Open Defects entered at Annual Inspection

[040hurts]

*slow clap

[DonutHole]

(ix) The final decision, however, still rests with the pilot. A pilot who accepts an aircraft with defects, the repair of which has been deferred in accordance with an approved system, has a good defence against any possible charge of flying an unairworthy aircraft, whereas a pilot who undertakes a flight with an aircraft that is not in compliance with the approved system to control the deferral of repairs to defects commits an offence.

[DonutHole]

Duration of a Flight Authority
507.11 Unless surrendered, suspended or cancelled, a flight authority issued pursuant to this Subpart remains in force during the period or for the number of flights specified in it or, where no limit is specified, indefinitely, if the aircraft continues to meet the conditions subject to which the flight authority was issued

What are the conditions for the issuance of a certificate of airworthiness?

Certificate of Airworthiness
507.02 Where an application for a flight authority is made pursuant to section 507.06, the Minister shall issue a certificate of airworthiness in respect of an aircraft

(a) for which an aircraft type design has been certified by the Minister and the certification is not in respect of a restricted category aircraft;

(b) that conforms to its certified type design; and

(c) that is safe for flight.


So as a private bugsmasher guy you need A B and C

A defect invalidates B Which terminates the duration of the flight authority because it does not meet the conditions to which the flight authority was issued.

To fly that aircraft you need to have a flight permit issued. (Specific purpose)

A pilot can determine airworthiness, but he can't determine conformance. A pilot can say an aircraft is airworthy, but if the aircraft has an invalid c of a he can't even get to that step.

[DonutHole]

to have another AME re-inspect the defect and log the defects as inspected as serviceable or deferred iaw whatever.

When an A/C has a sheet metal repair, the exact chapter and verse where-in authority is given are to be entered into the logbook ( EA-AC SRM etc ) A worn cable ultimately needs a standard to be compared to, to verify its unserviceability and presto, we have it in EA-AC,,,,

The data and reference method varies greatly depending on the type of sheet metal repair.

[ahramin]

Duration of a Flight Authority
507.11 Unless surrendered, suspended or cancelled, a flight authority issued pursuant to this Subpart remains in force during the period or for the number of flights specified in it or, where no limit is specified, indefinitely, if the aircraft continues to meet the conditions subject to which the flight authority was issued

What are the conditions for the issuance of a certificate of airworthiness?

Certificate of Airworthiness
507.02 Where an application for a flight authority is made pursuant to section 507.06, the Minister shall issue a certificate of airworthiness in respect of an aircraft

(a) for which an aircraft type design has been certified by the Minister and the certification is not in respect of a restricted category aircraft;

(b) that conforms to its certified type design; and

(c) that is safe for flight.


So as a private bugsmasher guy you need A B and C

A defect invalidates B Which terminates the duration of the flight authority because it does not meet the conditions to which the flight authority was issued.

To fly that aircraft you need to have a flight permit issued. (Specific purpose)

A pilot can determine airworthiness, but he can't determine conformance. A pilot can say an aircraft is airworthy, but if the aircraft has an invalid c of a he can't even get to that step.

You don't think it's possible to have a defect that doesn't invalidate the type design?

[DonutHole]

Aircraft are not type certified with defective components.

A defect doesn't invalidate the type design

It invalidates the airframes conformance to it's approved type design

[ahramin]

So every single component is part of the type design?

[DonutHole]

Yes

With a few exceptions, but they are accounted for.

supplemental type certificates
and
major modifications or repairs.
also see
PMA parts

[ahramin]

I have attached a Type Certificate Data Sheet for a C172. My friend's C172 has a radio installed. Is his C of A valid? I can't find any mention of a radio in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.

Type Certificate Cessna 172 3A12_Rev_83.pdf

(86.15 KiB) Downloaded 45 times

[DonutHole]

Depends on the radio and the installation. But No, not if it is functional.

The radio would have been installed in accordance with various authorities, Parts history, acceptable data and certified as airworthy by an ame.

It's accounted for in the cars under installation of new parts, types of maintenance and types of repairs and modifications

Let's say you made a skin repair that was negligeable and didn't require the use of a jig or fixture, on a non pressurized vessel etc etc.

If that patch is certified as airworthy and then something goes wrong.. Like corrosion or other damage and it becomes a defect you are no longer in conformance.

Look at "who can determine conformance" the answer is an appropriately rated ame.

Which goes directly to the heart of the debate. If an ame says something on that aircraft is unserviceable your c of a is no longer valid because other than the ministers delegate the ame is the only license who can determine conformance.

[photofly]

I think you're misreading the regulation regarding when a declaration of conformity by an AME is needed.

Persons Who May Attest to Condition and Conformity
507.10 No person shall make a declaration of an aircraft’s condition or conformity to its certified type design for the purpose of obtaining a flight authority other than the holder of an aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) licence issued pursuant to Part IV

(emphasis added) This says that only an AME can declare an aircraft conforms to it's type design, to get a C of A in the first instance. However once a C of A has been issued then ...

Duration of a Flight Authority
507.11 Unless surrendered, suspended or cancelled, a flight authority issued pursuant to this Subpart remains in force during the period or for the number of flights specified in it or, where no limit is specified, indefinitely, if the aircraft continues to meet the conditions subject to which the flight authority was issued.

... if the aircraft doesn't meet the conditions under which the C of A was issued, the certificate is "no longer in force". It comes into force again, automatically, when the aircraft again meets the conditions subject to which the C of A was issued. No further declaration of conformity is needed, and there's no requirement there for an AME to be the one who decides that it again meets those conditions.

The note to CAR625.10 says explicitly

.. the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command.. Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME ... Inspection of defective systems by an AME, although advisable, is not a legal requirment. As stated earlier, it is the pilot's responsibility to determine whether the aircraft is fit for the intended flight.

[DonutHole]

I think you're misreading the regulation regarding when a declaration of conformity by an AME is needed.

Persons Who May Attest to Condition and Conformity
507.10 No person shall make a declaration of an aircraft’s condition or conformity to its certified type design for the purpose of obtaining a flight authority other than the holder of an aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) licence issued pursuant to Part IV

(emphasis added) This says that only an AME can declare an aircraft conforms to it's type design, to get a C of A in the first instance. However once a C of A has been issued then ...

Duration of a Flight Authority
507.11 Unless surrendered, suspended or cancelled, a flight authority issued pursuant to this Subpart remains in force during the period or for the number of flights specified in it or, where no limit is specified, indefinitely, if the aircraft continues to meet the conditions subject to which the flight authority was issued.

... if the aircraft doesn't meet the conditions under which the C of A was issued, the certificate is "no longer in force". It comes into force again, automatically, when the aircraft again meets the conditions subject to which the C of A was issued. No further declaration of conformity is needed, and there's no requirement there for an AME to be the one who decides that it again meets those conditions.

you are absolutely wrong on that. There is no way to bring the aircraft back into conformity with its type certificate other than having an AME certify the rectified defect as being done in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements. The maintenance release *IS* the declaration of conformity, and it is needed to revalidate the c of a.

The note to CAR625.10 says explicitly

.. the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command.. Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME ... Inspection of defective systems by an AME, although advisable, is not a legal requirment. As stated earlier, it is the pilot's responsibility to determine whether the aircraft is fit for the intended flight.

Which he cannot do to an aircraft without a valid flight authority.

Go ahead, try your argument in a transport tribunal, they will tell you that a defect means any deviation from the conformance to the approved type design, and then they will tell you you are wrong, and probably hit you with a designated provision, probably the maximum because you argued with them.


This is the process, I did not misread who can certify conformance, because the process goes like this

-ame or manufacturer certifies conformance to the type design
-defect happens
-aircraft no longer conforms to type design
-defect is rectified
-aircraft still no longer conforms to its approved type design
-AME Certifies the rectification as being done in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements
-Aircraft now conforms to its type design
-Pilot can now decide whether or not the aircraft is fit for flight

Notice, the pilot is not saying that the aircraft is airworthy in your quote. He is only saying it can be safely operated

That is the difference between serviceable and airworthy.

When you go to apply for a specific purpose flight authority to have your deviation from the type design rectified, transport canada will allow the pilot to determine whether or not the aircraft is safe to fly

safe to fly = serviceable
airworthy = in conformance to the type design.

You can only fly that aircraft under the conditions of the specific purpose flight permit, and that purpose is to return or reposition the aircraft for defect rectification.

Deferred repairs have to be done in accordance with a system, IX spells it out clearly, if you conduct a takeoff with an open defect the repair of which has not been deferred in accordance with the system you have committed and offence.

What is the system? It is the maintenance control system at an AMO. They give AMOs the authority to defer repairs because they have procedures to ensure the oversight of the defect is in place in case it becomes worse over a short period of time. Even then, most MCMs I have read (small a/c without MEL) only allow deferment of the repair until the next scheduled inspection. The system also requires an inspection of the defect requiring a deferred repair to make sure that the removal or deactivation of the defective system or component leaves the aircraft in a serviceable state. If you meet all of those requirements then, you can defer the defect without invalidating the C of A, you've used the system required to do this. No system, No deferred repairs.

[photofly]

The maintenance release *IS* the declaration of conformity, and it is needed to revalidate the c of a.

A maintenance release is not a declaration of conformity as described in 507.10. A maintenance release may be needed for the C of A to be in force, but only if the defect rendered the aircraft unairworthy.

Here's the definition of a maintenance release from CAR101:

maintenance release means a certification made following the maintenance of an aeronautical product, indicating that the maintenance was performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of these Regulations and the standards of airworthiness; (certification après maintenance)

It doesn't say anything about the state of the aircraft, or it's overall conformity, it attests only to the specific maintenance that was performed. As you know, a maintenance release uses a specific form or words, or its equivalent, that is "The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements."

Example: "During inspection, left wing noticed to be missing. Oil drained and replenished with 6 qts Aeroshell 15W50. The described maintenance has been carried out in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements. /s/ Alf Engineer M123456"
Is there a release? Yes. Does the aircraft conform and is it airworthy? No: it only has one wing.



By contrast, the declaration of conformity that is referred to in 507.10 ("507.10 No person shall make a declaration of an aircraft’s condition or conformity to its certified type design for the purpose of obtaining a flight authority...") that has to come from an AME is specifically for the purpose of applying for (eg) a Certificate of Airworthiness from TC. You can find it in the application form, published as Appendix A to Standard 507, here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca ... 4-0043.pdf
The declaration of conformity appears at the bottom where it says:
"I hereby certify that the aircraft described above has been inspected and found to conform to its approved type designation and is in a fit state for flight." Followed by a space for an AME to sign. Applying for a C of A (and equivalently, getting a ferry permit) are the only occasions in the lifetime of the aircraft that an AME is required to state an aircraft is in a fit state for flight. An AME never writes such a declaration in the technical records.



In summary, therefore, there's no requirement for a new declaration of conformity following the rectification of any defect; only a maintenance release for the work performed.



Your comments about deferred repairs have to be done according to a system, apples only to aircraft operated under part IV or part VII. The original post was about a privately operated aircraft, which don't need a defect deferral system: it's the PIC's decision before each flight as to whether an unrectified defect renders the aircraft unairworthy or not. He or she doesn't need (or get) the assistance of a formal defect deferral system to help with that decision.

You can't say that *every* defect renders the aircraft unairworthy, otherwise there would be no reason to have a defect deferral system because nothing could be deferred. Where an aircraft is privately operated and no formal system is in place, the pilot gets to make the choice of whether a defect can be deferred.

[DonutHole]

The maintenance release *IS* the declaration of conformity, and it is needed to revalidate the c of a.

A maintenance release is not a declaration of conformity as described in 507.10. A maintenance release may be needed for the C of A to be in force, but only if the defect rendered the aircraft unairworthy.

Here's the definition of a maintenance release from CAR101:

maintenance release means a certification made following the maintenance of an aeronautical product, indicating that the maintenance was performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of these Regulations and the standards of airworthiness; (certification après maintenance)

It doesn't say anything about the state of the aircraft, or it's overall conformity, it attests only to the specific maintenance that was performed. As you know, a maintenance release uses a specific form or words, or its equivalent, that is "The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements."

Example: "During inspection, left wing noticed to be missing. Oil drained and replenished with 6 qts Aeroshell 15W50. The described maintenance has been carried out in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements. /s/ Alf Engineer M123456"
Is there a release? Yes. Does the aircraft conform and is it airworthy? No: it only has one wing.

Exactly, you've just reiterated what the first ame in our debate has done. He has certified the work he has done and left an open snag rendering the aircraft grounded via an invalid c of a

using your logic, a pilot can walk up to that aircraft and declare it airworthy, if he so chooses, despite the fact that it is missing a wing.

You might not understand the words of the maintenance release,the airworthy requirements are many, but for our debate, the most important requirement of airworthiness is that the aircraft conforms to its type design. With a non-conformance the aircraft is not in accordance with the airworthiness requirements. That is exactly why the maintenance release is worded the way it is, and that is why AMEs only certify the work that they have observed to the degree necessary to ensure conformance.

By contrast, the declaration of conformity that is referred to in 507.10 ("507.10 No person shall make a declaration of an aircraft’s condition or conformity to its certified type design for the purpose of obtaining a flight authority...") that has to come from an AME is specifically for the purpose of applying for (eg) a Certificate of Airworthiness from TC. You can find it in the application form, published as Appendix A to Standard 507, here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca ... 4-0043.pdf

As youve already explained, the certification of conformity is for the first issuance.

If the aircraft no longer meets the approved type design it no longer conforms to its type design

in order to bring it back into conformance with its type design, MAINTENANCE must occur

A pilot cannot certify maintenance.

So, where a maintenance release might not LITERALLY be a statement of conformance, it is the avenue by which conformance is re-established.

The declaration of conformity appears at the bottom where it says:
"I hereby certify that the aircraft described above has been inspected and found to conform to its approved type designation and is in a fit state for flight." Followed by a space for an AME to sign. Applying for a C of A (and equivalently, getting a ferry permit) are the only occasions in the lifetime of the aircraft that an AME is required to state an aircraft is in a fit state for flight. An AME never writes such a declaration in the technical records.

He does not have to.

here is how it works

-aircraft conforms to its type design
-c of a is issued
-defect occurs
-defect is rectified and certified by ame 1
-aircraft conforms to its type design
-another defect occurs
-defect is rectified and certified by ame 2
-aircraft conforms to its type desing.

Furthermore, an AME does *NOT* have to certify the aircraft conforms to its type design for a ferry permit. That is literally exactly why you get a ferry permit, because the aircraft does not meet the requirements of the certificate of airworthiness. In that case, a PILOT can say that the aircraft is safe for flight to obtain the specific purpose flight certificate.

In fact, an AME *NEVER* writes that something is safe for flight, he writes that the described maintenance has been completed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements... which means the aircraft conforms to its type design.

Remember, safe for flight is only ONE leg of what makes a c of a valid, it has to be an approved type design, in conformance with its type design, AND safe for flight. If an ame certifies maintenance he is saying that HIS PORTION of the work carried out will meet those requirements, however if there is STILL an open snag, the aircraft does not conform to its type design and therefore is not operating with a valid flight authority.

the system is set up so that if everybody plays the game by the rules, if every ame certifies his work properly, when the aircraft gets to ame 2 with its snag he doesn't have to sign for the overall conformance, just for the maintenance he has performed.
If there are outstanding defects that have not been legally rectified, the aircraft is out of conformance and has no c of a. A pilot cannot decide that the aircraft is in conformance with its type certificate if there is an outstanding defect. He is only legally allowed to decide if he will take that aircraft for a flight under a specific purpose flight certificate in order to have the conformance re-established by having maintenance completed and certified.

In summary, therefore, there's no requirement for a new declaration of conformity following the rectification of any defect; only a maintenance release for the work performed.

In rebuttal, a defect invalidates the c of a. In order for conformity to the type design to be revalidated, repairs (maintenance) must occur. When maintenance occurs a maintenance release is required. The maintenance release is what brings the aircraft back into conformity because the maintenance has been completed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements. No maintenance release = no conformity to the type design.

Your comments about deferred repairs have to be done according to a system, apples only to aircraft operated under part IV or part VII. The original post was about a privately operated aircraft, which don't need a defect deferral system: it's the PIC's decision before each flight as to whether an unrectified defect renders the aircraft unairworthy or not. He or she doesn't need (or get) the assistance of a formal defect deferral system to help with that decision.

You can't say that *every* defect renders the aircraft unairworthy, otherwise there would be no reason to have a defect deferral system because nothing could be deferred. Where an aircraft is privately operated and no formal system is in place, the pilot gets to make the choice of whether a defect can be deferred.

Every defect does render the aircraft unairworthy which is precisely why there IS a reason to have a deferral system.

[photofly]

Exactly, you've just reiterated what the first ame in our debate has done. He has certified the work he has done and left an open snag rendering the aircraft grounded via an invalid c of a

Depending on the snag, that could be true. It could also not be true. It depends on the snag. That's what 605.10 and the notes to 625.10 are all about.

using your logic, a pilot can walk up to that aircraft and declare it airworthy, if he so chooses, despite the fact that it is missing a wing.

You're misunderstanding.

An aircraft that's missing a wing doesn't conform, whether a pilot says so or not. If the pilot decides it's airworthy (it's his or her decision to make, after all) then he or she is just plain wrong. The pilot has the responsibility to make that decision, but he or she must make the correct decision - it's not a matter of discretion.

But some defects don't render an aircraft unairworthy. Some defects can be deferred and the aircraft flown without the defect having been rectified. It's the pilot's responsibility to know/find out/decide if a defect renders the aircraft un-airworthy or not. If the aircraft is operated under part IV or part VII then he or she had better follow the procedure in the MCM in order for that decision to hold up. If it's a privately operated aircraft the pilot needs to have some knowledge and understanding to come to the correct decision on their own. They could even ask for advice from an AME, if they so chose. But if the AME gave the wrong advice - the pilot would still be responsible.

A 172M with an entry in the journey log "gyroscopic attitude indicator U/S" is still airworthy for day VFR flight. The AI is listed in the manufacturer's equipment list as -S ("standard") not -R ("required"), it's not part of the type certificate, and the equipment isn't required for the flight to be undertaken, as described in CAR605.14. If it's a privately operated 172M then, as described in 605.10 the pilot can still go and fly, during daylight hours and under the VFR.

In contrast, the ammeter in the same aircraft is -R ("required item of equipment for FAA certification") which makes it clear that an inoperative ammeter renders the aircraft un-airworthy.

[DonutHole]

An open snag renders the c of a invalid. full stop

A deferment *IS* a rectification.

snag - ai u/s

without deferment or rectification via repair, this aircraft is not in conformance with its type design

ANOTHER entry is required to defer the repair, this entry must be certified by an AME because in order to defer the repair, the associated systems have to be inspected for serviceability. Inspection is a MAINTENANCE function, a pilot cannot certify maintenance.

After the deferred repair has been certified by the AME the piot CAN THEN decide if the deferred repair renders the aircrafy unairworthy for his specified mission profile.

[DonutHole]

double

[photofly]

An open snag renders the c of a invalid. full stop

A deferment *IS* a rectification.

So... if my u/s autopilot is deferred, it has been rectified and suddenly starts to work again? That's handy.

snag - ai u/s

without deferment or rectification via repair, this aircraft is not in conformance with its type design

I don't agree. The type design doesn't have or require a serviceable attitude indicator.

[DonutHole]

double

[DonutHole]

An open snag renders the c of a invalid. full stop

A deferment *IS* a rectification.

So... if my u/s autopilot is deferred, it has been rectified and suddenly starts to work again? That's handy.

snag - ai u/s

without deferment or rectification via repair, this aircraft is not in conformance with its type design

I don't agree. The type design doesn't have or require a serviceable attitude indicator.

1. if your autopilot repair has been deferred, the snag has been rectified, however the autopilot is unserviceable.

2.Then under what authority did the AI appear?