What maintenance requires a logbook entry

What is the general rule for maintenance actions that require a logbook entry? For example, I blended a nick out of the prop and had an A&P look at it and he told me a logbook entry was not required. I just recently had to remove and replace an alternator and was wondering if that required a logbook entry.

What I do

As an A&P/IA and builder of my -4, I can tell you what I do. The "regs" require that there be no "undocumented maintenance" which can vary in the eyes of the technician...and I wont go into that. I make a living doing it under the provisions of my certificate, and I enter just about everything. As for my personal aircraft and as builder of my -4, I value my logbooks as an acurate storyline of its maintenance /modification and added value if/when I would sell the aircraft. I do pre-buy inspections occasionally, and the hardest part is often comparing an airplane to its log history and entries.Im not saying prop dressing is really a biggie, but if someone else does your condition inspection and they see relevant re-work thats not in logs, it would have to be addressed at that point.

As Bill said, it is best to log everything. In certified aircraft, it is harder to get away with some things because they have a TC the must be complied with or have documentation of any departure from the TC, where an STC or other 337 requirement.

An experimental is different in that there is not document that says exactly how it was originally configured, so it may not be possible to determine that some changes weren't original. The same rules still apply, though. The more you document, the more the plane will be worth as it ages, IMHO. When I do a Prebuy, seeing a logbook entry for a bolt being replaced or a nicked filed out of the prop or a swapped alternator shows me a good attention to detail by the owner/mechanic. No entries between condition inspection entries give me less confidence, although some times there is nothing done between inspections, but more often than not, probably, there is.

An alternator swap is beneficial to you and any potential buyer because there is documentation of how old it is and how many hours are on it. The nick in the prop is the same way.

Common sense approach

I log repairs, replacements, oil changes and required inspections. I don't log service like, cleaning the aircraft, air in tires, adding oil, putting grease in a zerk, tightening loose or replacing missing hardware. I don't log every inspection (pre flight, ops checks, or "hey come look at this"). Dressing a prop should be recorded regularly, I don't know if I would enter it every time. Do it along with oil changes or something. Whatever you do be consistent and forthcoming if you decide to sell.
When doing inspections, I don't want to find anything that can't be accounted for in the records.

'requires' or just 'needs' to be entered

...I don't know about you guys, but my logs are often 'instead' of my failing memory.
There are a lot of times where I think, 'gee, that battery is only about 2 years old, should still be ok'.
Then I run across the bill,........... from 2008!

..you get my point.

Also don't forget things like ELT test & inspections and transponder certifications. These fall under part 91 and need to be logged.

Mel said:

Also don't forget things like ELT test & inspections and transponder certifications. These fall under part 91 and need to be logged.

Click to expand...

Every so often I still run into a builder who "certifed" his own transponder or one that has just never been done. Builders cannot certify transponders, encoders or altimeters and they must be done every 2 years if you fly in controlled airspace with that equipment turned on.

CharlieMike said:

Wouldn't the builder be classified as the "Manufacture"? By the way the regs are written, the manufacture of the airplane can perform the certification provided they had the proper equipment for both 91.411 & 91.413.
Now this would be cost prohibitive for an individual, but doable. $$$$$
Just what I read while researching this threads questions and comments.

Click to expand...

FAA (Washington) has made the interpretation that the amateur-builder is NOT considered the aircraft manufacturer for the purposes of 91.411 & 91.413.

Mel said:

FAA (Washington) has made the interpretation that the amateur-builder is NOT considered the aircraft manufacturer for the purposes of 91.411 & 91.413.

Click to expand...

Even the EAA agrees with the FAA on this one

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/4Transponder%20and%20Pitot%20Static%20Tests.html

I record all maintenance performed on my homebuilt for the same reason as others - to create an accurate history. However, I only sign my name and repairman cert# to maintenance that requires a certified (me or an A&P) sign off - like the condition inspection, or major change like a new prop. An oil change should be recorded, but doesn't require a sign off. This is in accordance with, and recommended by my local FSDO.

Some Clarification, please?

Walt-
Is this one of those things that has always been in place? Most avionics shops seem clueless when it comes to experimentals. Would it be appropriate to say that the amature buider can not preform the tests BUT may sign off that the test results are with in the parameters set forth in the regs? If the equipment is not TSO'd, the avionics shops (most) won't sign off or even preform the tests.

Thanks

Daniel S. said:

Walt-
Is this one of those things that has always been in place? Most avionics shops seem clueless when it comes to experimentals. Would it be appropriate to say that the amature buider can not preform the tests BUT may sign off that the test results are with in the parameters set forth in the regs? If the equipment is not TSO'd, the avionics shops (most) won't sign off or even preform the tests.

Thanks

Click to expand...

I remember something about them doing it that way in Canada, but in the USA only a repair station can sign off the checks.

The only equipment requird to have a TSO is the transponder.