Not real good advice. Boggle up your aircraft records with inappropriate or improper entries, and you create questions in the mind of any prospective purchaser. In any event, there's no need to make an entry in aircraft maintenance records about an SB not being applicable. Of course, a neat SB list (like the AD list your IA creates at annual) showing all SB's on your aircraft and whether or not they are applicable/complied with would be a nice thing to have, but not essential.
...other than having to page through the logbook looking for something that for all s/he knows might not even be there. OTOH, you could create a nice, neat SB list with all SB's for your aircraft on it, put it in with the AD list, and make life easy for anyone who ever wants to know.
Oh, hooey. It's going to be at most marginally bigger than the AD lists we get every annual from good IA's, and those are hardly enough to "take up a whole log book".
Please give me an example of how an owner would have to do something beyond preventive maintenance to determine whether a SB is applicable to his/her aircraft. Sure, if an owner doesn't know how to review aircraft maintenance records for legal airworthiness, that might be a problem, but if the owner is a licensed pilot above Student, s/he's been trained, tested, and certified on how to do this.
Actually, it is defined in the FAR's -- see 14 CFR 21.190(c)(5), which says "...the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus standard;..." The root of this is that S-LSA's are not certified to FAA standards, but rather to industry consensus standards, and that means the manufacturer takes the place of the FAA in some regards -- and this is one of them. Since the industry rather than the FAA sets the certification standards for S-LSA's, the industry (i.e., the manufacturer) decides when it is essential to airworthiness that a alteration or inspection be made, and the FAA backs their play.
I agree -- nothing in the regulations requires taking training the manufacturer says is necessary. But that's not the issue here, which is a requirement to perform alterations or inspections which the manufacturer says is necessary, and that is covered in 21.190.
The overarching term the FAA uses in the regs is actually "safety directive" (not "safety bulletin"), but there are three categories of safety directive, including Safety Alert, Service Bulletin, and Notification (see AC 65-32A for details), so a Service Bulletin from an S-LSA manufacturer is in fact a "safety directive" in this context. If it comes from the S-LSA manufacturer stamped "Mandatory Service Bulletin" and contains direction to take action, it's a safety directive under the meaning of 21.190, and compliance is mandatory. See also 14 CFR 91.327: "The owner or operator complies with each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition."
Thank you for agreeing.
No, I agreed with what you last said about "safety bulletins", which seems to be your word for Service Bulletins. Otherwise, I disagree. The reg says all safety directives must be complied with, and a Service Bulletin is a safety directive. Of course, fi the Service Bulletin says the action is only "recommended," then it would not be mandatory, but if the Service Bulletin says "mandatory" on it, there's no choice.
Since there's no such thing as a "safety bulletin" in either, I wish you good luck -- but you might profit from reading them more carefully first.
That post was directed at Ron's remark about service bulletins being mandatory.
