A pilot pre-flight is very basic. As a Syndicate member, I have discovered things that I would never spot on an unfamiliar rental aircraft. In practice the pilot is only held responsible for defects he could reasonably discover.
(I’ve flown several hours with misaligned elevator cables. I didn’t notice handling effect, but noticed unusual position of a cable.)
Graham wrote:
the PIC and no-one else is responsible for satisfying themselves as to the airworthiness of an aircraft before each and every flight.
You can’t expect each PIC (each member of a club) to independently satisfy themselves the AMP is legal. They have to rely on the club for that.
Not saying for one second that trusting the log is out of question – sorry if that came across that way – however how does the pilot ascertain airworthiness if the log isn’t on board? Does he assume it’s all good because AOC?
That is what I was getting at – the final responsibility before departing lies with the PIC – even if only checking the MX log is clean and both wings attached in place. And at least under French law s/he still has the final say on whether to accept or refuse an aircraft with a squawk that doesn’t render the aircraft unairworthy per the MEL / CDL.
A flat tire is obvious and, compared to the „system of parts“ one is doing a „walk-around“ pretty trivial.
If the log is clean and mx did their PDSC (eg for etops) you have to trust it is ok. No way to check things besides wings missing on a 15 minute walk around.
What happens if you notice a hydraulic leak or a flat tire during walkaround? Is the aircraft still airworthy? What if you notice an instrument failure that puts you out of the MEL?
MX release is only part of the continued airworthiness enforcement. Of course the pilot is not supposed to do the maintenance follow up, but putting 100% of the responsibility on the club / maintenance just because “AOC” is not how it works.
If a club / association has not got a structure in place where the aircraft is checked out preflight by a club / association employee trained and authorised to declare airworthiness on behalf of the club I fail to see how they can be held responsible for the airworthiness for each flight.
While on the “AOC maintenance standards” do note that even for AOC operations preflight airworthiness responsibility is a crew responsibility. Just because you’re an easyJet pilot and the plane is operated under an AOC doesn’t mean you can “expect it to be airworthy and go” when you show up at the gate.
Graham wrote:
I’m baffled that they’ve said that. It’s completely at odds with everything I was ever taught and ever read (from official sources) about responsibility for airworthiness, which is that the PIC and no-one else is responsible for satisfying themselves as to the airworthiness of an aircraft before each and every flight.
Not very wise choice of words that’s for sure, but it used that to be able to rent an aircraft you need the same maintenance standard for “AOC aircraft with paying pax” (this still the case for non-EASA aircrafts), but for EASA aircrafts that has changed slightly now with Part-NCO/Part-ML which as you mention puts lot of responsibility on Owner & PIC (as it should)
Obviously everyone is still reluctant to PtF that you maintain yourself, find an LAA inspector to sign it then go rent it or use for training…the real question will you rent a friend PtF Jodel who throw money on it and fly it extensively or school C152 on CoFA that no one dares to fly 
?
Ibra wrote:
The principle here is that if a customer goes to their local flying club to hire an aircraft, they will not be in a position to make a judgement about its airworthiness, and would reasonably expect the club to provide an aircraft in airworthy condition.
I’m baffled that they’ve said that. It’s completely at odds with everything I was ever taught and ever read (from official sources) about responsibility for airworthiness, which is that the PIC and no-one else is responsible for satisfying themselves as to the airworthiness of an aircraft before each and every flight.
It’s almost as if, in saying that, they’re treating the renter-pilot in the same way as a member of the unsuspecting public who might reasonably expect public transport standards. Why do they say the customer is not in a position to make a judgement on airworthiness? As a pilot, they make that judgement every time they fly.
I certainly have not ‘reasonably expected’ an airworthy aircraft from a flying club when I’ve rented. Ok maybe as a customer I have (i.e. if you give me a piece of junk I ain’t paying you) but never as an aviator. I would check a rental aircraft over far more thoroughly than I would either of the shared aeroplanes I fly.
