C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER G—AIR CARRIERS AND OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE: CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS › PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS › Subpart L—Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations

14 C.F.R. § 121.363

Responsibility for airworthiness

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each certificate holder is primarily responsible for—

(1) The airworthiness of its aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and parts thereof; and

(2) The performance of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration of its aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, emergency equipment, and parts thereof, in accordance with its manual and the regulations of this chapter.

(b) A certificate holder may make arrangements with another person for the performance of any maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations. However, this does not relieve the certificate holder of the responsibility specified in paragraph (a) of this section.

[Docket 6258, 29 FR 19210, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-106, 38 FR 22378, Aug. 20, 1973]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2013 · leading case: Colgan Air, Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colgan Air, Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2007). “” 14 C.F.R. § 121.363 (b). For these reasons, the district court’s reliance on the cases involving flight manuals is misplaced.”
Roca v. Alphatech Aviation Servs., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (S.D. Fla. 2013). “Among the most pertinent of these regulations is 14 C.F.R. § 121.363 (a), providing that each certified air carrier “is primarily responsible for .”
Jarmuth v. Aldridge, 747 N.E.2d 1014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “) 14 C.F.R. § 121.363 (1999). This section clearly states that the duty imposed is nondelegable; the certificate holder is not absolved of responsibility for noncompliance even though the work to be performed thereunder may have been contracted out.”
Jarmuth v. Aldridge (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “) 14 C.F.R. § 121.363 (1999). This section clearly states that the duty imposed is nondelegable; the certificate holder is not absolved of responsibility for noncompliance even though the work to be performed thereunder may have been contracted out.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.