Open Defects entered at Annual Inspection

[Hugh Jasshole]

I'm currently dealing with 2 light aircraft where the previous AME entered open defects during the sign out of the 100 HR/Annual inspection. These defects were never rectified and the aircraft have flown for years with open defects in the Journey Log. One of these planes is under the scrutiny of Transport Canada, and on their list of deficiencies are the open defects. They referenced CAR 605.10 "Unserviceable and Removed Equipment". Since I have seen this in 2 aircraft by different AME's, I'm wondering if this is common practice in the private, light aircraft environment?

As most folks know, this a HUGE issue in Commercial aircraft operation!

[aeroncasuperchief]

The open defect ( and name of writer ) needs to be BELOW the maintenance release for the work done, not within the body of the maint. release.
That defect needs to be answered before the next flight, either fixed, legally deferred or some form of explanation to the effect that it does not constitute a defect !

[anofly]

Just so i can understand what it might be give me an example of an open defect? Burned out bulb? Or flap motor does not drive? Dent in aileron?

[Hugh Jasshole]

Owner to have carb heat control replaced and alternator overhauled.

RH fuel gauge inoperative.

LH exhaust aft clamp to be replaced.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It is the owners responsibility to deal with open defects, he/she is the one ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft

The maintenance release only certifies that the work listed was completed to the applicable standards.

The bottom line is that an aircraft with open defects like the ones in the preceding post, is not airworthy.

[photofly]

[s]Per Schedule 1 of CAR 605.94(1), the only person who is lawfully entitled to enter a defect in the journey log of an aircraft is the PIC who discovers the defect. Nobody else is permitted to enter a defect, and defects are not permitted to be recorded in the airframe, engine or propeller technical records - the only entries allowed there are listed in Schedule II of the same. [/s]
Edit: alright, this isn't correct. After reading 625.93, I see that. Shame.


The CARs make it abundantly clear that the only person who can make an airworthiness determination before a flight is the PIC.

Owner to have carb heat control replaced and alternator overhauled.

The AME has no power to require the the owner to do this; such a entry is unlawful.

RH fuel gauge inoperative.

I guess that would have to be fixed.

LH exhaust aft clamp to be replaced.

An AME has no authority to make such a demand.


If Transport Canada makes allegations of flights having been made with an aircraft in an unairworthy condition, they had better have more evidence than unlawful entries in the technical records. If a TC inspector him or herself has provided a list of deficiencies (and, please note, those deficiencies are not provided by TC in the form of a logbook entry) then they need to be fixed before the next flight, as TC now has evidence of the aircraft condition.

To put it bluntly, AMEs are qualified to inspect and fix airplanes; they are not the gatekeepers to safe flight, and should not behave as though they are.

[Hugh Jasshole]

We AME's put Defects in Journey log all the time at a major Canadian airline. Example;

Defect- During daily inspection found #4 tire worn to limits.

Rectification- #4 MWA replaced IAW Boeing AMM 32-45-11

[photofly]

People do all sorts of stuff that doesn't meet the wording of the regulations. But I certainly wouldn't let Transport try to spank me with "evidence" that doesn't meet their own regulatory requirements.

[photofly]

625.93 has more info about entering defects. In classic TC style the information notes there contradict their own regulations!

[aeroncasuperchief]

Schedule 1 # 10 -- Except where a technical dispatch procedure is in place in accordance with section 706.06, the particulars of any defect in any part of the aircraft or its equipment that is not rectified before the next flight Before the next flight BY The person who discovered the defect

[aeroncasuperchief]

As above,,,, An AME or a flying tortoise CAN legally enter a defect AND ground the aircraft !!!!!

[aeroncasuperchief]

An AME who does an annual and ( possibly due to the owner not wanting it fixed ) Has outstanding defects, MUST enter those defects in the journey logbook AFTER the maintenance release !!!!! It is NOW the responsibility for determination ( with assistance if necessary ) if the defect is one that is a safety issue, invalidates the Airworthiness or can be deferred etc.

[Schooner69A]

An AME cannot ground an aircraft.

AMEs, please jump in and educate the masses.

John

[photofly]

Schedule 1 # 10 -- Except where a technical dispatch procedure is in place in accordance with section 706.06, the particulars of any defect in any part of the aircraft or its equipment that is not rectified before the next flight Before the next flight BY The person who discovered the defect

RIght. I didn't see that. Good call.

Minor question of interpretation: how is the person who discovered the defect to know whether or not it will be rectified before the next flight?

[Heliian]

[s]Per Schedule 1 of CAR 605.94(1), the only person who is lawfully entitled to enter a defect in the journey log of an aircraft is the PIC who discovers the defect. Nobody else is permitted to enter a defect, and defects are not permitted to be recorded in the airframe, engine or propeller technical records - the only entries allowed there are listed in Schedule II of the same. [/s]
Edit: alright, this isn't correct. After reading 625.93, I see that. Shame.


The CARs make it abundantly clear that the only person who can make an airworthiness determination before a flight is the PIC.

Owner to have carb heat control replaced and alternator overhauled.

The AME has no power to require the the owner to do this; such a entry is unlawful.

RH fuel gauge inoperative.

I guess that would have to be fixed.

LH exhaust aft clamp to be replaced.

An AME has no authority to make such a demand.


If Transport Canada makes allegations of flights having been made with an aircraft in an unairworthy condition, they had better have more evidence than unlawful entries in the technical records. If a TC inspector him or herself has provided a list of deficiencies (and, please note, those deficiencies are not provided by TC in the form of a logbook entry) then they need to be fixed before the next flight, as TC now has evidence of the aircraft condition.

To put it bluntly, AMEs are qualified to inspect and fix airplanes; they are not the gatekeepers to safe flight, and should not behave as though they are.

Well, that is all mostly incorrect.

The person who discovered the defect is responsible for entry. If you find it while flying, you enter it. If maintenance finds it, they enter it.
Sure, the PIC can then decide whether it's airworthy or not and fly it, it's their responsibility.

The examples listed are not great descriptors of defects though.

Is the carb heat control broken? worn? approaching limits?
Is the alternator working or not?
The fuel gauge is inop, that is an easy one.
What's wrong with the exhaust clamp? Is it cracked? missing?

The moral of the story here is to not write suggestions. Enter a defect or leave it alone. And yes, if you fly around with open defects you can be fined and if you knowingly don't enter a defect, you can be fined.


Date: Count(s): Violation: Penalty: Location:
2017-06-15 1 CAR 605.94(1) $750 Pacific Region
The Pilot in Command failed to enter in the journey log of the aircraft, the particulars of a defect in any part of the aircraft equipment, as soon as practicable after it is discovered but before the next flight.

There is a lot of paperwork in aviation, keep it tight.

An AME cannot ground an aircraft.

AMEs, please jump in and educate the masses.

John

If an AME enters a defect, say "inboard spar fitting found cracked", that would technically ground the aircraft as the PIC then needs to rectify it.

[aeroncasuperchief]

If an AME enters a defect, say "inboard spar fitting found cracked", that would technically ground the aircraft as the PIC then needs to rectify it.

Technically yes but that entry still does not "ground" the A/C
Maybe the fitting can be cracked IAW the MEL etc and still be deferrable and flown. If it is deferrable, then the A/C IS grounded until it is properly deferred.

Can someone enter a note AFTER the pic or ame or passenger enters a defect, to the effect that " Referencing CARS blah blah blah, this A/C is unserviceable for flight until rectification is made ? Can the entry door, ignition switch or whatever be locked/ placarded to the same effect to preclude a u/s A/C from being flown ? I would think so on both counts !

[aeroncasuperchief]

Minor question of interpretation: how is the person who discovered the defect to know whether or not it will be rectified before the next flight?

By consulting with the fixator/ noting the rectification and maint. release in the JLB

[pelmet]

Best to keep control of your logbooks so that you have control of the defect entries. I had a con artist of an AME try to scam me into having him replace the fabric on the aircraft and possibly a lot more work as he said he wasn't happy with the wood. He claimed that the fabric was old and it failed his punch test(which left a couple of nice holes in the fabric). I challenged his assessment and brought in outside experts who knew what they were talking about. In the end, I had a tear test done, the only officially FAA approved method of checking to see if the fabric is airworthy and it was.

But he was not happy and made a logbook entry to that fact about the condition of the wood and the fabric. This was all overridden by a subsequent AME entry in the logbook who said that the condition my airplane was the best he had seen of the several other similar types he had worked on. No doubt the orginal AME was going to 'find' problems with my wood structure as well.

As for the original AME, he was fired not that much later when it was discovered that he was scamming the AMO with other fake snags to get work for his side business. Glad I was able to be part of his final departure.

Bottom line, I should have kept control of my logbooks(if that is realistically possible).

[Heliian]

If an AME enters a defect, say "inboard spar fitting found cracked", that would technically ground the aircraft as the PIC then needs to rectify it.

Technically yes but that entry still does not "ground" the A/C
Maybe the fitting can be cracked IAW the MEL etc and still be deferrable and flown. If it is deferrable, then the A/C IS grounded until it is properly deferred.

Can someone enter a note AFTER the pic or ame or passenger enters a defect, to the effect that " Referencing CARS blah blah blah, this A/C is unserviceable for flight until rectification is made ? Can the entry door, ignition switch or whatever be locked/ placarded to the same effect to preclude a u/s A/C from being flown ? I would think so on both counts !

Flying with open defects is flying a unairworthy aircraft, I'm not going to take your keys or chain the prop, it's your responsibility to have it fixed and you would be liable.

[Heliian]

Best to keep control of your logbooks so that you have control of the defect entries. I had a con artist of an AME

Bottom line, I should have kept control of my logbooks(if that is realistically possible).

AME's can't do any work without signing the log so that would be difficult.

I understand where you're coming from though, some owners don't take care of their equipment and when it's finally time for inspection the snags can pile up and since they haven't spent a dime on their aircraft for 10 years why should they bother now.

[DonutHole]

[s]Per Schedule 1 of CAR 605.94(1), the only person who is lawfully entitled to enter a defect in the journey log of an aircraft is the PIC who discovers the defect. Nobody else is permitted to enter a defect, and defects are not permitted to be recorded in the airframe, engine or propeller technical records - the only entries allowed there are listed in Schedule II of the same. [/s]
Edit: alright, this isn't correct. After reading 625.93, I see that. Shame.


The CARs make it abundantly clear that the only person who can make an airworthiness determination before a flight is the PIC.

Owner to have carb heat control replaced and alternator overhauled.

The AME has no power to require the the owner to do this; such a entry is unlawful.

RH fuel gauge inoperative.

I guess that would have to be fixed.

LH exhaust aft clamp to be replaced.

An AME has no authority to make such a demand.


If Transport Canada makes allegations of flights having been made with an aircraft in an unairworthy condition, they had better have more evidence than unlawful entries in the technical records. If a TC inspector him or herself has provided a list of deficiencies (and, please note, those deficiencies are not provided by TC in the form of a logbook entry) then they need to be fixed before the next flight, as TC now has evidence of the aircraft condition.

To put it bluntly, AMEs are qualified to inspect and fix airplanes; they are not the gatekeepers to safe flight, and should not behave as though they are.

Which is interesting because a pilot has no authority to certify the airworthiness of the aircraft.

The syntax of the above entries is what makes them unacceptable.

Exhaust clamp unserviceable

Alternator requires overhaul

Fuel gauge unserviceable.

Ames certify work and inspect for serviceability. If an appropriately rated ame determines equipment is unserviceable the only way to rectify that without replacig the equipment is to have another AME re-inspect the defect and log the defects as inspected as serviceable or deferred iaw whatever.

A pilot himself had no authority to over-ride that determination as rectification requires a maintenance release. A pilot cannot certify any maintenance other than those tasks listed in app a but they don't require a maintenance release anyways.

Bottom line is an aircraft with unrectified defects cannot be legally flown until those defects are rectified. With open defects the c of a is invalid and that invalidates your insurance.

[aeroncasuperchief]

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,,,,

[photofly]

There's a long information note in CAR625 that addresses the Pilot's decision about airworthiness. Here it is. Emphasis added.

The following provisions, although considered advisory in nature, have been included in the main body of these standards due to their importance. They are not standards.

(i) CAR 605 requires that all equipment listed in the applicable airworthiness standard, and all equipment required for the particular flight or type of operation, must be functioning correctly prior to flight. The requirement for a particular system or component to be operative can be determined by reference to the type certificate data sheet, operating regulations or the applicable equipment list in the aircraft operating manual.

(ii) Although the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command, an error in this determination could result in a contravention under these regulations. It is for this reason that the regulations require that full details of all defects be entered in the journey log. The pilot in command must be fully aware of the condition of the aircraft if he is to make the correct decision regarding the intended flight. The manner in which the pilot makes this decision, however, will vary according to the type of operation of the aircraft. In the following paragraphs, private and commercial aircraft are considered separately.

(iii) Defects (e.g. buckling, cracks, extensive corrosion) of the skin or structure of the aircraft or of the pressure hull of a pressurized aircraft beyond the safe limits established by the manufacturer in his maintenance manual or other approved maintenance instructions will render that aircraft unfit for safe operation.

(iv) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter not operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft not operated pursuant to Part VII, the pilot must review the log prior to flight and decide whether any of the defects recorded affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. Reference may be made to the type certificate data sheet, the aircraft operating manual, or any list provided by the aircraft manufacturer respecting equipment that must be operational for the intended flight. The Minister may also approve a minimum equipment list for use by an owner. Any or all of these may indicate that particular items of equipment are mandatory.

(v) In the case of an aircraft operated pursuant to CAR 604, specific instructions must be provided in the operations manual to facilitate this assessment.

(vi) Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME. This is best done by requesting the AME to inspect the defective system or component to determine its effect upon the aircraft's fitness for flight. By following this procedure and obtaining the AME's signature in the log book in the form of a maintenance release, the pilot will be able to demonstrate, if necessary, that he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft. 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.

(vii) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft operated pursuant to Part VII, it is not always practicable for the pilot to personally undertake all actions required to determine the airworthiness status, because of the high levels of utilization, complexity of the aircraft, and the limited time available for all the various aspects of pre-flight preparation required. A common standard must be applied to all aircraft of a fleet. For these reasons, the flight training unit and the air operator regulations require the establishment of a formal system for the control of defects.

(viii) Such systems provide a greater degree of confidence that the airworthiness effects of defects have been taken into account, and ensure consistency of application of the standards. They also set limits on the periods for which the repair of a defect may be deferred. For aircraft operated in commercial air service, this system is normally based on the use of Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL), thereby providing the pilot with a sound basis on which to make his decision regarding the intended flight.

(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.

(x) The complexity of a system used to control the deferral of repairs to defects will vary according to the type of aircraft operated and the size and nature of the operation and may include reference to an approved minimum equipment list and/or configuration deviation list. In all cases the control system must be described in the air operator's maintenance control manual. Once approved, compliance with those procedures is mandatory.

Bottom line: privately operated aircraft: pilot decides whether defect renders the aircraft unairworthy or not. Part IV/Part VII: follow the MCM.

[040hurts]

A private pilot has no business determining if an aircraft is airworthy. Photofly; get fucked. Your the type of tool that makes aviation exhausting.

[photofly]

A private pilot has no business determining if an aircraft is airworthy. Photofly; get fucked. Your the type of tool that makes aviation exhausting.

Nobody said anything about a private pilot - it could be an ATPL holder making the determination. The CARs talk about a privately operated aircraft, not the licence the pilot holds.

I wear your exhaustion proudly, and as a badge of honour