Thanks for the reference.

I can see the law suits already. If an IA says he wants to use a newer inspection program then he is creating his own rules....a catch 22 for a larger maintenance facility that hold itself open to the public.

The problem lies in that the letter references only large or turbine powered aircraft, which are not applicable. Ref 14CFR91.409(f). The letter speaks of the current inspection program, not maintenance manuals.

14CFR43.13 is still applicable in that para (b) specifically addresses structural strength and deterioration.

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the guy making the release for service entry in your maintenance records.

If for some un God reason that you happen to crash a month after I perform an inspection on your airplane, and do not comply with the SIDS, and a wing or boom is not attached to the wreckage, your heirs attorney is going to have a field day explaining to the jury that I did not comply with the manufacturers recommendations on keeping up with airworthiness standards on an airplane that they designed and built.

Good catch. I went and read 91.409 (f)(3) and you are correct, it only applies to turbine aircraft.

I am an IA, before I would release the aircraft, I would need to comply with the new standards. I have a very good attorney, but he is not that good with grieving widow, along with clear instructions on continued airworthiness staring at him. In my humble opinion I would comply.

Hi Mark,

I ask this question with a smile. I certainly believe that any IA has the right to decide what he/she puts their signature on and I respect that. I am wondering however if you have ever signed off an annual on an aircraft that had an engine that was beyond the manufacturer's calendar or hour time limit for overhaul? You may not have but I know many people have. (My airplane being one example. My engines were remanufactured in 1988 and currently have 1150 hours.) I guess what I am trying to wrap my head around is, what is the difference between this example and the SID? Isn't a SID simply a recommendation just like a TBO?

Thanks,

Ed Asmus

Keeping it short
 

I am told to keep replies to just a few lines, But in this case I will expand. I have a T337B that at this time is disassembled. Being renovated, Before I reassemble this craft I will comply with all current information. As stated in previous thread If someone were to bring a similar airframe to my hanger for annual inspection, before we started, this would be explained. Now, I don’t agree with all the inspections listed. But I can complete them with little financial impact. I think this will be to the Sky master community very very expensive. And to some more than the airframe is worth. I am in no way defending the new changes, only covering my certification to work. And to answer your question, my answers is as stated in my last line of my last comment. My attorney is good but not that good!
Also sent with a smile.
Mark

Be Verbose
 

Mark, be as verbose as you wish.
Tell it like it is. It isn't words that fill our database, it's 2 MB pictures. I would rather have 2 MB of words.

The broader context that the legal opinion was talking about is the Constitution. Equal protection of law. The fact is only the FAA can mandate anything, by issuing an AD for example. And Cessna can't make an aircraft owner do anything, because it doesn't have the authority to. So, it doesn't matter if you are reading part 91 or 43, the term "current inspection" means the same thing for all of part 91 and therefore part 43 (not just a single meaning only for 91.409)..."current at the time of manufacture"...words have meaning under the law. In fact, definitions are so important in law there's an entire dictionary just for it: see Black's Law dictionary.

That's why I mentioned this is a catch 22 for an IA. Damned if you don't...with a widow suing you. And damned if you do, if the airplane is using the original inspection/maintenance program, and as an IA you create your own rule for what new inspection program you decide to use.

It is far better for Cessna to make an AD out of this, so the public (that means us) have time to comment on it. And the FAA can either tell Cessna they are wrong, or tell us we are in immediate danger without the inspections.

Thanks for your reply Mark. I can appreciate your concerns and I agree with your comments about our legal system. I am growing very concerned about the state of my Skymaster. Not in an airworthiness sense but in a legal sense. This has potential to be one giant can of worms.

Thanks again,

Ed

No ill intent to any hard working A&P but the evidence here would clearly indicate that this is not even close to being a requirement. That being said, it is understandable that some mechanics may push for this inspection for a variety of reasons. Likewise we as operators can easily find other mechanics.

All this Arm-Chair lawyering about liability and what constitutes "current" after reading the actual document from the FAA/NTSB brings to mind the quote by Will Rogers: "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that ain't true."

SId Clarification
 

First please see: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info09008.pdf

I had a nice talk today with Rusty Jones at the FAA (listed at the bottom of the attached link). Among other issues I asked him about the previous stated concerns that 14CFR43.19.409(f) might be construed to be applicable to turbin aircraft only, and that 14CFR43.13 (b) may require IA's to comply with inspections as provided by the new service or maintenance manuals as it refers to "structural strenght and deteroration" . Rusty said that in his readings of the points referenced, he can see how the "words" may make it appear that those specific conclusions could be drawn, but he does not beilieve that this is the case. He suggests that SOAPA designate a quesiton or list of quesitons for legal clarification, and submit them through the AFS-300 process for specific clarification.

That being said, we should then perhaps come up with a correctly phrased question or two that the IA' AP's here may help us to clarify, on how they as inspectors and we as owner/operators can best protect our respective intersts going forward so as to not run afoul of regulations.

He likewise made a point of discussing the attached link (which is how I found him) and suggests that we might be well served to take advantage of the answers to these frequestly asked questions. I for one will be making sure that my aircraft maintenance Log clearly states that I am using the maintenance programs for 12 month and/or 100 hour inspections as defined at the time or original manufacture.

Rusty has been around this whole issue for a long time and cut his teeth on Aloha and the 400 series. I might suggest that those who are more knowledgeable about these things contact him direct. That being said, after talking to him about how this has come about with Cessna, and how an AD such as those with the 400 series evolved, I came away with no concern what-so-ever that we will see an AD for the 336/337 on any of these SID issues.

This is essentially a Cessna Protection program, not an Owner/Operator protection program

Good job Roger, the SOAPA steering committee has circulated this document and I was going to call Rusty but hadn't yet. I am glad you talked to him and the steering committee will take some action on your suggestion.

Ok, so here's the first question that comes to mind.

- Does the term "current" as interpreted for FAR 91.409 that means "current at time of manufacture" apply to all of FAR 91 with respect to "current" maintenance manual and/or inspection programs?

A note about IA's in the court room. Case law favors the IA usually, because the IA only certifies the airworthiness on the day, hour, and minute the annual is signed off. What gets IA's in trouble is non compliance with ADs. However, any one can sue any one else in our country -- and you can counter sue as a matter of your rights. One should always have a lawyer if sued in such an event.