I guess I look at reading our regs. a lot like reading maintenance procedures. Read as written without prejudice or bias. Doesn't seem that difficult really. I of course do not have the resumes that you guys do which may contribute to "commanding ignorance", but I hope not.
I would humbly ask, If I add air to a tire, have I altered the tire? It is certainly different than it was, but is it altered?
The lawyers that I talked to (neither of which are aviation related specialties) did not cite any specific rule, but more the lack of any specific rule that requires a signature. They both spoke in generalities but eluded to certificates being different than contracts in that their is no specific agreement between the certificate holder and the certifying agency. As apposed to a contract which is signed by all parties to confirm the understanding of a specific agreement. ie Airmen certificate which has the same privileges and limitations for every holder.................vs Ops Specs which are specific to the individual operation (signed by both FAA and operator).
I did some further research and found in Title 49 of the USC where an airmen certificate is actually defined as to content. It makes no mention of a signature provision for the holder.
They way I look at it, in this business we are all "legal beagles", like it or not. While I have lost a bit of respect for the FAA of late, I would like to think that I have the utmost respect for the regulations that we all helped to create and follow.
Understood and we could beat it to death. But here are a couple of points. Ever airman signed the temporary issuance version of their current certificate. I can guarantee that you did and that Oklahoma City will bounce it back if not signed when they receive, review and place in your file. This is why I say that signing the plastic version that you later receive is a formality.
Legally speaking, you did sign the originally issued certificate and your signature is your bond that you agree to adhere to the conditions on which it is issued.
I'm sure ALL of you IA's signed your 8310-5 IA forms.
Sorry Whiteface but humbly, your tire example doesn't hold water! You haven't changed a darned thing about that tire! All of its properties are exactly the same, its dimensions may have changed but that is NOT an alteration...
You rascal, that question was for Buddy. You couldn't resist could you.
I AGREE COMPLETELY(see, you and I agree more than you thought). As you admit, the tire is maybe, different dimensionally after serviced.......... but so long as serviced to some accepted parameter, it is NOT altered. Same way a signed certificate is NOT altered when there is a provision for signing it.
I realize that I am slightly mixing and matching aviation definitions with standard ones, but the point is still made I think. You can change something physically without per se altering it. We do it every day in aviation as YOU actually pointed out with my tire example.
While having to have this portion of the discussion still baffles me, I have to back up on my statement about not wanting to debate for debate’s sake on this one. I don't hold your assumption on the 65.20 language. On one hand you declare that with your long and impressive resume, you have learned to read the regs. like a lawyer (whatever that means), and say that it is ignorant to do otherwise. And then you proceed to make an assumption about the source of certain regulatory oversight in 65.20. While this part of the discussion is irrelevant to me, it is stimulating. True that plastic cards are (as we all know) less than 15 years old. Airmen have been signing paper certificates since at least the 60's that I know of which if I am not mistaken, is about the time that 65.20 was written. Doesn't seem like much chance for an oversight there.
STC ICA man,
I missed you post earlier........... I referred to the fact that I hold several certifications outside of the aviation realm that did not have provision for signing. You asked if they were issued by govt. or private. Since it pertains to your question, here is what I was referring to (not touting any credentials mind you, just answering your question).
I hold a state paramedic certification that is issued and regulated per state statutes.
I hold a birth certificate from the US dept. of Health………federal I believe.
I hold a city business license issued per statutes of the city where my business resides.
I hold a National Registry of EMTs paramedic license that was issued privately.
None of these have provision for signatures of the holder, which is why I had an issue with the blanket statement about all certs. and licenses having to be signed.
All of that said, I am still not convinced either way on this issue (except the alteration by signature part, I think Bob P got me settled on that one).
Aren't we about to the part of this discussion where you start listing off all of your aviation credentials? Buddy and N14ky got a jump on you.
Buddy got a jab in about ignorant mechanics too.
Wow, you completely misread my initial question to start this whole thing, and then made assumptions about my tire question to Buddy. Not very lawyerly of you.
Doug, your offering of other documents are not very relevant comparisons.
For instance, a birth certificate. Did you apply for it? Does it convey privileges and limitations upon you as the holder? No, it merely attests that you, the holder was in fact born at a certain place/time and some other relevant details which were attested to by someone Licensed by the government to do so. Can the Issuer take birth certificate action against you? revoke it? No.
I'd be willing to bet that you signed the application for each and every license/certification issued to you that also has statutory code by which you must abide. Birth certificates do not fall in that category, business licenses do, possibly state issued paramedic cert, I'd have to see the statutory code referenced on the certificate.
National Registry of EMT Paramedics issued privately? Sounds like a club membership meaning absolutely nothing. Like plastic membership card from the AMT Society.
You may have a point in that no one has made the case for having to sign the Airman Certificate, but I think we will eventually find that it is buried in statutory code somewhere. As I said, every Airman signed each one of there originally issued certificates and I suspect that the FAA view is that once that temporary certificate expires, you must now sign the permanent cert.
In my opinion, they ARE very relevant. Relevant to your previous statement that all certs./licenses must be signed because of basic law.
I agree, no case has been made that airmen certs must be signed. All of my previously mentioned certs with exception to birth, do have applications which must be signed just like applications for airmen certs. Business license and NREMTP (not a club, a national license with medical treatment privileges) have applications that must be signed. They all convey privileges, limitations as well. Except the business license, they are all wallet sized cards just like airmen certs. I am required to show them to certain persons under certain circumstances just like an airman must do. Yet none of these are signed or have provision for signing.
I sign my IA because I need it to conduct business, and I know that the ASI will not renew it unless I do. This is not evidence that I am REQUIRED to do so, but I don't have the time to have this discussion with him/her. That is also why I signed my airmen certs. when the FAA brought this up last week.
Same with the temp airmen certs. I imagine that as you say, if one does not sign it, the examiner won't issue. That is not evidence that a signature is required, just that he thinks it is. If you need the cert. you will sign because he will essentially force you do it.
Interesting to note, when one requests replacement certs. they come in the mail. No FAA official comes with them to insure that they get signed like the temp. ones.
Not trying to be argumentative, just that every time I try to walk this topic back, I seem to meet a dead end.
Wouldn't it be great if we in the private sector could just demand things from our customers without any basis except that how it has always been.
You have a point, but your logic is flawed in equating a birth certificate, or a National EMT Registry certificate as the same as an Airman's certificate.
The birth certificate does not in itself convey any responsibility on you to adhere to codified regulations as an Airman's Certificate does. You cannot ever be subject to punitive legal action via a birth certificate, nor can it be revoked. It does not expire, needs not be renewed not does it carry provisions for currency.
The National EMT Registry is nothing but an Industry certification mechanism based on standards generated within the industry. It can lapse, expire, or one can never have one and still be employed within the industry by being State certified. It is merely a credential.
Oh, and private sector does indeed "demand" things all the time with no, or questionable basis in law.
Ever been asked for your social security number by a hospital, bank, insurance company,etc,etc, etc?????
I feel like this thread could go on for a while……..which I personally think is pretty impressive. No one of us seems to debate much about troubleshooting issues, or other types of maintenance practices, but any regulatory thread usually calls for all hands on deck. Very good for our industry I think.
Of course our stage for this and similar discussions is AMT, who makes their living on regulatory compliance for aviators as well.
I have chimed in with a little sarcasm of late. I hopefully that is healthy too.
Here is to the guys who have the alphabet soup credentials:
Bob P, where to start with you……………………….No credentials notated on this thread?, like on 8/28/15 (impeccable)………………. or magazine article plagiarism (2/13/11 Items of airworthiness). You still owe me $75.
n14ky. Still waiting for your corrections to misinformation in your 2011 magazine article in Av Mag. (Light Sport Aircraft and the Implications on the Aircraft Mechanic). Ref. our personnel emails. Mis-information exactly like yours cost my customer a bunch of money.
Buddy, you like Bob P seem more than willing to tout your resume like some holy grail. Your resume is impressive, but like I have opined before, you have to be right, or the resume means nothing.
Insert ignorant mechanic. 13th human factor..........Arrogance (for you and Bob P).
Stache, I would have expected a response from you on this airmen cert. signature thread. In my opinion you have been wrong a bunch on the STC issue……….and also so quick to let everyone know all about your aviation achievements (but in a professional way). Plus as an FAA inspector, you were out there “working for us”. I am really interested in your experience as an ASI making sure we all sign our stuff. Please come in. (if you have any report on the STC debate, do tell as well). Hope your book is making you a bunch of money.
Anyoneofus, Thanks for your professional responses so far. While I am not persuaded yet on the cert signing issue, your class is appreciated.
Doug, I want some of your drugs!
I believe that within our emails several years ago I did concede that there was some information in the article that was clarified with a later letter of interpretation.
I agree that the birth cert. and NREMTP are not quite in the same ball park as an airmen certificate (although the NREMTP cert. was much harder to earn for me). It is not true that one cannot not have the NREMTP and be employed. Certain states only recognize this license. Kansas just happens to not be one of them. I live on the state line, and as such I can practice in Missouri too because the NREMTP is what they recognize. I already explained to you why I mentioned them though. In the context of our discussion, I feel that they are indeed relevant, and not based on flawed logic.
I think you know what I meant with regard to being able to demand stuff without just cause.
Coincidently to this signature discussion, I have had a prospective customer with an SLSA aircraft approach me and ask if I or my staff was qualified to perform mx on the Rotax engine. He sighted, among other things, your Av Mag article (which he had found via Google) as a basis for his question. I he also made reference to numerous articles by Carol Carpenter (who I think is also an “expert” on this site). I told him that as far as I knew, we were indeed qualified to help him, and offered to refer him to several documents that would refute yours and Carol's articles, but that the responsibility rested solely with him to choose who maintained his machine. I don't know if he was convinced or not. While it is not a big deal to me either way, I hope to earn his business.
The bigger issue was back a few years when my FSDO was directed by Washington to have me stop working on my customer’s 141 SLSA fleet (two aircraft) because we were not qualified (Rotax training requirement). Again, the entire thing started from one of Carol’s articles, backed-up by your Av Mag article about mgf’s controlling who can perform mx on SLSA aircraft. After about 6 months of down-time, and non-billable labor on my part, the FAA agreed that they had made a mistake. Of course my customer’s aircraft had to be repositioned to a “mfg. authorized” (Rotax trained) mechanic to ratify the in-valid mx that we had supposedly performed. My FSDO was nice enough to say that they had no intentions of pursuing any enforcement action on me or my guys. Ironically, I actually had to have my own customer file a formal complaint (which he reluctantly did) on me IAW part 13 just to get the feds in Washington to revisit the issue in a timely manner. Conference call with a guy named Murry Huling (AFS 350) and Ed Averman (FAA legal) finally got it cleared up. It all started from your guys’ expert magazine articles……..and Carol contacting the FAA.
Words matter don't they Dave/Stache/Bob/Buddy.........especially when backed up by credentials like yours.
I realize that it is hard to connect the dots with regard to this “signature” thread, and my latest posts. Apologies for that. I guess my position is that if someone is going to take a position that effects my ability to serve my customers, you should have a sound basis to do so.
I am not on drugs yet, and I was kidding about the $75 bucks (you actually instigated that anyway). I casually called you out, back then when you plagiarized Hertzler’s article 2/13/2011 in the thread regarding “all applicable items of airworthiness”. I mention it now in the context of this thread because we are talking about signatures and integrity ("your signature is your bond") and things like that. Your arrogant and possibly insulting postings are one thing, but copying someone else’s words and fronting them as your own is something completely different. You have also consistently followed up with insisting that other people post their names and credentials……………I guess I your eyes, to validate their opinions or even their eligibility to reply?. Funny and ironic to me, in light of this discussion on signatures…………….and when these signatures have to be present.
You better square things with Joe don’t you think [insert sarcasm].
Joe Hertzler wrote for AMT magazine. The article that I am referring to was published 7/13/2005. Second paragraph of Joe’s article is almost completely copied and taken as his own by Robert Pasche 2/13/11. In fairness Bob, you did call me your friend………………..awh shucks. I wonder now if you copied anything else along the way…………………………Hmmm.
Yeah, you do do drugs...
Words do matter! That's why it is so important that when FAA issues an NPRM, we as mechanics need to evaluate them to see how they will impact us. As it relates to the Light Sport debacle, EAA pressed for this rule and got a mixed mess that is still causing issues. Without Ms. Carpenters and my efforts ate getting Letters of Interpretations to clear up the muddy water, Mechanics and owners could have been subject to certificate action. Both of us requested LOIs for different reasons. Ms. Carpenters cleared up the basic Part 65 issues, and mine cleared up the Part 21 issues. I wrote requesting the LOA 3/5/2013, and FAA didn't issue the letter until 4/7/2015. Until these legal issues were resolved, the "Words" of the "regulation" and "Aircraft Operating Limitations" left us all out on the hook. My article was simply pointing out these legal inconsistencies. Link to my LOI http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudic...(2015)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf
Your's and Carol's chief counsel opinion letters were the documents that I was referring to when I said to my prospective customer that there was information out there to refute your Av Mag article and others.
Unfortunately, these documents do not come up on a Google search for SLSA mx...................but the Av Mag article, and Confused about SLSA mx?/Rotax training and your SLSA." do.
People believe what is written/said especially when it comes from very credentialed sources, or say FAA inspectors (like the signature statement from my ASI).
I agree with you that those requests to the chief counsel, and subsequent responses were indeed helpful to the field.................................Wouldn't it have been nice if those requests from you guys had preceded you respective magazine articles though?
Unfortunately, as you can see it took the FAA almost 2 years to respond, and when writing articles you are on a publishing deadline.
I've been waiting now for almost 2 years on another one for 91.225(e) ADSB exception vs. the 91.215(b)(3) transponder exception. The transponder exception identifies an ENGINE DRIVEN electrical system, while the ADSB exception only identifies an electrical system. I've asked for a LOI stating that the intent of 91.225(e) is the same as 91.215(b)(3). Without that, an aircraft with a battery powered com can't use the exception of 91.225(e).
As a former FAA ASI I can only speak for myself about signing airman certificates. Since we all have airman certificates on the back “block VII signature of holder”. The FAA guidance for inspection airman certificates is in FAA order 8900.1 Volume, Chapter 11, Section 15. Below I have copied the important parts that pertain to mechanics ONLY. Bottom line in the ASI’s handbooks there is nothing that states a mechanic MUST sign their certificates. The FAA ASI has no guidance in the Order 8900.1 to check for signatures or does it state it is require. All it states is “Ensure that airmen are properly certificated for all work for which they are responsible.”
Signing an airman certificate is not in part 65 under airman certification and is not one of the limitations. As a DME there are no questions on the oral or practical tests concerning signing airman certificates. However, there are questions about our ratings, limitations, and duration.
It is my opinion the signature is on the mechanic certificate there so a person could check it against a aircraft record entry signature, but it is not mandatory to have the certificate signed. In addition, most of the ink we used today is water solubility and will fade or wipe off. The FAA I work with know the problems with water based ink and having certificates unsigned was not an issue. As we would write done the airman’s name, certificate number, and ratings and check the data base in the office. Checking for signature is not a requirements as the order indicates.
This section provides guidance for conducting surveillance of mechanics, repairmen, parachute riggers, and Inspection Authorization (IA) holders.
A. Verify Proper Certification. Ensure that airmen are properly certificated for all work for which they are responsible.
B. Review Repairman Certificates. Ensure that repairman certificate ratings are specific and appropriate to the work being performed as required by 14 CFR part 65, §§ 65.103 and 65.105. Ensure that certificates are kept within the immediate area. If the ratings appear inappropriate, inform the repairman that recertification may be required.
NOTE: Repairman certificates and ratings should be reserved for airmen having special talents and skills. They should not be issued to circumvent obtaining a mechanic’s certificate with appropriate ratings.
NOTE: A repairman employed by an air carrier or commercial operator with a repair station certificate may hold one airman certificate listing both operations in the limitations section, provided the duties are the same in both organizations.
D. Review Mechanic Certificates.
1) Determine if the ratings are appropriate to the work performed as required by § 65.73. Ensure that the mechanic does not exceed the privileges and limitations of the certificate as required by § 65.81.
2) Question the mechanic to ensure understanding of the manufacturer/maintenance manual(s) for the specific operation concerned.
3) Determine if the mechanic meets the requirements for recent experience.
NOTE: Recent experience determination in § 65.83 is through a thorough evaluation of the individual’s knowledge and skill to the extent that the inspector can determine sufficient qualification exists for exercising the privileges and limitations of a mechanic certificate. The evaluation criteria are at the discretion of the inspector and may consist of a review of past experience, a knowledge test, or other information provided by the mechanic that would show the FAA that the certificated mechanic possesses the knowledge and skills needed to continue to exercise the privileges and limitations of their certificate.
4) Select one skill set from 14 CFR part 147 appendix B, C, or D listed as a level 3 minimum requirement; appropriate to the work being performed by the certificated mechanic at the time of surveillance. Emphasize the certificated mechanic should continue to meet at least the minimum standard of knowledge, skill and experience, while enhancing his skills through study and continued education and experience. Encourage participation in Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team (FAASTeam) educational products and events for AMTs.
5) Determine if the airman certificate is available for inspection within the immediate area where the airman normally exercises the privileges of the certificate in addition to all other requirements of § 65.89.