In addition as an Aircraft Owner, understanding the FAR's regarding plane ownership and maintenance is also important for safe and legal operation.
The FAR's are part of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), generally referred to specifically as 14 CFR Part "xxx". Many of these FAR's can be traced back to 1965. Before that they were referred to as Civil Air Regulations.
Federal regulations can be complicated. Interpretations can vary. And, they tend to change from time to time. In addition, the FAA publishes Advisory Circulars from time to time that attempt to "clarify" how the regulations are to be interpreted and enforced.
Pilots and Aircraft Owners are not required to be trained/licensed attorneys, but they are expected to achieve a working understanding of "the rules". This can only be accomplished by a diligent study.
Most experienced General Aviation Private Pilots and Aircraft Owners are familiar with the FAR's for 14 CFR Part 23 that address Airworthiness, including regulations regarding maintenance and alterations as well as Part 43 that also addresses maintenance and alterations of small aircraft.
It is wise to read the entire text of both of these parts. It is also important to think through and rationalize the "purpose" of all these rules. Namely, to enhance and protect the safety and general welfare of pilots and the general public.
In 2004, the FAA introduced a new category of planes called Light Sport (LSA). (i.e. LSA instead of Normal. The CC11-100 Cub Crafters is a type, designated PA11--certificate A-691) Instead of a "standard" airworthiness certificate (as with Part 23), these planes were granted a "special" airworthiness certificate. Additionally, instead of the certification standard system used for Part 23, these planes would use industry "consensus standards" from the ASTM with the FAA delegating some responsibilities conditionally to the LSA manufacturer. (Note the words: "some responsibilities conditionally".
The Part 23 world has a long history of relying on Certified Mechanics, Certified Inspectors, Certified Repair Stations and Certified Products to maintain the GA "fleet" according to regulations and safe operation. The LSA rules continued to use the same, except, LSA manufacturers were given some control over aircraft maintenance and alteration while adhering to the "consensus standards". Keep in mind the "logical principle" here: the LSA manufacturer does not submit the design of the aircraft to the FAA--it simply provides a Statement of Compliance and Flight Test. Since it is the "person" most familiar with the aircraft design and construction, the FAA logically gives the LSA manufacturer authority to approve maintenance procedures and alterations. This is particularly logical considering non certified (STC) products might be added and the manufacturer is most familiar with the airframe. Also, when LSA's were introduced, the FAA also authorized LSA repairmen (with significantly less training than A&P's) to make repairs.
Enter 14 CFR Part 91.327- Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. . This is a very important part for LSA's.
It is also very important to keep in mind that Part 43 applies to LSA's. It is not replaced by 91.327. Part 43 applies to any plane with an airworthiness certificate, other than "experimental". So, if your plane is a Special-Light Sport S-LSA, BOTH 91.327 and 43 are important. (A S-LSA is a Light Sport built by the manufacturer--N998SC is a S-LSA)
Along the way, a few issues surfaced. Some LSA manufacturers were too lax. But, some overreached their authority. Both issues required FAA action. The first issue was addressed in 2011 and followed in 2012 by another--known as the "Rotax" issue. (I will refer to the 2012 letter first.) In a letter from the Office of the FAA Chief Counsel, (the Carpenter letter) the FAA states:
"The FAA recognizes that some manufacturers have placed what they deem "training requirements" in their maintenance manuals and that these provisions may be consistent with consensus standards accepted by the FAA. These maintenance manuals, however, are not FAA approved and without a regulatory basis, these training provisions are non-enforceable."
Up until this letter, most "commentators" and many LSA manufacturers had proclaimed that the LSA manufacturer could state in their maintenance manual that authorization for repairs/alterations and return to service afterward was by the sole discretion and control of the LSA manufacturer. The FAA stated otherwise. In fact the FAR's are clear in their plain language: "authorized by EITHER the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA." In the "Rotax" case, those persons authorized in Part 43 are persons "acceptable to the FAA" and the FAA clearly stated that LSA Maintenance Manuals ARE NOT FAA approved and are non-enforceable without a "regulatory basis".
The 2011 issue addressed (the MacMillan letter) by the Office of the Chief Counsel was similar.."A a general proposition, manufacturer's maintenance manuals...are not FAA-approved and are not mandatory..If they were, and compliance were required, this would be tantamount to private entities issuing "rules" of general applicability without first meeting the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the public would not have had the opportunity to comment on these future program and airworthiness limitations changes."
The FAA further stated that the person approved "must do the work such that, at its completion the productis at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with respect to the specified airworthiness qualities.....in order for the FAA to sustain a violation of 43.13(a), the agency would have to show how the method, technique, or practice used was unacceptable."
The FAA encourages Aircraft Owners and other acceptable persons associated with the process of inspection, repair and alteration to follow manufacturers recommendations, but to also consider other practices acceptable to the FAA. Keep in mind that goal to "enhance and protect the safety and general welfare of pilots and the general public."
So the FAR's require S-LSA owners to follow the manufacturers recommendations and instructions OR other practices acceptable to the FAA.
Probably the best practice is to follow a path "acceptable to the FAA" that is most likely to produce the result of the "highest" level of safety.
In most instances, this probably is the path that follows the LSA manufacturers recommendations and instructions----however in the case of highly technical components and systems, generally certified by the FAA for use in Part 23 aircraft, the person/s designated/trained by the component manufacturer (a Part 145 Repair Station for example) is probably the most qualified "acceptable" person to make repairs/alterations. The LSA Maintenance Manual is very important, but it does not over-ride FAR 91.327 or Part 43 regulations. Your airplane's Airworthiness Certificate cannot be rendered "invalid" by a LSA manufacturer--it can be rendered "ineffective" by a lack of compliance with Part 43 or 91.327.
There is an allowance for a S-LSA to be moved to a E-SLA or "experimental" status which essentially reduces the influence of the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual and gives additional authority to the Aircraft Owner. Even in the case of this change in category from S-LSA to E-LSA (previously a S-LSA), it would be consistent with the goal to "enhance and protect the safety and general welfare of pilots and the general public." by always doing what is BEST rather than just acceptable. In other words---generally following recommendations of the "most qualified person acceptable to the FAA" and the spirit of Part 43 for every action that could affect safety of flight.
"The FAA recognizes that some manufacturers have placed what they deem "training requirements" in their maintenance manuals and that these provisions may be consistent with consensus standards accepted by the FAA. These maintenance manuals, however, are not FAA approved and without a regulatory basis, these training provisions are non-enforceable."
Up until this letter, most "commentators" and many LSA manufacturers had proclaimed that the LSA manufacturer could state in their maintenance manual that authorization for repairs/alterations and return to service afterward was by the sole discretion and control of the LSA manufacturer. The FAA stated otherwise. In fact the FAR's are clear in their plain language: "authorized by EITHER the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA." In the "Rotax" case, those persons authorized in Part 43 are persons "acceptable to the FAA" and the FAA clearly stated that LSA Maintenance Manuals ARE NOT FAA approved and are non-enforceable without a "regulatory basis".
The 2011 issue addressed (the MacMillan letter) by the Office of the Chief Counsel was similar.."A a general proposition, manufacturer's maintenance manuals...are not FAA-approved and are not mandatory..If they were, and compliance were required, this would be tantamount to private entities issuing "rules" of general applicability without first meeting the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the public would not have had the opportunity to comment on these future program and airworthiness limitations changes."
The FAA further stated that the person approved "must do the work such that, at its completion the productis at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with respect to the specified airworthiness qualities.....in order for the FAA to sustain a violation of 43.13(a), the agency would have to show how the method, technique, or practice used was unacceptable."
The FAA encourages Aircraft Owners and other acceptable persons associated with the process of inspection, repair and alteration to follow manufacturers recommendations, but to also consider other practices acceptable to the FAA. Keep in mind that goal to "enhance and protect the safety and general welfare of pilots and the general public."
So the FAR's require S-LSA owners to follow the manufacturers recommendations and instructions OR other practices acceptable to the FAA.
Probably the best practice is to follow a path "acceptable to the FAA" that is most likely to produce the result of the "highest" level of safety.
In most instances, this probably is the path that follows the LSA manufacturers recommendations and instructions----however in the case of highly technical components and systems, generally certified by the FAA for use in Part 23 aircraft, the person/s designated/trained by the component manufacturer (a Part 145 Repair Station for example) is probably the most qualified "acceptable" person to make repairs/alterations. The LSA Maintenance Manual is very important, but it does not over-ride FAR 91.327 or Part 43 regulations. Your airplane's Airworthiness Certificate cannot be rendered "invalid" by a LSA manufacturer--it can be rendered "ineffective" by a lack of compliance with Part 43 or 91.327.
There is an allowance for a S-LSA to be moved to a E-SLA or "experimental" status which essentially reduces the influence of the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual and gives additional authority to the Aircraft Owner. Even in the case of this change in category from S-LSA to E-LSA (previously a S-LSA), it would be consistent with the goal to "enhance and protect the safety and general welfare of pilots and the general public." by always doing what is BEST rather than just acceptable. In other words---generally following recommendations of the "most qualified person acceptable to the FAA" and the spirit of Part 43 for every action that could affect safety of flight.
No comments:
Post a Comment