Letter to the FAA re Digital Clock for IFR

[midlifeflyer]

"Thank you for pointing out the loophole in our rules. We'll correct that immediately.
Love,
Office of the Chief Counsel"

I've seen AOPA fall into that trap. The Warbird case several years ago.

 

[machkhatib]

To all those hemming and hawing that I kicked the metaphorical hornets’ nest:

If my letter prompts the FAA to tighten the rules for digital clocks, I’ll apologize to everyone in this thread.

If my letter prompts the FAA to relax the rules for digital clocks, everyone who chewed me out should apologize.

Enough said.

 

[bradg33]

Always think down the road for the consequences of writing to the Chief Counsel. Not just for yourself, but are you going to screw your fellow aviators over?

It's unfortunate, but some people just can't help themselves. I think it's their own insecurities that don't allow them to just use their own judgment on things; they want someone to tell them it's OK before they do it. Of course, that's the same reason Govt. employees never want to make any decisions unless their boss tells them it's OK (which then just continues up the chain until it fizzles out and nobody makes a decision at all).

 

[Lindberg]

To all those hemming and hawing that I kicked the metaphorical hornets’ nest:

If my letter prompts the FAA to tighten the rules for digital clocks, I’ll apologize to everyone in this thread.

If my letter prompts the FAA to relax the rules for digital clocks, everyone who chewed me out should apologize.

Enough said.

I don't see any hemming and hawing, I see people coming right out and saying what they mean.

 

[Country Flier]

To all those hemming and hawing that I kicked the metaphorical hornets’ nest:

If my letter prompts the FAA to tighten the rules for digital clocks, I’ll apologize to everyone in this thread.

If my letter prompts the FAA to relax the rules for digital clocks, everyone who chewed me out should apologize.

Enough said.

 

[machkhatib]

All it took was a letter to the FAA about clocks and I somehow triggered half of POA into underwear-twisting cartwheels about the mere possibility of an unfavorable interpretation.

 

[tsts4]

That's because we've been around long enough to have seen it happen. In any event you're not saving the world with this request so don't expect us to pat you on the back and sing your praises if you get lucky and get a favorable outcome to something that isn't an issue for 99.99999999% of us.

 

[MRC01]

I get the cynicism, it often does happen that way. But not all the time. For example, the Coleal letter significantly opened up part 14 CFR part 43 for those of us who do as much of our own maintenance as we legally can. Page 2 paragraph 2 is priceless!

 

[machkhatib]

I get the cynicism, it often does happen that way. But not all the time. For example, the Coleal letter significantly opened up part 14 CFR part 43 for those of us who do as much of our own maintenance as we legally can...

Not just that, my letter was primarily aimed at a preceding interpretation (the Nkugba letter) rather than a regulation. I get that people may be intimidated by lawyers but I don't think the FAA chose its words carefully when it came up with "permanent clock display" and "permanent clock presentation."

 

[3393RP]

I'm reminded of a guy I worked with during the mid 90s. His Cardinal was based at KGYI, and one day while preparing for a flight, a man driving a nondescript gray Chrysler parked near the end of the flight line. He proceeded to approach a certain plane, making some notes on a pad he carried.

My friend observed the federal government issued license plate on the man's vehicle, and walked over to engage him in conversation. The man confirmed his identity, he was an employee of the FAA and assigned to the North Texas FSDO.

He was then invited by my friend to check his documents and perform a cursory inspection of his plane.

That's poking the bear!

 

[MRC01]

These days, that guy should get kudos for security awareness. Seeing a non-uniformed person drive up to the field and scrutinize someone's airplane, seems worthy of politely challenging that person.

 

[Half Fast]

I get the cynicism, it often does happen that way. But not all the time. For example, the Coleal letter significantly opened up part 14 CFR part 43 for those of us who do as much of our own maintenance as we legally can. Page 2 paragraph 2 is priceless!

Perhaps not the best example you could have chosen. The response was not what Bombardier was looking for, even though Part 91 operators/pilots got tossed a very nice bone.

The question in the Coleal letter was framed very narrowly. We got a huge bonus from the answer, but the question itself was tightly phrased so that any significant negative response would do very little harm.

While your question was framed in the context of transport category aircraft, your​

inquiry, including as supplemented by Mr. Hernandez, is specific to the Learjet Model 60​

aircraft. You referenced an FAA Continued Operational Safety (COS) initiative in​

which, in November 2008, the FAA 's Wichita ACO (Aircraft Certification Office)​

requested an AFM (Airplane Flight Manual) limitation for the Learjet Model 60 that​

would requi re daily tire pressure checks. The issue, as you alluded to in your letter, is​

whether checking tire pressure on the Learjet Model 60 is considered to be a maintenance​

or preventive maintenance function, versus a simple preflight inspection task. Your​

correspondence correctly observed that, under 14 C.F.R. § 43.3(g), for aircraft not​

operated under part 121, 129, or 135 (e .g., part 91), a pilot may perform preventive​

maintenance on an aircraft operated by that pilot.​

In fact, Mr. Coleal did NOT get the response he desired: that checking tire pressure is just a simple pre-flight task on the Learjet 60, rather than a maintenance item.

...because checking tire pressure is but a​

simplistic and small subset of the tasks necessary in removing, installing, and repairing​

landing gear tires, it does not rise to the level of even preventive maintenance, and should​

therefore be considered an appropriate pre-flight inspection task. We do not agree.​

.​

.​

.​

We have discussed this issue with officials in the FAA's Flight Standards Service​

Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) and concur with their determination that​

checking tire pressure on a Learjet Model 60 aircraft is preventive maintenance and not a​

simple pre-flight inspection task. We believe their determination is a reasonable one​

based on the re levant facts and circumstances. These include the high tire air pressure​

(up to 219 psig), the need for a proper and calibrated gauge, and the possibility of an​

incorrect reading if the check is not performed properly. ​

So it's not a pre-flight item. A pilot can do the pressure check as PM when operating under Part 91, but not under Part 135 so an A&P has to do the required daily check. Not what Mr. Coleal was looking for, but it didn't really make things much worse.

​

​

​

 

[Half Fast]

These days, that guy should get kudos for security awareness. Seeing a non-uniformed person drive up to the field and scrutinize someone's airplane, seems worthy of politely challenging that person.

I'm not going to challenge anybody in that situation; if it's a thief I might get shot. I'd call the airport desk, or possibly the cops, and report some stranger messing around with an aircraft. My airport is not paying me to be their security guard.

 

[MRC01]

I'm not going to challenge anybody in that situation; if it's a thief I might get shot. I'd call the airport desk, or possibly the cops, and report some stranger messing around with an aircraft. My airport is not paying me to be their security guard.

If you see a new person at your airport, are you afraid to walk up and say hello? That's all a "polite challenge" has to be. A stranger messing with an airplane might be your new airport neighbor. But it does sound like you would do something. Not just ignore him?

 

[RussR]

Perhaps not the best example you could have chosen. The response was not what Bombardier was looking for, even though Part 91 operators/pilots got tossed a very nice bone.

The question in the Coleal letter was framed very narrowly. We got a huge bonus from the answer, but the question itself was tightly phrased so that any significant negative response would do very little harm.

While your question was framed in the context of transport category aircraft, your​

inquiry, including as supplemented by Mr. Hernandez, is specific to the Learjet Model 60​

aircraft. You referenced an FAA Continued Operational Safety (COS) initiative in​

which, in November 2008, the FAA 's Wichita ACO (Aircraft Certification Office)​

requested an AFM (Airplane Flight Manual) limitation for the Learjet Model 60 that​

would requi re daily tire pressure checks. The issue, as you alluded to in your letter, is​

whether checking tire pressure on the Learjet Model 60 is considered to be a maintenance​

or preventive maintenance function, versus a simple preflight inspection task. Your​

correspondence correctly observed that, under 14 C.F.R. § 43.3(g), for aircraft not​

operated under part 121, 129, or 135 (e .g., part 91), a pilot may perform preventive​

maintenance on an aircraft operated by that pilot.​

In fact, Mr. Coleal did NOT get the response he desired: that checking tire pressure is just a simple pre-flight task on the Learjet 60, rather than a maintenance item.

...because checking tire pressure is but a​

simplistic and small subset of the tasks necessary in removing, installing, and repairing​

landing gear tires, it does not rise to the level of even preventive maintenance, and should​

therefore be considered an appropriate pre-flight inspection task. We do not agree.​

.​

.​

.​

We have discussed this issue with officials in the FAA's Flight Standards Service​

Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) and concur with their determination that​

checking tire pressure on a Learjet Model 60 aircraft is preventive maintenance and not a​

simple pre-flight inspection task. We believe their determination is a reasonable one​

based on the re levant facts and circumstances. These include the high tire air pressure​

(up to 219 psig), the need for a proper and calibrated gauge, and the possibility of an​

incorrect reading if the check is not performed properly. ​

So it's not a pre-flight item. A pilot can do the pressure check as PM when operating under Part 91, but not under Part 135 so an A&P has to do the required daily check. Not what Mr. Coleal was looking for, but it didn't really make things much worse.

​

​

​

If there's one thing I've learned while flying under Part 135 for the past couple of years, it's that I pretty much can't do anything to the airplane that requires a tool. This may not be exactly correct, but does provide a decent initial simplification.

Now, we have full-time mechanics who are there when we take off to resolve any issues, so it typically doesn't cause a big problem, but I can see in other operations where it would.

 

[PaulS]

This thread and the responses crack me up.

 

[3393RP]

These days, that guy should get kudos for security awareness. Seeing a non-uniformed person drive up to the field and scrutinize someone's airplane, seems worthy of politely challenging that person.

No one drives a grey Chrysler K car unless they're assigned to it.

 

[Brad Z]

The ironic part of this thread is that the chief counsel's office will most certainly punt this letter to flight standards as a policy question. Note that since 2019, the FAA has issued 11 legal interpretations total. Compare that with the prior years when they issued 40-100 or so interps per year. I think the lawyers realized that they were spending lots of time answering questions to settle pilot forum bar bets.

 

[Half Fast]

The ironic part of this thread is that the chief counsel's office will most certainly punt this letter to flight standards as a policy question. Note that since 2019, the FAA has issued 11 legal interpretations total. Compare that with the prior years when they issued 40-100 or so interps per year. I think the lawyers realized that they were spending lots of time answering questions to settle pilot forum bar bets.

Or they decided that issuing opinions without a court case is confining. They'd rather make case law after somebody's busted than issue an opinion that might preclude the bust in the first place.

 

[denverpilot]

Probably less now with high tech equipment, but digital timers like this velcroed to the panel were common with the old analog panel clock just sitting there unused. I used one for years.

View attachment 126042

Heretic. You’re supposed to use the three times as expensive Sporty’s one.

 

[MajorTurbulence]

Probably less now with high tech equipment, but digital timers like this velcroed to the panel were common with the old analog panel clock just sitting there unused. I used one for years.

View attachment 126042

That’s my old one. I graduated to the Davtron on the panel but still keep the old one- can’t have enough backups.

 

[Brad Z]

Or they decided that issuing opinions without a court case is confining. They'd rather make case law after somebody's busted than issue an opinion that might preclude the bust in the first place.

I guess we’ll have to send a letter to the Chief Counsel inquiring as to why they stopped issuing legal interpretations…

 

[machkhatib]

I guess we’ll have to send a letter to the Chief Counsel inquiring as to why they stopped issuing legal interpretations…

Include a footnote with a link to this thread

 

[Bell206]

For example, the Coleal letter significantly opened up part 14 CFR part 43 for those of us who do as much of our own maintenance as we legally can. Page 2 paragraph 2 is priceless!

FYI: while I don’t know how you define “significantly opened up,” the Coleal LOI simply posted existing guidance in this format that has been around for decades. The key part of the 2nd paragraph is this:

“As with the other paragraphs of Appendix A (i.e., on major repairs and major alterations), the lists are better viewed as examples of the tasks in each category-they cannot be considered all inclusive.”

If you still can’t fit the preventative maintenance task into one of those “categories” you still can’t perform the task as a pilot/owner. Applying the Part 1 definition to the Part 43 Appx A list does broaden the “category” but doesn’t increase the number of “categories.”

For example, if you think 43 Appx A(c)(13) replacing side windows where that work does not interfere with the structure or any operating system such as controls, electrical equipment, etc., now allows you to change a windshield based on the Coleal LOI, you will be sadly mistaken.

 

[WDD]

On a somewhat related topic, when I hear "Chief Counsel of the FAA" this image comes to mind......

 

[midlifeflyer]

Heretic. You’re supposed to use the three times as expensive Sporty’s one.

Actually, mine was old enough to come from Radio Shack.

 

[midlifeflyer]

All it took was a letter to the FAA about clocks and I somehow triggered half of POA into underwear-twisting cartwheels about the mere possibility of an unfavorable interpretation.

Don’t worry about it. Ultimately, it’s probably harmless. Unnecessary, but harmless.

There have been helpful opinion letters and unhelpful ones. And neutral ones. There have been several, though, where a question asked for no reason apparent to anyone other than the asker generated answers that caused problems. The infamous known icing debacle comes to mind.

 

[MRC01]

FYI: while I don’t know how you define “significantly opened up,” the Coleal LOI simply posted existing guidance in this format that has been around for decades. ...

The Coleal letter did not merely post existing guidance, but actually reversed what part 43 literally says, and also reversed circular 43-12A. This changed a situation where anything not listed in part 43 could not legally be done, to a situation where many tasks and operations are considered preventive maintenance, even if not listed.

That is a significant change. However, I know when to shut up and take "yes" for an answer, so I'm not going to write the FAA to ask for a letter of interpretation clarifying exactly what these "many tasks and operations" are.

 

[Half Fast]

.....the Coleal LOI simply posted existing guidance in this format that has been around for decades.

No, I don't think that's correct. The "existing guidance" you mention comes from AC 43-12A which says

"Part 43, appendix A, paragraph (c) contains the Federal Aviation Administration’s​

(FAA) list of tasks that meet the requirements of the preventive maintenance definition. If a task​

or maintenance function does not appear in the list, it is not preventive maintenance."​

The Coleal letter upended that by saying it was overly restrictive.

"...we also believe that the following sentence in Advisory Circular 43-l2A,​

Preventive Maintenance ... is overly restrictive. ... ' If a task or maintenance​

function does not appear in the list, it is not preventive maintenance.'"​

The LOI went on to say

"It is our understanding that Flight Standards' Aircraft Maintenance​

Division is planning to clarify this issue in a future revision to the AC."​

That revision has never happened, so the FAA's guidance still disagrees with the FAA's legal opinion. If legal had thought that they were simply restating existing guidance, they wouldn't have considered a revision to the AC to be necessary.

 

[WDD]

The infamous known icing debacle comes to mind.

Not familiar with that one - what's that back story?

 

[WDD]

However, I know when to shut up and take "yes" for an answer,

Would you please become a High School Guidance Counselor, You Tube Influencer, or even start your own cult and preach this wisdom to the masses?

 

[Palmpilot]

Not familiar with that one - what's that back story?

My recollection: Somebody requested clarification on the definition of known icing, resulting in a draconian and restrictive Chief Counsel letter. After much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, the FAA eventually replaced this with a much more reasonable policy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not familiar with that one - what's that back story?

@Palmpilot gave the essence.

My recollection: Somebody requested clarification on the definition of known icing, resulting in a draconian and restrictive Chief Counsel letter. After much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, the FAA eventually replaced this with a much more reasonable policy.

The Chief Counsel letter was problematic but the actual policy in practice was always reasonable and never actually changed.

I talked about it in my "Knowing Ice Again" IFR Magazine article.

The problem with some of these questions is that, if answered, the answer is going to look at the scenario with the most restrictive interpretation. The real answer is more nuanced, but "nuanced" is something many are uncomfortable with. You can really see it in the sharing costs area. You see all these Chief Counsel letters that make it sound like you can never share a flight; of course you can. We have a thread on that going on right now.

 

[Bell206]

The Coleal letter did not merely post existing guidance,

No, I don't think that's correct.

Guidance comes in many forms. As I stated, the method, ie., guidance, of applying the Part 1 definition of a maintenance task to the list in Part 43 Appx A has been around for quite some time and predates Coleal.

In the context of the LOI, FAA legal simply uses that method as an example of how the two rules work together. Same with the LOI mention of determining the specifics of the major alterations and repair Appx A lists, the Part 1 definition does that too. Perhaps no one ever took the time to explain this method to you?

Regardless, keep in mind the LOI specifically addresses preventative mx on transport aircraft and they were not denied due to the Part 43 (A)(c) list being too restrictive but rather because of the type of aircraft operation. And the LOI also went as far to list how they could apply for an exemption to that rule to allow for transport pilots to check tire air pressure, which is another method that has been around for many years.

and also reversed circular 43-12A.

The "existing guidance" you mention comes from AC 43-12A which says

While its been many brain cells ago, I seem to recall when that AC was revised it caused issues as it indicated a more restrictive stand on prevent mx than was in the AC original revision and was debated extensively back then. Regardless, I can assure you pilots have been performing “expanded” prevent mx tasks using Part 1 and Part 43 together as I mentioned above just as I have used it for determining major repairs/alterations for many years... at least in my experience and areas that I worked in.

 

[denverpilot]

Another FIRC in the books and not a single mention in the entire painful section on how to stay current on law changes… on Chief Counsel letters or where to find them.

Screenshots of how to use a search bar on six other FAA websites, and gushing praise words that they have text searches in 2024 though.

Right alongside the actual search box that says search by document number or “keyword”.

FAA: “Just type random guess words into our multiple websites search boxes, they’re great! Have you seen our search boxes? By the way this page is timed. Stare at this screen capture of our beautiful 90s web design skillzzzz!”

 

[Half Fast]

Probably less now with high tech equipment, but digital timers like this velcroed to the panel were common with the old analog panel clock just sitting there unused. I used one for years.

View attachment 126042

My half-fast solution. One for the regs, the other for the flight.



(I use the old analog clock to time fuel and the stopwatch to time legs, both backed up by my wristwatch.)