Another aspect to consider is the fact that LSA's are built according to the ASTM Consensus Standard/s. As mentioned in Part 1, in the early days of LSA regs, some assumed that only the ASTM standards applied.
"Major repair, alteration, or maintenance---any repair, alteration, or maintenance for which instructions to complete the task excluded from the maintenance manual supplied to the consumer are considered major."
"Minor repair, alteration, or maintenance--any repair, alteration, or maintenance for which instructions provided for in the maintenance manual supplied to the consumer of the product are considered minor."
So, a strict reading of the ASTM standard language would indicate that minor repairs or alterations are any for which that the manufacturer provides written instructions in the manual..and major repairs are everything else. This is where much of the early misinterpretation came about. Using this interpretation, given the simplicity and lack of written instructions of most "manuals" almost every maintenance task could be defined as "major".
In 2012, the FAA's Chief Counsel made it clear: "These maintenance manuals, however are not FAA approved and without a regulatory basis.." so the manufacturer's maintenance manual's content or lack thereof does not determine what is minor and major nor who can perform the associated tasks. The FAA makes that determination.
Certainly, one can argue that the manufacturer is uniquely qualified to evaluate major repairs and alterations, but the FAA or "person acceptable" to the FAA is also "qualified" when determined to be qualified according to regulations--specifically Part 43. When dealing with avionics like ADS-B equipment, it could be argued that someone other than the manufacturer of the plane is best qualified to approve an alteration. When dealing with the structure of the fuselage or wings and systems produced by the manufacturer, it could be argued that the manufacturer would be the best qualified.
When it comes to minor alterations, it seems very clear that the FAA relies on and trusts the ability and judgement of the A&P who is clearly a "person acceptable" to the FAA when it comes to making minor alterations and repairs. No Form 337 required to be filed like with a major repair--just a notation by the A&P in the log book.
FAR 1.1 is clear as a bell regarding what is major and minor. If not major, it is minor.
Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications—
(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.
Major repair means a repair:
(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.
And, the FAA makes it even more clear that a minor alteration or repair is anything not listed in the Part 43 Appendix A. (See below) It is very hard for anyone to support the argument that adding a temperature gauge (EGT, CHT, CAT, OAT) or an electronic attitude indicator to an S-LSA would require an MRA approval from the plane manufacturer. Such an addition is clearly not a major alteration, and if an aircraft specfic appliance properly installed by a qualified A&P according to industry standards/methods, would be a step toward improving safety.
(One important distinction between minor and major alterations/repairs is what "data" can be used. The terms "acceptable to" and "approved" are important distinctions. The term "data" is not just statistics, it is "regulatory speak" for defined methods that in essence is generally accepted aircraft industry standards, in writing or by example when incorporated in approved aircraft. The FAA has made it quite clear what "acceptable to" means. A illustrative article can be reviewed by clicking on this link:
AOPA Article--2014 "Major vs Minor"
A useful quote from the article: "If the installer uses the same mounting methods to the same structure of the aircraft, he or she could logically conclude that they are using acceptable data provided by the manufacturer when they designed the original. The point is that, for any minor alteration, the installer should be able to demonstrate logical reasoning and a clear path from existing data to the work that they have done."
That being said, consulting the plane manufacturer for advice is using good judgment. They may have had experience with another pilot's issue and may have valuable insight on how best to accomplish a specific alteration or repair. It improves your understanding of "acceptable data" from the manufacturer. Whether your plane is an S-LSA or an E-LSA, the factory is a valuable resource.
And, it can be argued that in the situation where the plane manufacturer is no longer in business, and therefore an MRA is a mute issue, an S-LSA can still have minor alterations and minor repairs simply by gaining the approval of an A&P according to normal Part 43 regulations---converting to an E-LSA with a new airworthiness certificate NOT being a requirement.
There is no logic in the argument--if you don't want to, or can't get an MRA from the manufacturer, just convert it to an Experimental. (E-LSA) In that case, the same proposed alteration or repair being considered, instead of having to be approved and performed by a professional A&P, could be approved by a Private Pilot Owner. Certainly there are many Pilots that are quite proficient in making repairs or alterations, but it would be absurd to argue that requiring a professional A&P does not improve the probability that the alteration/repair is appropriate and performed correctly. So, keeping the plane in the S-LSA world is not something that should be discouraged or unnecessarily difficult.
When it comes to major alterations and repairs, it is a different matter. FAA Advisory Circular 65-32a dated February 2013 gives clarification. "Major Alterations. If the owner (of an S-LSA) wants a major alteration such as a new engine/propeller combination installed on the aircraft, the owner must obtain the manufacturer’s consent and all applicable data prior to making the alteration." So, if an alteration is "major" (according to Part 43) then it requires manufacturer's approval. (Unless such an alteration is mandated by the FAA, such as is the case with ADS-B appliances.)
Without such approval, the plane would have to be changed to E-LSA with a new Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations. This could be by the plane owner's choice or because the manufacturer is no longer in business. Once an E-LSA, a non-certificated person may perform repairs and alterations, but if a non-certificated person performs a major alteration, then the plane owner must apply for a completely new Airworthiness Certificate.
One additional comment. Many argue that alterations with components or parts where an STC has been issued by definition are a major repair. This is simply not the case. STC's are included in Part 21: STCs are born and raised as an airworthiness standard under “Part 21: Certification Procedures for Products and Articles.” Whereas aircraft alterations, a performance standard, are found under “Part 43: Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration.” STC's exist for parts whose installation could be considered minor or major. (re: STC-Major-or-Minor-Alteration.asp )
Finally, if your plane is no longer in production (many S-LSA's inlcluding my 2007 Sport Cub are in this category) then FAA AC 23-27 is an important read.
"This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance for substantiating parts or materials substitutions to maintain the safety of old or out-of-production general aviation (GA) aircraft.." and "(4) You may use previously approved (per STC or field approval) part/material substitutions on like-type aircraft. If the part/material is installed with previously approved parts or material, PMA, technical standard order (TSO), NAS etc., and if it is completed in a similar manner consistent with a previous field approval or SIC, you may use those approvals as the basis for approval on your aircraft."
No comments:
Post a Comment