When is my annual due?

[JohnW]

Okay...I get that you agree with me (and I actually thought you did). I suspect that there is indeed some maner of misunderstanding; a wrong interpretation of what was either "asked" or "answered". My bad for hammering so hard on this, but certain things [like this] set my ass on fire. There is way too much of this kind of stupid crap that circulates (and again, I get you aren't part of it!) and CONTINUES to circulate. Two things about "human nature"...things aren't necessarily the way "you" THINK they ought to be...and...some people WANT to be stupid (I said this in another Post just a week or so ago). This is one of those "Arguments", and it really angers me. There ARE people that will argue the wrong side of this to their dying day.

Your reply related to the "didn't it fail the Annual?" issue speaks to one basic misconception about all of this, however. It would seem that you [as well as a WHOLE BUNCH of people that believe the same wrong thing] feel that an Annual Inspection has the whole goal of "repairing what needs to be repaired once a year". That ain't it. For the requirements for continued airworthiness can only be found in ONE PLACE, and 99+% of people would never guess WHERE that definition is, unless someone has tipped them off in the past. The ONLY definition of "airworthiness" in 14CFR is the simple statement that appears ON THE AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. THIS is the requirement of the "continued airworthiness" that an Annual Inspection "intends" to cover. The "scope and detail" of 100hr and Annual inspections for GA airplanes is NOT conveniently written down somewhere. However, aircraft manufacturers USUALLY have provided SOME KIND of "inspection requirements", and finding them will quickly make you understand that there are as many different "ways" to inspect aircraft as there are people building (AND INSPECTING) them!. MOST of the inspection checklists you can find (including and especially Piper's) coincidentally "require" certain items of "maintenance" to be performed during the inspection. Be that as it may, an IA is NOT required by any Law to USE THESE CHECKLISTS to perform an Annual. The Regs say you "must use an inspection checklist", but specifically states that it can be "made by" the Inspector. The "idea" is...using the checklist!

Back to the "airworthiness"... the inspection is required by the AW Cert to ensure that the aircraft conforms to its Type Certificate (and/or legally altered condition). If the TC requires an AFM (and in Piper's early aircraft, the W&B, too) to be carried in the aircraft, then once a year it gets verified that these documents are present. NO WHERE is there a requirement in the Federal Register to "repair discrepancies found during an Annual Inspection". The aircraft OWNER is responsible for ensuring (and requiring) that "broken things are fixed". Since there are little or no items that are Time Limited on "these airplanes", everything is "on condition". While it ISN'T "written", all THE MINIMUM I have to do as an IA inspecting an aircraft for an Annual Inspection is to assure MYSELF that anything that is there BELONGS THERE and appears to be in a condition to reasonably last until the NEXT Annual Inspection without causing catastrophic failure of the aircraft. Even THAT statement needs several thousand words of "clarification", and how can I tell if a tire (for example) is going to shed it's retread unless it already IS when I'm looking at it!?! Back again to the "repair discrepancies found on the Annual Inspection, I can inspect your whole airplane and write up 150 squawks against it that would need to be signed off before you could fly it again without a Ferry Permit (or have fixed and signed off) and sign off for it's Annual Inspection, and not once repair a broken item. A LOT of times, this actually HAPPENS! When an IA "works with" an A&P, the "agreement" is usually that the Inspector inspects and the Mechanic repairs. The "mechanic" CAN BE a person without an A&P, IF the IA (the A&P WITH Inspection Authorization) "oversees" the work performed and signs for it. This saves A&P Owners lots of money on their Annuals, and can save "mechanically minded non-certificated" Owners a bunch, too! But the IA never has to fix anything, and can sign off the Inspection by supply a List of Discrepancies to the Owner. The annual is done (the clock starts ticking) but the aircraft cannot be flown with "known discrepancies" until they are repaired and signed off by an appropriately rated Mechanic. Once the discrepancy list is cleared, the Annual is STILL "in effect", and the airplane then may be flown. NOTICE PLEASE that this "responsibility" for returning the aircraft to service in accordance with the requirements of Parts 43 and 65 of 14CFR falls to THE OWNER/OPERATOR. NOT the "inspecting IA".

What I am trying to SAY is...the Annual Inspection (which is no different in scope and detail from a 100 hr inspection that MAY be performed by an A&P... other than WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM THAT INSPECTION, AND SIGN IT OFF) does not REQUIRE the person that performs the inspection to "repair the aircraft". He only needs to INSPECT THE AIRCRAFT and see that it conforms to it's TC (or...blah blah blah) AND is in condition for safe operation. Again, repairing it is NOT "required" by the inspection! Sure, anything "found" virtually always GETS DONE at that time, but it is reasonable to say that the OWNER/OPERATOR is ALREADY responsible for ensuring that the aircraft is in a safe condition to operate it, so it isn't NECESSARY for the IA to repair it...only to INSPECT IT and determine whether it is in "condition" for safe operation. YOU might want "Somebody Else" to do you maintenance rather than pay ME my hourly shop rate to do the same work. That would be YOUR prerogative. I would NOT write in your log that "I certify this aircraft has been inspected IAW an Annual Inspection and was found to be in an airworthy condition." (and sign my name and Certificate Number). Instead I would state that "I certify that I have inspected this aircraft IAW an Annual inspection and a list of discrepancies has be provided to the Owner." (and THEN I would sign my name and Cert No,). Do you see the big-time difference? No "RTS".

I am not even required to write that list of discrepancies in the aircraft records; just supply the O/Op with a list. FARS require that the owner then VALIDATES the airworthiness that I have "inspected for" by clearing that list. The O/OP has the responsibility of clearing EVERY squawk (or having them cleared) and signed off by an appropriately rated person before the aircraft is returned to service. Not me...I DID my job...I inspected it. Now, if I gave you a list that had TWO items on it: "Right brake master cylinder requires servicing with fluid." and "Left lower longeron is rusted through for five feet one and a half inches starting 2 inches ahead of the tailpost." then it would be up to YOU to have the discrepancies "cleared". If your logbook had an entry after my "failed" entry that your friendly local neighborhood A&P "topped off right brake, OP ck'd and Leak ck'd no defects noted" and you were out flying it the next day...no one but YOU and ME (having given you the list of discrepancies) would know you hadn't cleared ALL the items on the list. You crash and burn on the local Catholic Rectory while they're whippin' up pierogies for the sale Thursday and your Estate (Me, AND Piper) gets sued. Guess what, Pallie... I GOT the copy of the List. If YOU didn't clear it, you never validated the Annual, the aircraft was not legal to fly, your Ins. Co says "Thag you, Berry mudge!", and I have NO culpability, because 14CFR placed that responsibility on YOU. I'm Clean and Green.

And if every single swingindick IA doesn't KNOW all of this, you ought to stay to HELL away from the whatever ones that don't. 'Cause, ya see, its YOUR responsibility that the maintenance YOUR AIRCRAFT receives is adequate to ensure compliance with the Rules (including the AW Cert you have screwed to your baggage compartment) AND that it is in the condition that means it is safe to operate. Anybody that doesn't make that ABUNDANTLY clear to YOU should not be working on your airplane!

[Student Pilot]

Did you mean to say "Annuals due in twelve months" with all that John?

[Stephen]

Did you mean to say "Annuals due in twelve months" with all that John?

Plus the any days left for that month.

John, Loud and clear and

"Thag you, Berry mudge!"

Do you guys in the NE drink wine?

[JohnW]

SP; if you oversimplify the question, then you could oversimplify the answer, too. But I always prefer to do things "full speed ahead", rather than "half-fast". And as Stephen points out... your "simplification" makes your understanding WRONG because it is "incomplete". It isn't just "twelve months". You just can't always say something in the least possible number of words and have in understood correctly, and if it takes too many words for someone with a short attention span, then WHO is the onus on?

I get your point. Do you get mine? Peace, Bro (and "Keep the Baby, Faith").

Stephen; Do "we guys" in the NE drink wine??? SURE (but personally, never to excess)!!! I'm a bit of a Snob, though. Ever since a Customer laid a bottle of Upstate NY Ice Wine on me, I've been rightly and truly spoiled. Mad Dog just don' get it for me, any more!

[Steve Pierce]

You just can't always say something in the least possible number of words and have in understood correctly

I try but it bites me in the butt from time to time. I guess I assume people know what I am thinking. My typing skills leave a lot to be desired also.

[JohnW]

Steve; thanks for quoting one of my typos! :mrgreen: Ya know, I can proof read something 32 times, and then when I Post it, I can go back and edit it 12 more times for double words or a "then" that should have been a "than", and there will STILL BE one or more typos. Then there is quotation marks...boy, I probably miss "closing my quotes" something like 3/4 of the time. At some point, I have to say "I probably have more mistakes, but screw it as long as everyone can figure out what I meant".

The Spell Checker is a really good thing... but when ya write "in" when you meant "if" or "is", the Spell Checker doesn't see the mistake. Typing good is a very "relevant" thing. But the more you type, the quickerer and easierer it gets to type. Its a self-fulfilling cesspool.

[edit] Oh!!! So, what's your take on this personal bitch of mine? Does the Annual start counting down for one calendar year until "re-do" when the Inspection is completed, or when the discreps are repaired? To me, your input would be appreciated.

{two "rules" to answer by: 1) the Inspection requires a relevant signoff applicable to whether it contains the standard Returned to Service statement, or it contains something equivalent to "...and a list of D's has been given to the Owner." in order to be completed. 2) the Inspection isn't considered DONE until one or the other of those two signoffs is in the Logs. Hey, I've had Annuals take THREE YEARS to complete!}

[Steve Pierce]

You sign off that you did an inspection on a certain date and that inspection is due 12 months from then if it was airworthy or not. Things like exhaust don't care if they are run or not, they rot out. I usually fix everything and sign the annual when I am done. The only time I can remember signing off an annual that was unairworthy was when I annualed a guys J-3. Major can of worms, corroded lift strut, no ADs in 10 years, bungees, brakes and it had a cracked fuel bowl on the carburetor. He got upset with me because the annual cost more than the airplane did new. i was gonna replace the bowl but after that comment decided he could deal with it. Took 10 months to get paid and he couldn't understand why I wouldn't help him prime the oil pump to get oil pressure. :twisted:

[Student Pilot]

I get your point. Do you get mine? Peace, Bro (and "Keep the Baby, Faith").

I feel the lurve John, or:

My senses reciprocate the outward warmth of your insightful reply, I also fully absorb the positive feedback. Having said that let me say this, at the end of the day and in the fullness in time we have a win/win situation by interacting and extrapolating previously stated objectives we advance the cause of aversation. While we outwardly portray adversarial interaction, falsely indicating some animosity that this compound subject has metaphysical overtones. Your soft pontification indicates a warmness and caring towards your fellow abbreviated lifting device devotees while supporting a confluence of philosophy and ultimately integrating most conceptions to an ultimate conclusion negating an estoppel. I'm sure you'll agree if it goes with out saying I won't.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

John, Please take this in the vein it's meant.

[Steve Pierce]

I think a P38 just made a low pass over the top of my head but I missed it. :shock:

[JohnW]

Toooooooo much.