Quote:
|
I hate to say it guys but if it's in the manual and you don't comply your aircraft isnot airworthy!!!
|
This is incorrect. Airworthiness is defined by two parallel standards, or prongs. The first is legality, which means that the aircraft is in compliance with it's type certificate and any amendments thereto (supplemental type certificates, etc). The second prong is a requirement that the aircraft be safe for it's certified operations.
After reading over the thread, I see a lot of good information, and a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. This is particularly true where issues regarding the requirement for compliance have come up.
When an aircraft is inspected, the aircraft must be found to be in compliance with the airworthiness requirements applicable to to the type certificate issued to that aircraft, and other specific amendments (STCs and so on). For Part 91 operations, an owner/operator is not responsible for compliance with manufacturer-mandated inspections or procedures. As others have noted, the FAA does not and cannot delegate authority to aircraft manufacturers which mandate specific maintenance or compliance practices. If an aircraft manufacturer wishes to have specific maintenance practices, inspections, and other actions legally mandated, the manufacturer must petition the FAA and submit those actions to the approval process (which allows for public input and comment, publication in the Federal Register, and scrutiny, among other things). A manufacturer cannot simply invent an inspection or practice, label it "mandatory" or state that it's required, and make it so.
If I perform an inspection on an aircraft intended for use under Part 91, I am not beholden to ensure that every service bulletin, for example, shows compliance. The aircraft may be declared airworthy and approved for return to service without compliance with service letters, service bulletins, and inspection documents. I am only required to ensure the inspection has been performed if the inspection is mandated by an Airworthiness Directive (AD).
If I perform an inspection and find discrepancies, I am required to provide a list of those discrepancies to the owner/operator. The inspection may be signed off, and the owner/operator becomes responsible for those discrepancies. If an inspection is performed and outstanding SB's, SID items, or other "mandatory" or "recommended" inspections have not been performed, these should be listed, where known, and provided to the aircraft owner. Compliance is at his or her discretion, not mine.
When manufacturer dictated maintenance is performed, unquestionably it increases the resale value of the aircraft, although by how much is subjective and highly variable. The economic value of performing some of these inspections must be considered carefully when deciding whether to perform or defer them. In some cases such inspections may be deferred indefinitely, while in others they may be performed at a later date when other maintenance that needs to be performed in the same area will make the older inspection more cost effective.
For the past couple of months, I've been performing inspections and maintenance on several large aging aircraft. Some of the inspections that are being done are unnecessary but repeats of previous work, only because the owners paperwork was destroyed in a fire. In other cases, the owner has elected to have inspections done because the area was already opened up for other work; he thus combined the inspections to save money.
I don't presently own a Skymaster, although I have flown them professionally (and maintained them). I'm considering purchase of a 336 at the moment, and while I've followed discussion of the SID problem since it became known, I'm taking some time to examine it again. One may rest assured that while I can work on and inspect my own aircraft, and while I have the tools and means and equipment to do so, I won't rush to tear the airplane apart and perform all the SID inspections.
Many owners aren't aware that annuals aren't the only means of accomplishing maintenance requirements. In fact, while many owners and mechanics take their playbook page for their inspection right out of the manufacturer maintenance manual, there exists NO requirement to do so. One can invent any number of means of compliance and gain FAA approval if that inspection program meets the requirements of 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix D. Progressive inspections, phase inspections, annual inspections, and other means can be used to assure compliance. It doesn't all need to be done at once, and it doesn't need to come out of the manufacturer maintenance manual. Work performed, that is to say specific operations performed, should be drawn from and comply with manufacturer ongoing maintenance instructions, but one is not beholden to perform non-mandated (read: non AD) inspections or practices that are established by the manufacturer.
If the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the Type Certificate and it's supplements or amendments, and is safe for it's intended operations, it may be signed off annually as airworthy, even if the service bulletins or other manufacturer inventions are not in compliance. Those are generally listed separately, and it's the discretion of the owner/operator to seek or forestall compliance.