FAA Inspection Authorization (IA) common mistakes
FAA Inspection Authorization (IA) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Verifying Airworthiness Directive compliance from the wording of a logbook entry ("AD X complied with") instead of from the actual aircraft, appliance, and component records. The IA never builds an AD applicability list from the aircraft records, equipment list, and Type Certificate Data Sheet, and never checks appliance/component ADs (magnetos, fuel pumps, vacuum pumps, oil coolers, propellers, hoses) that do not appear in the airframe log.
Airframe logbooks read like the whole story, and repetitive AD compliance is easy to accept at face value. Appliance and component ADs are tracked in separate logs or 8130-3/component tags, and model/serial-number applicability splits are a step most candidates have never practiced outside of a maintenance shift.
What to do instead
Before touching the aircraft, build a written AD status sheet from the aircraft records plus the equipment list and TCDS: every AD, its applicability basis (make/model/serial/part number), method of compliance, and next due. Verify terminating actions and part numbers from the records, not from the entry text, and carry the sheet into the inspection.
Signing the aircraft off at the end of an annual inspection without a complete, item-by-item record entry. Typical failures: the entry does not state that the aircraft was inspected in accordance with an annual inspection, does not list the discrepancies found, omits the signature/certificate number/date, or contains no approval-for-return-to-service statement where one is required.
The physical work consumes all the candidate's attention, and the record entry is written at the end of a long day from memory. Candidates who have always worked under a shop's template have never had to construct the entry from the regulatory elements themselves.
What to do instead
Keep a written record-entry template listing every element required for the specific approval being given and fill it in mechanically. For an annual, state that the inspection was performed in accordance with an annual inspection, reference the scope used, list the discrepancies, and include the return-to-service statement, date, signature, and certificate number.
Substituting a functional walk-around, an operational check, or a prior year's inspection for the scope and detail required by the annual inspection checklist - for example skipping the interior, cabin and baggage areas, emergency equipment, flight control cable runs behind panels, and those items that require opening access panels or removing inspection plates.
Many candidates come from line maintenance, where the practical task is troubleshooting, and they unconsciously redefine "inspection" as "looks airworthy." The full scope-and-detail list is long and rarely recited in daily work.
What to do instead
Use the scope-and-detail list as an actual checklist, executed in sequence, with initials or notes against each item, and record which items required access panel removal. Treat "no further inspection required" as a decision that must be justified for each item, not as the default.
Deciding whether a repair or alteration is major by intuition ("it's just a doubler," "it's only a bracket") rather than by working through the repair/alteration classification criteria and the list of major repairs and major alterations, and without evaluating the cumulative or consequential effect on structure, balance, systems, and performance.
The classification lists are used rarely enough that they are not memorized, and the consequential-damage concept (an otherwise minor alteration that affects an existing major alteration) has no analogue in routine maintenance experience.
What to do instead
Run every repair and alteration through the classification criteria explicitly, then ask three questions in writing: does it affect structural strength, does it affect performance or flight characteristics, and does it alter an item that is already a major repair or major alteration? Document the classification decision - and the reasoning - in the work package.
Handling major repair and major alteration paperwork loosely: sending the FAA Form 337 only to the owner when the FAA also requires it, failing to identify in the approved-data block exactly which document approves the repair or alteration, or treating a field approval as something the IA can grant or as something that can be obtained after the aircraft is returned to service.
The form is filled out infrequently, and in shops the paperwork is often handled by someone else. Candidates also conflate "I can approve for return to service" with "I can approve the data."
What to do instead
Work block by block from a specimen form, listing the specific approved data by document number and revision in the approved-data block, and confirm the submission route for the specific case before the aircraft leaves. Obtain field approval through the FAA before the work is approved for return to service, and treat any weight and balance revision as part of the same package.
Treating manufacturer maintenance manuals, service bulletins, and AC 43.13-1B methods as "approved data" for a major repair or major alteration, and treating airworthiness limitations and instructions for continued equipment as advisory rather than mandatory.
"Approved" and "acceptable" are used interchangeably in hangar conversation, and the manuals are the documents mechanics trust most. Airworthiness limitations live inside the ICAs, so they look like ordinary maintenance instructions.
What to do instead
Classify the data source before using it: determine whether the document is approved data for this specific repair or alteration, or only acceptable data that supports a minor repair. Confirm the airworthiness limitations section status of any life-limited part or mandatory inspection item, and confirm that continued airworthiness instructions are available and being followed before approving return to service.
Inspecting structures and systems by sweeping through familiar ground: engine and avionics get checked closely, while corrosion in lavatory, galley, battery, and wheel well areas, hose and flexible line condition and date codes, control cable condition and routing, static system and altimeter and transponder recurrent checks, ELT battery and installation condition, and exhaust and heat exchanger condition get assumed.
Candidates default to the systems they know. Age-related and environment-driven deterioration has no obvious symptom, and recurrent checks are date-driven, not condition-driven, so they are invisible unless tracked.
What to do instead
Inspect from a written system-by-system and zone-by-zone matrix that includes corrosion-prone areas, all flexible lines and hoses, control system continuity, and every recurrently required check with its date basis. Record the condition found for each area, so "looked fine" is replaced by a documented observation.
Approving an alteration, repair, or equipment change for return to service without revising the aircraft weight and balance report and equipment list - an avionics install, interior change, paint job, or repair that adds or moves weight gets signed off while the empty weight, empty-weight center of gravity, and equipment list stay at their pre-change values.
The physical installation is the visible work product; the weight and balance revision is administrative and feels like someone else's job, and for small weight changes the effect is assumed to be negligible instead of computed.
What to do instead
Treat the weight and balance report and equipment list as part of the return-to-service package: compute the actual weight and moment change, recompute empty weight and empty-weight center of gravity, revise the equipment list for added or removed items, and refuse to approve return to service until those documents match the aircraft.
Stretching Inspection Authorization authority: approving an aircraft for return to service after work the IA did not personally perform or inspect, approving work on a product outside the IA's ratings, or approving data the IA cannot approve. In each case the IA treats the authorization as a supervisory or blanket approval rather than a personal act.
In a shop environment an IA is treated as the senior signer, and the habit of signing for the team carries over. The regulation that limits the approval to work the holder personally performed or supervised is easy to read past.
What to do instead
Before signing, confirm three things in writing: the work was performed or directly supervised by the signer, the product is within the holder's ratings, and the data relied on is approved data for the specific action. If any element fails, the approval does not happen - refer the item to the FAA or another appropriately authorized person.
Confusing the inspection programs: assuming a 100-hour inspection resets or replaces the 12-calendar-month annual, applying 100-hour rules to the wrong aircraft, or setting up and running a progressive inspection program without the required FAA approval and without keeping each segment on its required schedule.
All three programs use similar checklists and the same paperwork, so they blend together, and the due-date logic differs by program and by operating rule rather than by the work performed.
What to do instead
Determine the program from the operating rule and the aircraft's approved program first, then apply the calendar logic: track annual due date separately from 100-hour and progressive segment dates, and never let a 100-hour or segment completion reset the annual. For progressive programs, verify the approval basis and schedule before performing any segment.