Jump to content

Notice: Effective July 1, 2024, Vertical Forums will be officially shut down. As a result, all forum activity will be permanently removed. We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, but we would like to thank everyone for being a part of our community for so many years.

If you are interested in taking over this Forum, please contact us prior to July 1.

Check Out Tc's Corporate Offenders List.

Recommended Posts

I believe the correct terminology is that a pilot can deem the aircraft 'unairworthy',and the DOM/PRM 'grounds' the aircraft! Under no circumstances should a pilot over ride the decision of an AME. I haven't seen any Elementry Maintenance Tasks where a pilot can override an AME's decision!


I believe the correct terminology is that a pilot can deem the aircraft 'unairworthy',and the DOM/PRM 'grounds' the aircraft! Under no circumstances should a pilot over ride the decision of an AME. I haven't seen any Elementry Maintenance Tasks where a pilot can override an AME's decision!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Had a chat with the engineer. It was to do with a battery relocation and they were in compliance with the mod but a new AD came out and I gather much of it was N/A and what was needed to change was very minor. Mostly just not signed off. A young ex -fixed wing convert working there had a to-do with the owner and rrrrrrrring went the phone at TC.


As for the pilots responsibility - I believe TC requires all operators to have a list on each journey log page of what inspection/overhaul/AD is coming up. If the AMO/PRM has not kept on top of the recent ADs' is the pilot to know? To say it is the pilots responsibility and that there is a website in one sentence implies that you believe all pilots should be at the computer before every flight. It is my understanding that TC will chastise the AMO for not keeping up on the ADs' and go after the pilot only if he knowingly flies an "unservicable" helicopter.


I know the fixed-wing convert you are talking about and he was not the one to call Transport on the operator. In fact I believe a certain female pilot working for said operator is married to a Transport inspector. Plus the fact that this operator has had run-ins with Transport in the past, it was only a matter of time before they returned...............rh350

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From CAR's:


Flight Authorization


703.17 No person shall commence a flight unless the flight has been authorized in accordance with the procedures specified in the air operator's company operations manual.


Maintenance of Aircraft


703.19 No air operator shall permit a person to conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has not been maintained in accordance with the air operator's maintenance control system.



571.10 Maintenance Release


(3) Responsibility for compliance with airworthiness directives (ADs) is assigned to the owner of the aircraft in accordance with section 605.84 of the CARs.


Information Notes:


(i) Some inspection check sheets contain a check box with a statement to the effect that “...all applicable ADs have been complied with”. Such a statement transfers this responsibility to the AME signing the maintenance release for the inspection, even though it may be impractical for the AME to undertake the level of research required. Since compliance with ADs are the responsibility of the owner, AMEs should strike out this item on the inspection check sheets that they sign.


(ii) If the owner wishes to have this research undertaken by the AME as a separate maintenance task, it can be raised as a separate item on the work order, work card, or other document detailing the maintenance arrangement.



(a) A maintenance release applies only to the particular maintenance task or tasks to which it relates. Therefore:


(i) it is acceptable to sign a maintenance release in respect of a single task or group of tasks, even if other work is outstanding on the aircraft, provided that the wording of the entry leaves no doubt as to the scope of work being certified; and


(ii) it is the responsibility of the person signing a maintenance release to ensure that the technical record is correct in respect of the status of any outstanding task.


CAR 706.06 requires an air operator to include in its maintenance control manual, technical dispatch procedures to ensure that aircraft are not operated unless they are airworthy, appropriately equipped, configured and maintained for their intended use.


The purpose of the technical dispatch procedures is to ensure that only those aircraft that conform to applicable airworthiness and operational requirements are dispatched. This system also forms the basis upon which the pilot will determine aircraft serviceability in respect of airworthiness directives, maintenance, weight and balance control or operational requirements.


The system should be designed to prevent the dispatch of an aircraft unless all equipment necessary for the specific flight is serviceable, maintenance performed on the aircraft was complete and properly certified, and identifies any test flight requirements.



706.03 (1) The holder of an air operator certificate shall

(amended 2005/05/31; previous version)


(a) appoint a person responsible for the maintenance control system;


(d) ensure that the person responsible for the maintenance control system performs the duties referred to in subsections 706.07(2) and (3);


(e) provide the person responsible for the maintenance control system with the financial and human resources necessary to ensure that the holder of the air operator certificate meets the requirements of these Regulations;


(f) authorize the person responsible for the maintenance control system to remove aircraft from operation if the removal is justified because of non-compliance with the requirements of these Regulations or because of a risk to aviation safety or the safety of the public; and


(6) The person responsible for maintenance control system of the holder of an air operator certificate may assign the management functions for specific maintenance control activities, to another person if the assignment and its scope are described in the maintenance control manual (MCM) of the air operator.

(amended 2005/05/31; no previous version)


(7) If the holder of an air operator certificate is also the holder of an approved maintenance organization (AMO) certificate issued under section 573.02, the person appointed under paragraph (1)(a) shall be the person responsible for maintenance of the AMO appointed under paragraph 573.03(1)(a).

(amended 2005/05/31; no previous version)


OK, now having put all this crap on the screen, the air operator is responsible for his/her aircraft through a MCM, Approved Maintenance Schedules, etc. This includes AWD's, SDR's etc.

In the event that the air operator has an AMO also yes the PRM of the AirOperator with also be the PRM of the AMO. Still it is the MCM (air operator) side that is responsible for the aircraft and its technical dispatch which through some magic statements of the pen makes the pilot of the aircraft responsible for all aspects of the aircraft ensuring that its meets it type design requirements and is in a fit and safe state for flight.


In regards to an AME they only sign for the actual work that is performed on an aircraft. Therefore he is not responsible for the airwothiness of an aircraft the friging pilot is. This changed in the late 90's when AME's signed off a 100 hr they assumed responsibilty for the airworthiness of the aircraft, but now we no longer have that responsibilty and therefore are responsible for only the work that we actually perform. It is the responsibilty of the air operator to have their aircraft maintained in accordance with their approved Maintenance Schedules which specifical states how maintenance will be performed. They can make a deal with an AMO in the form of a Maintenance Aggrement to farm of some responsibilites in regards for exapmle AWD reasearch and compliance but in the end the poor old pilot must make sure the aircraft is in conformity with the type design of the aircraft including those pesky AWD's.


Have a great evening, I appoligize for the spelling mistakes and this threads length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to sleep, it's late.


My job as an AME is to certify the work I or someone else did. It doesn't involve doing an AD search on a daily basis.


Our company is structured so guys like AMODAO have to contact us and inform us of any new AD's that are applicable to the aircraft we maintain.


If it's a recurring AD, it'll be listed in the front of the journey log, and the pilot has to make sure the requirements of that AD aren't going to come due during their next flight.


So it's the pilot, not the AME that has to ensure the aircraft is airworthy before flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, you know you need your rest! Go to sleep!


I almost forgot to add, that any forward thinking air operator/MCM will have a statement that will ensure maintenance can be completed by third party AMO's, which are properly rated and have appropriately endorsed AME's, to ensure that maintenance can still be conducted on their aircraft inaccordance with the air operators MCM and applicable approved Maintenance Schedules should their own AMO loose its authority (if applicable) or due to remoteness/convienence have some other entity perform maintenance on their aircraft. Most MCM's will also explain how this third party maintenance will be conducted/contracted (through work orders/ P.O.'s etc) and how the air operator will provide references to the MCM and the specific approved Maintenance Schedules.

Conversely, AMO's MPM usually state how third party maintenance will be conducted and what procedures and conditions will be met in regards to an air operators request for them to perform maintenance on their aircraft and that all maintenance will be conducted inaccordance with the contacting air operators MCM and approved Maintenance Schedule. They MPM will also state the requirement for the air operator to provide some sort of contract (ussually through a W.O. or P.O.) to specifically detail what maintenace is to me conducted/contracted.


Liability is the name of the game (cover your a$$)!


Again, sorry for the spelling mistakes! Its late as Ray kindly pointed out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bullet Remington



Geez man. There was and is no reason to cut and paste all those CARs quote/sections. But do appreciate your energy! Wish I had somwe of it! :huh:


I spend so much time writing manuals, maintenance and ops side, that Transport is my home page! So I am very familiar with CARs.



While I am well versed, and it appears you are too, nothing you've posted, actually answers my question nor substaniates you first post. I referring to your staement" Pilot and PRM are the only one's with the authority to ground an aircraft"

(I'm paraphrasing the quote)


Again, I ask, is this an "in-house" policy? I see nothing in your CARs quotes, nor in CARs else where that verifies this statement. Am I missing something here?


And again, I'm not trying to be a Feces Agitator nor condescending. If there is something in CARs, I can't find it. And I sure don't want to put a statement in a customer's manual, that has no merit nor basis within the context of CARs.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

625.09 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft with a Minimum Equipment List


625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List


vi) Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME. This is best done by requesting the AME to inspect the defective system or component to determine its effect upon the aircraft's fitness for flight. By following this procedure and obtaining the AME's signature in the log book in the form of a maintenance release, the pilot will be able to demonstrate, if necessary, that he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft. Inspection of defective systems by an AME, although advisable, is not a legal requirment. As stated earlier, it is the pilot's responsibility to determine whether the aircraft is fit for the intended flight.


(vii) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft operated pursuant to Part VII, it is not always practicable for the pilot to personally undertake all actions required to determine the airworthiness status, because of the high levels of utilization, complexity of the aircraft, and the limited time available for all the various aspects of pre-flight preparation required. A common standard must be applied to all aircraft of a fleet. For these reasons, the flight training unit and the air operator regulations require the establishment of a formal system for the control of defects.


(viii) Such systems provide a greater degree of confidence that the airworthiness effects of defects have been taken into account, and ensure consistency of application of the standards. They also set limits on the periods for which the repair of a defect may be deferred. For aircraft operated in commercial air service, this system is normally based on the use of Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL), thereby providing the pilot with a sound basis on which to make his decision regarding the intended flight.


(ix) The final decision, however, still rests with the pilot. A pilot who accepts an aircraft with defects, the repair of which has been deferred in accordance with an approved system, has a good defence against any possible charge of flying an unairworthy aircraft, whereas a pilot who undertakes a flight with an aircraft that is not in compliance with the approved system to control the deferral of repairs to defects commits an offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per my previous post an AME's signature is not a legal requirement and a pilot has the final decision to whether or not an aircraft is airworthy!

Whether the aircraft is operated privately or commercially an AME's endorsment is not the legal requirement to determine an aircraft airworthiness, its the pilots call and/or the PRM of the air operator if the aircraft is operated commercially.


Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bullet, you have me curious. How in the world did TC get it's shorts in a knot over a couple of Brazilian AD's? And how did they justify the action?


As far as I know, unless they are the airworthiness authority for the manufacturer of the helicopter (does Brazil even have a manufacturing industry?), an AD from Brazils airworthiness authority would have no bearing here.


I don't doubt you one bit, I have seen the "strange" from TC in my time as well, but I gotta admit, this one sounds like it at least has some entertainment value! :lol:




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...