PILOT COUNSEL
Maintenance sign-offs
BY JOHN s. YODICE
Ensure an approved-for-return-to-service logbook entry
A RECENT LEGAL DECISION REMINDS us that a pilot (or
JOHN S. YODICE
provides legal
counsel to AOPA
members through
Pilot Protection
Services.
24 I AOPA PILOT May 2015
any other operator) is personally responsible to ensure
that an aircraft on which any maintenance has been
performed is appropriately signed off for return to service before the aircraft is operated. In this case, a pilot
had all of his FAA airman certificates, including his airline transport pilot certificate, suspended for 60 days
for violating this and related rules. The FAA originally
sought a ISO-day suspension.
Here are the facts. The pilot, who was director of
operations for a private corporate jet operator, had a
problem on takeoff in the jet. A cockpit warning light
came on, indicating hot fuel temperature. The light
went off when the pilot reduced power. As a precautionary measure, he opted to land at the closest airport
with a maintenance facility equipped to address the
issue. Maintenance personnel checked the problem
and eventually installed a new component to the fuel
control assembly. When the mechanics had completed
their ground tests, they taxied the aircraft to the run-up
area, where they completed engine run-ups. The pilot
was then told by the mechanic, "OK, let's head back to
the ramp and I'll get all the paperwork going and get you
out of here as quick as we can." After fueling and resupplying the aircraft and waiting about an hour, the pilot
decided to depart-obviously satisfied that the problem
had been resolved-fora hurried departure, and leaving a handwritten note saying, "Alex, please complete
corrective action. Show 'SIN off/on for parts.' Thanks
to you and [one of the mechanics]. Send all 3 copies to
[operator's maintenance personnel]." The pilot also left
three carbon copies of an operator's flight log s~eet for
the mechanics to complete and forward to the operator's director of maintenance. The pilot kept a pink
carbon copy, designated for accounting. On start-up
and taxi for departure, the mechanics were nearby
but made no attempt to stop or to signal the pilot that
maintenance was incomplete. However, when a supervisor was informed that the aircraft had departed, he
reacted in disbelief because they had not yet issued
the airworthiness release. He considered the aircraft
to be unairworthy and unsuccessfully tried to recall
it. On the contrary, the pilot believed the aircraft had
been repaired and returned to service by maintenance
personnel because he was told that the repairs were finished with the run-up that was done. (Interestingly, the
mechanic who worked on the aircraft testified at the
later NTSB hearing that he documented his work on
the work form before the aircraft departed.)
The FAA had a different view. It charged the pilot
with multiple related violations ofFARs 91.203(a)(I),
91.40s(a) and (b), 91.407(a), and 91.13(a). The FAA order
suspended all of the pilot's airman certificates for 150
days. For our purposes here, FAR 91.40s(b) is most relevant. It states that each owner or operator of an aircraft
shall ensure maintenance personnel make entries in the
aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has
been approved for return to service. The maintenance
may have been completed, but according to the FAA
(and later the NTSB law judge), that was not enough.
The pilot appealed the suspension to the NTSB. A
hearing was held before an administrative law judge,
who found the FAA charges valid. The pilot's "failure
to view the written return to service was a violation
because he never 'ensured' the maintenance records
would be completed." The judge cited NTSB precedent "holding that a pilot-in-command could not
simply rely on a mechanic's statement for purposes of
Sections 91.405 and 91.407." Furthermore, maintenance
personnel are not required to keep an aircraft from
departing when they believe it is unairworthy. But, in
mitigation-because the pilot took reasonable action
when he first noticed the illuminated temperature
indicator-the judge reduced the period of suspension from 150 days to 140 days.
On further appeal to the full NTSB, the board
affirmed the law judge's findings but concluded a 60-day
suspension was more appropriate in view of the pilot's
efforts to address the problem. Nevertheless, the message is clear. An owner, pilot, or other operator must
ensure that the appropriate maintenance records are
made before an aircraft out of maintenance is operated.
Also important to note, although not directly
involved in this case, FAR Part 43 provides that a pilot
(who is not necessarily an FAA-certificated maintenance
professional) may perform preventive maintenance on
an aircraft owned or operated by him/ her, and in doing
so, must sign and record the preventive maintenance
done-essentially approving and recording the return to
service. Even though it is only preventive maintenance,
the FAA will likely insist that all of this should be done
before the aircraft is operated.
AOPA
:
www.aopa .org/pps
-------------------'