Flight Design "Safety Box" & possible LSA Implications

[comperini]

H Paul, are you still under the assumption that the 5 year Rotax replacement is mandatory? You are a part of the LSRM "closed group", where this was discussed quite a bit, right? Back in February 2012, when you heard that the rubber replacement was not mandatory, you were pretty happy, according to a post you made.

What about this (in particular, page 2)?

http://rainbowaviation.com/articles/MacMillan.pdf

And others: http://rainbowaviation.com/faa_letters.htm

Rotax has every right to deny a warranty claim, unless their engines are maintained to a level they accept (their own maintenance schedule)

[drseti]

First off, Bob, the Letters of Interpretation apply specifically to aircraft not used for compensation or hire. Since my plane is used for compensation and hire (i.e., flight instruction and rental), I don't see the exemptions from following manufacturer's maintenance documentation as applying to me. As for private owners, an argument could be made that one could forego the five year rubber replacement.

However, the 2013 LoI specifically states "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator." It is my interpretation that, unless another method is specifically documented as being acceptable, you still need to comply with manufacturer's requirements. I have seen nothing from the Administrator that addresses skipping the rubber replacement interval. (I've seen opinions that anything in AC 43-13 is considered an acceptable alternate method of compliance, but have seen no legal interpretations to back this up. )

In addition, I've seen some pretty ratty fuel, oil, and coolant hoses at the 5 year replacement, including hoses just on the brink of failure (which flaws were not visible externally). Considering the potential negative consequences of rubber failure in flight, I personally would be uncomfortable with taking my chances on not doing the replacement. Prudence trumps legalities, IMHO.

[comperini]

First off, Bob, the Letters of Interpretation apply specifically to aircraft not used for compensation or hire.

Whoops.. My apologies. I posted a link to the wrong document. What do you say about the following document?

http://rainbowaviation.com/articles/wil ... tation.pdf

Seems pretty clear that they are talking about this very S-LSA related issue, and they don't make any "compensation or hire" exclusions

However, the 2013 LoI specifically states "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator." It is my interpretation that, unless another method is specifically documented as being acceptable, you still need to comply with manufacturer's requirements. I have seen nothing from the Administrator that addresses skipping the rubber replacement interval. (I've seen opinions that anything in AC 43-13 is considered an acceptable alternate method of compliance, but have seen no legal interpretations to back this up. )

How about this legal interpretation? http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... tation.pdf

(and here is a good discussion about what it all means: https://www.aea.net/AvionicsNews/ANArch ... eMar10.pdf)

[drseti]

Here's what's still relevant:

Part 43 does not mandate that a person specifically perform maintenance, alteration,
or preventive maintenance solely in accordance with those instructions specified in a manufacturer's maintenance manual. It also permits a person to perform such work in accordance with other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator.

So, what exactly constitutes "acceptable to the Administrator"?

[comperini]

Here's what's still relevant:
So, what exactly constitutes "acceptable to the Administrator"?

I think our replies were being sent at the same time... I added text regarding "acceptable" definitions to my previous post, including the "legal interpretation" you were asking about.

[drseti]

Yes, Bob, they crossed in the mail. It appears that the burden of proof rests with the FAA to show after the fact that a given repair did not use methods approved by the administrator. In other words, you don't know if you're going to be in violation until after the violation has occurred:

whether the repair method, technique, or practice chosen by the maintenance provider would nevertheless be acceptable to the FAA would require a fact-specific determination.

This makes it impossible to know whether a repair is approved by the Administrator until after the Administrator deems it not approved. Given that, I'm disinclined to risk my certificates by deviating in any way from the manufacturer's maintenance and repair manuals. CYA prevails.

[drseti]

BTW, nothing that I could find in 43.13 says anything about how often hoses must be changed, so I'm not sure how this legal interpretation has any bearing on the question of complying with the Rotax 5 year requirement.

[comperini]

BTW, nothing that I could find in 43.13 says anything about how often hoses must be changed, so I'm not sure how this legal interpretation has any bearing on the question of complying with the Rotax 5 year requirement.

Of course it doesn't.. God gave you eyes to see with. When do you decide to change tires? When your eyes see they are worn, right? Is any part of your inspections done with your eyes, and you making a judgment that something needs to be replaced? That part isn't rocket science.

I'm not disagreeing that replacing things at 5 years, might be a good idea, especially if it's a warranty issue... I'm just taking issue with you when you proclaim its mandatory (especially since you've apparently changed your mind since 2012). You said there wasn't a legal interpretation that says when you can use other methods "acceptable to the administrator". I showed you that there was one. That interpretation pretty much says 43.13b is (always) an "acceptable method". The second legal interpretation I posted was a link that addressed the very issue of manufacturer "mandated" replacement cycles (which concluded that they were not mandatory, and therefore the Rotax 5 year replacement thing is not mandatory).

[3Dreaming]

First off, Bob, the Letters of Interpretation apply specifically to aircraft not used for compensation or hire. Since my plane is used for compensation and hire (i.e., flight instruction and rental), I don't see the exemptions from following manufacturer's maintenance documentation as applying to me. As for private owners, an argument could be made that one could forego the five year rubber replacement.

However, the 2013 LoI specifically states "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator." It is my interpretation that, unless another method is specifically documented as being acceptable, you still need to comply with manufacturer's requirements. I have seen nothing from the Administrator that addresses skipping the rubber replacement interval. (I've seen opinions that anything in AC 43-13 is considered an acceptable alternate method of compliance, but have seen no legal interpretations to back this up. )

In addition, I've seen some pretty ratty fuel, oil, and coolant hoses at the 5 year replacement, including hoses just on the brink of failure (which flaws were not visible externally). Considering the potential negative consequences of rubber failure in flight, I personally would be uncomfortable with taking my chances on not doing the replacement. Prudence trumps legalities, IMHO.

Paul, what are you basing the opinion that maintenance for an aircraft used for hire like yours and mine is any different than any other aircraft, except the requirement for 100 hour inspections? I do know that some part 135 operations have differing maintenance requirements from part 91 aircraft, but those are written into the ops specs I believe.

[howardnmn]

Hi Paul. Can you describe the "ratty fuel lines"? Were these planes parked outside or hangered.? Privately owned ? In a club or school. Or sole ownership? Fire sleeved? Have you seen this often or rarely? What kind of fuel? Straight mogas or ethanol? Or avgas? How old were they? (Hours/years). Evans coolant or glycol water based?

I know your experience is not a statistical set, but given enough anecdotal evidence, statistics may play a role in decision making

Honestly, just trying to learn from others experiences.

As I said earlier I saw cracking on the fuel lines in passenger compartment in my 2008 Savannah ADV S-LSA which was parked in intense heat at Casa Grande Arizona for a year. Inside of fuel lines looked ok. No debris ever found and they were supple. They we're not fire sleeved in these locations and easy to replace. They were made in Italy by a well regarded American company

BTW when I was at ICP Savannah LSA factory in Italy and I looked inside the newly arrived crates of Rotax 912 engines. No fuel or oil or water lines supplied by Rotax.

I guess Rotax had some reason for implementing 5 yr replacement policy, but I would also guess the problems with rubber hoses could be highly installation, materials & use dependent

I would be more comfortable with replacements if: 1) my manufacturer supplied the hoses precut, sleeved, and with step-by-step; and 2) after inspection revealed the condition warrants replacement. Again, my Remos is hangered in temperate environment; flown only by me; and with relatively few cycles (2x per week 'high' average)

[3Dreaming]

First off, Bob, the Letters of Interpretation apply specifically to aircraft not used for compensation or hire. Since my plane is used for compensation and hire (i.e., flight instruction and rental), I don't see the exemptions from following manufacturer's maintenance documentation as applying to me. As for private owners, an argument could be made that one could forego the five year rubber replacement.

However, the 2013 LoI specifically states "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator." It is my interpretation that, unless another method is specifically documented as being acceptable, you still need to comply with manufacturer's requirements. I have seen nothing from the Administrator that addresses skipping the rubber replacement interval. (I've seen opinions that anything in AC 43-13 is considered an acceptable alternate method of compliance, but have seen no legal interpretations to back this up. )

In addition, I've seen some pretty ratty fuel, oil, and coolant hoses at the 5 year replacement, including hoses just on the brink of failure (which flaws were not visible externally). Considering the potential negative consequences of rubber failure in flight, I personally would be uncomfortable with taking my chances on not doing the replacement. Prudence trumps legalities, IMHO.

Paul, what are you basing your opinion on that maintenance for an aircraft used for hire like yours and mine is any different than any other aircraft, except the requirement for 100 hour inspections? I do know that some part 135 operations have differing maintenance requirements from part 91 aircraft, but those are written into the ops specs I believe.

Just thought I would bump this up, incase Paul missed the question.

[zaitcev]

I started paying more attention to these issues when a cracked line sprayed my dash with gasoline. In Carlson, these run from wing tanks to a joint and through the firewall into the gascolator. Eventually I had to replace all the rubber on the low-pressure side, on both sides of the firewall.

Found that rubber hoses harden up and become brittle. Parking outside haven't been a factor.

If that is any consolation, I haven't seen a catastrophic failure yet. Usually a leak develops first, while the reinforcing mesh keeps the tubes together. However, the leaks are hard to find unless there's a pressure, however minimal. In Carlson it meant filling up wing tanks. If pumps draw the gas, they impede detection.

[drseti]

Paul, what are you basing your opinion on that maintenance for an aircraft used for hire like yours and mine is any different than any other aircraft, except the requirement for 100 hour inspections? I do know that some part 135 operations have differing maintenance requirements from part 91 aircraft, but those are written into the ops specs I believe.

Tom, I'm basing it primarily on my commercial insurance policy, which indicates what is required for my insurance to remain in force. Compliance with "mandatory" service bulletins is in there.

[3Dreaming]

Paul, what are you basing your opinion on that maintenance for an aircraft used for hire like yours and mine is any different than any other aircraft, except the requirement for 100 hour inspections? I do know that some part 135 operations have differing maintenance requirements from part 91 aircraft, but those are written into the ops specs I believe.

Tom, I'm basing it primarily on my commercial insurance policy, which indicates what is required for my insurance to remain in force. Compliance with "mandatory" service bulletins is in there.

I see. In your earlier post it sounded like you thought that the legal interpretation didn't apply, because you used your aircraft for commercial purposes.