Good words certainly. We should be careful when selecting our mx personnel.voorheesh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 4:37 am I agree that failing to record maintenance is serious, especially for unsuspecting persons who may end up with an improperly modified aircraft and be totally unaware. I also don’t argue with FAA inspectors or other aviation professionals who have opinions and positions based on their years of experience. It is not uncommon to hear words of frustration. I was trying to point out that in the grand scheme of things, opinions and hidden secrets within aging aircraft have minimal impact on how the FAA regulates general aviation. In the case of unrecorded maintenance or alterations, there is very little the FAA can do. Those cases are nearly impossible to prove. At least in determining the who, what, when, where; all of which are necessary for the FAA to take any meaningful response or corrective action. So the concept, at least to me, of “more onerous” is kind of beside the point. That’s all I was saying.
Once again, the responsibilities for inspection and conformity of the GA fleet rest with IA rated technicians. They are where the rubber meets the road. This is how our system is set up. For the most part, it works very well. I wonder if there are any better ideas out there.
IA’s should be thanked every day by any of us who depend on them for the continued airworthiness of our aircraft. If some are reluctant or backing off, that is understandable and hopefully others will step in and keep the system going.
Aviation relies on the integrity of pilots and mechanics. We should all respect and meet those standards as best we can.
However, The FARs are pretty clear: The Responsibility for the condition of the airplane lies with the Owner.
91.403(a) says the owner/operator is responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition,
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... lities.pdf
