14 C.F.R. § 91.407

Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

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

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by § 43.9 or § 43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.

(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Jet Test & Transp. LLC v. Hallmark Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2021).
Jet Test & Transp. LLC v. Hallmark Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2021). “2 14 14 CFR § 91.407 states: 15 (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 16 unless 17 (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.”
BC Dental, Inc. v. FSH Maint., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024). “nson Helicopter concerning what repairs needed to be done, (2) the choice by FSH to not bring a recovery trailer for the helicopter and instead perform maintenance in the field where the emergency landing occurred, (3) the FSH mechanic’s failure to use a troubleshooting…”
Maloney v. Cent. Aviation, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 905 (W.D. Wis. 2006). “14 C.F.R. § 91.407 ; see also 14 C.F.R. § 43.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(b) — 1 case
BC Dental, Inc. v. FSH Maint., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024). “nson Helicopter concerning what repairs needed to be done, (2) the choice by FSH to not bring a recovery trailer for the helicopter and instead perform maintenance in the field where the emergency landing occurred, (3) the FSH mechanic’s failure to use a troubleshooting…”
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.