[hharney]

Ken
The attached documents above are very clear in understanding the SID situation. It is nice to see this in print from a legal perspective. The Skymaster community on this message board has been trying to read between the lines since all the SID proposals started. I think this hits the nail right on the head. Thanks for sharing this, I had spoke with the EO of the Conguest group several months ago. He indicated that there was effort being pushed on interpretation of the rules. This really clears the smoke.

Some key points made in the attachments:

Section 91.415 of the Federal Aviation Regulations establishes the intent to limit the authority of arbitrary changes to an inspection program where it states "(a) Whenever the
Administrator finds that revisions to an approved aircraft inspection program under
91.409(f)(4) or 91.1109 are necessary for the continued adequacy of the program, the
owner or operator must, after notification by the Administrator, make any changes in the
program found to be necessary by the Administrator."

Granted, this particular paragraph addresses "any other inspection program" and not "one
recommended by the manufacturer" which is included under paragraph 91.409(f)(3) but
the intent of the section is just the same and in accordance with the December 5, 2008
Memorandum issued by the FAA which stated in part "An interpretation of the regulation
that would allow manufacturers unilaterally to issue changes to their recommended
maintenance and inspection programs that would have future effect on owners of their
products would not be legally correct. This would run afoul of the APA."

Nothing is said about "new owners" of the aircraft, it states "that would have future effect
on owners". If the FAA allows a SID to be mandated by the manufacturer to any owner,
present or future, the FAA has delegated its rulemaking authority to the manufacturer
which it cannot do.
On December 5, 2008 the FAA issued a legal Memorandum addressing the question
“whether, if a manufacturer amends its maintenance/inspection instructions, an affected
aircraft operator is obliged to comply with the new instructions in order to be in
compliance with subsection 91.409(f)(3)”. The FAA responded, “It is our opinion that the
operator is not so obliged”.

Then, applying their legal conclusions to both current maintenance instructions or
current inspection program the FAA went on to say:
If “current” in subsection 91.409(f)(3) and similarly worded regulations could be
read to mean an ongoing obligation, manufacturers unilaterally could impose
regulatory burdens on individuals through changes to their inspection programs or
maintenance manuals”
“If such compliance were required, this would be tantamount to private entities
issuing “rules” of general applicability without meeting the notice and comment
requirements of the APA, and the public would not have had an opportunity to
comment on these future limitations changes.”

In summary, an owner’s election to comply with the SID is just that, an election. It can be
ignored, or it can be completed if the operator is concerned that his aircraft might have
any of the listed deficiencies. Should the FAA adopt the SID, or even parts of it, the
complying owner might be one-step ahead of the field, but should the FAA require some
different standard, they might have to be re-inspected just the same.