Turbine Operators Get Some Relief on Their Current Maintenance Program

The FAA released their legal interpretation of the word “current” as used in 14 CFR 91.409(f)(3). Here is the excerpt from that regulation:

(f) Selection of inspection program under paragraph (e) of this section. The registered owner or operator of each airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft described in paragraph (e) of this section must select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use one of the following programs for the inspection of the aircraft:

(3) A current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.

This three page memo gets somewhat detailed and you can get a copy of it here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2008/Aircraft%20Maintenance.pdf

Basically the gist of it clarifies what a current inspection program really means. As an operator of a turbine aircraft meeting the above description you are required to maintain your aircraft in accordance with the inspection program recommended by the manufacturer. Now here is where it gets sticky.

If your aircraft is older, which the majority are, then the manufacturer has probably issued many revisions and amendments to the original inspection program. Most people were under the misconception that “current” meant keeping their program up-to-date with all those changes issued by the manufacturer, and therefore maintaining their aircraft in accordance with such changes.

This Legal Interpretation states that the “operator is not so obliged”. The real meaning of the word “current” in this regulation is “current at the time of delivery of the aircraft”. They also state that only the FAA can mandate rules that are binding on an operator and that such a mandate would be adopted in the form of either an AD or an amendment to the operating rules.

What effect can this have on an operator? Here is a real world example regarding Aerospatiale Alouette and Lama helicopters. These helicopters date back to as far as the late 1950’s. The original manufacturers’ inspection program did not contain any calendar inspection requirements for components. In other words, specific components had an assigned Time Between Overhaul (TBO) and/or a Life Limit for retirement. Somewhere along the long life span of these helicopters Aerospatiale, now Eurocopter, decided to revise the inspection program in the maintenance manual and added a 10 year calendar requirement for the inspection of components. According to the FAA’s own Legal Interpretation contained within the above memo, operators of these turbine helicopters are not so obligated to comply with any maintenance procedures that were not contained in the original current inspection program at the time of delivery.

If you own or fly an aircraft…know your AD’s

It seems that a lot of aircraft owner/operators are not completely aware of all the AD’s that affect their aircraft. They will usually know when the last Annual was performed and when it will expire, but most likely do not know if there are any AD’s that require compliance within that one year period between Annuals. According to the FAR’s it is the owner/operators responsibility to make sure that their aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to any flight.

It is the responsibility of the mechanic performing an Annual to research all applicable AD’s and to document their compliance in the aircraft records. It is also required that he record any recurring AD’s as to when they were complied with and when they will require the next compliance, whether that be by calendar time or flight hours. We call this the AD COMPLIANCE REPORT and it should be in a format that is easy for any pilot to understand.

The Regulations require that all aircraft are maintained in an airworthy condition if that aircraft is flown. If an AD is due and has not been complied with, then the Regulations are very clear. The aircraft is NOT airworthy, and there are no exceptions. This usually isn’t a problem until something goes wrong.

A major concern here is if you have an incident or accident. The FAA will get involved and so will your insurance company. If there is a substantial claim the insurance company will possibility look for a way to not pay off, and flying an unairworthy aircraft is the perfect out for them. Most insurance policies will spell out that the aircraft must be airworthy for the coverage to be valid.

I had a client who was flying one of his little bush planes and ended up putting it on its back in a pasture. Fortunately he was unhurt, but the plane was wrecked. Someone saw it happen and called 911, so now the cat was out of the bag. Too make a long story short; the plane was out of Annual. One call to his insurance company and it was confirmed, his coverage was null and void. The insurance company could also do the same thing if they found out, via the FAA report, that the plane was not in compliance with an AD.

So there are three issues here that could adversely affect you if you are not aware of all applicable AD’s that require compliance between the scheduled Annuals. One is the safety issue of the AD, especially if it is of a critical nature, another is the potential of a FAA violation and the last is the insurance coverage. Talk to your mechanic and have him point out to you those requirements that you need to be aware of. This will payoff in the long run.

Service Bulletins and the Owner/Operators Responsibility Regarding Their Compliance

I was working on a civil case for the defendant where the plaintiff had stipulated in their Complaint that the defendant had sold to the plaintiff an aircraft with full knowledge and intent that the aircraft was in an unairworthy condition at the time of the sale. One of the claims was that the defendant had not complied with the manufacturers Mandatory Service Bulletin that addressed installing inspection panels in the engine cowlings that would allow for easier access to inspect an area that was normally difficult to inspect. This was indeed a good idea, but the question here is whether or not this MSB was required by Regulations to be complied with.

Here is how this stuff works in the real world. Here in the US there is one government agency that has complete jurisdiction over all aviation related matters, and that is the FAA. Only the FAA can mandate and enforce policy regarding all matters in the aviation sector. These policies are contained within Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 1 through 183 which makes up the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). With that said then it is clear that the owners/operators responsibility concerning their aircraft is contained in these FAR’s and is not put forth by the manufacturer. The manufacturer may place titles on their SB’s like “Mandatory” or “Emergency” and highlight them with big red strips to make them look official, but the question is do they have the right to force these into action.

Anyone operating under Part 91 of the FAR’s shall maintain their aircraft in accordance with that Part. The basic includes having the aircraft inspected annually, an Annual Inspection, and complying with all applicable Airworthiness Directives (AD). SB compliance is not required by FAR.

Now if you are operating under another Part, such as Part 135 Commuter and On-demand (commercial operator) then things will be different. Now you will need to comply with everything under that Part. In this situation you will be required to have an approved Operations Specifications (Op Specs) which may contain addition maintenance requirements. These Op Specs are now considered to be an extension of the FAR’s and are just as legally binding. If within those requirements it is spelled out that you will follow the Manufacturers maintenance procedures and within those procedures it is called out for the compliance of specific SB’s, then these SB’s are now mandatory.

Generally speaking, as a private operator SB compliance is not mandatory, and as a commercial operator their compliance may be required depending on the operators Operation Specifications.

Good Stuff Coming Soon!

Email me if you have a specific topic you would like to see discussed.