Author Topic: Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual  (Read 3644 times)

Philip Ufkes

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 49
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« on: September 09, 2008, 11:33:58 AM »
I've received conflicting information regarding the maintenance required by FAR Part 91 versus the maintenance specified by the Beechcraft Maintenance Manual; specifically time-limit overhaul/replacement.  For example, I was informed by an ABS technical person that overhaul of the fuel boost pumps at 1500 hours, as specified by Table 601 of the Beechcraft Manual, is not required for continued airworthiness (he did recommend it).  The manual states the owner must ensure the aircraft is inspected in conformity ".... to FAR 91.409(f)(3)".  A maintenance shop adamantly claims that the aircraft will not 'pass' annual and has tagged the aircraft as "un-airworthy" unless and until ALL schedules in the Beech manual have been complied with including the replacement schedules.  I've read the FARs and I'm probably not alone when I say "what?".  Can one of you FAR out individuals enlighten this legally challenged pilot?

Tom Pelz

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 436
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2008, 11:41:14 AM »
Seriously consider finding another shop.  They should know the difference between aircraft flown by a private pilot for personal/business reasons.

IF the is being maintained per part 91, it is my understanding that things can be maintained (replaced, repaired, etc) on condition.   

On the other hand, if you are going to use the airplane as a charter aircraft, then there is a entirely different standard.



Tom

Philip Ufkes

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 49
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2008, 11:54:48 AM »
That is what I also believe to be true.  Thus, based on the ABS technical rep's input as well as other A&Ps, and armed with the fact that the aircraft was still current with the previous annual, we "ferried" the aircraft back to my mechanic and he completed the annual with no squawks.  I won't get into details in this public forum but suffice to say we had several conversations with the FAA (after they reported us) and the FAA for the most part agreed with the previous 'big name' shop; thus my confusion.  I just want to be sure I'm legal as my current shop did not 'flag' any of the items the previous 'big name' shop claimed needed to be overhauled or replaced to be airworthy.

Chip Mirman

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 81
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2008, 01:47:24 AM »
 91.409(f)(3) refers back to 91.409(e)and 91.409(e)concerns itself with large airfraft not covered by part 125, miltiengine turboprop and multiengine turbine aircraft as well as turbine rotorcraft.

Don't think it includes Bonanzas.


Philip Ufkes

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 49
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2008, 10:19:44 AM »
Ia

Jimmy Borger

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 76
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2008, 01:42:29 PM »
Part 91 does not requrie compliance with "required" overhaul times but some insurance companies do require that you comply with overhaul/replace times or they don't consider your aircraft airworthy.

Steve Zeller

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 433
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2008, 12:32:54 PM »
Phillip, The only maintenance instructions that you are legally required to conform to under FAR Part 91 are FAA issued Airworthiness Directives. That being said, you have to be a responsible and make sure you maintain all aircraft equipment and systems "on condition" as airworthy. Don't skimp. Please advise the name of the shop that gave you the hard time, so we can all make sure we steer clear of them. They clearly attempted to defraud you and based on the dollars involved, it was probably felony fraud. I am a Bonanza owner and A&P and I have seen a lot of this sort of thing in the Atlanta area.

Philip Ufkes

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 49
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2008, 10:33:14 AM »
I'd rather not name names as I've put this issue behind me and don't need any more aggrevation from them or the FAA.  The issue wasn't safety or my desire to "skimp" on maintenance; quite the contrary. It was the extortion.

Scott Newpower

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 223
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2008, 02:25:09 AM »
 
Quote from: Jimmy Borger
Part 91 does not requrie compliance with "required" overhaul times but some insurance companies do require that you comply with overhaul/replace times or they don't consider your aircraft airworthy.




Name one.  Since I already know engine time isn't one of them I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it could be.

John Collins

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 137
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2008, 02:16:05 PM »
 
Quote from: Philip Ufkes
I'd rather not name names as I've put this issue behind me and don't need any more aggravation from them or the FAA.  The issue wasn't safety or my desire to "skimp" on maintenance; quite the contrary. It was the extortion.


Phillip,

Your problem with a repair station is not that uncommon. Although you said the airplane was still in annual, did the shop perform an annual and was there a logbook entry from the shop stating that the aircraft was unairworthy? If you flew the airplane with an annual inspection entry with a statement that an annual had been performed and the aircraft was found to be unairworthy with a list of discrepancies given to the owner, then you would need a log book entry from an A&P that the discrepancies had been repaired or complied with and the aircraft was returned to service. In lieu of the second entry, you would need a ferry permit to relocate the aircraft to have the maintenance performed. The only possible problem with the FAA would be if you flew the aircraft without a ferry permit.

An annual is an inspection and has only two outcomes. Either the aircraft is found to be airworthy and returned to service or it is found to be unairworthy and a list of discrepancies is provided to the owner. The list of discrepancies should be in written form, given to the owner, and should not be listed in the logbooks.  When the shop performs both the inspection and the repairs, they usually don't make a logbook entry until they have completed the repairs. You should always give the shop written instructions that you are to receive a complete list of discrepancies and you will decide what work is authorized to be done.  If you disagree with the shop on what maintenance should be performed, and they say they will refuse to sign off the annual unless certain work is performed, you always have the option of requiring the shop to sign off the annual as unairworthy with a list of discrepancies provided to you.  They can not refuse to sign off the annual in this case, if they do they are in violation of FAR's. Then you can obtain a ferry permit if necessary and move the aircraft to another shop or A&P who can return the aircraft to service.

Many shops are FAA repair stations and may require work to be accomplished that is optional, like service bulletins that are not referred to by an AD and complying with recommended overhaul limits.  If you want to deal with such a shop, you can still have them perform the annual and all of the maintenance that you agree with and have them use the unairworthy sign-off with the list to you of the unfinished work. I would not let them put the list in the log books, but if they did, I would have another A&P list all of the discrepancies and state that they are not required to be performed by FAR for part 91 operation and sign it off and your back in business.

Your best initial option, is have the understanding with the shop in the first place and avoid any shop whose manual requires them to perform such optional work.




Jimmy Borger

  • ABS Member
  • Full Member
  • Posts: 76
Annual Requirements - FAR vs. Manual
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2008, 02:25:18 AM »
AOPA covered this in their magazine some time ago.  I first heard about this over 10 years ago when a local pilot replaced a perfectly good engine at TBO because his insurance company required it.  I would have changed insurance companies.  I don't hesitate to run my engine past TBO.