This is a regular topic in what I hear from other pilots, behind the scenes.
Lots of engineers seem to make up their own rules – for the required paperwork that comes with a part, for an engine being over 12 years or over 2000hrs, etc.
The regs on this – to the extent they exist – vary between EASA and FAA.
I’ve just been reading an interesting article in the US AOPA magazine on the FAA angle. An FAA A&P must sign off the work he has done regardless of whether he believes the aircraft is airworthy. Obviously, he is entitled to state which bits are in his opinion unairworthy. This protects the customer because the A&P is sticking his neck out on the “non airworthy” aspect and must be able to show, by reference to Reg XYZ, that the non airworthiness is supportable.
Is there is such a clear (or any) provision in EASA Part M regs?
I read that Mike Busch article – seems he’s the only A&P/IA that can a) write and b) doesn’t give a toss about the age-old taboos 
Every time ANYONE, whether it’s an A&P, Repair Station or “properly certificated airman” (when performing certain owner preventative work per FAA list) MUST make a log entry describing the work performed. I would think that EASA rules are same.
The difficulty is when an A&P changes the oil & filter and happens to notice that the prop is missing a couple of bolts. Now he/she just can’t ignore the prop problem so he/she would ADVISE the owner/operator of the prop whilst making the log entry for the oil & filter, simple as that .
IMHO (if I understand correctly), the BIG difference between EASA regs and FAA is that the owner / operator has a Contract with the EASA shop that basically says the shop is responsible for making sure the aircraft is always in an airworthy condition when it leaves the premises. This is in stark contrast with the FAA system where the Owner / Operator is responsible for making sure the acft is always in an airworthy condition before each flight.
What this means is that, for example, the owner /operator of an FAA reg’d acft can have the Annual Inspection performed by A&P/IA X then have discrepancies worked on by A&P Y and Z, the difference being that the Owner / Operator is the “Project Manager” and the different A&Ps are only responsible for the bit they actually perform, NOT the entire aircraft.
If I do a job on an aircraft and while doing that job find something unconnected with that job that was dangerous I don’t think I could refuse to certify the job I was contracted to do but I would inform the owner/ pilot of the defect I had found.
That is the strictly leagal aviation interpretation however the common law has something called Duty of Care and it is quite likely that the lawyers would come after me if I failed to inform the owner / pilot and do all in my power to stop the aircraft flying until the aircraft was fixed.
From a practical point of view If I was of the opinion that the aircraft was in imminent danger and the pilot was insistent on flying it I would park a snowplough in front of the aircraft and call my CAA engineering surveyor making sure that the pilot and owner was fuly aware of the resons why I had taken this action.
If I find defects which I can not correct, or don’t get permission to correct, then this or these items will be also shown on logentry. It will say for example:
Found during pitot static test: Altimeter out of tolerance, Informed customer, no permission to correct, installed placard “Altimeter out of tolerance”
I also think that the work has to be signed off, as you are free to have this altimeter correct by another company for example.
I don’t know about what the regs have to say, but if you perform a maintenance task and you think your work isn’t airworthy, you’re not done, yet. So you may very well release your work without releasing the whole aircraft into service. For instance if you have installed a new alternator but the elevator is still corroded beyond airworthiness, you can sign off the alternator work, but not the complete aircraft into service.
mh wrote:
I don’t know about what the regs have to say, but if you perform a maintenance task and you think your work isn’t airworthy, you’re not done, yet. So you may very well release your work without releasing the whole aircraft into service. For instance if you have installed a new alternator but the elevator is still corroded beyond airworthiness, you can sign off the alternator work, but not the complete aircraft into service.
You would always do this, and never release the “complete” aircraft. This is a typical release:
I hereby certify that the work specified except as otherwise specified was carried out in accordance with Part-M and in respect to that work the aircraft is considered ready for release to service.
The except otherwise specification could be: “Found severe corrosion on elevator, informed customer on finding”
Customer can then do what he wants, either bring it to another company to renew parts, or fly with it as is. If he doesn’t care, he might get issues at annual / ARC renewal.
Considering that there are more than a few N reg owners on here, it is probably worth clarifying to which system you are referring…
AFAIK for N reg, only an IA “releases” the whole aircraft to service or not (IAW Part 43.11)…
(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.”
(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner or operator.”
An A&P (or a Repair Station) only signs for the actual work they did, and cannot release an entire aircraft to service…if they did the work they must make a logbook entry IAW Part 43.9:
(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.
So in my interpretation, whereas an IA can declare airworthy subject to a list of discrepancies being first rectified, an A&P can only sign if the work has been satisfactorily completed. IOW I disagree Peter, if he has been unable to properly do the work, he cannot not sign…
[Sorry for the multiple edits….difficult to do in a oner on an iPhone!]
So in my interpretation, whereas an IA can declare airworthy subject to a list of discrepancies being first rectified, an A&P can only sign if the work has been satisfactorily completed.
The IA only signs the aircraft off as airworth or not airworthy. If the aircraft is deemed unairworthy, the IA is required to give a list of discrepancies to the owner/operator. That list does not necessarily go into the logbook. Most IA’s will keep their own copy of the discrepancy list as there is no obligation on the part of the owner/operator to keep the list. There have been many instances of a disagreement with items on the list as not being airworthiness issues. This often comes up during a pre-buy inspection where the buyer requests a particular shop to perform the inspection, but the seller is responsible for making any airworthiness repairs. Some shops consider service bulletins as airworthiness issues and other repairs based solely on time or TBO to be discrepancies. The FAA does not unless it is part of the original FAA approved maintenance manual or an AD. An A&P does not need to make an entry for these discrepancies, and only needs to make entries for repairs performed.
Sometimes there is simply an argument between the owner and the IA to the extent the IA refuses to provide an airworthy sign off because the owner refuses to have the work performed. The IA has no choice in the matter other than to provide the sign off for the inspection as unairworthy and provide the owner with the list of discrepancies. What happens after that is up to the owner although they will need at least one return to service entry from an A&P. If the IA will not provide the required sign off for the inspection performed, I would take some course of action such as to refuse payment until the sign off was provided, file a small claims lawsuit, report the IA to the local FSDO as not complying with the regulations. In practice, it rarely comes to this.
Most shops defer the sign off of the inspection and if they are good shops will always provide a list of discrepancies to the owner and seek approval for repairs. Once approval is obtained, they make the repairs and make a single entry for the airworthy signoff, often by using a stamp or a pre-worded sign off. Any repairs or AD’s complied with are entered as required as separate entries.
Inspections are different from repairs. Normal sequence of events during an annual is Inspection, discrepancy list, approval, repair, airworthy sign off, payment. If only the inspection portion is accomplished, then the event sequence is: Inspection, discrepancy list, unairworthy sign off, payment, ferry permit or another A&P signoff for repairs. Regardless of airworthy or not, the date of the inspection sign off is what satisfies the annual requirement and sets the 12 calendar month clock in motion.
At our FBO/Flight School, I had an IA working for me that did our inspections. He was going to be taking his vacation. The other mechanics had A&P. We had several flight school aircraft needing an annual during the vacation time. Had the IA perform the inspection portion only and sign the aircraft off as unairworthy and provided a list of discrepancies. He went on his two week vacation and my A&P’s made the repairs and returned the aircraft to line duty well before he returned.
