Jump to content

Interpretation Archive & related info pertaining to S-LSA maintenance


Anticept

Recommended Posts

A while ago I said that I would do research on LSA maintenance and who is allowed to do what, and if things like TBO carried any weight. Honestly, I haven't had time to follow up.
 
Instead, I propose an alternative. I'm going to use this thread to post interpretations relating to S-LSA, both maintenance and flight, as well as a couple important key points. I will also accept contributions.
 
First important point to make: you have to do what your airworthiness certificate limitations section says you need to do, and then interpret the regs in 14 CFR. Why? Because an airworthiness certificate which contradicts the FARs is an invalid certificate unless you some sort of exemption in writing. The same applies to any airworthiness certificate that does not have a limitations section, it is invalid.
 
Secondly: The pilot regulations do not apply to mechanics. This means when a mechanic works on your aircraft, part 91 does not apply to them. They are not wearing their "pilot" hat while fixing your plane. Mechanics regulations DO apply to pilots, however. Specifically, if you read part 43 App A, it tells you what "preventive" maintenance is, what maintenance is, and what major repairs and alterations are. As a pilot, you may only perform preventive maintenance as permitted in 14 CFR 43.3. You may not perform any tasks which are not listed in App A under "preventive" maintenance, unless you are an appropriately rated mechanic, and are acting as a mechanic (meaning you have your currency requirements and other misc stuff).
 
Thirdly: There's a lot of gray area in the LSA world. The FAA doesn't want to get too close to it, out of fear of liability and/or political blowback. Just do your job's #1 priority: make the plane safe. If you are in a gray area, then keep your mouth shut, or more preferably, contact the manufacturer for guidance, preferably by email so you have it in written form. Most people get themselves in trouble because they don't keep their gob shut, or they loosely interpret the regs.
 
Fourthly: S-LSAs are to be treated in the same manner as a standard airworthiness aircraft from a maintenance standpoint. The differences are simple:

  • The airframe manufacturer has authority over major repairs and major alterations to all onboard components, but usually they will refer you to other manufacturers for things such as the engine or avionics. 
  • The airworthiness certificate and part 43 regulations for S-LSA aircraft will tell you where to source information during the course of maintenance (which means do what the manufacturer maintenance manual says).
  • The FAA allows alternative acceptable practices to be used on S-LSAs, such as in AC 43.13, as long as they do not contradict with manufacturer procedures.
  • Gray area: practices and procedures means how to do maintenance. It does not mean "when". Therefore, as the Charles Willette interpretation below states as an example, you do not have to replace the engine at TBO. I've marked this as a gray area because it's still hotly debated about what this exactly means. For example, FD says you need to inspect the wing roots every "x" hours. However, they just specified a "when". So, do you inspect them every "x" hours, or do you do it during every inspection, since they technically can't tell you when?

Fifthly: Just because it isn't against regulation, doesn't mean it's something you should do. For example, if you do flight training, running past TBO will invite a civil lawsuit if someone is injured, even though there would not be an FAA violation. Regulations vs Liability are two different things.

 

 

Interpretation archive:
 
Charles Willette Interpretation - States that a manufacturer cannot make TBOs mandatory for part 91 operations, because they cannot impose rules above and beyond the regulations (NOTE: remember, this is maintenance, not pilots. You MUST comply with the manufacturer operating requirements when flying it)
 
Carol Carpenter Interpretation - States that a manufacturer cannot require FAA certificated mechanics to take their training in order to work on their components. NOTE: this doesn't mean you can work on a rotax engine if you haven't before, due to FARs as spelled out in 65.81(a) for A&Ps, and 65.107(d) for LSRMs.

 

Doug Hereford Interpretation - While not pertaining to LSA maintenance, it's very much worth a read. Despite that the airworthiness limitations section of the Cirrus CAPS maintenance instructions (an FAA approved document by the way!) states that only "Cirrus Design trained and authorized parachute system technicians" may maintain it, the FAA has taken a stance that that statement is unenforceable, and an appropriately rated mechanic may receive training from any source, regardless of Cirrus' affiliation or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think your interpretation of the decision of FAA legal that Carol Carpenter got is quite correct. It does not say that the manufacturer cannot impose training requirements, but they cannot require you to take their own training, or only their designated training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, it is not Carol Carpenter's interpretation. It is an FAA interpretation that happens to be posted on her site as well as being available elsewhere. I am not being picky. The issue of accuracy in aviation regulatory matters is important to be sure one knows who said what and thus the applicability. For an example, look at the "interpretations" of where one can exceed 10,000 MSL in another post - lots of individual "interpretations" and little reference to the regs or official interpretations of the regs. This happens a lot when people do not agree with the exact wording of the reg and thus feel that their "common sense" modifications are applicable to some situation. There is always an out to following regs - it is the word "emergency". If we want to declare an emergency we can avoid the reg even if we may have to justify our divergence to the FAA later.

 

Part 43 does not use the word "preventative".

" 43.1 to 43.17 MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION" Some authorities say the words are virtually identical, but the case in point is that the FAA uses preventive and this is a tiny example of using the FAA wording rather than the wording we feel more comfortable with or the wording the we like or the wording that our friends use. Probably the best example of this is the FAA term "certificated", which is often incorrectly cited as certified and most often totally transformed into license.

 

I'd be surprised if there are many gray areas if one follows the FAA wording or official interpretation. There are a number of people on this site who push their own preferences and justify their disagreement with the FAA, but we can see what ensues.

 

Some people would say that there is a gray area of who can act as safety pilot for SP training. These are the people who do not like the strict constructionist interpretation of the FARs. Contending that one does not agree with the FARs and citing logical reasons for disagreement does not constitute authority to deviate or excuse for deviation if challenged.

 

No offense intended, but my reading of the OP is that it introduces or suggests there are gray areas where there are not. It invites perpetuation of myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think your interpretation of the decision of FAA legal that Carol Carpenter got is quite correct. It does not say that the manufacturer cannot impose training requirements, but they cannot require you to take their own training, or only their designated training.

 

I reworded it so that it's more clear. This is exactly what I meant, a manufacturer can't require a mechanic to take factory training.

 

 

 

 

>Jim Meade: "I was not aware that Carol Carpenter had issued an interpretation. Could you provide the citation, please?"

 

I got it from the FAA's own interpretation archive. it has "Office of the Chief Council" stamped across the top. I had linked directly to their archive, just click the link. Additionally, interpretations tend to be named by the requestor of an interpretation, not the attorney. If it was the latter, there would be a huge number of interps that are named the same. (For example, Paul Greer puts out a LOT of interpretations. A LOT.)

 

 

 

Part 43 does not use the word "preventative".

" 43.1 to 43.17 MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION" Some authorities say the words are virtually identical, but the case in point is that the FAA uses preventive and this is a tiny example of using the FAA wording rather than the wording we feel more comfortable with or the wording the we like or the wording that our friends use. Probably the best example of this is the FAA term "certificated", which is often incorrectly cited as certified and most often totally transformed into license.

 

You forgot 43 Appendix A, which i stated in my original post. Here's a snippet from App A ( c ): Preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance is limited to the following work, provided it does not involve complex assembly operations: [...]

 

Therefore, it's not a question of wording, but actual FAA defined tasks. EDIT: Oh you grammar nazi, you. Now I see what you mean. Corrected the misspelling in OP  :) (preventative vs preventive)

 

 

>Jim Meade: "No offense intended, but my reading of the OP is that it introduces or suggests there are gray areas where there are not. It invites perpetuation of myths."

 

Yes there are gray areas. Anyone who has worked in the maintenance industry knows there are some. Even our aviation lawyer who has worked the business for 39 years will say the same. What makes it a gray area is how well it will stand up in court. Often we choose to go above and beyond the regs to avoid said areas, and the FAA isn't helping because sometimes one FSDO will interpret a regulation differently from another. That's why you should be very careful when reviewing interpretations that are not from your own local FSDO, unless it is a chief council interp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anticept,

Pretty good info. (All sounds strangely familiar).

In my experience, there are very few gray areas when the rules are followed exactly as written. Sometimes I think it is easier to muddy up the water, than admit that maybe things aren't exactly like we were lead to believe they were. I cannot think of a single mishap in aviation that was due to following a rule. I can think of hundreds of situations where large sums of money were spent needlessly in support of someone's misinterpretation of a rule or rules, safety not enhanced.

 

SLSA manufacturer's do not control major repairs. It is commonly stated, that in the SLSA world, any repair scheme not contained in the mfg's maintenance procedures is a major repair. I disagree. The definition of major repair is found in 14 CFR part 1. There is no exclusion for SLSA (I realize that 43.1(d)(3) excludes SLSA from the appendix A list). Major repairs are also the one and only place where additional "training" is required. Otherwise, training is not required to perform maintenance (preventive maintenance, or alteration). Also, this training must allow the person to comply with 14 CFR part 65.107(d). In other words, this "training" must include a component where the student actually performs the relevant task (successfully). 

 

With regard to training in general, a similar requirement exists. Example: A certificated power plant mechanic has worked on turbine engines only for his entire career, and now wants to perform and approve for return to service [emphasis added], maintenance on Rotax 912 and similar engines. He has been lead to believe that he can/must attend the Rotax training course, and he will subsequently meet his 14 CFR part 65.81 requirements. He may have been misled. Here is why. Unless this "training" incorporates components that cause him to actually "perform" the required maintenance tasks, he does not meet 65.81 (65.107 repairmen parallel). Just as important to note, and possibly more problematic; Unless this training is conducted by someone who is certificated and rated, even if the maintenance tasks are performed (successfully), 14 CFR part 65.81 (65.107) requirements ARE NOT met. I mention this because as of the last time I researched, none of the Rotax instructors (one subsequently became certificated) were certificated individuals in this country.  

To state my point more directly: Even if one successfully removes and replaces a cylinder on a Rotax 912 engine during training, and does so under the supervision of Eric Tucker, they have not satisfied their part 65.81 (65.107) requirements.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am capable of being a grammar nazi, but that was not my point.  My point is that in a discussion of "gray areas" the use of language that is not in accordance with FAA defined language invites the very imprecision that we are discussing.  it doesn't help reduce or better define gray areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLSA manufacturer's do not control major repairs. It is commonly stated, that in the SLSA world, any repair scheme not contained in the mfg's maintenance procedures is a major repair. I disagree. The definition of major repair is found in 14 CFR part 1. There is no exclusion for SLSA (I realize that 43.1(d)(3) excludes SLSA from the appendix A list). Major repairs are also the one and only place where additional "training" is required. Otherwise, training is not required to perform maintenance (preventive maintenance, or alteration). Also, this training must allow the person to comply with 14 CFR part 65.107(d). In other words, this "training" must include a component where the student actually performs the relevant task (successfully).

 

With regard to training in general, a similar requirement exists. Example: A certificated power plant mechanic has worked on turbine engines only for his entire career, and now wants to perform and approve for return to service [emphasis added], maintenance on Rotax 912 and similar engines. He has been lead to believe that he can/must attend the Rotax training course, and he will subsequently meet his 14 CFR part 65.81 requirements. He may have been misled. Here is why. Unless this "training" incorporates components that cause him to actually "perform" the required maintenance tasks, he does not meet 65.81 (65.107 repairmen parallel). Just as important to note, and possibly more problematic; Unless this training is conducted by someone who is certificated and rated, even if the maintenance tasks are performed (successfully), 14 CFR part 65.81 (65.107) requirements ARE NOT met. I mention this because as of the last time I researched, none of the Rotax instructors (one subsequently became certificated) were certificated individuals in this country.

To state my point more directly: Even if one successfully removes and replaces a cylinder on a Rotax 912 engine during training, and does so under the supervision of Eric Tucker, they have not satisfied their part 65.81 (65.107) requirements.

 

Doug Hereford

Hi Doug!

 

To first address the part about major repairs: you are correct, just because it isn't in the manual, doesn't mean it is a major repair. I believe this started because people assumed that 91.327 (d) applied to EVERYONE, including mechanics. I thought so too. After all, how can you operate an aircraft where the manufacturer's instructions state to maintain it in accordance with their manuals, if you decided to deviate from those manuals? That is what makes the Carpenter and Willete interps so important, it stops that misinderstanding.

 

Secondly, yes actually the manufacturer (or anyone who picks up type responsibility of an S-LSA aircraft if the original mfg goes out of business) does control major repairs, although I am very open to alternatives or technicalities if you would like to share. Here's why I believe that: it has long been understood that mechanics, while exercising their maintenance privileges, must have data to support their work, per 65.81( b ). In standard aircraft major repairs and alternations, this data comes from maintenance manuals, previously approved repair procedures, manufacturers, field approvals, or designated engineering representatives.

 

In S-LSA, however, you have the maintenance manuals, and the manufacturer, who is required to provide support. There are no engineers for S-LSA, there is no official process for field approvals, and there is no such thing as "FAA approved" when it comes to any data. So how do you do major repairs without manufacturer support? I know the FAA can issue waivers, but I have never heard this to occur yet, making this more of an exception than rule.

 

Finally, remember that manufacturers are a completely different animal. Even though they could have hundreds of workers, only a few of them are actually certificated. They all fall under the manufacturer's certificate. The FAA also allows some of these privileges to be extended to third parties designated by the manufacturer, which they very carefully exercise because if the third party screws up, the manufacturer will get the hammer because it's their certificate privileges being exercised. Granted this system applies to standard airworthiness aircraft, so I can see the technicality when considering S-LSA manufacturers lack a certificate, but I would be very interested to see what the FAA thinks about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I want to go real world here. If I as an LSRM-A have not had the experience of pulling the wings on a CT, but the procedure is well defined in the manual, how can do I pull the wings for inspection legally? The level of experience defined by FD is LSRM-A, but they also specify extra training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug G.!

 

I think, more than anything, that part of the reg is used to nail mechanics who claim they did the work according to the manual, but clearly didn't. I also find that reg would be difficult to enforce. I'd like to make a point.

 

My own A&P certificate is only a month and a half old, but I've had a couple years working on aircraft while under the supervision of another A&P, and while I was attending a Part 147 maintenance school. I was exposed to a large swathe of maintenance procedures and processes, from wood, to fabric, to metal, and to composite. Am I to keep a log of EVERYTHING I have ever done? If I pull the wings on a CTSW, can I do this to a CTLS? Or how about if I did it to a CTLS and want to do it to a CTLSi now? How in depth is this reg meant to go?

 

Now imagine that for a Lycoming IO-360 vs IO-390. If I changed the cylinder on an IO-360, can I do that on an IO-390? A 390 is only a larger bore 360. Or how about we go even deeper. If I change a cylinder on an O-360, can I do that on an HO-360? Same engine, slightly different configuration.

 

Or how about if I replace a piece of sheet metal on the left wing of a Cessna. Can I do the same thing on a Mooney? I clearly demonstrated the ability to work with sheet metal...

 

It's another one of the gray areas, with different levels of "strict" interpretations. I feel the best way to treat this reg is, "Have I at least done something similar to this before?", "Am I having difficulty understanding the instructions?", and "Am I confident I can do this without compromising safety?". Yes to both, and I will proceed.

 

By the way, I found an interpretation given to Doug Hereford, and it's a good one. I put the link up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anticept,

My point with regard to major repairs is that the determination of major vs minor is not made by the manufacturer, and that if a repair is deemed to be major, potentially additional training requirements exist for the repairman before that repair can be performed. Again, manufacturer's do not conrol this. To say it another way, manufacturer's have no authority to determine whether a repair is major or minor. This is the responsibility of the person performing the work.

 

Manufacturer's are not a different animal. They are required to follow the relevant regulations, and get no magical powers because they conjured up the machine. In fact, when it comes to SLSA, manufacturer's actually have NO authority to perform ANY maintenance (including inspections) on their products once certificated. I will state this again. FD, Rotax etc..... cannot legally perform any maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration on their SLSA products in this country.

 

Doug G,

With regard to the previous successful completion of work requirement (65.81, or 65.107); the application of this rule in my opinion requires discretion and judgement on the part of the person performing the work. It is a case by case situation. If you have never removed and replaced the wings on any aircraft, then you need to be supervised (opinion). I have asked many FAA inspectors how they apply this rule. The answers are always general. If you have changed oil on a Continental, you can do it on a Rotax. If you have rigged the spoilers on a Lear 45, you can do it on a Citation 560. One always has to meet the other part 43/65 requirements (tech data, tooling, and an understanding of the current mfg instructions). Where this rule would most likely come into play would be in an example like I gave above. A power plant mechanic with nothing but turbine experience performs maintenance and subsequently approves for return to service, a piston engine aircraft. In my opinion, that person would have violated 65.81 whether or not the work was done properly, because he/she has never successfully completed the work prior, and was not supervised.

 

It is important to understand the difference between "performing" maintenance, and approving for return to service. As the regulations provide for, almost anyone in the whole world can legally perform maintenance (supervision may be required). Only specifically authorized individuals or agencies can supervise the performance of maintenance, and approve an aircraft for return to service after.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anticept,

My point with regard to major repairs is that the determination of major vs minor is not made by the manufacturer, and that if a repair is deemed to be major, potentially additional training requirements exist for the repairman before that repair can be performed. Again, manufacturer's do not conrol this. To say it another way, manufacturer's have no authority to determine whether a repair is major or minor. This is the responsibility of the person performing the work.

 

Manufacturer's are not a different animal. They are required to follow the relevant regulations, and get no magical powers because they conjured up the machine. In fact, when it comes to SLSA, manufacturer's actually have NO authority to perform ANY maintenance (including inspections) on their products once certificated. I will state this again. FD, Rotax etc..... cannot legally perform any maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration on their SLSA products in this country.

I was referring to who controls the data and procedure when you are performing major work, not who determines if it is or is not major work :). So we are in agreement.

 

As for the manufacturer performing maintenance: in standard category, manufacturers get a few privileges that no one else in the field can get, such as zeroing time since new on an engine, and how privelages are exercised. I'm not saying they get magical powers, but they do get a lot more leeway than the rest of us do because it is very easy for them to get new data approved, type design changes, etc.

 

I'm aware S-LSA manufacturers cannot do their own maintenance aside from employing mechanics or forming a repair station for S-LSAs. The question that I am focused on, is can they still provide training without a certificated mechanic? If you attend Bell Helicopter training and they didn't use a mechanic to teach the class, say an engineer instead, does it still count if you practiced on a decommissioned chopper untder their tutelage? I know you said by strict interpretation, they can't, but manufacturers tend to be treated a little different than mechanics when it comes to any bias that an ASI might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anticept,

My direct answer to your question is yes. A manufacturer can provide any training that they want to. What I think you meant however, is can this training count toward compliance of 65.81 or 65.107 if supervised by a non-certificated person since it is the manufacturer providing the training.

 

I believe that what you are suggesting in the Bell helicopter scenario, is an example of an attempt to introduce a gray area where one does not exist.

 

It is back to the concepts of "performing" vs "approval for return to service". Nobody is allowed to operate an aircraft that has undergone maintenance (preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration) unless it has been "approved for return to service". As the rules seem to indicate, almost anyone in the world is capable of "performing" maintenance (including engineers).

I have said before, that in my opinion, the most critical maintenance task that any certificated individual performs, is an inspection task. It is not a problem to improperly "perform" a repair. The problem comes from not inspecting and discovering the improper repair, and subsequently correcting it. This is what a certificated individual must do each and everytime he/she approves something for return to service after maintenance.  The rule requires certificated individuals to supervise maintenance for this reason.

 

Your Bell engineer may be outstanding, but as an engineer, what does he know about Airworthiness, and "approval for return to service"? The answer (if I am the FAA ASI) is..................................nothing. Therefore one cannot use this engineer's supervision to satisfy 65.81 or 65.107 whether he is employed the manufacturer or not.

 

You are right that manufactturer's (except not SLSA manufacturer's) are the only ones allowed to "Rebuild" things. This privilege is clearly spelled out in part 43 however. No gray.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...