Recommended or Required?

H. Paul Shuch is a Light Sport Repairman with Maintenance ratings for airplanes, gliders, weight shift control, and powered parachutes, as well as an independent Rotax Maintenance Technician at the Heavy Maintenance level. He holds a PhD in Air Transportation Engineering from the University of California, and serves as Director of Maintenance for AvSport of Lock Haven.

Moderator: drseti

Post Reply
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Recommended or Required?

Post by MrMorden »

I'm re-posting this from the CTFlier Forum, since I think folks here will also be interested...


Here's a great article from The Savvy Aviator (Mike Busch) on recommended vs. required maintenance. The takeaway is that maintenance specified in a manufacturer's service bulletin is *never* required, it is only recommended, and this is backed up by a letter of interpretation obtained from the FAA's office of general counsel.

http://www.avweb.com...ed199001-1.html

From the article:

No manufacturer can mandate any maintenance requirement on a Part 91 aircraft owner; only the FAA can do so.The FAA may mandate a maintenance requirement in three different ways:

1) Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the aircraft, engine or propeller;

2) In the In an FAA-approved "Airworthiness Limitations" section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness; or

3) In an Airworthiness Directive.


If a maintenance requirement is not mandated by the FAA in one of these three ways, then it is not required by regulation for a Part 91 operator.




While Mike Busch generally deals with certificated aircraft, I believe this also applies to us in the LSA world, with a few changes:

1) In the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the aircraft, engine or propeller; -- We have no type certificate, so this does not apply.

2) In an FAA-approved "Airworthiness Limitations" section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness; or

3) In an Airworthiness Directive. -- LSA do not have ADs, instead this would be a Service Directive.

Otherwise, since this applies to all part 91 operators, this should also be true for LSA. Of course, there are numerous other reasons to comply with service bulletins such as safety, warranty, or just wanting to abide by manufacturer's recommendations. But it's good to know what is required, vs simply recommended, so that as issues come up we can make informed choices specific to our circumstances on whether a particular maintenance item makes sense in our case.

Enjoy, and let the arguments begin! :)
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by CTLSi »

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Fri Dec 26, 2014 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by drseti »

MrMorden wrote:LSA do not have ADs, instead this would be a Service Directive.
Actually, the term used in FAR 91.417(a)(2) [as amended in 2010] is "Safety Directive." Rotax calls theirs "Safety Alerts," but I interpret their intention as having been "Safety Directive" (with something lost in translation), so I also treat those as mandatory.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by drseti »

CTLSi wrote:Do what the manufacturer says
Generally, I concur with CTLSi, and tend to do all Service Bulletins on my plane (except for the ones the manufacturer marks as "optional" or "informational"). On a customer's aircraft, I make strong recommendations to comply, but in the final analysis, it is up to the customer to decide.

When it comes time for a condition inspection, in the case of a Safety Directive there's just no way I can sign off as "in a condition for safe operation" if it hasn't been complied with. For any other SB, I make a logbook entry to the effect that it has not been complied with "at owner's request." That covers my a$$.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by MrMorden »

drseti wrote:
CTLSi wrote:Do what the manufacturer says
Generally, I concur with CTLSi, and tend to do all Service Bulletins on my plane (except for the ones the manufacturer marks as "optional" or "informational"). On a customer's aircraft, I make strong recommendations to comply, but in the final analysis, it is up to the customer to decide.

When it comes time for a condition inspection, in the case of a Safety Directive there's just no way I can sign off as "in a condition for safe operation" if it hasn't been complied with. For any other SB, I make a logbook entry to the effect that it has not been complied with "at owner's request." That covers my a$$.
This post was intended only to address what is required, not what's prudent. I would also recommend complying unless there is a strong case for not doing so.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by Nomore767 »

This post was intended only to address what is required, not what's prudent. I would also recommend complying unless there is a strong case for not doing so.[/quote]

Andy,

I take your point. For me I like to to know what I HAVE to do, what I'm RECOMMENDED to do, or what I'm ADVISED to do.

That being said, imagine you're going to a FSDO to explain 'what happened' to an inspector, and you bring along your log-books. Or you're in court as part of a law-suit, and the lawyers parse the terminology 'required, legal, advisory' etc etc…they can make you look negligent and dangerous in just a few minutes. A jury of non-pilots will probably deem you a major criminal!

I was part of a corporate crew when we had an engine fire on the ground. There was a faulty part in the engine fuel control. The company disbanded the flight dept ( only one plane) but we still had to appear in court in front of a jury when our employer sued the aircraft manufacturer and the engine manufacturer to recover their loss. The lawyers looked at our licenses, training, personal lives and delved deeply into the logs looking for an out or a culprit. The logs were complete and all the big and little things had been complied with and well documented. They tried hard to make us look bad but in the end the jury found for our employer. However, it was a stressful experience I must say.

At the airline we had a philosophy of 'fly today like you'll be explaining it tomorrow at the hearing." If you look at it this way, it's just as easy to complete, comply and document. You'll sleep better.

Not disagreeing with you at all, just adding another viewpoint.
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by 3Dreaming »

drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:LSA do not have ADs, instead this would be a Service Directive.
Actually, the term used in FAR 91.417(a)(2) [as amended in 2010] is "Safety Directive." Rotax calls theirs "Safety Alerts," but I interpret their intention as having been "Safety Directive" (with something lost in translation), so I also treat those as mandatory.
According to the FAA Safety Directives are issued by the manufacturer of SLSA aircraft. Since Rotax is not the manufacturer of the aircraft anything issued by them does not by regulation require any action, unless so directed by the aircraft manufacturer in the form of a Safety Directive.
Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by Nomore767 »

3Dreaming wrote:
drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:LSA do not have ADs, instead this would be a Service Directive.
Actually, the term used in FAR 91.417(a)(2) [as amended in 2010] is "Safety Directive." Rotax calls theirs "Safety Alerts," but I interpret their intention as having been "Safety Directive" (with something lost in translation), so I also treat those as mandatory.
According to the FAA Safety Directives are issued by the manufacturer of SLSA aircraft. Since Rotax is not the manufacturer of the aircraft anything issued by them does not by regulation require any action, unless so directed by the aircraft manufacturer in the form of a Safety Directive.
Rotax currently has a 'mandatory' SB out for the 912 carb floats. They require inspection, whether you have fuel dripping, leaking, sunken floats, heavy floats, or a rough running engine. There's a guy at my field who flies an LSA and I asked him if he'd had any problems. He had no knowledge of it but said he 'might' look into it.

So, worse case scenario, his engine runs rough, quits and he crashes into a house causing damage to himself, his plane and people on the ground, plus their property.
In the resulting investigation and possible/probable lawsuit…Rotax could say he was negligent in not following their mandatory SB, especially since he had the very issue the SB was intended to address. The aircraft manufacturer could say he didn't operate the airplane properly, because he didn't maintain the engine correctly, and his logs would reflect that. His ignorance of the issue, or decision to ignore as it wasn't 'required', could sway the Feds, and a jury, that he operated his airplane in a negligent manner with all sorts of subsequent penalties.

In the end the individual can decide if the mandatory SB isn't really mandatory, or required and maybe parsing the regs may provide some support. He may even be 'legal'.
On the other hand he could feel that if Rotax feel it necessary to make a frequent inspection prudent a wise and safer way to go. He would at least have better ammunition in court.
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by 3Dreaming »

Nomore767 wrote: Rotax currently has a 'mandatory' SB out for the 912 carb floats. They require inspection, whether you have fuel dripping, leaking, sunken floats, heavy floats, or a rough running engine. There's a guy at my field who flies an LSA and I asked him if he'd had any problems. He had no knowledge of it but said he 'might' look into it.

So, worse case scenario, his engine runs rough, quits and he crashes into a house causing damage to himself, his plane and people on the ground, plus their property.
In the resulting investigation and possible/probable lawsuit…Rotax could say he was negligent in not following their mandatory SB, especially since he had the very issue the SB was intended to address. The aircraft manufacturer could say he didn't operate the airplane properly, because he didn't maintain the engine correctly, and his logs would reflect that. His ignorance of the issue, or decision to ignore as it wasn't 'required', could sway the Feds, and a jury, that he operated his airplane in a negligent manner with all sorts of subsequent penalties.

In the end the individual can decide if the mandatory SB isn't really mandatory, or required and maybe parsing the regs may provide some support. He may even be 'legal'.
On the other hand he could feel that if Rotax feel it necessary to make a frequent inspection prudent a wise and safer way to go. He would at least have better ammunition in court.
Please don't read more into what I said than is there. I was simply pointing out it is the manufacturer of a SLSA who has the authority to issue Safety Directives and not Rotax.

Legal and safe are to completely different things. As a aircraft mechanic my number one concern with any aircraft I work on is safety, before anything else.
Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by Nomore767 »

Agree, and wasn't trying to read more into it.

Rather, I see some folks debating the "FAA required" versus the "mandatory Service Bulletin" (for example) and trying to decide whether to comply based on whether they SHOULD or whether they HAVE to. Like you said, I think the emphasis should be on the safety aspect and that if the manufacturer has a concern then it should be our responsibility to follow up in the interests of safety.
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Re: Recommended or Required?

Post by Jack Tyler »

"Legal and safe are to completely different things."

What's that old repair station saying? When doing a repair, if you can't make it legal then at least make it safe.
But if you can't make it safe, then be sure you make it legal.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Post Reply