When is my annual due?

[smcnutt]

This is just an academic question since I have to get my annual done now but I was curious as to how this would technically work out.

Last year we did our first annual. The log book entry was dated 2/24 and said the annual inspection was performed but the airplane was found to be un-airworthy due to a missing airworthiness certificate. The physical certificate was missing and we had to get a new one from the FISDO and it took a while. Anyway, the next entry was dated 3/11 indicating that we now had the airworthiness certificate and the plane is now legal.

My question is, is the date of the annual 2/24 when he entered into my log book he performed the inspection or is it 3/11 when he entered the plane passed the inspection and was no legal to fly? If the time-lag between the two dates was greater than a couple of weeks this could be more of a significant concern but in my case it simply a curiosity as to when exactly my annual is due this year.

[JohnW]

An Annual Inspection is an Annual Inspection, whether the aircraft is airworthy or not. This is THE reason that your IA COMPLETES the Annual even if he finds a major problem with the aircraft! While MOST IAs would definitely consider deferring the signoff until the aircraft IS airworthy, he is not required to "believe" you will fix it in a timely manner otherwise, and if there were a "meaningful" time before the discrepancy(ies) were fixed (technically MAKING the aircraft now "airworthy" per the "last Annual -BTW, you no longer need an IA to make the aircraft airworthy for issues found AT the Annual. An A&P is all you need to sign off maintenance required! That makes the aircraft "airworthy" again as long as the last Annual is still in effect, same as if you needed a cylinder ten months after an Annual) there may be a re-inspection required. Technically, the inspection clock starts ticking when the logs are signed off for that Inspection.

ANYTHING can happen after the logs are signed...hangar rash, parts stolen, et c. So, under the simplest of "your" listed conditions (that is, if the IA does NOT feel comfortable waiting to sign off this Annual), the next Annual would be due the LAST DAY of the calendar month in which the previous Annual was performed, or in this case...the LAST DAY of February, next year. NOT when the discrepancy(ies) is (are) cleared.

An Annual is good for TWELVE CALENDAR MONTHS after it was performed (the last step of which is the logbook entry) no matter WHAT day of the month it was completed. The IA "gets credit" for an Annual, even if the aircraft "fails", when he signs off having performed it. The difference is the signoff itself. If it states "...found to be in an airworthy condition", then it is; if it states "...and a list of discrepancies was given to the Owner." then it is NOT since the "return to service" statement will not be present. But the Annual is "done".

[smcnutt]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Especially since the 2/24 log entry had the words "Annual inspection" but the 3/11 got me thinking and that's always trouble. :roll:

Either way, time for another annual. I just hope it goes quietly but you just can never be sure until it's over.

[JohnW]

I used to try thinking. Then I got my IA, and the FAA straightened me out on THAT foolish way of presenting myself, right away!!! THEY do all the thinkin' around here (and they're not happy until I'm not happy!").

[smcnutt]

...got me thinking and that's always trouble. :roll:

See my sig line for an explanation.

[Stephen]

John, thanks once again for your perspective. I've had to deal with this issue myself in the past.

[Glen Geller]

There's another more important reason why the IA signed off the inspection with the missing documents: When he signs, he gets paid.

[smcnutt]

I tend to agree with what you're saying. However, I have two local IA's (the one who did the last annual & the one doing this annual) tell me that the date it became airworthy (3/11) is when the clock starts ticking on the annual. :? It's frustrating getting conflicting answers from the experts when you're asking a question.

I know I need an annual and I'm getting it scheduled. Just can't be sure if I'm legal (more importantly insured) to fly until it gets done. The weather may just make that decision for me. :cry:

[JohnW]

Well. They are wrong, and there is not one iota of a chance that I am, in this matter. So what you are saying is that they are telling you that if you took THREE MONTHS to "make it airworthy" after a discrepancy was found on an Inspection, that you wouldn't need to have another Annual done until twelve calendar months after it was repaired, EVEN IF the Inspection was signed off in February!!!???!!! So... If the Annual Inspection turned up bad fabric and it took two and a half years before it flew again, it wouldn't need an Annual until a year after it was "fixed"??? No, I don't think you would claim that! Then, what's the "cutoff point" where you would have to have another Annual done??? Right. Last day of February the following year, in this case. One calendar year after the Annual Inspection, when it was last Inspected...whether it was found "airworthy" at that time, or not... The clock runs on the Inspection, whether the aircraft was airworthy during that time, or not.

Now if YOU misunderstand what they are implying -that "as the IA", THEY would wait to sign off the Annual until the discrep was cleared (March in this case) then that is a WHOLE DIFFERENT MATTER, because WHEN the next Annual is due is predicated on when the IA signs off the Inspection. The ONLY WAY it would be "later than February (in this case) is if the Inspection WASN'T SIGNED OFF until a later date (like...March... after the previous Inspection had dropped dead).

Fact remains: The next Annual is due 12 calendar months after the "last Annual" was completed. The last step in the Annual Inspection is when the Person Authorized to Return the aircraft to service (the IA) signs off having completed it (the inspection), NOT after maintenance was done. Making a repair that requires a signoff of its own does not "begin the clock" on an Annual that did not find the aircraft airworthy. Hoever, Inspecting it does. The time runs on the INSPECTION, not on the repair. THAT is the key, and if you are just trying to "spool me up", you have succeeded. I'd bet my life on this -and yours. Your other acquaintances are wrong, and I hope they aren't involved in aircraft maintenance if what you are saying they believe is correct. An aircraft Inspection does not REQUIRE that maintenance "shall be done to return the aircraft to service". It just doesn't...it requires that the aircraft be INSPECTED... and it is an INSPECTION and nothing more. Unless the Return To Service STATEMENT is included in the signoff for the inspection, the Inspection is complete AND THE AIRCRAFT MAY BE IN ANNUAL AND NOT BE AIRWORTHY. But the clock does not freeze until it IS airworthy again. It starts running before the ink is dry on the signoff and NOTHING stops it until the last day of the twelfth month after it was signed. That is no different than "losing a cylinder" 10 months after an Annual... the time on the Annual Inspection Requirement continues, but the aircraft is not airworthy until the required maintenance has been performed (the last step of which is ALSO the signoff for that work). Certainly you wouldn't think that if the aircraft was "down" for 30 days before the cylinder was replaced, that the Annual is "deferred" from the upcoming require for Annual inspection due to that month you "couldn't use it"???

What you originally SAID was that the last Annual was in Feb "but the airplane was found to be un-airworthy due to a missing airworthiness certificate." Doesn't matter that the Annual Inspection was performed and the discrepancy that the a/c was not airworthy becaise it had a missing AW Cert...the Inspection was still done, and the next inspection became due (OVERdue, actually) on the last day of Feb the following year. It's "tough tittie" that the aircraft couldn't be flown because it didn't have that piece of paper. But the Inspection was DONE. It wasn't legally an "airplane", but the Inspection was done. Correcting the discrepancy may have taken "time', but if it was "REissued", then it have never lapsed and the pile of nuts and bolts WAS an airplane! If it was a "New Issue", then it WASN'T an airplane when ut was Inspected and it would become an airplane again when a new AW Cert was issued. THEN the a/c would have required it's next Annual Inspection 12 calendar months after the new AW was issued. That is THE ONLY way the next inspection would be due after the Feb following the year the LAT inspection was signed off.

PERIOD.

[smcnutt]

Well. They are wrong, and there is not one iota of a chance that I am, in this matter. Like I said, I agree with YOU. I'm just frustrated that a person can get a wrong answer from an IA (actually, two of them) on something like this.

So... If the Annual Inspection turned up bad fabric and it took two and a half years before it flew again, it wouldn't need an Annual until a year after it was "fixed"??? Wouldn't that mean it failed the annual? However, I guess mine 'failed' as well (or passed with an exception) but I do understand your point and agree with what you're saying


Now if YOU misunderstand what they are implying -that "as the IA", THEY would wait to sign off the Annual until the discrep was cleared (March in this case) then that is a WHOLE DIFFERENT MATTER, because WHEN the next Annual is due is predicated on when the IA signs off the Inspection. The ONLY WAY it would be "later than February (in this case) is if the Inspection WASN'T SIGNED OFF until a later date (like...March... after the previous Inspection had dropped dead). Nope, the log entry dated in February states "Annual performed...discrepancies found" so THAT is the date of the annual. See, I'm agreeing with you here. :) March entry states "Received airworthiness cert...aircraft airworthy.", not 'annual completed'.

...and if you are just trying to "spool me up", you have succeeded. I'd bet my life on this -and yours. Didn't mean to 'Spool you up'.

Your other acquaintances are wrong, and I hope they aren't involved in aircraft maintenance if what you are saying they believe is correct. They are IA's and the only thing I can say in their defense is that my plane partner is the one that asked them the question. Maybe he phrased it in the wrong way -or to get the answer he was looking for- so they didn't truly understand the question he was asking.

PERIOD.

Bottom line.....annual is on the way. Thanks for your input.

[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. :lol: My typing skills leave a lot to be desired also. :oops:

[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. :cry: 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. :o 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.

[andya]

I'm with Steve, but I' m not sure what made the pass, could have been a UFO

losts of verbage on when then the next annual is due, bottom line look in the log book for a signoff and signature, ie annual good or discrepencies given to owner, add 365 days and use the last day of the month that computes to.