Recommended or Required?

[FlyingMonkey]

Here's a great article from The Savvy Aviator (Mike Busch) on recommended vs. required maintenance.  The takeaway is that maintenance specified in a manufacturer's service bulletin is *never* required, it is only recommended, and this is backed up by a letter of interpretation obtained from the FAA's office of general counsel.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_63_recommended_or_required199001-1.html

 

From the article:

 

 

No manufacturer can mandate any maintenance requirement on a Part 91 aircraft owner; only the FAA can do so.The FAA may mandate a maintenance requirement in three different ways:

2. Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the aircraft, engine or propeller;
3. 
   
4. In the In an FAA-approved "Airworthiness Limitations" section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness; or
5. 
   
6. In an Airworthiness Directive.
7. 
   

If a maintenance requirement is not mandated by the FAA in one of these three ways, then it is not required by regulation for a Part 91 operator.

 

 

 

 

While Mike Busch generally deals with certificated aircraft, I believe this also applies to us in the LSA world, with a few changes:

• In the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the aircraft, engine or propeller;  We have no type certificate, so this does not apply.
• 
  
• In an FAA-approved "Airworthiness Limitations" section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness; or
• 
  
• In an Airworthiness Directive. LSA do not have ADs, instead this would be a Service Directive
• 
  

Otherwise, since this applies to all part 91 operators, this should also be true for LSA.  Of course, there are numerous other reasons to comply with service bulletins such as safety, warranty, or just wanting to abide by manufacturer's recommendations.  But it's good to know what is required, vs simply recommended, so that as issues come up we can make informed choices specific to our circumstances on whether a particular maintenance item makes sense in our case.

 

Enjoy, and let the arguments begin!   

[Roger Lee]

There is no arguements, he is correct. This has been the rule, just people never knew.

SB's are not enforcable as mandatory, but the FAA highly advises that they all be done.

Even though SD's are almost never issued ignoring. Rotax mandatory SB that is deemed mandatory may put a person in the fools camp if something happens. Just because an SB says mandatory for a serial number range doesn't mean all those will have an issue and if you don't follow it you may have an issue or may not. Rotax on LSA MFG try to protect people not only for their liability, but from their own selves. Since some who choose to ignore all of these think they know more than the MFG's. This is one of many reasons you see more engine failures in the ELSA side than the SLSA group.

 

Some in the ELSA groups attitude for some is "you can't make me do it". Works for me, I like reading about them and it keeps MFG's doing well in the broken parts business.

 

An ounce of prevent is worth that pound of flesh.

[S3flyer]

My fuel pump replacement notwithstanding, I like to make a judgement call on the SBs and recommended service in concert with my local mechanic.  I tend to err on the side of the doing the SB but don't do it automatically.

[Jim Meade]

Mike Busch also reinforces what the FAA says which is the owner is responsible for maintenance. Mike recently gave a webinar (you can see the back issues on the EAA web site) talking about mechanics who are afraid of liability and therefore try to twist the customer's arm into accepting a manufacturer's SB as mandatory when it is not. It is a mechanic CYA thing. Mike gives mechanics some advice on how to avoid this responsibility without trying to arm-wrestle the owner on what is really the owner's responsibility.

Some of you know that Mike has been around Cirrus aircraft for a long time. Cirrus is infamous for pushing SB.

 

Here's the liability webinar. EAA has many such webinars and I find them almost always quite useful.

 

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3878852621001

[FlyingMonkey]

My fuel pump replacement notwithstanding, I like to make a judgement call on the SBs and recommended service in concert with my local mechanic.  I tend to err on the side of the doing the SB but don't do it automatically.

 

I think that's the point of the article, and how I like to do things.  You should not ignore SBs just because you can, but there are some that just don't make sense for a particular situation.  

 

Another aspect of this is that if you want to do an SB that says to do it "before the next flight" or "within 10 hours", you are not breaking any regs by waiting until it's convenient for you to perform the maintenance, even if not within the specified time period.

[gbigs]

Does the FAA back the warranty?  Is it the FAA you talk to when something breaks?  No. 

 

Do what the manufacturer says...then when (and there is always a when) something breaks you will have the standing needed to get help from the manufacturer when you will need it most.

 

Plus, like your health, prevention is 9/10ths of the cure.

[FlyingMonkey]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

 

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

[WmInce]

Mike Busch also reinforces what the FAA says which is the owner is responsible for maintenance. Mike recently gave a webinar (you can see the back issues on the EAA web site) talking about mechanics who are afraid of liability and therefore try to twist the customer's arm into accepting a manufacturer's SB as mandatory when it is not. It is a mechanic CYA thing. Mike gives mechanics some advice on how to avoid this responsibility without trying to arm-wrestle the owner on what is really the owner's responsibility.

Some of you know that Mike has been around Cirrus aircraft for a long time. Cirrus is infamous for pushing SB.

 

Here's the liability webinar. EAA has many such webinars and I find them almost always quite useful.

 

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3878852621001

 

Thanks for the link and insight Jim.

[WmInce]

Here's a great article from The Savvy Aviator (Mike Busch) on recommended vs. required maintenance.  The takeaway is that maintenance specified in a manufacturer's service bulletin is *never* required, it is only recommended, and this is backed up by a letter of interpretation obtained from the FAA's office of general counsel.

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_63_recommended_or_required199001-1.html

From the article:

 

While Mike Busch generally deals with certificated aircraft, I believe this also applies to us in the LSA world, with a few changes:

• In the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the aircraft, engine or propeller;  We have no type certificate, so this does not apply.
• In an FAA-approved "Airworthiness Limitations" section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness; or
• In an Airworthiness Directive. LSA do not have ADs, instead this would be a Service Directive

Otherwise, since this applies to all part 91 operators, this should also be true for LSA.  Of course, there are numerous other reasons to comply with service bulletins such as safety, warranty, or just wanting to abide by manufacturer's recommendations.  But it's good to know what is required, vs simply recommended, so that as issues come up we can make informed choices specific to our circumstances on whether a particular maintenance item makes sense in our case.

 

Enjoy, and let the arguments begin!  

 

Thanks for doing the legwork, Andy.  All points well taken.

[Anticept]

Hi all!

 

I want to make sure everyone understands: the FAA CAN issue ADs against light sport aircraft. There is no regulation prohibiting it. However, should the FAA do so, they open themselves to a real can of worms since they effectively set a precedence and take "ownership" and responsibility.

 

In addition, be aware that if you have a certificated product on the aircraft, such as the GTX 330, any ADs listed against it still apply and must be complied with, regardless of the type of airworthiness certificate issued.

 

Source: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/LSA_Cert_8July2013.pdf

[FlyingMonkey]

Hi all!

 

I want to make sure everyone understands: the FAA CAN issue ADs against light sport aircraft. There is no regulation prohibiting it. However, should the FAA do so, they open themselves to a real can of worms since they effectively set a precedence and take "ownership" and responsibility.

 

In addition, be aware that if you have a certificated product on the aircraft, such as the GTX 330, any ADs listed against it still apply and must be complied with, regardless of the type of airworthiness certificate issued.

 

Source: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/LSA_Cert_8July2013.pdf

 

Good points, thanks for clarifying!

[Doug Hereford]

With regard to AD's issued against approved component parts of SLSA aircraft. Yes these are absolutely required. The GTX330 is a very good example, but there are many others also. I have said it before. I feel that SLSA manufacturers are way out of compliance with regard to this scenario.

 

By definition, an AD is issued to correct an unsafe condition. In the SLSA world, the MFG is charged with monitoring for and correcting unsafe conditions through the issuance of Safety Directives. Therefore, each SLSA mfg who chooses to use products with AD's against them, must issue a Safety Directive which at a minimum, transmits the requirements of the relevant AD.

 

Airworthiness limitations also DO apply to SLSA aircraft in a similar same way.

 

The bottom line is that those who perform inspections on SLSA aircraft had better be researching the Airworthiness Directive, and Airworthiness Limitation status of any approved components installed. This should be done by the SLSA mfg, but as far as I know, none are doing it.

 

Doug Hereford

[Anticept]

*ADs stuff was here*

 

It also doesn't help how the FAA distributes ADs. It's very difficult and extremely time consuming to investigate every single accessory, instrument, and device in an aircraft, and some devices are very hard to identify... I know it's still our responsibility, but it's so easy to miss these items.

[Doug Hereford]

Anticept,

Any inspector who says that they have never "missed" and AD on an appliance, is either lying, or hasn't been doing it very long. That being said, SLSA manufacturers would make our lives much less complicated if they would start doing their jobs in this regard.

 

Example: XYZ SLSA aircraft manufacturer elects to install an ACS brand ignition switch in his/her aircraft. They (MFG) should be required by the FAA to make themselves aware of the fact that there exists and inherent unsafe condition related to this switch assembly. In the Type Certificated world, this unsafe condition has been addressed in the form of a recurring Airworthiness Directive. XYZ manufacturer is legally required to address this unsafe condition on their aircraft using the Safety Directive system. You mentioned the GTX 330 transponder. It has an inherent unsafe condition also. While not a recurring AD, there is still a software update required by one-time AD to correct this condition. What happens when the unknowing SLSA owner replaces his GTX330 transponder with one that has not had the required software update? In the TC world, a diligent inspector would discover this on an Annual inspection, because he/she would understand his/her 43.15 requirement to do so. In the SLSA world, no Safety Directive exists, so the inspector feels comfortable that the aircraft is compliant when in fact, it is not. Legally, the inspector would be in violation of 43.15 if he approved the aircraft for return to service.

 

While not quite as clear-cut legally, Airworthiness Limitations are just as important.

 

These are the things that are "Required"...................not recommended. Here are my regulatory references:

FAR part 91.403 (airworthiness limitations).

FAR part 39 (ADs)

FAR part 43.15(a)(1) (All items of airworthiness)

 

43.15(a)(1) is my personal favorite for inspectors. This is the rule that requires an inspector to put down his mirror and flashlight, and start the tedious, and mostly unbillable task of actually researching what items are "Required".

 

My recommendation is that all inspectors invest in some type of aircraft maintenance regulatory compliance software subscription. There are many out there, and they are pretty reasonable in cost. Coming from the days of microfiche, these products make researching airworthiness, much easier. Most offer daily e-mail updates from the Federal Register to include NPRMs. This gives upwards of 60 days notice in most cases before an AD is published. I would also strongly suggest that all inspectors in the SLSA world lobby for a similar system to document Safety Directives.

 

Doug Hereford

[Anticept]

If you have used IApproach, we might start seeing some LSA stuff in it. The company is just a few miles north of me, and I have been working on them to include LSA stuff. Last thing I heard was "they are looking into it". I should follow up.

[Doug Hereford]

Anticept,

I do not use Tdata, but have known people who do. It seems to be a fine product. I would guess it has some sort of "appliance checklist" feature for AD research on appliances. In my opinion, this feature is very helpful when addressing AD compliance on all those pesky component parts. I would strongly advise against trying to use the FAA website for AD research. It is basically worthless.

 

Your business opportunity is to create a similar product that deals with SLSA, then sell it to Tdata.............ready, get set, go!

 

Doug Hereford

 

PS, when I say lobby for a similar system, I mean lobby to the FAA to require a central data base for airworthiness information on SLSA. In my opinion, this would be a logical starting point.

[Anticept]

Anticept,

I do not use Tdata, but have known people who do. It seems to be a fine product. I would guess it has some sort of "appliance checklist" feature for AD research on appliances. In my opinion, this feature is very helpful when addressing AD compliance on all those pesky component parts. I would strongly advise against trying to use the FAA website for AD research. It is basically worthless.

 

Your business opportunity is to create a similar product that deals with SLSA, then sell it to Tdata.............ready, get set, go!

 

Doug Hereford

 

PS, when I say lobby for a similar system, I mean lobby to the FAA to require a central data base for airworthiness information on SLSA. In my opinion, this would be a logical starting point.

 

The FAA revamped their AD search earlier this year, and it's much better than it used to be. There's still a lot of information to search through (and, with older ADs, not all documentation is included so you have to contact mfg or the FAA offices), but it's workable now.

 

A database for SDs for LSAs would be beautiful. And it would be so helpful to make it easier to search for accessories too, but that would get big and complex