Jump to content

FAA response to Rotax 5 yr 'Mandatory' hose replacement..


Znurtdog

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I had already posted this interpretation in several threads here, and it was heavily discussed.

 

A couple of important things that must be pointed out: "alternative methods acceptable to the administrator" is HIGHLY subjective. You MUST have data for any maintenance, repairs, or alterations that you perform, on any certificated or S-LSA aircraft. While you do not have to follow *all* procedures in the maintenance manual, you do need to have data supporting any work you actually perform. In that sense though, ignoring Rotax's and FD's hose and engine replacements does not violate any regulations, since you are not performing any work if you choose to ignore those requirements. Therein lies the technicality that this interpretation is about.

 

Major repairs and alterations, however, do require manufacturer support in S-LSA, since there isn't any kind of alternative system set up to allow you to create "acceptable alternatives". In certificated aircraft, this is done by the use of Supplemental Type Certificates. S-LSA has no such thing, only LOAs from the manufacturer, and therefore the FAA will very likely refuse to approve any data that doesn't come from the manufacturers themselves when it comes to said major repairs or alterations.

 

With this said, there is no legal requirement to replace engines or hoses (within reason, there's still the "reckless" behavior if you let things deteriorate to the point of being unsafe), but also keep in mind, if you hurt someone, you do leave yourself to a higher risk of successful lawsuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I know this is an old thread but it needs to be put to rest.  This will be a long post.  First off, I'm coming from the point of view of an A&P who primarily works on light sport planes.  In A&P school, we spend an extensive amount of time on the regs, and how to interpret them (at least we did at the school I went to).  The short version is that there is no interpretation.  They are clear.  Words are used which are very specific, as I will go over further on.  Recently, I brought up the hose change with a customer and he immediately shouted, "you don't have to do that!  They went to court!"  I told him I'd be happy to see any documentation he had (because I wanted clarity on this as well).  He sent me a letter from the FAA regarding task-specific training, and a magazine article interpreting that to mean we don't have to do anything the manufacturer says.  The article also cites the FAA's stance on maintenance tasks, but provided no reference to any documentation to support its claim.  So I started digging.  Here are the results of what I found:

 

The key to answering this question lies in part 91.  91.327, to be specific.  I'm going to post it here and break it down, bit by bit.  The section we need to pay special attention to is ( b ).  My comments are in bold (except the title.  That was already in bold).

 

91.327   Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except—

 

(1) To tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with §91.309 of this chapter; or

 

(2) To conduct flight training.

 

( b ) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category unless—

Bear in mind that this only applies to SLSA (every CT unless it's been converted to experimental).

 

(1) The aircraft is maintained ("maintained" refers to keeping the plane in a condition for safe operation) by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 43 of this chapter (and here comes the word of the day, "and") and maintenance and inspection procedures (that means all maintenance and inspection procedures) developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; (to my knowledge, there is no "person acceptable to the FAA" that has created any sort of rule that directly goes against what the manufacturer requires as far as maintenance goes.  Most of what follows this in this section is written in the same manner.  Regarding the word "and", this is to mean "fully including".  That means that if there are things which are listed in the maintenance manual which are not in part 43, they must be done, and vice versa.  An entire explanation of why will follow at the end of this FAR).

 

(2) A condition inspection is performed once every 12 calendar months by a certificated repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;

 

(3) The owner or operator complies with all applicable airworthiness directives;

 

(4) The owner or operator complies with each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition. In lieu of complying with a safety directive an owner or operator may—

 

(i) Correct the unsafe condition in a manner different from that specified in the safety directive provided the person issuing the directive concurs with the action; or

 

(ii) Obtain an FAA waiver from the provisions of the safety directive based on a conclusion that the safety directive was issued without adhering to the applicable consensus standard;

 

(5) Each alteration accomplished after the aircraft's date of manufacture meets the applicable and current consensus standard and has been authorized by either the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;

 

(6) Each major alteration to an aircraft product produced under a consensus standard is authorized, performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; and

 

(7) The owner or operator complies with the requirements for the recording of major repairs and major alterations performed on type-certificated products in accordance with §43.9(d) of this chapter, and with the retention requirements in §91.417.

 

© No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has—

 

(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or

 

(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

 

(d) Each person operating an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must operate the aircraft in accordance with the aircraft's operating instructions, including any provisions for necessary operating equipment specified in the aircraft's equipment list.

 

(e) Each person operating an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must advise each person carried of the special nature of the aircraft and that the aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements for an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate.

 

(f) The FAA may prescribe additional limitations that it considers necessary.

(End part 91.327)

 

Ok, from what I understand, the confusion lies in the fact that manufacturer procedures are not required to be followed in TC'd aircraft (for instance, being able to run an engine well above TBO).  That is because the FAA oversees all aspects of TC'd aircraft.  Everything from design, to manufacture, to maintenance.  And since they oversee everything, they can say what is legally required and what is not.

 

The difference here is that when the light sport rule was created, the FAA wanted little involvement with it.  They did not oversee every aspect of it.  Instead, they gave the ASTM the authority over most of the things the FAA would have authority over in the TC world.  The ASTM standards which were created for LSA are "acceptable to the FAA".  Now, the FAA, knowing full well that it would not be overseeing LSAs, also knows that the rules it has created up until this point have been for aircraft that they had total control over (including parts and accessories).  They realized that there would probably be quite a few aspects to LSA aircraft that the the FAA has never had anything to do with.  In order to ensure that the aircraft would be safe to fly, the FAA gave control of maintenance and inspection requirements to the manufacturers (and if a manufacturer fell short, they still had the generalities in part 43).  A perfect example of what I just wrote is hoses.  The FAA controls hoses in the TC world.  Hose manufacturers are required to meet stringent requirements.  Not so with LSA.  Hoses that last for 25 years in TC'd aircraft are designed to last 25 years.  Hoses that are installed in LSAs vary in design, longevity, and quality control.  Knowing this, the manufacturer who is using the hoses (Rotax, in this example), states that they are required to be replaced every 5 years.  This is not arbitration.  This is the result of testing done by Rotax.  Even though it is probably a conservative number, it was chosen for a reason.  And in aviation, conservative is key.

 

Moving on to the letter which was posted in the original comment.  We have more words to give special attention to.  They say that the intervals specified are not "per se" mandatory.  The definition of "per se" is "by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically".  All that sentence is saying is that, by the letter of the law, the intervals specified in the maintenance manuals are not absolutely required no matter what.  However, the very next word after that sentence is "consequently".  The definition of that word is, "as a result".  So, as a result of the intervals not being intrinsically required, a maintenance provider may develop an alternative that is acceptable to the FAA.  Nowhere in that letter does it state that a maintenance provider may simply not perform maintenance because they don't feel like it.  The correct interpretation here is that if a maintenance provider is to deviate from the manufacturer's procedures, they must have another method in place that is acceptable to the FAA.  That means a specific approval would be required in writing (because if specifics aren't on paper, they don't exist).

 

Another highlighted spot (in the footnote on the first page of the letter), "Maintenance manuals for S-LSA do not have an Airworthiness Limitations section to which the provisions of this section would apply" needs more examination as well.  That sentence does not say that because maintenance manuals for S-LSA do not contain that section, that the information in the manuals is not required.  It is simply a statement of fact that the manuals do not have that section.  So, the next thing we need to look at is the part where it says, "or as otherwise specifically approved by the Administrator".  That means in the absence of the Airworthiness Limitations section of a maintenance manual, the next thing to use is something approved by the Administrator.  And we can see what's specifically approved by the administrator according to 91.327: the maintenance and inspection procedures in the manufacturer's maintenance manual.  There is nothing else approved by the Administrator.  Nothing was written in relation to LSAs.  Anything which one can find as "acceptable" was written for TC'd aircraft well before LSAs even existed.

 

The last thing I'm going to touch upon is why there is no coorelation to the letter from the FAA regarding task-specific training, and the subject of maintenance and inspection requirements.  That letter basically stated that because the FAA already had specific rules in place regarding task-specific training, the manufacturer couldn't step in and overrule the FAA.  The reason there is no coorelation is because an LSA manufacturer requiring a certain replacement or maintenance interval does not overrule something the FAA already has in place.  It, in fact, follows exactly what the FAA has in place.

 

That is all.  I hope this post will enlighten many.  If my credibility is in question, please be aware that I have discussed all of this with a local DAR who regularly works with light sport aircraft and he concurs with my findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!

 

You clearly put some thought, and time, into this.

 

And expressed your position very clearly and concisely, complete with references.

 

Thanks!

 

FWIW, even though I'm Experimental, I did my hoses at about 5 years*, and will plan it again 5 years from then (about 2017).

 

Most Conservative Action, and all that!

 

 

*Well, I did all the fuel lines but one toughie, and Roger did the rest for me after the 2011 Page Fly-In.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is going to be a long and drug out discussion.

 

A couple of questions and observations to Sword_Guy.

 

First, who are you ? What is your real name? Where did you go to A&P school? How long have you been an A&P? I'm not asking these questions to be snarky or accusative, rather, when I see someone post something that comes across as authoritative and definitive, I like to see the name of the person taking the position. If I cite "Sword_Guy", the local FSDO may not know you by that name.

 

Note that I have the same attitude toward owners of this forum who masquerade under the cognomen "Admin" and so forth and put out dogma with the picture of a dog, so don't take it personally.

 

Second, who is the DAR who concurred in your interpretation? We all know that in the aviation maintenance world, each FSDO is it's own fiefdom and you can get an approval for an item in one area that will not be accepted in another, so there is a little "FSDO shopping" from time to time. I can cite a specific example of a prop on a Comanche 400 if anyone cares, but the practice is ubiquitous. By way of corollary, there is no reason to expect that one DAR is the sole interpretor of FAA regs and policies and another may believe firmly in a different interpretation.

 

Third, have you run this interpretation past FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion? If so, can you post the response? If you have not run it by the Chief Counsel, have you gotten an opinion from Edsel Ford or another official in the Light Sport area of the FAA? (I doubt if Edsel would sign anything that hadn't been run by the Chief Counsel, but there may be background info that is not public that the Chief Counsel has already chopped on.)

 

Fourth, where did you get the interpretation of the words you defined? Was it from FAA Legal? From a law dictionary? From Webster? Are they your own? Just curious so I can know how to confirm that the interpretation posted here is consistent with what FAA Chief Counsel would have used.

 

Fifth, you say "from what I understand". Please give us the basis for your understanding. Who or what gave you the understanding?

 

It is a good thing to open this topic up for further and more complete understanding with the idea that better implementation of FAA rules will follow. I applaud the time and effort put into the post and hope to see more flesh added to the skeleton so we can all better understand how that position was arrived at. All of us can cite mechanics who hold strong beliefs about regs. (Well known A&P author, lecturer and maintenance company owner Mike Busch cites many examples, especially in the Cirrus world, of A&Ps who strongly believe in one interpretation of the regs, sometimes to the point of unwillingness to accept the interpretation even from the FAA :) )

 

I'm confident you have done us all a great service by expanding the discussion of the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we stipulate that we are iron-clad to abide by aircraft manufacturers' maintenance directions...the 5 year rubber replacement comes from Rotax, who is NOT the aircraft manufacturer.  Unless the aircraft manufacturer comes out with a statement saying you must replace the rubber every five years, this seems like a moot discussion even from your own argument.  91.327(1) that you quoted specifically states "AIRCRAFT manufacturer" and not "engine manufacturer" or "parts or component manufacturer."

 

I respect your interpretation, but I see a few gaps in it.  I think the 5 year rubber replacement is a smart thing to do and I would plan on doing it again (it was done on my airplane right before I bought it) when it comes due...but I'm not sure it's strictly required, even under your interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy to respond to both of your comments.  First off, you may refer to me as sword_guy.  The FSDO knows me by that name. :P  Ok, joking aside, some of you may know me already.  I'm Arian Foldan.  I went to A&P school at CT Aero Tech (formerly Ellis Tech).  I have been an A&P for almost 9 years, and have worked primarily on LSAs for just over 6 years.  I would like to point out to those who know my name that I am acting on my own and not for the interests of any entity other than myself and the truth.  Also, the customer is a personal one of mine who I periodically take care of as a freelance mechanic.

 

Although I appreciate the desire to know which DAR I was talking about, I would not like to drag others into this discussion who have not volunteered to be directly involved (that is why I was reluctant to tell you who I am, and why I mentioned that I'm acting on my own).  The FSDO is in Windsor Locks, CT.

 

I have not run this interpretation by the Chief Counsel yet.  The depth of research I've done is very recent.  I understand the need for clarification, so I might run all of this by the Chief Counsel.  I'm not sure how to go about that, honestly, but I'll look into it.

 

All definitions in quotes were from the dictionary (a Google search of a word's definition turns up an entry from a dictionary).  The only definition I added myself was the definition of maintenance (but we all know what that means anyway, and it was not one of the keywords in question, in my opinion).

 

What gave me the understanding (I assume we're referring to my understanding of the confusion) was the customer of mine who initially said the hoses weren't required.  He used the fact that we don't have to follow manufacturer's TBO in TC'd aircraft as defense of his opinion on this.  What he failed to realize is that the TC world and LSA world are just that, different worlds.

 

I would love to see something directly from the FAA specifically stating what's required here.  The letter posted in the initial comment seems to be what they will say.  In typical government entity fashion, they might not ever be perfectly clear, so as to leave themselves an out in case of a lawsuit.  Shall we hold off on this discussion until we get something back from the FAA?

 

In response to MrMorden, two things. 

1.  Part 43.13, section a, states "Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16."  This is a blanket instruction including all aircraft of any type (hence the word "general" in parenthesis next to the part number).  This part specifies everything including engine, propeller, and appliance.

2.  For sake of argument, lets say that this part somehow didn't apply to LSA.  We would then go to the AIRCRAFT manufacturer's maintenance manual, and we will see that in the CT manuals, under the engine section, it states:

 

"5.2 Rotax 912ULS Engine
For engine inspection and maintenance refer to the valid original Rotax manuals. Initial manuals are supplied with the aircraft:
 
Operator’s Manual for all versions of ROTAX 912;
 
Maintenance Manual (Line Maintenance ) for ROTAX Engine Type 912 Series;
 
Maintenance Manual II (Heavy-Maintenance) for ROTAX Engine Type 912 Series.
 
Before performing any inspection or maintenance task on the aircraft check these manuals for available updates through ROTAX."
 
So even if we are to look at the aircraft manufacturer's manual, and if we are to say that whatever the aircraft manufacturer says goes, the manufacturer in this case says, "do what Rotax tells you."
 
So I pose a question to all of you.  Regardless of how you think the regs should be interpreted, if a CT was in a flight school, what then would be your stance on having the hose change completed as per Rotax requirements?  What about overhaul periods?
 
Thank you for your input and I look forward to finally, once and for all, having a clear understanding of the regs applicable to this.  Quick disclaimer: I am in no way trying to throw anyone under the bus, nor am I trying to make people do things they aren't required to do.  However, in the interest of keeping my A&P and the shirt on my back, I would like to make absolutely sure that I am acting in accordance with applicable regulations.  It is also in an aircraft owner's best interest to do the same because, "91.403   General. (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."
 
Finally, I would like to give props (no pun intended) to FastEddieB for taking the safe approach to aviation regardless of the requirements.  May we all follow his example.  There are two responses to my post, and both of them do not assert that my interpretation is correct, but both have done the "required" hose change regardless.  Good on you guys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 
Finally, I would like to give props (no pun intended) to FastEddieB for taking the safe approach to aviation regardless of the requirements.  May we all follow his example.  There are two responses to my post, and both of them do not assert that my interpretation is correct, but both have done the "required" hose change regardless.  Good on you guys.

 

 

I took the 'safe' approach and it resulted in a loss of power on take off, engine damage and meaningful costs.

 

Part of this discussion is the recognition that preventive maintenance can lead to failures.

 

IMO the 'safe' approach when it comes to hose changes on a CT is to abandon the barbed fittings on the fuel lines that can and do result in polluting the fuel system with rubber contaminants.  Although barbed fittings and rubber hose are widely used they are not compatible and here the 'safe' approach is to change to beaded fittings when the hose change is done otherwise it can provide too much risk.

 

post-6-0-07028300-1353441941_thumb.jpg
post-6-0-16502000-1352328668_thumb.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally, I would like to give props (no pun intended) to FastEddieB for taking the safe approach to aviation regardless of the requirements.  May we all follow his example.  There are two responses to my post, and both of them do not assert that my interpretation is correct, but both have done the "required" hose change regardless.  Good on you guys.

 

 

I think we all want to operate and maintain our aircraft in the safest way that is practically possible.  But we are arguing what is required for *legality*, not safety.  This is important because the legally required course is not always the safest course.  

 

All maintenance entails risk, even that required by regs.  If there was a reg requiring a Rotax 912 engine overhaul at an exact number of hours rather than on condition, I would consider that a case of regs conflicting with safety.  If the engine in question is making full power, acceptable compression, and not making metal, there is literally no safety reason for the regulation, no matter the FAA justification.  In fact, infant mortality of aircraft engines is usually higher than that of high time engines that are giving no indication of potential failure, so the owner is actually introducing additional risk by an overhaul rather than to continue running the engine and watching it carefully for signs of stress or damage.

 

The reason most of us want to understand the limits of requirements is not to "save a buck" and forego necessary maintenance, but rather to have the flexibility to judge for ourselves as owner/operators when maintenance is prudent and reduces risk versus unnecessarily *introducing* risk.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is often sound advice, but often not too -- I would like to be able to do my own research and make my own determinations on which case is which.

 

All of this within the framework of the FAA regs of course...I don't think anybody here wants to break the rules.  But it sure is easier to happily comply when the rules are understandable, consistent, and reasonable.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Note that I have the same attitude toward owners of this forum who masquerade under the cognomen "Admin" and so forth and put out dogma with the picture of a dog, so don't take it personally."

Ah come on Jim you know in your heart you really love us. A good belly rub and we'll hang with you all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.  This has been debated for the last 10 years.  Sword_guy, just do whatever you think you have to do.  But don't expect us to take your opinion as authoritative.  As they say over at POA, the only thing authoritative is a written opinion from the FAA General Counsel.  And please, please, don't ask for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.  This has been debated for the last 10 years.  Sword_guy, just do whatever you think you have to do.  But don't expect us to take your opinion as authoritative.  As they say over at POA, the only thing authoritative is a written opinion from the FAA General Counsel.  And please, please, don't ask for one.

The funny thing is, Edsel told me how to form a question for the chief counsel. He said the fact is, that very often how a person forms a question, it will affect the outcome of the interpretation. He stated if I ever ask the chief counsel for assistance, to make sure I form it in a way that would be most beneficial to me (which I gather the meaning is, cite only the information I need to make my case, and nothing more).

 

 

sword_guy:

 

In regards to 91.327:

Your interpretation has a problem regarding this section, and this is what I went back and forth with AFS 610 about. 91 ONLY applies to pilots. It does NOT apply to mechanics. This reg exists to ensure that pilot has the aircraft maintained in accordance with the airworthiness certificate. If the mechanic signs off the aircraft, then the pilot is off the hook. It sounds underhanded, but read on in the next paragraph.

 

The FAA has had the long standing that maintenance does not require a person to follow a maintenance manual in it's entirety, but rather to use the procedures laid out as necessary. Inspections need to follow the procedures laid out by the manufacturer, and maintenance performed as needed. This has always been the standard with maintenance, but since we like to draw a line between TC and S-LSA (we shouldn't, but we do), I am researching a source for this. I believe I got this info from AFS 610 though. I might have also seen it in an interpretation.

 

In addition, "maintenance and inspection" does NOT include time limited items! In fact, to the regulations, there are no time limited items in LSA. Manufacturers can only dictate procedures, they cannot dictate time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we stipulate that we are iron-clad to abide by aircraft manufacturers' maintenance directions...the 5 year rubber replacement comes from Rotax, who is NOT the aircraft manufacturer.  Unless the aircraft manufacturer comes out with a statement saying you must replace the rubber every five years, this seems like a moot discussion even from your own argument.  91.327(1) that you quoted specifically states "AIRCRAFT manufacturer" and not "engine manufacturer" or "parts or component manufacturer."

 

I respect your interpretation, but I see a few gaps in it.  I think the 5 year rubber replacement is a smart thing to do and I would plan on doing it again (it was done on my airplane right before I bought it) when it comes due...but I'm not sure it's strictly required, even under your interpretation.

 

Flight Design defers engine maintenance and service requirements to each applicable manufacturer of engine and other sub-components, Refer to 8.2 and 8.3 of the POH.

post-940-0-04449300-1420836260_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let Jim fool you, he's a canine lover at heart.

Let me dispel that canard immediately! In 30 years of military service on four continents, I have eaten dog and horse and any number of unidentified items. Between dog and horse, horse is definitely better. Dog is greasy and stringy and tough. The dog was from Vietnam, the horse in Germany. I've eaten whale in Japan and dried squid fried on a wood stove and things in Korea with no name in any language. With the whale, you start out with a little piece and half an hour later it is like chewing on a smurf ball and by now is too big to swallow.

As you know, yellow dogs taste best followed by black dogs. Pinto and calico dogs are safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As you know, yellow dogs taste best followed by black dogs. Pinto and calico dogs are safe."

 

Looks like you like dogs to me and you are a PETA person too. I just had this gut feeling you belonged to PETA.

 

People Eating Tasty Animals

 

So how do you feel about cats? On whole wheat, sour dough or white bread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in 1945, my German mother-in-law said cats were referred to as dachhase (roof rabbits). As you know, Germans like to eat rabbits. As meat got pretty scarce in the war, any rabbit that was found on the roof was subject to being put in the stew pot. Some rabbits had longer ears than others. :) I myself have never had the opportunity to try dachhase.

 

http://www.gabis-bloghaeuschen.de/wp-content/bilder/dachhase.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sword_Guy,

It is back to understanding the concept of maintenance (the term "maintenance" is defined in FAR part 1).

There are three things that make up the concept of maintenance:

1. Who; who performs, or is allowed to perform maintenance. Speaks to certification levels, experience and other qualifications

2. When; when maintenance is performed, or required to be performed. Speaks to calendar, time in service, and cycles intervals.

3. How; how the act of maintenance is performed or to be performed. Speaks to physical procedures, and or methods, techniques and practices.

 

5 yr. Hose change requirements, TBO's, and other time-limited component replacement requirements are examples of the "When" portion of the maintenance concept.

Training/experience requirements are examples of the "Who" portion of the maintenance concept.

 

Re-read FAR 91.327 carefully. It is very unambiguous (As I think you alluded to earlier).

 

FAR 91.327( B)(1) speaks to the operator, and gives him or her requirements of "How" maintenance is to be performed. It does not impose any requirements of "When" maintenance is to be performed. When it imposes the requirement to follow the "manufacturers maintenance and inspection procedures", it is not requiring compliance with every word in the manual. Instead, it very plainly requires compliance with "procedures" when performing maintenance on SLSA...................The "How" portion of the maintenance concept.

 

FAR 91.327( B)(1) also speaks to the operator with requirements of "Who" is required to perform maintenance (repairmen, mechanics, CRS).

 

There is absolutely nothing in the entire FAR part 91.327 or part 43 rules that require compliance with hose change requirements, TBO, training requirements, or any other manufacturer requirements. The only manufacturer requirements that are made regulatory out of 91.327, are maintenance and inspection procedures. These are the "How" portions of the maintenance concept. Therefore, hose changes are not mandatory, however when an operator does elect to have a hose or hoses changed, the relevant maintenance must be "performed" in accordance with manufacturer's "procedures" for changing them..........................the "How".

 

Doug Hereford (never eaten a dog, that I know of)

 

PS. If I owned a flight school that operated SLSA aircraft, I would apply the same above stated approach with regard to required maintenance. If it is regulatory, it must be done according to the relevant regulation requirements. If it is a manufacturer's recommendation or requirement (non-regulatory). I would investigate all aspects of the recommendation/requirement. If it makes sense for my operation, then I would do it.

I do not own a flight school, but have provided third party maintenance and maintenance management services to an FAA approved (part 141) flight school and part 135 charter operator of over ten years. They have operated SLSA in the past. This approach seems to have worked for them, and kept them profitable even during times of general economic instability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those that strain to find language in the FAR that supports their notion they can ignore the manufacturer of engine, avionics and airframe for the SLSLA will ignore the directives regardless of being right about the FAR.

 

It still does not change the straight up fact that ignoring such direction is perilous, possibly even dangerous.  After all, who is more expert on their products?  The maker or the consumer?

 

The debate is senseless.  Prudent owners will always error on the side of safety and simply do what the makers say to do, and when.  The old saw applies,  Penny Wise And Pound Foolish

Aviation has been around a lot longer than light sport aircraft have been on the scene. In that 100 years before LSA there have been acceptable practices established on how to inspect and maintain aircraft. There is even a FAA published AC on these acceptable inspection and maintenance procedures. As for manufacture based suggested replacement of parts you really never know the motive. Is it really safety, or is it liability protection. Maybe it is selling replacement parts, who knows.

I know of one manufacturer of a legacy aircraft that pushed the FAA into an issuing an AD requiring inspection or replacement of a parts on their airplane after an accident where the part was not the cause. The manufacturer hoped to boost revenue by selling parts costing about $3500 per airplane for the several thousand aircraft flying in the US fleet. The former used car salesman and owner of the aircraft company later went out of business, and the company is now under different ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those that strain to find language in the FAR that supports their notion they can ignore the manufacturer of engine, avionics and airframe for the SLSLA will ignore the directives regardless of being right about the FAR.

 

It still does not change the straight up fact that ignoring such direction is perilous, possibly even dangerous.  After all, who is more expert on their products?  The maker or the consumer?

 

The debate is senseless.  Prudent owners will always error on the side of safety and simply do what the makers say to do, and when.  The old saw applies,  Penny Wise And Pound Foolish

 

100 Hamburger,

I have to assume that the timing of you post is just coincidence, and not suggesting that any specific person wishes to ignore safety. This thread was started with an FAA interpretation regarding a manufacturer's requirement. My impression is that the on-going dialogue was directed toward what is legally required. I happen to believe that adherence to the rules will ensure safety.

 

I don't think anyone would argue (I certainly would not) with an owner who wants to comply with all manufacturer's recommendations/requirements. But if that owner tries to impose his position on others, and attempts to do so using a legal basis, they had better know what they are talking about.

 

Maybe the debate (I prefer to look at it as a discussion) is senseless, but there have been quite a few replys, including yours.

 

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100hamburger,

My customer base consists largely of operators who use their aircraft to make money either directly though rental/charter, or indirectly as business tools of their trades. Without exception, they all demand the highest level of safety, and expect my company to deliver just that. What they also demand is cost effective service. Even those customers who use their aircraft for purely pleasure purposes expect the same service. To that end, I never make the assumption that they want their money spent without just cause. When they come to me and ask what needs to be done, my starting point is always, what is required by law. Usually that is followed with a list of recommendations and basis for those recommendations. The source of those items comes from things like MFG recommendations tempered with considerations for all of the other relevant variables specific to the individual needs of the customer.

 

I have personally never seen a maintenance issue related to not arbitrarily changing hoses at 5 years. Therefore, I perform the legally required inspections of hoses, using the legally required procedures, and based on the results of those inspections, the customer has a list of hoses that must be changed based on condition, and not an arbitrary requirement. I apply the same practice to all areas of maintenance.

 

I feel that everyone in aviation should feel the need to understand the rules, and the intent of the rules. This is not an attempt to find "holes". In this same spirit, I have said numerous times that if FD thinks mandatory hose replacement is truly necessary to prevent an unsafe condition, then they are legally required to issue a Safety Directive mandating replacement. If that happens, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you that this debate is senseless.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...