There are very few FAA A&Ps that do not have Inspection Authorization.
That may be true for A&Ps who work freelance (like you) but there are many A&Ps who work quietly inside companies, often with no authority to sign anything except via the 145 which owns the hangar.
All of the above strikes me as a (slightly odd) discussion about FAA A&Ps working outside of the US… only. Or maybe it’s an inappropriate mixing of FAA and European regulations. I don’t believe either quote is factually correct.
I know many FAA A&Ps in the US who don’t have an IA and although I don’t have any statistics, my impression is that maybe 80% don’t have the IA. Mostly the IA is needed to sign off annual inspections and Form 337s for final inspection of major repairs or alterations. Normal repair and maintenance work on a certified aircraft does not require an IA, and obviously the A&P will make appropriate logbook entries for his work after completion. In addition, all repairs, maintenance and periodic inspections on an FAA Experimental Amateur Built aircraft can be done with an A&P or Repairman Certificate, without an IA.
There are people working inside companies who have no A&P, who can’t sign anything and who work under A&P supervision. My work on my certified plane under either A&P or A&P IA supervision is done essentially on that basis, although not within a company. Mechanics with A&Ps have independent authority and can sign off routine repair and maintenance work, regardless of where they do it and regardless of whether that have an IA. An A&P without an IA signs logbook entries relevant to work he’s independently performed or supervised, but cannot sign off aircraft inspections. That is what’s happening in the example provided earlier in this thread, wherein the A&P IA generates a list of repairs required to pass annual inspection, and the non-IA A&P makes the aircraft airworthy by performing and documenting those repairs. It is also possible that three levels of personnel be involved: the IA inspects and generates the list for airworthiness, then an unqualified person performs the repairs under supervision of a non-IA A&P, who after completion makes the appropriate logbook entry.
Finally, and just to make the explicit point, having an FAA A&P Mechanics Certificate has nothing to do with working as a mechanic for a living, or working in any organization or company. All of the A&Ps and A&P IAs with whom I work locally do something else to make their primary living, and about half of them work only on their own planes.
Silvaire whoever made the two quotes you reference are indeed incorrect. It is as you say.
In Europe many FAA Part 145 Repair Stations are also EASA Part 145 organizations. As you know there is no requirement for a RS to have any A&Ps on their staff….some (many) RS in fact only have EASA Part66 mechanics….perhaps that is what the poster meant when he said A&P (i.e. In a generic sense and not referring to an FAA A&P)
Peter wrote:
An unauthorised logbook entry is merely worthless.
I disagree with that statement.
When an un-authorized person does ANYTHING to the acft without FAA certified “supervision” , then he rendres that acft unairworthy until a properly certified person (or Repair Station) signs off on the work accomplished.
So it’s not JUST a “worthless” log entry – it renders the acft unairworthy .
I think we have wires crossed, Michael 
Peter wrote:
I think we have wires crossed, Michael
Dunno, when you write “worthless” do you mean “does nothing” ?
If I write in Michael’s airframe logbook that I think his plane is not airworthy, or i write in it that the sun shines only on Mondays (his is N-reg and I am not an A&P or FAA 145) and I did not touch his plane, then his plane is not affected.
Peter wrote:
If I write in Michael’s airframe logbook that I think his plane is not airworthy, or i write in it that the sun shines only on Mondays (his is N-reg and I am not an A&P or FAA 145) and I did not touch his plane, then his plane is not affected.
Correct.
But if you write : "Changed oil & filter this date. Joe Bloggs – Blogg’s Aero UK JAR 145 " then the acft is technically unairworthy.
Michael wrote:
But if you write : "Changed oil & filter this date. Joe Bloggs – Blogg’s Aero UK JAR 145 " then the acft is technically unairworthy.
Yes, it would be good if the BASA allowed EASA Part 66 mechanics to do work on N-reg, in the same way Canadian mechanics can..,
AnthonyQ wrote:
Yes, it would be good if the BASA allowed EASA Part 66 mechanics to do work on N-reg, in the same way Canadian mechanics can..,
Agreed, but in that case it needs to be reciprocal, that is that I can work on and sign-off that work on EASA reg’d aircraft with my FAA A&P/IA Licence !
What sucks is that there is no “equvilancy” test or just request, as we have for PPLs .
