Rotax Can't Make You Go To School

[jnmeade]

My apologies for the formatting. Read the original letter to get the original formatting, which is helpful in understanding the letter. Also, this copy leaves out some important footnotes which further explain the decision.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... penter.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591

February 27,2012

Ms. Carol Carpenter
N 930 Marguerite Ave.
Corning, California 96021

Dear Ms. Carpenter:

This responds to your e-mail dated October 31, 2011, to Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. In that e-mail you requested a determination as to whether a mechanic or repairman must complete "factory training" and "recurrent training" that has been "mandated" by Rotax in its maintenance manual for an engine installed in an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category prior to performing work on that engine and approving the aircraft for return to service.

The rules applicable to the performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category are contained in part 43 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Section 43.3 of
that part specifically authorizes the holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in part 65. Section 43.13, which sets forth the performance rules applicable to work performed by these certificate
holders, states in paragraph (a) that:

Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in § 43 :16.

Part 43 does not mandate completion of initial or recurrent training prior to the performance of work by a certificated mechanic or repairman.
The requirements applicable to the issuance of mechanic and repairman certificates and the general operating rules for holders of those certificates are found in 14 CFR part 65. Section I Section 43.16 refers to airworthiness limitations.

65.81, which sets forth the general privileges and limitations applicable to holders of a mechanic certificate, states that:
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance,
preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part
thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments) and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95.
However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals for the specific operation concerned.

Neither that regulation nor any other regulation within part 65 mandates the completion of any initial or recurrent training in order for a certificated mechanic to perform work on an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part.

Similar provisions for persons holding a repairmen certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating are contained in § 65.107(d). The only training required to be completed by these certificate holders in order to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or an alteration to a light-sport aircraft consists of that training required to be completed for the initial issuance of the certificate specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of § 65.107.

Although manufacturers may reference regulatory requirements in their maintenance manuals, they may not impose additional requirements on mechanics or repairmen that are not contained in the regulations. 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.

The FAA strongly encourages mechanics and repairmen to obtain both initial and recurrent training. Training provided by a manufacturer may provide a mechanic or repairman with a means of obtaining the necessary understanding ofthe methods, techniques, and practices
required to properly perform work on an aircraft and its components. A manufacturer may not, however, use a maintenance manual to impose a training requirement on a certificated mechanic or repairman that is not set forth in a regulation.

This interpretation was prepared by Paul Greer, an attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and was coordinated with the Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) and the Regulatory Support Division (AFS-600) of the Flight Standards Service.

If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073.

Sincerely,

Rebecca MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-200)
Office of the Chief Counsel

[jnmeade]

Note that the FAA encourages mechanics to get factory training, but it refuses to let the manufacturers make it mandatory. Manufacturers can't make law.

Obviously, no one in their right mind, least of all the FAA, is going to encourage a person to work on an airplane unless the person is qualified. This letter is not an excuse to ignore the need for adequate training.

[Jim Stewart]

I am delighted beyond expression that this contentious issue is finally behind us. I've argued the position that the FAA took for the last 4 years.

There's two things I've learned about the FAA by hanging out with the Cessna and Beech drivers. 1) Regulations don't get cast into stone until the FAA counsel gives an opinion on them. 2) Don't ask the FAA for an opinion if you're not sure you'll like the answer.

We could learn something from them.

[ct4me]

I personally don't like the outcome... Government/FAA makes laws when enough people exhibit a lack of common sense or courtesy. So, how long will it be before unqualified mechanics kill a few people, before they change the regulations? Why would anyone try to escape maintenance or inspections suggested by the manufacturer, who knows a lot more than you? Maybe the manufacturers just have you sign a piece of paper that excuses them from liability if you don't follow suggested maintenance exactly?
I don't get it. The law says I can go through a Green light, legally. Common sense tells me I can go through a green light, after I've looked left/right and know the intersection is clear. Why would anyone wait until the FAA weighs-in on maintenance suggestions from the manufacturer?

[Jim Stewart]

FAR 91.7 The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.

There's no free pass here. Just the same rules and responsibilities that the rest of general aviation accepts and lives by.

[ct4me]

But wasn't one of the ideas behind LSA, that we get rid of some government, and replace it with some common sense and manufacturer responsibility? I like what Dan Johnson brought up... because LSA is "different", it costs a lot less to get "certified", and has allowed 130+ new designs to emerge in a time where almost no traditional GA aircraft have been born. It has brought with it innovation and encouraged entrepreneurs. If we end up aligning everything with "the old way", kiss GA goodbye.
The "old way" costs between $1-50 million to get a simple aircraft through the certification processes. As they say... unsustainable.

[roger lee]

This isn't anything new.
This decision has been out for 1-1 1/2 years. It has been discussed on several forums. I may still have the paper around in my computer file. We've talked about it in Rotax school more than a years during re-current traning. We talked about this a lont time ago on the CT forum too.
I have talked to many service centers around the US about this for the last 1.5 years. Since this decision was made some of the mechanics didn't go back for the re-current raining.

The FAA still says a mechanic has to have training, but it doesn't have to come from a specific Rotax school. The problem here is there is no enforcement or a way to check until an incident happens and then the investigation ensues. Then that mechanic if he never received any training is toast. Too many mechanics don't have the SB', SA's, SI's and many don't even have the manuals which are required in the shop. It also specifies that a mechanic has the proper tools to work on the Rotax engine. That doesn't always happen either. So the bottom line was the FAA legal gave some of these mechanics a false sense of security saying they could work on the Rotax that is until you screw up then we'll hammer you and the owner can sue you. Then you have people interpreting the rule to mean anyone can work on a Rotax no matter what because they have an A&P next to their name.
This is a buyer beware issue for the owner and mechanic.

As far as the owner goes he is supposed to know if the mechanic is qualified under the FAA ruling and if the mechanic isn't then basically the inspection may be illegal which leave the owner hanging. The FAA says they don't like the decision from their legal, but they have to live with it because it opened the door for poor quality control for Rotax engine maint.

I don't think this book has a final chapter in it for some folks.

Don't think Rotax is in the engine business as it's main focus they are a parts business, they do go out of their way to make sure the info is out there to keep the engine up, but there are plenty of owners that make Rotax millions a year in parts sales and keep mechanics in a well funded business. Fixing untrained poor previous work probably accounts for at least 30% of my business. If it wasn't for parts many companies would go out of business if all they did was sell an engine and it stayed in good shape for its life.

This is all FAA legal could impose:

"The FAA strongly encourages mechanics and repairmen to obtain both initial and recurrent training. Training provided by a manufacturer may provide a mechanic or repairman with a means of obtaining the necessary understanding ofthe methods, techniques, and practices required to properly perform work on an aircraft and its components."

By the way catching a person with no training is a piece of cake. No place to hide. The most common thing that an untrained person does is put anti seize on the plugs or when you talk about silicone on the exhaust springs they have that far away stare and they don't have a clue to what your talking about. Or you ask them to describe how to check the slipper clutch torque (they don't even know where it is), where the mag plug is, what's the plug torque. All these are taught at first grade Rotax Service school and are just a few of the very basics, but if you've never been taught then you're caught and as a mechanic you are fully liable to the FAA with your license and the owner in court.
This has already cost some mechanics big bucks having to fix something they ruined.
Like I said, false sense of security.

My problem isn't that someone doesn't go to Rotax school it's they never get any Rotax training nor have any documentation to help them.

Now what was that saying Forest Gump and his mother said?

[Jim Stewart]

I guess it's just a miracle that all those turbojet engines and vintage radials and Menesco's manage to stay in the air without the FAA requiring the A&P's to be factory trained on them.

[roger lee]

Jim,

But they did get training from somewhere and some companies that service engine require their personnel to go to factory school. Too much liabilty money on the table not to.

The issue with Rotax is that too many aren't getting it because too many look at them as a toy and not a real aircraft engine like a $100K turbo and why get any training they must be exactly like a Continental or Lycoming. Too bad these attitudes exist, if they didn't most of our debate here would be moot because they would be smart enough to know they need some education.

If you go back far enough on this forum I believe it was discussed back in 2010.

[Jim Stewart]

They either got training from the factory, from another mechanic, or from manuals that were accurate enough that training wasn't necessary. But you know that. My point is that the system seems to work for everyone else.

We both know the history of this. You and Carol drew a line in the sand, with support and encouragement from Lockwood and Rotax. You even thought that since you had the ear of the light sport people in the FAA, that you had to be right. But, as I said in an earlier post, no FAA regulation interpretation becomes cast in stone, regardless of the source, until FAA counsel issues an opinion.

If the system doesn't work because mechanics are breaking engines, find a way to educate those mechanics. If owners can't be trusted to change their own oil and plugs, educate them on how to do it.

Here's a nice webpage on aircraft owner maintenance....
http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/190057-1.html

[jnmeade]

our debate here would be mute.

Mute means silent.

moot1    [moot] Show IPA
adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

Often, we use moot to mean that we can argue about it but it won't change anything or doesn't matter.

Mute? Here? (Big grin) Most of us are probably not mute enough.

[jnmeade]

I kind of wish that Rotax and Flight Design would do a wholesale review of their manuals to bring them in line with U.S. FAA regulations, but as Roger pointed out in an earlier post, that is not likely to happen. Therefore, it doesn't hurt too much to review the situation so all know the regs and so that the importance of maintenance training can be reinforce.

[fredg]

The FAA decision was the right one. Otherwise, Rotax, or any other manufacturer, can specify any level of mandatory training for mechanics who want to maintain the manufacturer's products (and change them over time). In essence, they can hold the owners and the mechanics hostage to their rule, at their price.

Rotax (and other manufacturers) have another path, if they want. They can create a "Rotax Certified" status. It would be voluntary, but it would designate those mechanics who have met whatever requirements Rotax wants for initial and recurrent training. The mechanic gets official Rotax certification which they can use to market their services. Owners would then have an option for a mechanic who meets Rotax training specifications but could also, as their choice, have other mechanics work on the engine. And, a mechanic could either get the certification and get the extra business, or not, as their choice.

Fred

[drseti]

Yes, this has been discussed about two years ago. To reiterate a few points:

The fact is, every tech school or community college that trains A&Ps gives extensive training on Lycoming and Continental engines. Does any of them train on the Rotax? Probably not. So, a mechanic graduates with an A&P certificate, is legally entitled to work on engines, and is qualified to maintain Lycomings and Continentals. Does that make him or her qualified to work on the Rotax, which is a different animal entirely? Probably not.

Getting Rotax qualified is pretty simple, if the mechanic cares. The Service Level and Maintenance Level courses run only 16 hours each, and cost only a few hundred dollars, but provide a wealth of information. Decades back, I took the Lycoming factory course in Williamsport, because I wanted to know more about the engine that provided my thrust. Why should I not want to know as much about the Rotax I now fly? So, of course factory training (or equivalent) is a very good idea.

Whether the manufacturer (or the FAA) should be able to mandate it is another question altogether (one that has apparently been answered).

[roger lee]

Hi Fred,

Rotax already has this in place and the other thing Rotax can do is deny warranty. Rotax has Maint. Techs and IRC's (Independent Repair Center). IRC means you have gone to all the schools, are current in training and perform Rotax maint. on a regular basis. I'm an certified IRC and the only one for Arizona. Depending on what the issue is or how bad the warranty claim it could be a very slippery slope for an owner and Rotax will demand that the repair be done at a Rotax facility if they cover the warranty. They are already doing this. FAA has absolutely no say over warranty and where the work can be done.