Question on 172 M electrics... (1974 Skyhawk II)

Ah, grasshopper, you must read the WHOLE paragraph, not just those parts that
you personally believe. You, of course, are mistaken once again.

See the "to the extent necessary" clause? If I tell an owner to remove a wheel,
clean and lube the wheel bearings, and reinstall the wheel, and if I've seen the
owner do this perfectly a half-dozen times, how many "personal observations" do
you think I'm going to make?

After the fact maintenance sign-offs are NOT illegal if the signer was in on the
deal from the getgo and told the owner exactly what to do and when any
inspections (if any) were necessary.

(BTW, I don't mind disagreement with my holdings. However, you need to post
your qualifications for making the statements before I will give you one gram of
credence. A&P? IA? Private pilot with 43 hours?)

Jim



Bill Zaleski
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-Yes, correct to the extent that you describe, but not only must the
-mechanic sign it off, but he must personally observe the work being
-done before it is signed off. After the fact maintenence sign-offs,
-though common, are illegal. Guess you want the reference? FAR 43.3
-(d)


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

A&P, I.A., FAA Aviation Maintenance Safety Counselor, 11,000+ hours,
holder of all category and class ratings except airship, 4X ATP, 4X
commercial, if you must ask, but what does that matter?

Are you really going to try and sell the idea that observing an
operation being done once on an aircraft automatically covers
repeated occurences of the same operation of multiple instances? That
sure doesn't fly in the Airlines. If you watch a few engine overhauls
from one non mechanic, are you going to sign off on one you didn't
supervise? "To the extent necessary" does not mean "no extent". The
reg requires you to be personally present to "observe the work BEING
done", not BEEN done, to ensure that it is being done properly.

As a Master Parachute Rigger, I can not simply fall back on the
premise that my supervision is valid just because I watched my trainee
pack correctly in the past. Every operation has to be observed, each
time. Same idea, Jim. Maybe things are different in Grass Valley.


On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:14:09 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:

Ah, grasshopper, you must read the WHOLE paragraph, not just those parts that
you personally believe. You, of course, are mistaken once again.

See the "to the extent necessary" clause? If I tell an owner to remove a wheel,
clean and lube the wheel bearings, and reinstall the wheel, and if I've seen the
owner do this perfectly a half-dozen times, how many "personal observations" do
you think I'm going to make?

After the fact maintenance sign-offs are NOT illegal if the signer was in on the
deal from the getgo and told the owner exactly what to do and when any
inspections (if any) were necessary.

(BTW, I don't mind disagreement with my holdings. However, you need to post
your qualifications for making the statements before I will give you one gram of
credence. A&P? IA? Private pilot with 43 hours?)

Jim



Bill Zaleski
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-Yes, correct to the extent that you describe, but not only must the
-mechanic sign it off, but he must personally observe the work being
-done before it is signed off. After the fact maintenence sign-offs,
-though common, are illegal. Guess you want the reference? FAR 43.3
-(d)


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com