FAA Clarifies Meaning of ‘Current’ for Mx Programs
I just received this from the NBAA:
FAA Clarifies Meaning of ‘Current’ for Mx Programs
FAR 91.409(f)(3) requires aircraft owners and operators to maintain their aircraft in accordance with a “current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.” In a recent legal interpretation, an FAA attorney stated that owners and operators are not legally obligated to adhere to the most recent updates to maintenance instructions or inspection programs, and only the maintenance requirements in place when the aircraft was built apply.
According to the interpretation, “New requirements could impose financial and other burdens on owners and operators of older aircraft that they did not bargain for. It would mean that our regulations effectively authorize manufacturers to issue ‘substantive rules’…that is, it would enable them to impose legal requirements on the public.” Eli Cotti, NBAA director of technical operations, said that this interpretation allows operators a lot of flexibility, but added, “most operators subscribe to an ever-evolving program for the benefit of safety, reliability and maintainability.”
Maintaining an aircraft to the latest standards also maximizes the value of the aircraft and the insurability of the operator, he said.
Here is the Legal Interpretation
Email this pageI would not be surprised to see more information on the subject coming from the FAA. We have been asked by a customer if it was now OK to stop their revision service. I would urge customers to be cautious before dropping a revision service. Revision services are typically cheaper than starting a new subscription so a hasty change could be very expensive. I would also recommend you chat with your local FSDO for the latest feedback on maintenance requirements. Most importantly you should consider the safety of and resale value of an aircraft not maintained to the latest recommendations of the OEM.
DOM Magazine has a good article on page 12 of the May 6 2009 issue on this subject and legal issues around it.
http://www.readoz.com/publication/read?i=1015410
What Does “CURRENT” Mean
To You ?
This subject is covered in the latest release of the
Nuts and Bolts Newsletter.
Follow the link
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2009/Jul/Nuts_and_Bolts,_Issue_0...
Mike's summary says it all:
So, contrary to the rumor mill, the December
memo does not apply to you if you are exercising
the privileges of your mechanic certificate or if
you are a repair station. Think about it like this,
the memo only mentions Part 91 (General Operating
and Flight Rules), we (maintenance folks), are
bound to the rules in Part 43, (Maintenance, Preventative
Maintenance and Rebuilding, and Alteration).
Section 43.13(a) states in part: Each
person performing maintenance, alteration, or
preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine,
propeller, or appliance shall use the methods,
techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions
for Continued Airworthiness prepared
by its manufacturer.
CONCLUSION: If you think you don’t have to
have current maintenance manuals to work on
aircraft I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
See InFO 09008 Information for Operators about the use of current inspection programs as mandated by § 91.409(f)(3) at http://www.askbob.aero/node/484
See the latest Legal Interpretation on this subject http://www.askbob.aero/content/legal-interpretation-whether-supplemental...
For those that are still interested in following this topic, here is an interesting response from ARSA to the FAA Memo we have been discussing sent to me by Adam.
When Current Is Past
In December 2008, the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel, Regulatory Compliance Division issued an interpretation of 14 CFR section 91.409(f)(3) that "a current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer" means the one that the registered owner chose at a point in time, not current as of "today". This has created confusion among maintenance providers as to which program they should be using on "current" inspections (those being done today). With the help of a member's law firm, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., ARSA requested guidance on exactly what program the maintenance provider should be using when the operator did not clearly "choose" one as required by 14 CFR section 91.409(f).
The December 2008 interpretation may be found here.
ARSA's request for guidance can be found here. (http://www.arsa.org/files/ARSA-91-409%28f%29%283%29122008Interpretation-...)