Mx log: "100hr" vs "Annual"

[toto]

Reading through my mx logbooks, I've found several cases where an annual inspection was signed off as a 100-hour inspection.  Some of these were from before I owned the aircraft.

From my read of 91.409, an annual can substitute for a 100-hour, but a 100-hour cannot substitute for an annual unless it is specifically noted in the log as an "annual" inspection.

The aircraft has never been used in any commercial operation, so there is no scenario where it would have needed a 100-hour inspection.  These are all just incorrect annual inspection entries.

(I've seen plenty of cases where an inspection log just has "100-hour / Annual" language and the inspector doesn't circle one or the other.  But the examples I'm looking at now say "100-hour" without the word "annual.")

I imagine that this is a very common mistake, since my logs show at least three different shops using more or less the same language.  Is this so common that no one ever makes an issue of it?

[carusoam]

As an owner, I would be looking for an annual in its log books...

If it were a typo or omission, I wouldn’t want that to happen...

One person’s input, may not reflect the actual Mooney world’s point of view...

Best regards,

-a-

[RLCarter]

can you post a pic of the entry? It seems to be common for the entry to start out with a 100 inspection but towards the last part say its an annual. The current annual inspection is the only one the feds care about

[EricJ]

The inspections themselves between a 100-hour and an annual are the same from a requirements perspective, so if a 100-hour (or an annual) are done, the logbook entry may be the only difference.   I've seen that in my logbooks, too, where inspections under previous owners were labeled "100-hour" instead of annual.
 

[toto]

7 minutes ago, RLCarter said:

can you post a pic of the entry? It seems to be common for the entry to start out with a 100 inspection but towards the last part say its an annual. The current annual inspection is the only one the feds care about

Here's one from 20 years ago.  I've removed the signature and identity to protect the innocent

 

[RLCarter]

Generally the last line is where it states that it is an annual inspection..... 
my logs go from hand written (with poor penmanship) to rubber stamps with that blanks filled in to computer generated stickers. I have seen one of the stickers that was all screwed up due to cut/copy/paste errors, it was X’ed out a revised sticker below it that made sense and explained why the 1st was X’ed out

[Mooneymite]

That appears to be an entry from an engine log?

There is no such thing as an "annual" for an engine.  Engines only get hour inspections.  (AFAIK)  If you find an "annual inspection" in an engine log, you might inquire as to where the mechanic found the "annual" checklist.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Mooneymite

[toto]

18 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

That appears to be an entry from an engine log?

There is no such thing as an "annual" for an engine.  Engines only get hour inspections.  (AFAIK)  If you find an "annual inspection" in an engine log, you might inquire as to where the mechanic found the "annual" checklist.

Yes, that image was from the engine log.  For what it's worth, the airframe log for this date uses the identical language (same author, same signature, same "100hr" notes in the same places).  But it's a fair point, and it's a nuance that I definitely missed as I was going through.  I'll start lining up the engine log entries with their corresponding airframe entries and see whether they're all the same..

[GeeBee]

Mooneymite is correct. I had the same question when a MSC signed off my annual in the airframe log then signed off the engine and the prop as "100 hour" inspections I inquired to my personal IA. He said what Mooneymite said and he said if you notice I write mine up as "performed 100 hour inspection on engine in conjunction with an annual inspection" on NXXX. I think either by habit or tradition we have mostly seen engines signed off as "annual inspection" but Mooneymite's assertion is absolutely correct.

Either way, you're good.

 

 

[Guest]

I can’t see the FAA having issue with a maintainer entering an Annual inspection, along with details of the maintenance completed as applicable in both the engine and propeller log books.  In my mind far better to write more details than not write them at all.

Clarence

[N201MKTurbo]

At the last maintenance symposium, the FAA inspector said no one should ever do 100 hour inspections. It is perfectly legal to do an annual every 100 hours if you want. He said it is legal to do two annuals in the same day if you want.

[EricJ]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

At the last maintenance symposium, the FAA inspector said no one should ever do 100 hour inspections. It is perfectly legal to do an annual every 100 hours if you want. He said it is legal to do two annuals in the same day if you want.

I think one of the local flight schools does that, i.e., they never do 100-hour inspections, just annuals.   That way they don't have to track annuals, since their airplanes fly well over 100 hours/year.   The main advantage of the 100-hour seems to be that an A&P can do it, so if there is not an IA available it can still get done.

[bradp]

As O/O regardless of the 100 hr vs annual inspection language I’m looking for the magic words “this aircraft was found to be in an airworthy condition” and has someone with the initials IA.  I know my aircraft is not on a progressive maintenance program and if it ever came up I’d treat it as such.   As for the type of inspection required by 43.11 the confusion may be the reference to the OEM checklist Mooney 100 hr - annual.  they are one in the same 

http://www.softoutfit.com/static/refs/100hour.pdf

[N201MKTurbo]

If your plane has not had an annual in the last year, it isn't airworthy.

What happened before that is irrelevant.

A 100 hour isn't worth anything for a part 91 airplane.

[N231BN]

PT 91 flight school airplanes need 100-hr inspections don't they?

[RLCarter]

43 minutes ago, N231BN said:

PT 91 flight school airplanes need 100-hr inspections don't they?

Yes PT 61 schools are required to to perform 100hr inspection , as are rentals

[EricJ]

41 minutes ago, N231BN said:

PT 91 flight school airplanes need 100-hr inspections don't they?

Yes, if it carries people for hire (e.g., rental) or is used for flight instruction, 100-hour inspections are required.    Otherwise not.

1 hour ago, bradp said:

As O/O regardless of the 100 hr vs annual inspection language I’m looking for the magic words “this aircraft was found to be in an airworthy condition” and has someone with the initials IA.  I know my aircraft is not on a progressive maintenance program and if it ever came up I’d treat it as such.   As for the type of inspection required by 43.11 the confusion may be the reference to the OEM checklist Mooney 100 hr - annual.  they are one in the same 

43.11 just covers the documentation requirement of the inspection (i.e., the logbook entry), which does mandate the "(insert type)" distinction between types of inspections.   An annual inspection, which is only done on airplanes, not engines or propellers as previously pointed out, should state by FAR 43.11 that it was an annual inspection.   Since engines or propellers don't get annuals specifically (it's kind of a semantic thing), I don't think it matters whether they're marked as a 100-hour or annual by an IA.   I think mine usually say "annual", but I was in either the same meeting Rich was in or one just like it where the FAA said engines and props don't get annuals, only airplanes get annuals.  Part 43 Appendix D is the minimum checklist for what a 100-hour or annual inspection must cover, and there is no distinction in the list between the two inspections, the same list is used for each.   The title of Appendix D is, "Appendix D to Part 43 - Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections."

I agree with you completely that for an annual the airworthiness statement and an IA signature are key elements.   The logbook entry should conform to FAR 43.11.

[N231BN]

The way I understand 43.11, if the "aircraft" has received an annual inspection, the engine and prop logs don't need a certifying entry. You just need a description of the type of inspection, and 43.9 requires a description of maintenance, preventative maintenance, or repairs performed.

[JimB]

14 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

At the last maintenance symposium, the FAA inspector said no one should ever do 100 hour inspections. It is perfectly legal to do an annual every 100 hours if you want. He said it is legal to do two annuals in the same day if you want.

Very true and some places do that. But keep in mind an A&P can sign-off a 100 hour inspection. An IA or Repair Station have to sign-off an Annual. 

[thinwing]

This was question on my commercial written exam...a 100 hr inspection does not equal an annual inspection which is considered more rigorous.The full language I’ve been taught is “this aircraft has been inspected IAW with (Mooney factory 100 pt checklist or part 43 etc etc )for an annual inspection and found to be air worthy.sign Ed joe mechanic xxxxxxxxxIA.

[RobertGary1]

On 7/12/2020 at 5:55 PM, M20Doc said:

I can’t see the FAA having issue with a maintainer entering an Annual inspection, along with details of the maintenance completed as applicable in both the engine and propeller log books.  In my mind far better to write more details than not write them at all.

Clarence

Our fsdo points out that there is no federal guidance for an annual on appliances so if you log an annual on a prop you made something up. But a 100 hr is defined. 
btw I was taught the defining factor is how the airframe log is worded. If you say “this airframe” then it doesn’t cover engine prop. But if you say “this aircraft” in the log it covers the whole enchilada. 
 

-Robert 

[N231BN]

35 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Our fsdo points out that there is no federal guidance for an annual on appliances so if you log an annual on a prop you made something up. But a 100 hr is defined. 
btw I was taught the defining factor is how the airframe log is worded. If you say “this airframe” then it doesn’t cover engine prop. But if you say “this aircraft” in the log it covers the whole enchilada. 
 

-Robert 

The biggest problem is every FSDO is different. The manufacturer may define a 100-hr inspection but 43 appendix D is the same for an annual or a 100-hour, and it specifically lists items to be inspected on the engine and propeller. Theoretically you could have one IA inspect the airframe and another inspect the engine/prop and they both can sign an annual inspection. For a single IA, it is easier to just say "aircraft" and be done with it. You still need to list what inspection you used for the engine and prop but it is unnecessary to say "I certify."

[Hradec]

I dont have my IA(yet) but I have been maintaining commercial  airliners for the last 25 yrs and started dabbling in GA.

I have been helping a little flying club with a little work. I noticed that by the time they do their annual they have over 300hrs on the plane with no other maintenance during the year. Even if you are not on a 100hr inspection requirement, not a bad idea to do the recommended hourly maintenance  stated in the maintenance manual between annuals.

 

[Guest]

Transport Canada seems to be ahead of the FAA again.  We don’t ever certify the airplane as Airworthy other than when applying for a new
C of A.

During an Annual inspection or any other work, we attest to the worked being completed in accordance with the applicable standards of Airworthiness(regulations, meaning we have current manuals, training and skills to complete the task). We take no credit or blame for what other maintainers before us have done.  Owners are tasked with the responsibility of getting AD’s completed.  He can delegate the task of complying, but still holds the responsibility of compliance.

Clarence

[N201MKTurbo]

Why argue about it:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43-9C_CHG_2.pdf