It's an FAA Regulation.

[Safety Officer]

Jim,

Before you make a bad comment about people;

"In my opinion, what we are seeing is people misinterpreting the reg and then foisting their opinion off as fact. In other words, each of us should carefully review the primary documents and make our own decision. Since we are all individually responsible, we should each satisfy ourselves that we are in compliance. Some people talk to priests, some people talk directly to god. To each his own."

You better get your facts straight and be careful of what you are accusing someone of doing here. I know you haven' t talked to the head off the FAA LSA division or the any other authoritative branchs that makes these rules. I spent the time in this research and made the calls and talked to these people, so I don't apprieciate the implications or accusations.

 

If you have something constructive, funny, helpful or educational then by all means add it to the forum, but the paragraph above is uncalled for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Runtoeat]

Roger, I keep the attached document in my files. I am posting this so that it may provide forum members something to consider if they choose to document alerts. This allows me to keep track of all alerts pertaining to CTSW aircraft, regardless of being related to my aircraft or not. The disposition of each alert is noted in the last column. This document keeps track of all SB, SA and SI from FD. This list is kept up to date and is filed with my paperwork. It will be available to FAA on request, available to my mechanic during each 100 hour and annual inspection or to a buyer, should I decide to sell my CTSW. Alerts which specifically state that they must be logged and are specific to my airplane are logged into the airplane log book. I keep similar documents for engine, avionics and propellor.

 

Note: The attachment has been updated to reflect that SA-ASTM-CTSW-04 was "complied with"..

N9922Z_FD safety directive status_120115.xls

.

[WmInce]

Well done.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Dick,

Nicely done. Looks like a good idea.

[Jim Meade]

Jim,

Before you make a bad comment about people;

"In my opinion, what we are seeing is people misinterpreting the reg and then foisting their opinion off as fact. In other words, each of us should carefully review the primary documents and make our own decision. Since we are all individually responsible, we should each satisfy ourselves that we are in compliance. Some people talk to priests, some people talk directly to god. To each his own."

You better get your facts straight and be careful of what you are accusing someone of doing here. I know you haven' t talked to the head off the FAA LSA division or the any other authoritative branchs that makes these rules. I spent the time in this research and made the calls and talked to these people, so I don't apprieciate the implications or accusations.

 

If you have something constructive, funny, helpful or educational then by all means add it to the forum, but the paragraph above is uncalled for.

 

Yes, my frustration was showing, wasn't it? I should have used language that was a little more congenial. I remain dissatisfied with the responses to the questions raised by several others and me. The tone of several of my phrases could have been better, but the general observation that we are each responsible for our own interpretation of FAA rules since we are singularly held responsible for them is valid. The comment that it is good practice to go to the source rather than rely on interpreters I will not withdraw. The FAA will not violate the interpreters if they find me out of compliance.

 

BTW, my comment was not directed to you personally, but rather to a mindset in general, if you know what I mean. A lot of inexperienced and new pilots frequent forums such as this and we all owe them our very best. I will continue to seek clarification of posts I don't understand, but I'll try not to ruffle feathers when I do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chanik]

It is a tricky area to be sure, and reading legal is not simple but the intent of FARs, or any regulation, is precisely to take away discretion from the user. So SDs are clearly mandatory. On the other hand, the FAA has already had to address this SB confusion WRT GA planes. Specifically the fact that FARs do not explicity make SBs mandatory; does indeed make them optional. Direct from FAA legal council:

http://www.arsa.org/files/4313sbinterp.pdf

SLSA is newer but it would be implausible for FAA to argue a different interpretation for the realtionship of SBs to SDs since SD is the regulatory equivalent of AD with respect to the LSA class of aircraft.

This issue has been confusingly interpreted in the past when NTSB somewhat broke with the established FAA interpretation in a case 5 years ago

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060629sb.html

So even the regulators manage to confuse themselves at times.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

You still have to not apply GA FAR's and interpretations to SLSA. They simply do not apply. It is a category to itself. Everyone keeps crossing these catagories. The FAA has separate rules for SLSA and what the FAA doesn't cover the aircraft MFG Does and has the authority to do so. They actually have more say in the matter than the GA MFG's. FD sent everyone a letter stating as much, the head of the FAA LSA division stated as much, it has been discussed on other forums and for the most part everyone seems to agree except for a few owners regardless of what officials have to say. It's up the the individual like any rule or reg. You can follow what's right and not worry or do what you want. The but side of, "do what you want", is when something happens or a mechanic won't sign off the logbook, the FAA tags you or it cost you money, the insurance abandons you after an incident then you have absolutely no one to blame, but one person. All that heartache for 15 minutes of time.The issue of 5 years ago is mute since this rule came out in April 2010.

Then my question would be is why anyone would purposefully put themselves in that situation when all the authority figures and the majority of the other owners do it the prescribed way?

[chanik]

Hey Roger,

I make no argument that anyone should dodge these things, but I don't know that anyone else is really arguing that. I confess: notwithstanding the online discussions, I cannot find any reference from the FAA that would make SBs mandatory to do, much less record for S-LSA or GA aircraft. I could be missing something but so far I can find nothing. I do see where the FAA clarified their terms, since they were already using the term SB. They intended to use "Saftey of flight Bulletin" but that term already had some other specific meaning.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/1d47971728e12ba286256edf004385aa!OpenDocument

The FAA settled on the term SD for mandatory orders from the manufacturer. So my main point is that Flight Design clearly has some things they intend to be mandatory, especially with regard to SAs, but they are not using the correct FAR language they are supposed to use that would legally compel compliance with and I have looked hard for such a reference.

 

There are plenty of not-thorough mechanics out there, as you well know since you are very thorough. FD has sort of given them an alibi if they miss something that was called an SA or SB by not sticking with the FAR definitions.

[Doug Hereford]

There is no regulatory requirement to comply with manufacturer service information (except Service Directives). Even Service Directives can be waived under the spectific conditions spelled out in FAR 91.327. If one does comply with manufacturer's service info. however (ie. SB, alert etc.....) they are required to document the maintenance performed. Ref. FAR 43.9. Non-applicable stuff need not be documented.

 

As for SLSA being "a category unto itself". This is mis-leading. SLSA are controlled by FAR's period. The manufacturer and ASTM only have as much authority as the regulations give them. When it comes to the performance of maintenance, SLSA are governed by 14 CFR part 43 just as TC'd aircraft are. Required maintenance is spelled out in 14 CFR part 91.327 and the operating limitations.

 

Also, it is fine to talk with FAA officials about SLSA, but keep in mind that these people can mis-interpret rules just the same as anyone else can. In the case of SLSA, I have first-hand experience with the FAA's gross mis-interpretation of maintenance rules all the way to Washington DC. Any information about legal requirements should be supported by regulatory language. I would ask again for the regulatory support for the opening statement in this discussion.

 

Doug Hereford

[coppercity]

So the the reg states

"4) The owner or operator complies with each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition"

 

And Flight Design states

"There are three types of Safety Directives:

 

Service Notification: For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information.

Service Bulletin: For notifications that do not require immediate action but will  REQUIRE some future action.

Safety Alert: For notifications that require immediate action.

 

Note: Flight Design does not use notices of corrective action (Safety Directives) to promote or make mandatory non-safety of flight related equipment upgrades or additions."

 

Would that not imply all three types are required to be done if they apply to your aircraft since they are all SDs?

[Gmoore7]

Thanks guys,

 

Some of us new owners appreciate these reminders.

 

Gary

[chanik]

So the the reg states

"4) The owner or operator complies with each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition"

 

And Flight Design states

"There are three types of Safety Directives:

 

Service Notification: For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information.

Service Bulletin: For notifications that do not require immediate action but will  REQUIRE some future action.

Safety Alert: For notifications that require immediate action.

 

Note: Flight Design does not use notices of corrective action (Safety Directives) to promote or make mandatory non-safety of flight related equipment upgrades or additions."

 

Would that not imply all three types are required to be done if they apply to your aircraft since they are all SDs?

You make an excellent point, and here is where FD says it: http://flightdesignusa.com/support/safety_directives/

So one might think that makes them all mandatory but, in fact, no. Because companies don't have the force of law, they can only comply with the regs, not reinterpret them. We say that the manufacturer is like god but not really. The only real difference is that the LSA OEM gets to issue SDs instead of ADs becuase they do it without going through FAA approval.

91.327 is quite clear where a user must go to look and what they have to look for.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/52cf9d5f2a6cea9886256eeb00683495!OpenDocument

"(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, "

So the AOI must be followed and Service directives must be addressed. That's it and really not much different from GA. In any regulatory setting it is unreasonable to ask a user to comb through everything a company ever wrote anywhere to figure out what they mean and worse, the FAA already assigns meaning to two of the terms FD has chosen to use. FDs website clarification is legally specious becuase it has no hooks into the FARs.

In the GA world, something very similar cropped up recently when some OEMs like Diamond and Teledyne issued what they started calling Mandatory Service Bulletins (lots online; I won't paste all the links). It's a clever idea and likely to better compel compliance but the FAA stance is clear: they have no force of law. Nothing stops the OEMS from calling SBs mandatory, but they are merely advisory until and unless they get incorporated into an AD or the AOI. Diamond then tried the cute argument that SBs should be considered to be addendums to their AOI, which the FAA also rejected. This confusing little issue took 4 years to settle out as established precedent, also with plenty of he-said/ she-said in the interim.

Unlike Diamond, FD has an easy out; they just need to call their notices by the proper term when they mean them to be mandatory. Like this:

http://www.czechsportaircraft.com/pdf/SA-SC-002_R1.pdf

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

Either you have an old FAR and not as of April 2010 or the wrong FAR this reg. There is no D under this section.

 

http://www.risingup....1-417-FAR.shtml<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

[Tom Baker]

After reviewing the regs and flight Design documents I agree there is no legal requirement to log SD's, and other documents that do not apply, but IMO it would be smart to do so. Here is a clip from CFR 91.327 ( (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;

On the Flight Design inspection check list it says to check all SD's, AD's, and SB's that MAY apply, so each inspection you have to research to see if they apply or not if you don't have a list to check against. If you have a list you can just check the SD and revision number with your list and go on instead of having to read the text of the SD. For the airplane it only takes a few minutes, but Rotax has a bunch of them to go through, and then the other equipment that might be installed.

[chanik]

Hello Roger,

I was reading 91.327 (link is to the FAA site)

Tom I think has it correct. And SB's are usually easier as following them automatically complies with OEM maintenance requirements. If a mechanic does something else, they need to be able to explain it.

[Doug Hereford]

Inspection procedures do NOT include compliance with manufacturer's service information. Inspection items related to actual aircraft inspection must be performed IAW the mfg procedures (to include a checklist). Owners must ensure that their SLSA are maintained/inspected IAW manufacturer's (or person acceptable to FAA) maintenance and inspection procedures. Maintenance providers must use these accepted methods techniques and practices when performing maintenance. Any other stuff in the aircraft maintenance manual (ie service instruction compliance, or training requirements) are manufacturer recommendations/requirements, but not regulatory unless specifically made so by rule. "Maintenance and Inspection Procedures" are the how-to's of performing maintenance and inspection, not the whens, or the who's.

 

This is not to say that compliance with manufacturer's recommendation/requirements is a bad idea. It is almost always a good idea. However, there can be certain times when it makes practical sense to defer these recommendations/requirements until a later date. Example: Aircraft is in for a condition inspection, and the owner wants a certain mandatory SB complied with. The mechanic researches the bulletin, and discovers that parts are on back-order and will not be available until a later date. The pilot is aware that there will be an overflight of the SB compliance time due to the parts unavailability. Unsafe condition not withstanding, the aircraft could legally be approved for return to service by N appropriately rated maintenance person/agency, and returned to service by the pilot without violation of regulation. If the service document were a Safety Directive, the same could not be said. Over-flight of a Safety Directive would be a violation of FAR 91.327 every time that the aircraft is operated (same as an Airworthiness Directive).

In my opinion, the Safety Directive system is the vehicle that the mfg. must use to ensure continued airworthiness of their product. They must state this in their compliance statement as a requirement for certification (FAR 21.190). It seems that FD interchanges the language on their service documents.

[chanik]

Anyway, my main point was that FD has made a mess by improperly labelling controlling documents and trying to reinterpret FARs and doing so outside of any such document. They have made it much more likely that CTs will be flying around without crucial updates (remember A&Ps are already conditoned to regard everything not SD as a suggestion).

 

I figure anyone following along this far deserves an associates degree in administrative proceedure law. So time for the final exam question:

"I am a private pilot who would like to take a pair of 4th graders for a flight in my S-LSA CT. Under what conditions, if any, would this be considered legal?"

Show your work (supply references). Points off for hearsay. Ready... GO

[Doug Hereford]

Kurt,

To me, the reason that we can't go around saying things are mandatory, when they aren't has a very important purpose. As was stated by someone eariler, the FAA cannot delegate its rule-making authority. I for one am glad of this. I will admit that I may not be a hugh fan of the SLSA rule, and specifically the parts of it that relate to Continued Airworthiness. I think the Service Directive System is terrible. The FAA apparently does not give strick enough oversight to these manufacturers to force them to comply with their initial certification requirements. I would be interested in learning more and becoming more involed with changes to this system.

As for heresay, I could not agree more strongly that it has no place (in aviation period). I will also say that it seems rampant in the SLSA world. I'm speaking from the fact that one of my customers was told that he could not fly his aircraft do to the fact that engine maintenance was done by myself, and my employees without having the Rotax factory approved training. My customer makes a living providing flight instruction with this and other aircraft. I had to take this fight though field hearsay, and FAA hearsay, all the way to DC and back to my Local FSDO. After approx. one year, the FAA admitted that they (certain individuals) were wrong, and the aircraft went back into service. We just can't make up rules as we go. It seems there is now a wedge between the A&P world, and the LSA repairman world. I don't know why this is.

As for your example/question. I'm not an ops. guy. I've been a pilot since 1987, but am not current, and never have been on the ops. side of light sport. Assuming the aircraft and pilot are legal, the only thing that comes to mind is whether a minor can legally be made aware of the fact that the aircraft does not meet airworthiness requirements as is required by FAR 91.327(e) and ops. limitation.

[chanik]

Doug, I can tell you seem to already have had some bad experiences working through the nascent S-LSA rule set. It is an old saw among lawyers that vague law is bad law. Over time, FAA legal clarification advisories and, of course, case precedent will settle these issues definitively. In the meantime, FAA has yet to violate anyone specifically for failure to comply with an SB as written so there is no case to cite as there is with GA.

 

For my payful test (Roger used to do these WRT to maintenance questions. I miss those) I meant fly both passengers at the same time. Presume that I have made their legal guardians aware of the nature of LSA.

[Doug Hereford]

You said in your scenario that it was an SLSA aircraft. Of course by definition (part 1) It can't have more than two seats. I did not assume that you meant to try to fly both pax at once.

I tried to set the precedent by having the aircraft owner issue a formal complaint on me. (It was the only way to get the FAA to move on the issue). Their legal counsel said the complaint had no merit as no rule had been violated by me. This after almost a year of lost revenue for my customer.

Again, I would welcome the opportunity to become more involved in the SLSA area of aviation.

[chanik]

Well, noone took the bait. The correct answer is: Anytime, as long as their combined weight does not exceed 170lbs

[Doug Hereford]

I mis-quoted part 1 item 5. It says a maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons including the pilot. Part one defines a person as an individual. If Flight Design allows more than one person (individual) in a single seat, it would seem that their aircraft then does not meet the LSA definition. I don't see how one could legally fly more than one person in each seat, regardless of weight (or grade completed in school).

[chanik]

Like I implied with the 'bait' reference, it was a trick question. FAR91.107 says: "...each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing."

Seems to prohibit it, but it does not explicitly say 1 seat and 1 seatbelt per passenger. The FAA was formally questioned and settled the issue back in 1990 with legal guidance 1990-14 from FAA council

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/family_article6.html

http://www.ipilot.com/yaf/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=5847

 

AOPA (their legal advice is quite good) correctly adds to be carful the AOI does not expressly prohibit 2 people in a seat. FD's AOI does not so a pair of 85lb kids in the right seat is legal.

[Doug Hereford]

Section A of the airworthiness certificate for Light Sport Aircraft (FAA Form 8130-7)states the purpose of the certification as Light Sport Category Aircraft. The definition for Light Sport Aircraft includes a maximum seating capacity of two. I have not read the Operating Limitations attached to FD's airworthiness certificate, but any that I have read include one that prohibits operation for any purpose other than for which the aircraft was certificated. While your example doesn't violate 91.107 (or other part 91 rule that I know of) it does seem to violate Operating Limitation number One. As far as I know, the Operating Limitations attached to and a part of the Airworthiness Certificate would take precedence over the operating instructions (AOI?) from the manufacturer.

If FD's Operating Limitations attached to the airworthiness certificate don't include the one I noted above, then I guess you could legally do it.

[Doug G.]

OK, so I am new here. After reading through this - twice. I am left with the impression that there are LSA rules outside of the FAR. Am I correct in this, and if so, where are they to be found?

 

[i am also left with the impression that when it comes to legal issues talking to the FAA is like talking to the IRS - no one can give you a difinitiive answer that they can be held to leaving the only real answer - "talk to your lawyer"...who in turn will give an opinion an there is no solid answer unless you bring legal action. Sad.]