bob turner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 4,825
I have in my hand the following logbook entry:
The aircraft and/or component identified above repaired/replaced and inspected in accordance with current federal aviation regulations and was found airworthy for return to service.
The aircraft is indeed identified above, by N- number, serial number, engine serial number, date, etc. The only action taken was an oil change.
The aircraft had been out of annual for four months. The oil had been changed by the same FAA repair station 22 hours previously.
Obviously, the shop was only certifying that an oil change had been done (for $300) and not that an annual inspection had been performed. But their statement says otherwise, in my opinion.
What do you think? Is this sort of verbiage ok on an otherwise unairworthy airplane? Does a shop that performs a $300 oil change have any obligation to point out to the owner that his airplane is out of annual? Or will a sharp lawyer say that this writeup constitutes an annual inspection?
The aircraft and/or component identified above repaired/replaced and inspected in accordance with current federal aviation regulations and was found airworthy for return to service.
The aircraft is indeed identified above, by N- number, serial number, engine serial number, date, etc. The only action taken was an oil change.
The aircraft had been out of annual for four months. The oil had been changed by the same FAA repair station 22 hours previously.
Obviously, the shop was only certifying that an oil change had been done (for $300) and not that an annual inspection had been performed. But their statement says otherwise, in my opinion.
What do you think? Is this sort of verbiage ok on an otherwise unairworthy airplane? Does a shop that performs a $300 oil change have any obligation to point out to the owner that his airplane is out of annual? Or will a sharp lawyer say that this writeup constitutes an annual inspection?
