C.F.R.
»
Title 14
» CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER F—AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES › PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES › Subpart E—Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.
(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under § 91.409(e) have been complied with.
(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.
[Docket 18334, 54 FR 34311, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-267, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 91-293, 71 FR 56005, Sept. 26, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Pace v. Cirrus Design Corp, 93 F.4th 879 (5th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Pace argues, and the district court acknowledged, that the duty owed by Walters and Performance Aviation would be derived from the FAA regu- lations, specifically 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.403 (a) and 91.405. The district court determined the duty assigned under these regula- tions…”
South Side Trust & Sav. Bank v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd., 927 N.E.2d 179 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “403(a) ( 14 C.F.R. §91.403 (a) (2006)) and the facts to plaintiffs claims against Air 1st and (2) finding the 18-year statute of repose provided by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 ( 49 U.”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, 254 P.3d 778 (Wash. 2011).
“(citing 14 C.F.R. § 91.403 (c) (1999)). The California court determined that because Precision "became the entity responsible for.”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 204 (Wash. 2011).
“(citing 14 C.F.R. § 91.403 (c)). The California court determined that because Precision “became the entity responsible for .”
Burroughs v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1507 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“( 14 C.F.R. § 91.403 (c) (1999).) Again, after Precision took over the Marvel-Schebler carburetor line in 1990, it became the entity responsible for issuing these manuals and bulletins and fulfilling the manufacturer’s obligations for continued airworthiness.”
McFann v. Sky Warriors, Inc., 603 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
“” He also asserted that Sky Warriors “was required by [Federal Regulation] 14 CFR 91.403 to maintain its aircraft in an airworthy condition,” and that an “airplane with a fatigue crack in a wing spar is not airworthy unless it is inspected and repaired in accordance with the…”
In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc., 486 B.R. 264 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).
“See 14 C.F.R. § 91.403 (a) (2012) (“The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition.”
Embraer S.A. v. Dougherty Air Tr., LLC, 348 F. Supp. 3d 246 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
“See 14 C.F.R. § 91.403 (a) and (c) ; 91.405. As to Dougherty's second contention, the Court finds no reasonable jury could conclude Coleman could have become authorized to operate the Aircraft by November 18, 2016.”
White v. Orr Leasing, Inc., 436 S.E.2d 693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
“It alleges that the court did not properly apply 14 CFR § 91.403 (a) 3 of the Federal Aviation Administration, which states that the “owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition.”
Cosgrove v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 847 F. Supp. 719 (D. Minnesota 1994).
“In this respect, 14 C.F.R. § 91.403 (A) provides: The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.”
South Side Trust & Sav. Bank of Peoria v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “On appeal, plaintiff argues the court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claims and/or granting summary judgment to defendants. It asserts the court erred in (1) misapplying section 2-621 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-621 (West 1994))2, Federal Aviation…”
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.