Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
Part 43 says the person that signs the log returns it to service. The PIC may be ultimately responsible for the airworthiness (whereas the mechanic/maintenance is responsible for actually doing the work correctly) when he signs for the aircraft, but that is not a return to service. Part 43 explicitly explains this in 43.5.
Nowhere in Part 43 is any reference given to returning a part, airframe, engine, or appliance to service. The language is very carefully provided that a mechanic, inspector, or authorized person peforming maintenance, preventative maintenance, repairs, or alterations may APPROVE for return to service. This is not semantics. A mechanic may state in a log entry that he approves the aircraft for return to service, or the implication is made in the log entry, specifically for the work performed. In so doing, the mechanic does NOT return the aircraft to service.
An aircraft that has completed maintenance, whether repairs, overhauls, inspections, modifications/alterations, etc, may be approved for return to service by the mechanic, repair station, or other that has done the work. That approval does NOT return the aircraft to service.
14 CFR 43.5 states NOTHING about a mechanic returning an aircraft to service. In fact, it specifically addresses approval for return to service, only. Approval for return to service is NOT return to service.
Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
Now, if you want to argue that "approval for return to service" is different than "return to service", I'd say you are just trying to argue the semantics. If you've approved it to return to service, as soon as you sign off, it's back in service. No one goes after a pilot for "returning an aircraft to service" incorrectly, unless they have done maintenance in accordance with 43.3(h) or (i) and not met the requirements of Part 43. Many times, pilots performing maintenance under these authorizations don't realize all the requirements that must be met in Part 43 when they use this, but this authorization is not applicable for 121 and much of 135. It is a "thing" that maintenance/mechanics have occasionally "returned an aircraft to service" incorrectly, as supported by the regulation.
Far from semantics, the regulation is clear. A mechanic does not and cannot return an aircraft to service, and can ONLY approve the aircraft, airframe, powerplant, or appliance for return to service with respect to the work performed.