FBO enough to
accept that responsibility. The intent of the regulations is to insure that
you won't accept the airplane on the "I don't have to worry, if anything is
wrong, it's their fault." basis. The FAA might reasonably look differently
at these situations: Y have been renting from an FBO regularly, had examined
logbooks before, and could say, "Everything was always in order so I didn't
look as closely this time and missed that." You walk into an FBO you've
never been in before and take a plane out without knowing anything about the
maintenance records.

The legal term is "due diligence". If you just ignore the whole thing on
the "it's impractical to 100% comply" you may get in trouble. However, if
you can prove a good faith effort to the basics you'll probably be OK unless
the FAA has another agenda like the bridge flying.

It's very similar to the information a pilot is required to have before a
flight. What are you required to know? Everything. That's obviously
impossible. If there is no damage, and you planning is questioned for some
reason, having a weather briefing, runway lengths, etc., will almost always
be sufficient. If an accident is caused by something you didn't know
however, the FAA will say you should have known it.

Remember, ship captains are often responsible, and even punished, for things
that they actually didn't have any control over. The same can happen to a
PIC. As a renter, you need to look at your FBO in that light and decide how
much you are prepared to trust them. You also want to take the basic
actions to be able to make a case later that you did something to verify
that trust. Being able to show that you spent a half hour sitting in the
office with the logbooks should cover you in most cases even if you don't
have a clue what you are looking at. Learn some buzz phrases to rattle off
in a ramp check like, "Yes, I saw the AD compliance section in the logs and
reviewed it. Everything appeared to be in order."

--

Roger Long



"Hilton" wrote in message
link.net...
Roger Long wrote:
Trust no one. When you are PIC, the buck stops with you.

In your opinion, is it really feasible/practical for a renter pilot to
ensure 100% that the aircraft is airworthy? By this, I mean, go through
the
logs, ensure every AD has been addressed including the recurring ones,
verify the W&B ensuring that nothing has been added or removed etc, the
signatures are all legal and valid, no pages are missing or have been
inserted, every part on the aircraft is 'legal', etc etc. I've read that
pilots do this when buying aircraft and it takes them days or longer.

Hilton

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:26:48 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The regulatory theory is that you should do that. The real world, of
course, is different.

Here are some scenario's:

1) You are ramp checked. The FAA inspector sees that you are renting and
asks if AD-xxxx was complied with. You look blank or say the FBO is
responsible for all that. He might bust you if he's in a really bad mood.
If you say you looked through the logbooks before the flight and all AD's
were complied with, there is a 99.9% chance that will be the end of the
story.
snipped...

I understand what you're saying and I believe that you have pretty
much nailed it. I am a renter and my problem is this: even if I
review the logbooks and there are some reasonable looking AD entries,
how can a renter possibly know what ADs have even been issued for a
specific airplane? The AD related problem that may have brought a
plane down might not have been addressed at all in the logbook. To
truly comply, I can imagine spending 10 hours of research and logbook
inspection for any plane that I rent.
Rich Russell

If you really want to know, you can go to faa.gov where they have a search
engine that will turn up all the AD's. You'll need to know the aircraft
model and serial number. It's worth learning the system, once you know how
to do it, you can research an aircraft and engine in less than an hour and
make a list of what applies. Then check that list against the FBO's.
Sometimes there are AD's nested within components, for example, a part in a
magneto, so it takes some digging. Just learning this system is an
education and you'll feel more confident about the aircraft you fly.

Asking to see the logs also promotes better GA. If renters insist on seeing
and reviewing them, FBO's will keep them in better order and probably
maintain the planes better. You do all renters a favor.

I've you've looked at the paperwork, made a few notes, and can tell them
something like, "The AD compliance log was in a red binder or at the back of
logbook such and such and the paperwork looked good.", I doubt you'll ever
have a problem. If the FBO is an obvious junk shop, they won't show you the
logs, the plane has unplacarded things, holes in the panel, etc., you'll
probably have a problem if questioned.

If you can show the FAA that you even held the logs in your hands, they will
probably figure you are so far ahead of the average renter that they will be
impressed and leave you alone

--

Roger Long



"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:26:48 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The regulatory theory is that you should do that. The real world, of
course, is different.

Here are some scenario's:

1) You are ramp checked. The FAA inspector sees that you are renting and
asks if AD-xxxx was complied with. You look blank or say the FBO is
responsible for all that. He might bust you if he's in a really bad
mood.
If you say you looked through the logbooks before the flight and all AD's
were complied with, there is a 99.9% chance that will be the end of the
story.
snipped...

I understand what you're saying and I believe that you have pretty
much nailed it. I am a renter and my problem is this: even if I
review the logbooks and there are some reasonable looking AD entries,
how can a renter possibly know what ADs have even been issued for a
specific airplane? The AD related problem that may have brought a
plane down might not have been addressed at all in the logbook. To
truly comply, I can imagine spending 10 hours of research and logbook
inspection for any plane that I rent.
Rich Russell

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:26:48 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote in ::

The regulations are attempting to insure that you know a rental aircraft as
well as if you owned it. Sure it is impractical but, why should FAA
regulations be any more reasonable than other government regulations?

It is my understanding that the IA who performed the last 100 hour
inspection certifies that all ADs have been complied with when s/he
signs it off. Doesn't a renter pilot just need to see that the logs
to insure that such an inspection was entered into the log books
within the requisite time period?

You are correct. All the renter pilot needs to do is check that the plane
has a current inspection. That inspection certifies the aircraft is
airworthy as of that date, and "renews" the airworthiness certificate for
the next 100 hours or year as the case may be. The reg (91.409)
specifically says "no person may operate an aircraft ... unless within the
preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual
or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service." There are
a few additional nuances, but for general audience of this newsgroup, the
essential point is that the buck for AD compliance stops with the IA.

AD compliance research is kind of an art, and pilots are not expected to be
able to do it. It's a half day job, at minimum, on an unfamiliar plane for
someone who knows what he is doing. Sometimes it takes a half hour just to
read a single, complex AD and make phone calls to see what it really means.



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:26:48 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote in ::

The regulations are attempting to insure that you know a rental aircraft
as
well as if you owned it. Sure it is impractical but, why should FAA
regulations be any more reasonable than other government regulations?

It is my understanding that the IA who performed the last 100 hour
inspection certifies that all ADs have been complied with when s/he
signs it off. Doesn't a renter pilot just need to see that the logs
to insure that such an inspection was entered into the log books
within the requisite time period?

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message news:Cf3Sc.1371
AD compliance research is kind of an art, and pilots are not expected to be
able to do it.

But that doesn't keep pilots from being held liable if it was not done. The FAA and
the NTSB has affirmed time and time again that the owner and pilots have ultimate
responsibility even if the mechanic is the one who ought to be relied upon.

Roger Long wrote:
If you really want to know, you can go to faa.gov where they have a search
engine that will turn up all the AD's. You'll need to know the aircraft
model and serial number. It's worth learning the system, once you know
how
to do it, you can research an aircraft and engine in less than an hour and
make a list of what applies. Then check that list against the FBO's.
Sometimes there are AD's nested within components, for example, a part in
a
magneto, so it takes some digging.

Like I said, that'll take days when it includes potential missing 337 forms,
damage history, W&B measurements and calculations incorrect... I've heard
numerous stories where someone decides to really look at things and finds
that the aircraft has not been airworthy for *years* - including on
instruction flights. As a buyer, would you simply buy a plane by looking at
the last inspection? I hope not. What about an AD that comes out the day
before your flight that grounds the fleet until that AD was complied with?
What, if after you've done all your excellent research, the aircraft has an
issue (not starting, not enough gas, late getting back, etc etc) and you
need to take another plane, perhaps a different make and model even?

It's physically impossible for a renter pilot for ensure that the rented
aircraft is airworthy on a continual basis - IMHO of course. Feel free to
disagree.

Hilton

Read them for yourself:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4742.PDF

Here's the end of one such story story(excerpted from Admin v.
Southworth):

"Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that
respondent was denied access to the logbooks, that does not
excuse his operation of the aircraft when it did not have a
current annual inspection. In fact, one might think that a
reasonable, prudent pilot would refuse to fly an aircraft if he
were told that he could not view its maintenance logbooks after
he had expressly requested to see them.
As for sanction, the law judge explained that, while
precedent generally supported a 30-day suspension, the
elimination of one charge of the complaint justified a reduction
to a 15-day suspension. We have been presented with no reason to
disturb his decision, which appears to be supported by the
record."

This poor guy didn't check the logbooks and rented an aircraft that
was out of annual. He got a 15 day suspension in the end.

Jim

"TaxSrv" wrote :
snip
I disagree that the NTSB says that:
snip

Fred F.