Rotax Training requirement

[Doug Hereford]

I received the attached letter a couple of days ago from one of my ASI's. I'm not sure I know what I'm doing when it comes to attachments so hopefully it is legible. At any rate, it speaks to the FAA's position on the Rotax training requirement. It also seems to clarify that although the FAA accepts ASTM consensus standards, they are not enforceable without regulatory basis.I would take this a step further to include the statement that manufacturers cannot legally impose ANY additional requirement on certificate holders outside of the regulations. IE TBO's, additional inspections, or Service Information.

[Jim]

Yeah. Been there, argued that. Attached is a letter I sent to Flight design a few months earlier.

 

All I have to add is that the Carpenters are really great people and have done an enormous service to light sport aviation. I just wished that this issue hadn't turned so contentious.

Request to Harmonize Flight Design Maintenance.pdf

[Doug Hereford]

Carol and I have been discussing this issue for about two and a half years. The source of the misinterpretation of the rules is not soley Carol Carpenter. Through the course of our discussions, unable to convince me that her postion was correct, she involved members of the FAA, specifically Van Stumpner out of Oklahoma (at the time, he was involved with FAA SLSA repairmen training programs). Members of the Light Sport branch, and AFS-300 in Washington DC headquarters were also involved. This ultimately resulted in the effective grounding of my customer's aircraft, and me being told (reluctantly) by my local FSDO inspectors to stop performing maintenance on these engines without factory training. My customer had his aircraft ferry flown to an individual at a remote base (who supposedly had the Rotax training) so that a condition inspection could be performed (our past condtion inspections were basically invalidated). My customer uses these aircraft in a part 141 flight school. The planes were grounded for about 4 months.

Through my talks with Mr. Stumpner, I could see that it was also his belief that what Rotax said was law. He was very cordial, but not any help at resolving the issue. AFS 300 in Washington DC are the ones who contacted the Manager of KC FSDO (my local office) and told him to tell me to stop work, and the owner to stop flying until maintenance could be rectified. They assured me that they would not persue a violation on me (or my employees) for past maintenance performed or the owner for past operations of the aircraft, but that we can't continue without following the Rotax requirement.

It was AFS-300's position that I/my certificated employees were violating section 43.13(a) when working on the engine without training as required in the Rotax manual. I was unable to move any further with AFS-300, so I had the owner of the aircraft draft up and submit a formal complaint on me alledging this violation, and submit it to the FAA through the FAR part 13 process. Eventually, the owner was contacted by the FAA chief counsel's office and informed that the complaint was invalid as there was no violation. AFS-300 (Murry Huling)then called me with a member of the chief counsel's office (Ed. Avermann) on a three-way call, and told me that it was a misunderstanding (on the FAA's part), and that I/my employees could resume working on the aircraft.

This whole process took about a year, and cost myself and my customer a lot of money. This was about a year and 1/2 ago.

My advise is to know the applicable rules and FOLLOW THE APPLICABLE RULES. If they allow you to perform preventative mx on your machine, then do it if you want to. It is NOT Flight Design (or any manufacturer) who gives you the authority in this country, it is the regulations, and just because their badge says FAA on it doesn't necessarily mean that they know any more about the rules then you or me.

[Jim]

Thank you.

[Jim Meade]

Doug,

 

I do not understand your post. These two sentences seem contradictory to me: The first sentence seems to say your complaint was not going to acted upon. The second sentence seems to say that something by someone was a misunderstanding. Did your letter prompt the FAA to say your complaint was no good but it was unnecessary in the first place?

 

" Eventually, the owner was contacted by the FAA chief counsel's office and informed that the complaint was invalid as there was no violation. AFS-300 (Murry Huling)then called me with a member of the chief counsel's office (Ed. Avermann) on a three-way call, and told me that it was a misunderstanding, and that I/my employees could resume working on the aircraft."

 

The following seems like good advice but assumes that everyone understands the rules the same way. Obviously, you pointed out earlier in the post that not everyone did. Do you mean the FARs as written?

 

"My advise is to know the applicable rules and FOLLOW THE APPLICABLE RULES."

 

It looks to me like the FAA gave ASTM a lot of leeway and now is slowly bringing the chickens back in the roost. It looks to me like there is good reason for past and continuing confusion. There are a lot of people with an emotional stake in this argument who are not going to lightly give up their position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim Meade]

Mechanics, how are you going to apply the OP?

 

Let's take a specific example. An SLSA comes to you and is due for the Rotax five year hose replacement. The owner says he has inspected the hoses and does not choose to change them. You inspect the hoses and don't find any obvious deficiencies. Are you going to follow the owners wishes and sign the hoses off? Are you going to try to persuade him to follow the Rotax schedule? Are you going to insist on the hose replacement per Rotax's schedule? If you insist on following the manufacturer's instructions, will you tell the owner up front so you won't even start the inspection unless he agrees to the Rotax schedule?

 

OK, what about a TBO on the engine?

 

A&P for standard certificated airplanes face these choices every day. In my admittedly limited observation, there is a great deal of individual judgment exercises in deciding what they will insist on and what not.

 

Did any of you read Mike Busch's article in the most recent EAA mag on flunking an annual and when it is a good deal for both the owner and the mechanic to flunk the inspection and move on? In that regard, I have a question. Is a condition inspection and an annual inspection the same in the sense that when it has been done you only need to correct deficieincies and don't need to have it inspected again?

 

I am good friends with a local A&P who has done some work on various LSA and really doesn't like to do it. Partly, that is because he is not familiar with them as he is with Piper and Cessna, and partly it's because the owners know they are different but can' explain authoritiatively how. If there is one thing I am taking to heart from all of this is the absolute necessity for the owner to know as much as he can about his responsibilities and about the maintenance process for LSA.

 

 

 

 

 

[Doug Hereford]

Jim,

I'm not sure I understand your question about the contradictions. Initially, the FAA (Washington) stated that Rotax training was required, and that we were in violation of FAR 43.13(a). They communicated this to my FSDO who told me to stop work, and the owner to stop flying until past mx could be rectified. We stopped, but as I was not in agreement with their (Washington's) postition, I continued to push the issue with no response from them. To get them to give a more formal answer, I had the aircraft owner submit a formal complaint on me IAW part 13. This apparently forced the FAA to act. Their legal counsel examined the complaint and stated that it did not meet the requirements of a formal complaint as there had been no violation of any rule. They (chief counsel) then communicated this to AFS-300 who then told me that it had been a misunderstanding of the rules on their part, and to go back to work.

The owner of the aircraft in question and I are, and always have been on good terms. He submitted the complaint reluctantly (as I could not complain about myself) and on my insistance to get the FAA to respond.

 

When I say follow the rules, I do mean the relevant regulations as written. As someone said eariler, good regulations should leave nothing to interpretation. I realize that according to some, the relevant SLSA rules may not necessarily live up to that standard. Generally I disagree with that claim.

 

Forums like this are, in my opinion, a great place to hammer out the meanings of the rules. Like you once said though, it is up to each individual to know and follow the rules that pertain to their specific situation. Not knowing is no excuse is it?

 

 

In my opinion, the regulations haven't given ASTM too much authority, but many members of the SLSA world both field and FAA, are attempting to. NOT GOOD. It is one thing to not know, but as I think you once eluded to, stating opinion as fact can have very negative consequences. If I speak about requirements, I will always quote a rule. If I don't, make me. If I can't, I will promptly retract and make it right.

 

If the chickens got out it is cuz somebody left the gate open, and not cuz there was a hole in the fence.

 

Doug Hereford

[Doug Hereford]

Jim,

I dont' know what OP is with regard to the question: "Mechanics, how are you going to apply the OP?"

I assume in your example, the aircraft came in for a condition inspection? I'm also going to assume that it could be any SLSA aircraft.

 

First of all, you are exactly correct when you say that inspector's judgement plays a hugh role in the determination of whether or not the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. That is what individuals are certifying if and when the condition inspection is signed off, and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

 

The term "Condition Inspection" is a legal term for a specific type of aircraft inspection. In the case of SLSA, the "nuts-and-bolts" of this inspection are defined by the aircraft manufacturer. This will always start with a checklist. The checklist will be of a scope and detail necessary to allow the certifying individual to determine that the aircraft is (or isn't) in a condition for safe operation. It must also include an inspection for required placards and instrument marking as per FAA approved operating limitations item 14, and inspection/research to determine the status of any applicable safety directives or airworthiness directives.

 

As for the hose replacement issue. The mechanic must inspect the hoses (you said that was done) for condition. If they are in a condition for safe operation, and no other discrepancies are found that could be related to un-safe hose condition, then baring any other un safe conditions, the aircraft can be approved for return to service by the mechanic, and subsequently returned to service by the pilot. The only other requirement that the mechanic would have prior to approval for return to service, would be to verify that there are no Safety Directives that would require hose replacement. It is also well to note that if the hoses were by chance produced under an FAA approval such as the TSO system, and have an airworthiness directive issued against them, if that AD requires hose replacement, then the owner would be have to comply with that requirement as well.

 

After all of that, I would advise the owner that the manufacturer thinks it is important enough to replace the hoses every five years that they have made it their requirement. I would also advise him that in my opinion 5 yr. hose replacement is a very good idea for a number of reasons (not going into those here). I would finally advise him that his decision to not replace the hoses in light of inspection findings does not preclude me from signing the Condition Inspection entry and approving the aircraft for return to service.

 

Same process as above for engine TBO.

 

Is a Condition Inspection" the same as an "Annual" inspection....................? If I understand what you are asking, my answer is yes. To perform a "Condition Inspection" one must perform it completely. It is an AIRCRAFT inspection. Once the entire inspection is performed, the aircraft is either approved for return to service by the person who performed the inspection (by certification statement as defined in FAA approved Operating Limitations), or it is not. If it is not appproved for return to service, then the person who performed the inspection must provide (in addition to required Unsafe Condition Inspection entry) the owner with a list of discrepancies. The inspection is done however, and the list of discrepancies are a part of the aircraft records until properly repaired and signed off. Essentially the individual who performed the inspection is certifing that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation EXCEPT for the noted discrepancies on the list dated and provided to the owner.

 

Finally, in my opinion you are exactly right again with you statement (paraphrasing) that the owner should know as much about the requirements related to mx as possible. The regulations make the pilot responsible for determining that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, and preclude him from operating it if it is unairworthy.

 

Doug Hereford

[Jim Meade]

Doug,

 

Thanks for the expanded explanation. It is useful to me.

 

 

[Doug Hereford]

Jim,

I also replied to the "Do I follow the 100 hr. or Annual Inspection schedule?" discussion in this same category of discussions. My response (last one in the thread as of now) is somewhat different than others, but I assure you that it is strictly based on regulation with regard to requirements. It could be considered a preface to my above response to your example.

 

To all,

 

I want to make another point with regard to the Rotax training issue.

Throughout my discussions with Carol, both she, and Rotax's Eric Tucker provided me with written comfirmation of Rotax's justification for their training requirement in their maintenance manual. Some of their points made good sense to me, however, there is one position that Rotax and others have tried to take that is potentially invalid, and could have negative effects on individuals who have taken Rotax classes in the past.

It has been argued by Rotax and others that their training is required to satisfy the requirements of FAR 65.81 (65.107 for repairmen althought Rotax never mentioned repairmen when arguing this point)with regard to an indivual's having prior successful completion of work before having approval for return-to-service authority. The FAA letter clearly states that "training" is not required beyond initial training for Certification. If Rotax training contains practical task performance as a part of its curriculum, as I believe it does, then it still may satisfy the requirements of 65.81, or 65.107 so long as the student successfully completes the work.

 

Here is the problem though: FAR 65.81 allows someone who has not had prior successful completion of work, the option to show their ability to do it under the supervision of someone certificated and properly rated under part 65 (A&P or repairmen) who has had experience with the relevant operation. As of my last research, only ONE instructor of the Rotax trainiing is certificated under part 65. This means that taking a class from a non-certificated instructor, DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS of 65.81/65.107 for prior successful completion of work even if practical tasks were successfully performed.

The irony of this situation, is that Rotax's position has included these regulatory requirements as justification for their training.

 

Bottom line is that if a person has taken Rotax training with the intention of using it to comply with FAR 65.81 or 65.107, they may have wasted their money.

As an aside to the above statement, I am not saying that I think the training itself is a waste of money, (I have no basis to have that opinion), just that it very likely didn't/doesn't cause the indivdual to comply with the regs.

 

Doug

[Tom Baker]

Doug, wouldn't 91.327 make the 5 year hose replacement and TBO required if the manufacture says to follow Rotax maintenance procedures for the engine? After all it does say it must be maintained by the procedures developed by the manufacture. The only way around this would be if someone designsted by the FAA says you don't have to.

[Jim]

Roger Lee's silence here is deafening...

[Doug Hereford]

Tom,

The concept of maintenance (inspection is by FAR part 1 definition, a kind of maintenance), preventative maintenance, and alteration basically has three components to it:

 

1. The WHEN, or when the maintenance is performed, or required to be performed.

2. The WHO, or who performs the maintenance, or is authorized to perform the maintenance.

3. The HOW, or how the maintenance is performed, or the methods, techniques, and practices utilized to perform the maintenance.

 

For the sake of this reply you can assume that when I say "perform maintenance" I mean to include preventative maintenance and alteration. Also when I say "perform maintenance" I mean approve for return-to-service, as that is obviously the end result of properly performed maintenance. Also for the sake of this reply you can assume that I am talking only about part 91 operations and SLSA aircraft except where noted.

 

A procedure is by definition (not in FARs, but Webster), a way of doing something. The HOW. For example: The condition inspection checklist is a part of the inspection procedure for a certain aircraft, and it may say to inspect the hoses for condition, routing, and security. It may even say to inspect a specific hose by performing a proof pressure test, in accordance with another procedure somewhere in the manual. Notice that nowhere in these was there any mention of WHEN to do the inspection procedure, or WHO is allowed to do it. If those items exist in the language, then they are not a part of the procedure, but additional requirements above and beyond the procedure. The individual performs the inspection procedure on the hoses, and based on his/her initial training, prior experience, and own judgement, determines that the hoses have no unsafe condition. He/she is done with the inspecion procedure. Again notice that there is nothing in this procedure about WHEN to change the hoses. If there is, it is not a part of the inspection procedure anymore.

 

The regulations that deal with maintenance(except required SLSA inspections) are found in the section 91.400's of part 91. WHEN maintenance is required (except aircraft inspections) is found in section 91.405. WHEN aircraft inspections are required is found in section 91.327. Nothing in either of these sections require changing of hoses or overhauling an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements for WHEN.

 

The WHO, and HOW requirements for maintenance are found in part 43 (specifically, WHO section 43.3, and HOW section 43.13). With Standard Airworthiness Aircraft, section 43.13 gives an individual three possible places to find maintenance procedures or methods, techniques and practices. We have to remember that in SLSA, the owner only has ONE choice (by way of 91.327) of where to find maintenance procedures, the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER. Again, there is nothing in part 43 that speaks to WHEN hoses have to be replaced, or the engine overhauled.

 

A manufacturer's maintenance manual (they call it by different names as the regulations don't specifiy what you have to call it) usually contains a bunch of stuff. In and amongst all the stuff are the legally required maintenance and inspection procedures. All of the other stuff is just stuff (I don't mean to say that it is not important, or that it should be ignored).

 

So lets forget the regs. for a minute. Ask yourself this question: Why do we ever perform maintenance (except for required inspections, preventative maintenance or alterations). I believe that we perform maintenance (parts replacement and overhaul are by definition, types of maintenance)to correct unsafe conditions. We perform required inspections to uncover unsafe conditions. We perform preventative maintenance to prevent unsafe conditions. So, except for the owner who "just wants it done" the only reason to replace parts, or overhaul an engine is because of an unsafe condition. Here is where the regulations come back into play. I perform a required condition inspection using the manufacturer's inspection procedures, and as a result of this inspection, no unsafe conditions are found. I can legally and ethically approve this aircraft for return to service. SLSA manufacturers are required by part 21 certification rule to monitor for, and correct unsafe conditions on their machine. They are required to do this by the issuance of Safety Directives (service bulletins, letters, alerts etc....ARE NOT the same as Safety Directives). Operators/owners are required by section 91.327 to comply with Safety Directives (certain exceptions are noted in 91.327). If the maufacturer thinks that not changing the hoses or not overhauling the engine presents an unsafe condition, then by law, they have to issue a Safety Directive to that effect. This where the manufacturer can control (by way of section 91.327)the WHEN component of maintenance. At the same time, we are required to use their inspection procedures. If these procedures are not adequate for the inspector to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, then by law, the manufacturer has to issue a Safety Directive with the additional necessary inspection procedures. In the case of alterations, the individual wanting to perform (or to have performed) the alteration must receive prior manufacturer approval for that alteration, and the manufacturer must determine if there are any additional inspection procedures as a result of the alteration, and provide those procedures.

 

To summarize: Part 91 controls the WHEN component of aircraft maintenance and also sends us to Safety Directives and Airworthiness Directives. Part 43 controls the WHO component of aircraft maintenance, and sends us to part 65. The HOW component of maintenance is controlled by part 43 except that as I said earlier, in the case of SLSA, section 91.327 limits the owner/operator to one source for the maintenance procedures, the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER. So in the same way that the Rotax training requirement is not a PROCEDURE, and therefore not legally required by any rule, requirements for WHEN to change hoses, and overhaul the engine are not either. Once hose change or engine overhaul become required however (due to an unsafe condition, or owners option), these items of maintenance must be performed in accordance with manufacturer's maintenance procedures.

 

Doug Hereford

[Jim Meade]

Doug,

 

Forgive me....I can't help myself. The word is preventive. No "a" and only one "t". That's the way the FAA spells it, not just me. Yes preventative is defined as a word by Webster, so it must be OK, but that word is not the one the FAA uses.

 

 

[Doug Hereford]

Jim,

 

Right on. Sorry for the error. Maybe your observation goes to show that a person can read something 100 times, and still not get it. I never noticed the fact that it is Preventive.

[Jim Meade]

Doug,

 

Your discussion of maintenance regs is very interesting. I am going to assume that you learned this as part of your training. Do you have some FAA references that support your explanation? The reason I ask is not because I don't believe you - your treatise was very persuasive - it's that short of religion, I've never seen any topic of discussion more contentious and disputatious than aviation regulations. If there is some FAA or perhaps industry discussion on this subject, I'd like to read it as well so that I could cite it if ever asked.

 

Thanks,

 

 

[Doug Hereford]

Jim,

 

To answer your question, the only references I have for my positions are the regulations. As I said before. If I make a statement where I refer to something as required, I will always be ready to reference a regulation. If I don't do that, make me do it. If I can't do it, I will have no choice but to retract the statement, and correct it. I use the same approach with customers when I tell them that something needs to be done to their aircraft (they need to spend money). Likewise, I expect others including the FAA to do the same. I have been lucky (or unlucky according to some) to have had (and continue to have) exposure to several different aviation operations. This tends to put me right in the center of the FAA's dart board most of the time. I will admit that my inspectors and I have not always agreed on every issue. Sometimes these disagreements have turned into eight hour long meetings and shouting matches where each of has said things that we later regret. I can say however that thus far, I have always come out on the right side of these disagreements. None has ever involved an issue with my, or my employees maintenance performance, but all could have ended up costing our customers a lot of money had I just backed down and assumed that "they are the FAA so they must be right".

Because of this, I made a business decision years ago to learn as much as possible about the relevant rules. At first, it was strictly for my and my employees own defense, but after a while, I began to develope the opinion that the regs. that we all should be living by actually do make sense for the most part. What's more, some of them were born from blood and a smokin' hole. I constantly hear people make the statement that following the regs. doesn't necessarily make it safe. My prompt answer is bull-sh!++. If any of us in this business discover an unsafe situation that is not corrected by following the rules, then it is our responsibility to get involved to correct it. I can honestly say that I have found very few of these such situations in my experience (not that I have tons of experience). The SLSA Safety Directive system is in my opinion, one such situation. As I have said before, I would welcome the opportunity to become a part of improving it (whole other topic).

 

As far as other discussions on this topic, I'm not a huge internet guy outside of aircraft parts and tech data, but I would imagine that there are several other discussions on the subject as we speak. FAA order 8620.2A does speak to the issue of manufacturer's authority, however it deals partly with Type Certificate Data which of course does not apply to SLSA. FAA orders are also not regulatory.

I've said it before, and I will continue to say it until someone can give solid regulatory evidence to the contrary, that with few exceptions, most of which I have stated in earlier replys, SLSA maintenance requirements aren't that different from Standard Airworthiness. The same debates over mandatory service bulletins, TBO's, and who is allowed to do what, have raged on in the "mainstream" aviation world since way before me. I recognize that SLSA maintenance is a hotly debated topic, with potentially a lot of fragile egos, but as I think you eluded to, maintenance regs. in general are hotly debated. I think it's an Aviatior thing. Aviation seems to draw the types of personalities who are strong-willed and passionate. Why else do we put up with the hours, pay and working conditions. I have a philosophy that I constantly repeat to other aviators; The best thing we can ever hope to achieve is that no one knows who we are. The only time aviation gets any attention is when something is wrong, or goes wrong. Mechanics exist to make the pilot's job as boring and possible, and pilots exist to make the passengers ride as boring as possible. Please let me be forever anonymous!

 

Doug

[Doug Hereford]

Jim,

 

After your last question and reference to Mike Busch's article on Flunking an Annual inspection, I took some time and read the article. I wanted to add one more instance that I can think of when I feel that it is actually be required to flunk an Annual inspection.

 

An owner uses his aircraft for flight training lets say, and it comes due for Annual. The inspection is performed and during the course of the inspection it is noted that there is structural damage to a wing rib, and skin which apprears to have come from an unreported hard landing. All other discrepancies have been cleared, but do to the extensive nature of the required repair for the structural damage, it has been determined that the aircraft will be down for approx. two to three months.

 

Technically, the Annual inspection should be signed off as soon as it is complete, and discrepancy list created as required by section 43.11. This may seem obvious, but I know that there are shops that will wait, and sign-off the inspection and repair together when the repair has been completed. The reason that this would be incorrect is that as the name implies, Annual inspections are due annually so as to ensure that the aircraft is looked at within that time frame before flown. If the signoff was delayed as in the above example, the aircraft would actually go 14 to 15 months before being inspected again.

 

One could apply this example to an annual Condition Inspection as well. If might even be a more likely possibility due to the potential delay that could arise while getting repair instructions from the manufacturer. It also make no difference that the example aircraft is used for flight instruction. I justed worded it that way because it was an actual situation that my shop dealt years ago on a Piper Arrow.

 

Doug

[Roger Lee]

You can reset the 100 hr and annual condition inspection time table as often as you want. I talked to the FAA and Rotax years ago and neither have a problem with it. You could do an annual condition inspection every other month if you felt like it and the new inspection date would be 12 months later. The same with the 100 hr. for Rotax. If you do it 25 hrs early of the regular 100 hr. time then the next one is 100 hrs after that last inspection. Many aircraft have been dormant past their annuals, so when you do the annual to catch up it starts the time again and it would be due 12 months later and if you include the 100 hr then 100 hrs later..

 

I always do both inspections so an owner doesn't need two inspections a year. The owner doesn't need to do the 100 hr then come back in let's say 3 months and do an annual condition.

 

Here is the best way. If you fly less than 100 hrs per year then you will get to the annual first. Then do the annual and include the 100 hr and get them both signed off in the logbook and the check list.

 

If you fly more than 100 hrs a year then do the 100 hr and include the annual condition and log these. Each resets the time.

 

I do the entire inspection check list for each inspection and don't skip an item just because it says it isn't due right then. You get the full Monty on every inspection. All bases are covered with the FAA, FD and Rotax.

 

 

If you sign that plane off in the example and the plane is down that additional few months then the owner just lost that much time on the annual condition for the next year and wasn't even able to use his plane. Why put them out the other months when it isn't necessary or required?

 

If the aircraft is going to be flown then yes it has to be signed off within that 12 months, but if it isn't being flown you aren't required to get an annual and can legally do it if it sat for 18 months and then reset the time with a fresh annual.. According to the FAA they don't care so long as the annual condition is current when the plane is being flown. If the plane sits and is not being flown the annual condition isn't a requirement. Hundreds of aircraft get out of annual each year and to put them back in service you need only the annual and then the 12 month time table starts from that date.

[Doug Hereford]

Roger,

Your are correct that an aircraft can sit forever, and nothing has to be done to it (inspections or otherwise). All maintenance requirements exist for flying aircraft. There are of course no maintenance requirements for non-flying aircraft.

In my example, delaying the Annual inspection sign-off by two to three months (while the aircraft is still in maintenanace) could in effect set-up a situation where-by the operator could end up flying an aircraft that had not been inspected in the preceeding twelve calendars months (as the regulations require).

Let me explain: Inspection is performed completely 3/15/00. Due to discrepancy list or whatever the reason, there is s going to be a delay in approval for return to service by maintenance. Time is now passing since the inspection was done. If as in my example above, two or three months pass (could be a different delay interval), then the aircraft is approved for return to service with Annual sign-off 6/10/00, now the official Annual calendar starts from there, and the next inspection is not due until 6/30/2001. The previous inspection was technically completed in March of the preceeding year. So during the months of April, May, and June 2001, if the aircraft is operated, it would be doing so in violation of section 91.409 (or in the case of SLSA 91.327) even thoough the records didn't reflect this.

The maintenance violation in this example would be section 43.11 as it requires the inspection sign-off to include the date that the inspection was performed (3/15/00 not 6/10/00).

 

Doug

[Doug Hereford]

To all,

Also, as I have stated in a previous post. A "Condition" inspection is the same scope and detail whether performed to meet an annual requirement of WHEN, or a 100 hr. requirement of WHEN. EVERY "Condition" inspection is therefore, the "Full Monty". The sign-off is also the same. The content of the Condition inspection sign-off for SLSA is found in FAA operating limitation 15 of the aircraft operating limitations which are a part of the airworthiness certificate for the aircraft. The inspection "next due" interval will automatically reset to be required again in 12 calendar months, or 100 hrs. (100 hrs. only if flown for hire).

Legally speaking, someone operating their aircraft not-for-hire could over-fly 100 hrs. time-in-service in one year, and not be in violation. This situation is one of the very few that I know of where following the rules could possibly cause a safety issue. Some of the aircraft we maintain fly over 1000 hrs. per year. Fortunately they fly for hire so there is no debate that they have a 100 hr. inspection. However, if they were flown that much privately, then by the letter of the law, they would only be required to have one Annual inspection ea. 12 calendar months. In this case I am speaking of Standard Airworthiness aircraft, however the same can be said for SLSA. Remember, the manufacturer does not control the WHEN component of aircraft maintenance, the regulations do.

 

I realize (by the last statement that I made) if I sleep with hornets, I will wake up stung! I don't personnaly recommend flying 1000 hrs. between aircraft inspections.

 

Doug

[Roger Lee]

Hi Doug,

 

First I do agree with a number of your items, but I have a but:

 

The different aircraft Mfg's and Rotax have different inspection items many times for the 25, 50, 100 hr and the annual condition inspection. So my premise is to always do the most encompassing inspection. The Full Monty. I include things to check that aren't on many Mfg's check list because they just forgot or didn't think it important. I see way too many inspection logbook entries that are either illegal or so poor no one knows what was really done. So I do it all every time to safeguard my client.

 

Here's my big hang up being a test case or pushing the limits. I have seen it before and you know how much money being a test case cost you personally and the aircraft user in your own case.

 

Coming from a 30 year career in public safety that included time in court for criminal and medical cases. If it isn't clear cut and there are two sides then it's more or less a test case and someone has to loose. Test cases cost money. The money my not just be hard out of pocket cash, but lost revenue, clients, product usage, insurance money and the hidden expense list goes on. So being a test case could cost as little as 5-10 annual inspection worth of money ($5k-$10K, that would be cheap) or it could cost as much as 120 annuals in cost. If not following a MFG's recommendation then insurance company jumps on the bandwagon and refuses to pay then add that cost to fight them in court and the possibility of the complete loss of your plane in an accident you may have to completely eat. Being a test case is not all it's cracked up to be unless you have money and time to toss away. It may cost hundreds of times less to go to Las Vegas, at least I can limit and control the amount of damage I want to do to myself.

 

Some of the subjects here are the FAA's interpretation at this point and aren't in a legal written document at this time. So if you don't follow certain items you will be the test case whether you volunteer or not. I would rather pay my $1000 a year and forego the legal, monetary and time expense, that way I get to keep my money, fly all I want and keep my happy smile until I can't fly anymore. These cases and items are now coming up in committees and in legal skirmishes and the ASTM standards need to fit in there too. So it may take a while for all the dust to settle.

[Doug Hereford]

Roger,

I've already stated my opinion; When it comes to aircraft maintenance, with VERY few exceptions, there is no difference between safe practices, and legal practices. So I will continue to stay legal to keep pilot's safe. As far as pushing the limits go, I am sure that I don't know what you mean. I don't think I've EVER suggested doing that.

 

I don't want to get off topic, or sound all soap-boxy here, but I happen to believe in the aviation system in this country, and am proud to be a part of it. That being said, am not going to give up any rights that are afforded me by our laws and if it takes being a test case to make things right, I will surely do it.

 

Doug Hereford

IAFF L64 KCKFD Battalion 1 "Strawberry Hill neighborhood", Fire Headquarters "The Q"

1's Pumper (Thrill on the Hill), first shift.

Driver/Medic, 22 years.

 

I've been to court a few times too! Glad to do it!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Doug,

 

I wasn't implying anything about you. It was just a general statement of my own and what others may or may not want to do.

[Doug Hereford]

Roger,

No problem. You know how firemen are. We can't ever let our feathers get ruffled.

 

If you know of errors or omissions in some manufacturer's inspection checklist that could present an unsafe condition, I hope that you have made them aware of it so that it can get corrected for the rest of us out in the field.

As I have said before, it is the aircraft manufacturer's legal responsibility to provide a "Condition Inspection" checklist (and other necessary inspection procedures) that is/are of a scope and detail to allow us to certify in good faith that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. I will say it again. EVERY, EVERY, EVERY SLSA "Condition" inspection is the "Full Monty".

 

Doug

 

Hope retirement's being good to you. I'm probably in for another ten. It's still a blast, but I'm tired of hearing the siren.