Here we go S.B. again

[Tim]

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060614sb.html

 

[Stache]

I have read the NTSB Order serveral times on this subject and fully understand why the judge ruled as he did. As of ritht not the FAA an stated service bulletins are not required unless tied to a AD or the type certificate.

Several manufactures have added notes to their type certifictes referencing service bulletins this will make them required.

Stache

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd say that if you read the actual NTSB case of Administrator v. Law, you'll wonder how AOPA got here from there. The case is about failure to follow manufacturer's instructions for testing after an overhaul (see 14 CFR 43.2(a)(2)) and the use of uncertified personnel (see 14 CFR 43.3). I can't find anything in the NTSB Order which I can interpret as saying that SB's are mandatory, and I wonder how AOPA is coming to the conclusion that it says that. I just can't find anything new in this case.

 

[Stache]

I agree the mechanic screwed up big time by not following part 43. I think the AOPA over reacted on this case.

Stache

 

[gismo]

Several manufactures have added notes to their type certifictes referencing service bulletins this will make them required.

Can a manufacturer modify an existing TC in this manner or does this only apply to new designs? It seems that if a mfg can unilaterally modify their TCs to require SB compliance for all operators, then they can completely circumvent the FAA's involvement in the AD process.

 

[poadeleted20]

Can a manufacturer modify an existing TC in this manner

Yes, but only with approval of the FAA aircraft certification branch -- any modification to a TC has to go through the certification process. In essence, it becomes pretty much like a manufacturer-requested AD.

It seems that if a mfg can unilaterally modify their TCs to require SB compliance for all operators,

No can do -- TC mods have to go through the FAA certification process.

 

[gismo]

Yes, but only with approval of the FAA aircraft certification branch -- any modification to a TC has to go through the certification process. In essence, it becomes pretty much like a manufacturer-requested AD.

No can do -- TC mods have to go through the FAA certification process.

That sounds like the way it ought to be. But what do you make of this?:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
Several manufactures have added notes to their type certifictes referencing service bulletins this will make them required.

 

[wsuffa]

FWIW, I'm going through an issue now where HArtzell added compulsory SL compliance to the Type Certificate - FAA approved.

I just got a response from the ACO granting a 3-month extension to the TBO...

 

[Stache]

FWIW, I'm going through an issue now where HArtzell added compulsory SL compliance to the Type Certificate - FAA approved.

I just got a response from the ACO granting a 3-month extension to the TBO...

I am glad to hear you got the extension.

Stache

 

[poadeleted20]

That sounds like the way it ought to be. But what do you make of this?:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
Several manufactures have added notes to their type certifictes referencing service bulletins this will make them required.

What I make of it is that those mfrs got the FAA to approve the additions.

 

[Tom-D]

What I make of it is that those mfrs got the FAA to approve the additions.

And the method they use to get it done, was the FAAs requirements for ICAs.

 

[Witmo]

And the method they use to get it done, was the FAAs requirements for ICAs.

What is an ICA?

 

[wsuffa]

What is an ICA?

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

The FAA has a big push on to include those in TCs and STCs. And, if they are written the same way that HArtzell did the one on my prop, they are mandatory for PArt 91.