Classic "Missing Rivet" Airworthiness Scenario

[-]

andrewrbat@reddit

In my mind wear and tear does not equal a missing component.

[-]

No, “a certain amount of wear and tear” is not an easily fixable item like replacing a missing screw or shooting a new rivet. It’s cracked plastic. It’s stop-drilled tears or cracks. It’s label maker replacement placards. It’s scuffed glass on an instrument that’s still readable. It’s missing carpet that’s been cut out after pulling away from its attachments. Wear and tear isn’t code for routine maintenance items being ignored.

[-]

jakep623@reddit

Following

[-]

Mountain-Captain-396@reddit

Two missing in a row is a no go

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

Source?

[-]

Mountain-Captain-396@reddit

My local A&P

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

I was hoping for something in 43.13.

While I don't disagree with the idea, I'd really love to see something "official".

[-]

Mountain-Captain-396@reddit

We don't always have something "official" to go by. Hell, the AFM for the airplane I fly doesn't even have basic data like climb and cruise tables.

It all comes back to that big overarching theory of risk management. If the benefits outweigh the risks, then it is worth it. If the risks outweigh the benefits, then it is not worth it.

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

43.13 is pretty official. TCDS are pretty official. I'd bet the plane you fly has some certification standard and if in the US 43.13 applies to it.

Like I said, I don't disagree with the idea, I was just hoping you had some "official" source for your advise and not just OWT.

[-]

Mountain-Captain-396@reddit

By "not having something official" I mean that it is impossible for a regulation to cover every single possible scenario that could ever exist, so its also important to use good judgement.

My airplane is an EAB, so it doesn't have a type certificate and isn't certified, so 43.13 does not apply. Instead its just required to be maintained in safe operating condition.

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

You being EAB makes the entire discussion about your aircraft moot - a red herring.

But like it or not, certificated aircraft do have standards and 43.13 applies. If you don't know them (I don't know this one either, which is why I asked for your source) that does not change the fact that standards do exist.

In truth if there are any missing rivets, the plane no longer meets the TCDS.

All I got out of this is that you don't have a source to back your claim.

[-]

Mountain-Captain-396@reddit

Ask your local FSDO and follow the guidance they give. When I worked for a flight school (Part 141) our OPS manual (which was approved by the FSDO) said that it was OK to dispatch with one cowling screw missing on a C172.

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

A cowling screw is not a rivet. So you have claim to have a source for a missing cowling screw (which I have no idea why you would just not, ya know, put a screw in)... But not missing rivets.

By the very definition, the FAA considers "Airworthy" meaning: § 3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials. "Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation."

Conforms AND is safe for operation. Not "or". If it is missing parts - it does not conform.

Now there are examples where the manufacturer allows certain things and in your example the FSDO seems to have approved a single missing screw in a schools OPS manual (which would only apply to that school not anyone else).

So you have claimed to have a reference for a single missing screw, but not for any rivets other than "my mechanic".

I can see anything further will be a waste of time. You made a comment, I asked for a reference and you did not provide one.

[-]

Mountain-Captain-396@reddit

The title said missing rivet but the body of the post said missing screw, so I went with missing screw because I have seen several of those but never a missing rivet as an instructor.

[-]

Mega-Eclipse@reddit

Two missing in a row is a no go

But three in a row is tic-tac-toe, who needs a checklist, I got a flow!!!!

[-]

PlasticDiscussion590@reddit

Under part 91 .Airworthiness is always the pilots call. No one but the pilot or FAA can deem an aircraft unairworthy. And another pilot may come along and deem the same aircraft airworthy based on their own understanding of the regs.

There are lots of grey areas and plenty of room for one’s own interpretation.

[-]

NealMustard@reddit

The airplane has to conform to its type certificate. For most pilots this means checking the TCDS.

Then the airplane has to pass multiple inspections by a mechanic with an IA.

Then, on the day of flight, the PIC has to inspect the plane and determine that the things they can see are airworthy.

At any point along the way an FAA inspector could come along and say the plane is unairworthy. Someone more knowledgable than me could add to this part of it, but I believe they have to start an action against the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft to do anything meaningful.

The airplane will change from the time it leaves the factory floor, to the time that it’s being flown. The changes that accrue from the last annual (or major repair) to the day that the plane is being flown are the responsibility of the owner/operator, and then the pic

The pic is the final authority on airworthiness, not the sole authority. Don’t fly a plane that you don’t believe in, but a shitty cheapskate plane owner could give you a plane to fly that’s unairworthy in a way that you would never catch. That’s not your fault as the PIC.

[-]

PlasticDiscussion590@reddit

That’s the reality, but it’s not the legality.

It’s that cheapskate owners sole responsibility to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition. It’s the mechanics job to do the work the owner requests, and then preform that work as specified by the appropriate manuals. It’s on the pic to know what work is required to be done, and verify it has been done- and hopefully done well enough to make a plane airworthy.

When the owner says it’s “airworthy,” that is just their opinion. Likewise, a mechanic should never sign off an aircraft as airworthy. They should sign it off as having whatever maintenance tasks completed. A mechanic can’t “ground” an airplane. They can tell you the wheels are missing and you shouldn’t fly it, and that very well may be a airworthiness issue, but it’s beyond their scope to make that call.

The only person to make the airworthiness decision is the pic.

Let’s also not discount the difference between something that is legally airworthy and something safe to fly in. The overlap of those two ven diagrams is not 100% and a lot of planes can be one without being the other.

[-]

dopexile@reddit

The only person to make the airworthiness decision is the PIC.

That doesn't seem right. My plane has been down since December because the A&P refused to sign off on the annual for fuel tank leaks.

[-]

PlasticDiscussion590@reddit

https://www.savvyaviation.com/a-mechanics-signature/#tbofallacy

[-]

dopexile@reddit

Sure, the A&P will sign off on the annual with discrepancies. The "annual" is completed, so you won't have to do that again, but the A&P has effectively deemed the plane as not being airworthy.

[-]

sforzapop@reddit

Every annual inspection says whether the aircraft was found to be in an airworthy condition, so yes, an A&P with IA makes airworthiness decisions.

[-]

WhiteoutDota@reddit

100hr and annual inspections are airworthiness determinations, sorry to burst your bubble

[-]

redwoodbus@reddit

Missing screw on interior trim piece that is held on by 10 screws, and is still attached pretty good?

Missing "screw" (machine screw) holding something structural in place? Or something with the powerplant or accessory?

Big difference.

[-]

keenly_disinterested@reddit

The right answer is if you aren't sure whether a missing screw (or any other maintenance defect) affects airworthiness you should involve a qualified maintenance tech.

[-]

natgasfan911@reddit

Why would the ‘correct’ answer be - if a rivet is missing it’s not air worthy? It’s the safe answer.

[-]

Atlanta_Mane@reddit

Would you be so kind as to add a link the LOI?

[-]

mirafone@reddit

https://www.faa.gov/media/14986

[-]

rFlyingTower@reddit

This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:

I was always under the impression that an aircraft was airworthy strictly based on the definition in 14 CFR 3.5(a): "the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation," plus compliance with applicable inspections/maintenance under parts 91 and 43. Thus, a "missing screw" would disqualify an aircraft from "conforming to its type design," rendering it unairworthy.

However, this belief changed when I stumbled upon the Witkowski LOI. Apparently, the FAA acknowledges an aircraft that has “accumulated a certain amount of wear and minor defects," and asserts that an "airplane that has been in service a number of years clearly is not in exactly the same condition as when it left the factory. Nevertheless, if the airplane has been properly inspected and maintained in accordance with 14 CFR parts 91 and 43, it should substantially conform to its type certificate to the extent that it will provide a level of safety that conformity with its type certificate is intended to ensure. The determination of when a mechanical, electrical, or structural discrepancy is sufficiently serious to render an aircraft unairworthy is, in many cases, a judgment call."

So, a missing screw is a pilot's judgment call? I am preparing for my CFI checkride, and if this scenario is presented, do I state this?

In this case, I would state the above information while also stating that I would consult an A&P mechanic to determine airworthiness. Is this an appropriate answer? Also, how would a mechanic make this call?

Please downvote this comment until it collapses.

Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.