| | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 Member/15,000 posts | | Member/15,000 posts Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 | Chris,
You never said why the Airworthiness Certificate was revoked by the FAA!
Certainly not because of a "non-recordable" lien, "recorded" in Texas! | | | | | Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 13 Member | | Member Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 13 | The aircraft was deregistered in 1987 and marked as destroyed. As far as I can tell, it sat for a while (possibly due to a bad engine) and was disassembled. The logs pick back up with its reassembly in 1995. I could not find any accident reports with the FAA or NTSB. | | | | | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,134 Member/1500+posts | | Member/1500+posts Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,134 | I've seen airplanes "destroyed" by a pick-up truck barreling into them--you won't see any NTSB or FAA database entries. They just get de-registered and sold for salvage.
Tim
'76 C-150M, San Antonio
| | | | | Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 13 Member | | Member Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 13 | I spoke with my mechanic this afternoon and he believes that the extent of the reassembly entry in the logs indicates that it was more than just a reassembly and it may have been damaged. It is not explicitly spelled out in the logs. The plane has been in service for 12 years and it is in fine shape now. I will be visiting the FSDO tomorrow and hopefully that will resolve the issue. | | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 Member/15,000 posts | | Member/15,000 posts Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 | "The plane has been in service for 12 years and it is in fine shape now."
That's the important part! There are NO 30 or 40 year old airplanes in continuous service that have not had undocumented repairs or maintenance performed on them, unless you bought the airplane new, performed all maintenance and repairs yourself, and kept overly meticulous logs.
Airplane ownership makes each of us a detective! If we want to know the complete history of our aircraft, we have to dig it up. We may not always be happy with what we find, and sometimes should just let sleeping dogs lie! Ignorance is bliss? | | | | | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 14,786 Likes: 545 Member/10,000+ posts! | | Member/10,000+ posts! Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 14,786 Likes: 545 | I spoke with my mechanic this afternoon and he believes that the extent of the reassembly entry in the logs indicates that it was more than just a reassembly and it may have been damaged. It is not explicitly spelled out in the logs. The logs may not lie... but that doesn't mean they tell the whole truth. Reminds me of a story about one local flight school looking through the logbook of a Piper they were interested in buying. They saw a reference to "replaced p/n:1234...". They looked up the part number and found out it referred to the entire right wing!
-Kirk Wennerstrom
President, Cessna 150-152 Fly-In Foundation
1976 Cessna Cardinal RG N7556V
Hangar D1, Bridgeport, CT KBDR
| | | | | Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 618 Member/500+posts | | Member/500+posts Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 618 | By the way, I checked with one of the top A&P's with IA certification. No where in the Reg's does it require the IA to review the Airworthiness Certificate nor the Aircraft Registration nor the Radio License (for us old guys and those traveling to foreign countries). Therefore, that is why the sign-off for the aircraft at Annual/100 Hour Inspection is "an airworthy condition". It is up to the pilot/owner to determine that the aircraft is "Airworthy" (ARROW). No recourse on the IA's who have signed-off on the inspections since the Airworthiness Certificate was revoked. Mike.
Mike Dann
1975 A150M Tailwheel Aerobat
Gardner (K34), Kansas
| | | | | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,433 Likes: 3 Member/7500+posts | | Member/7500+posts Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,433 Likes: 3 | While I won't further argue the point, one could construe that 43.15 does require the A&P or IA (depending on the inspection) to verify the paperwork and certificates are valid as they are part of what makes the aircraft "airworthy"
§ 43.15 Additional performance rules for inspections.
(a) General. Each person performing an inspection required by part 91, 125, or 135 of this chapter, shall—
(1) Perform the inspection so as to determine whether the aircraft, or portion(s) thereof under inspection, meets all applicable airworthiness requirements; and
Its a huge grey area and I personally would refuse to sign of an inspection on an aircraft that the airworthy cert of the registration is not correct and valid.
Charles | | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 Member/15,000 posts | | Member/15,000 posts Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 | No recourse on the IA's who have signed-off on the inspections since the Airworthiness Certificate was revoked. If they knew of the revoked Airworthiness Certificate at the time of the sign-off, they would knowingly have been in violation of the regs by releasing the aircraft for flight. It is assumed that they didn't know, and acted on good faith, but a case could still be made that they didn't check, if an FAA rep wanted to be that anal about it and interpret the regs literally. The fact that there wasn't recourse doesn't mean that the IA's who signed off the annuals, or anyone who flew the plane afterwards, wasn't in violation of the regs. Fortunately for all concerned, this was treated as what it is .... a paperwork error not affecting safety of flight! | | | | | Joined: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,024 Likes: 1 Member/1000+posts | | Member/1000+posts Joined: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,024 Likes: 1 | If they knew of the revoked Airworthiness Certificate at the time of the sign-off, they would knowingly have been in violation of the regs by releasing the aircraft for flight. Is that correct? Where does the owner assume responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft? I am not familiar with the FAR's, but I'd be interested in how they handle this situation. John
John
150-61401
C-FUUE
| | |
|
|
