Aviation Techno Blurb

When Is a Flight Manual Current?

2011-06-18T13:18:00.000-07:00

I recently was asked if the Regulations required the operator to comply with a newly revised Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement that affected his aircraft. The issue here was that the original Supplement that accompanied a STC that altered the aircraft allowed for a GTOW of 3,800 pounds and was without any restrictions. The new Supplement which was issued at a later date now imposed a landing weight restriction, which would have an adverse affect on his operations.

This is very similar to my blog about the maintenance requirements, but is on the operations side. That is titled Turbine Operators Get Some Relief on Their Maintenance Program. I suggest reading this as it will give a better understanding of FAA's reasoning.

The FAA issued a Memorandum dated December 5, 2008 to clarify their definition of the word current as used in different areas of the Regulations. This specifically addressed the issue of maintenance but also describes how this is relative to the operations side. The exact same reasoning is applied to the operations of an aircraft wherein one must comply with the operation limitations as set forth in the approved Flight Manual. Again they address that a current Flight Manual is one that was issued at the time of delivery of the aircraft, not one that is current “as of today”. Following this logic would dictate that a Supplement issued to a Flight Manual is also under the same rules.

A summary conclusion is that if an aircraft were altered in accordance with a FAA approved STC and said STC had incorporated a Flight Manual Supplement which imposed certain flight limitations, then the operator of the aircraft would be bound by that Supplement that was current at the time of delivery. If then, at some later date, the STC holder decides to revise the Supplement, the operator may elect to incorporate that new revision into his limitations or may elect to ignore it. Remember the real point here is all about who can and cannot implement law and policy. The manufacturer can make recommendations, but only the FAA can impose legally binding requirements.

Parts Produced by an Owner or Operator. Are They Legal?

2010-05-30T14:35:00.000-07:00

The answer to this question is yes, so long as that part meets certain criteria.

This is a subject that has a very profound affect on maintaining and modifying aircraft, and yet is widely unknown or misunderstood. It offers an alternative solution to the owner/operator, whereas it allows a person to produce a part to be installed on a type certified aircraft. Such a person need not be an FAA approved manufacturer. Of course this does not mean that a person may produce a part for an aircraft without following any requirements. It does mean that a person may produce a part, and that part will be eligible (read legal) to be installed on an aircraft, if he follows the FAA requirements for the production of that part.

Here is an exert from Federal Aviation Regulations

PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

Subpart K – Approval of Materials, Parts, Processes, and Appliances

21.303 Replacement and modification parts.

a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart.

(b) This section does not apply to the following:

Parts produced under a type or production certificate.

Parts produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering his own product.
Parts produced under an FAA Technical Standard Order.
Standard parts (such as bolts and nuts) conforming to established industry or U.S. specifications.

This is stated in FAR 21.303 (b) (2) above but does not explain how this can be accomplished, only that it can. The intent of this is to allow owners a way to keep their aircraft airworthy if parts are unavailable or otherwise unobtainable. This does not mean that your needs must meet any specific requirements, such as the part is no longer produced or it takes six months to get it, but only that you follow the requirements of producing that part.

As this has been a subject that many have asked “how do I do this?”, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200 of the FAA has written a Memo addressing this issue. I will summarize the main points of concern here.

Only the owner/operator can produce the part for their aircraft. They cannot produce that part for sale or for another aircraft.
The owner/operator doesn't need to actually produce the part but must be the “producer” by overseeing and directing the production process. This means that he may hire another person to make the part so long as he is directly responsible for the process by participating in the design, manufacturing and quality control.
The part must be produced using the same design data, material, process, etc. that was used to produce the original part. This can be done by using the original FAA approved design data or by reverse engineering the part.
The part is an FAA approved part as it meets the requirements of FAR 21.303
The producer must properly document the production process. All approved parts require this documentation process.
The part can be manufactured by either a certificated or non-certificated entity

Once the part is produced it will require the installation by a certificated mechanic or facility.

Turbine Operators Get Some Relief on Their Current Maintenance Program

2009-03-13T19:04:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-10T21:26:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-30T21:13:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-05-28T21:16:00.001-07:00

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