Thanks! That's a good link... putting that in the favorites.

Pilotpip... your point is valid. But even still, I would not reccommend endorsing the requirement for a pilot to ensure all compliance with all AD's. The reason.... well, take a 121 pilot.... how do you expect this pilot to review and ensure all AD compliance before a flight?? Maybe you say.. well, they have a maitenance department to care for that. Perhaps so, but does that relieve the Captain from the requirement? I guess my point is... if the guy has an opportunity to gain some money and some hours and he holds the appropriate CFI license to do so, let him at it!! How dare you discourage another from pursuing YOUR dream.

What in the world are you trying to say? I'm not discouraging anybody. I'm encouraging due diligence. The last thing I would want to see for this guy is a destroyed career brought on by an inspector catching something important missing during a ramp check. It takes about 5 minutes to print that list off, and maybe 20 to go through the logbooks. Including the owner in that process would be a great chance to actually instruct.

Comparing 121 to the GA world is the wrong way to go. As PIC, YOU are ultimately responsible to make sure that your aircraft is airworthy. Despite the owner being appropriately rated for the make and model the fact that you hold a higher rating automatically puts you in that position. Part of an aircraft being airworthy is compliance with ADs. Therefore it's YOUR responsibility as PIC to do everything you can to ensure their compliance. In this case the OP doesn't have a mx department, or any other resources outside of his/her own investigation to make sure this aircraft is safe.

So what you're telling me is that you would jump in anybody's aircraft who offered to let you build time without covering your hide?

Stop making assumptions far outside of what I've posted. Two others have agreed with me. The CFI is as much about self preservation and improvement as it is building hours.

thanks for the replies guys, i fully agree with checking all the AD's and other logs. I feel ok flying the aircraft as i have flown several similar flying airplanes and this guy is definitely not just a student pilot. Sounds like hes just slightly unsure of himself in the particular aircraft mainly due to its lack of performance on climb.

Pilotpip... it takes all of 20 minutes to go throught the entire history of... lets say a 1975 Cessna 172.... all you need is 20 minutes to ensure compliance??? Really?? You want to take a minute and think about that??? I'm ALL IN!!!

guys can we leave the bickering out of this thread? Pilotpip was just watching out for me which i appreciate because i am a very new CFI. Whether or not it takes 20 minutes to look through AD's its a valid point to check through them.

Don't forget to check on Insurance too. If you are giving instruction and he has any little incident, I think the insurance company could subrogate you since you were acting as an Instructor even if it was his plane and he was flying it.

Basicaly just make sure to find out who the Insurance company thinks is the PIC when you are flying with him. And make sure you are covered.

The Grumman Yankee is a blast...but, a tricky little bird. Not so friendly either.
Small wing. DO NOT get it into a spin, not enough rudder to recover.
Be carefull. Make sure you are covered on the insurance.

Papa T

Chances are that Pip or any other descent CFI on these boards could go through the logbook of the Wright Flyer to find out if it had the inspections necessary in 20 min or less. We don't care if it had an annual in 1987, we care that the annual is current NOW. It also is not difficult to find AD's if you have a list and are looking for the specific ones.

You're out of your mind if you think its a good idea to fly something that you haven't gone through the logbooks of.

I can't believe that you'd scold a seasoned CFI from cautioning a new one about normal things that pilots are required to do.

Any CFI with experience knows about CYA. If you don't, then you probably should think about it and your career.

I flew an older saratoga that was on a former 135 with a boatload of logbooks. I found annual/100hr/elt/transponder/etc. checks within 10 minutes. It's worth the time and effort to see if the plane was maintained. As also mentioned above, any "new to you" aircraft should always be given a good once-over. It's just not worth the consequences. So yes, go for it, but proceed with caution, that's my advice!