Thanks for popping in the discussion, Mr. No Credentials. Come back when you have something correct to say!
Take a look at the STC ICAs on the Hartzell site.http://www.hartzellprop.com/product_applications.php?id=51
You'll note that they specifically indicate that the Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA Approved. Guess what that mean?
You got it, the rest of the ICA is FAA ACCEPTED only!
30+ years in aviation and you still misunderstand the basics!
Once again, nobody, you've proved absolutely nothing with your erroneous fulminate! There are two things I learned early in life, one is how to read, write and comprehend the English language and the other is how to write my name. Come back when you learn either!
Bob, Bob, Bob. When are you going to admit you are wrong.
From FAA ORDER 8110.54 Chapter 2
"The applicable airworthiness regulations also require that ICA be acceptable to the FAA, and certain portions of the ICA must be approved, such as the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)."
So, what documentation do you have to support your lame position?
This post has generated some good discussion and over 2000 visits. At first blush it looks like it is the "no required" posters vs. Bob Pasch as most of the comments are between these posters. Overlooked (at least I have not seen many responses) is the post by Stacheair (near the top of page #2 of comments http://www.askbob.aero/content/stc-icas?page=1). Stacheair also supports the "Yes" camp and says "As a CSR or an IA performing an annual inspection you are required to add those addition item listed on each FAA Form 337 to your checklist as required by section 43.16. Not doing so would be a violation and result in an improper annual inspection." Stacheair is less vocal on this site but I have found him to be very accurate with his posts
Bob Jones (AskBob)
I'll admit the possibility when you print your name and your credentials! BTW, 8110.54 has absolutely NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY, Mr. Nobody! Try again...
I guess I see a different tally on the "not required" vs. "required" posters to this issue. Except for myself, and the anonymous individual, everyone seems to feel as though ICA are universally required. It seems like the question that sparked this debate came from an individual who believes or believed that ICA are required as well (kharvey).
The main difference of opinion seems to stem from the interpretation of 43.16, and whether ICA (AWL excepted) are approved data, and a part of type design or not.
The regulations (parts 21, 23, 25 etc....) clearly state that ICA (AWL section excepted) are accepted data, not approved. They also clearly state that ICA are not required to be complete at design approval. Their name is also a clue: Instructions for CONTINUED Airworthiness. The product is airworthy at the time of design approval. It meets type design and is in a condition for safe operation. ICA are used to keep it airworthy. They are not a part of type design (AWL excepted) and the FAA is not approving them whether listed on a 337 or not. Ref. item 16 of ICA check list from A.C 43-210 on ICA revision prcedure. (I realize A.C.'s are not regulatory, and this one is for field approvals).
As for the interpretation of 43.16 to require complete ICA compliance, it is just plain incorrect in my opinion.
If what Stacheair is saying (and quoted by you) is that during an Annual inspection, the inspector MAY have to use additional INSPECTION methods, techniques, and practices contained in the relevant ICA, then I agree. It is not 43.16 that requires this though (unless we are talking about an AWL section of the ICA) but rather 43.13(a). The inspector always has the "other" option if legitemate other methods, techniques, and practices exist. None of this makes the entire ICA required however.
I also believe that everyone is aware that A.C's, notices, orders, ETC...... are not regulatory. Everyone also knows that maintenance is performed as required by part 43. All the other references have been used as just that...... references.
FAA orders do represent FAA opinion from their chief counsel to inspectors on how to interpret and enforce the rules. So to say that the FAA has'nt taken a position on this issue, is also incorrect in my opinion.
Interesting logic from Mr. Pasch. He correctly notes that the FAA Order cited is not regulatory, yet missed the point. While the FAA Order is not regulatory, it is the guidance given to ASIs for conducting their jobs.
On the other hand Bob ignores the fact that FAA accepted portions of an ICA are not regulatory either! Only the FAA approved (Airworthiness Limitations) section are.
Here's what an actual member of the bar has to allow on the situation.
Once again, you're so far off base you got picked off! "Clearly" Parts 21, 23, 25 etc. DO NOT state that ICAs are accepted data. In fact, in Part 23 Appendix G it specifically states that they are Approved data. Please, please, please, please, please tell us how long (or short) you've been in aviation? I feel like the teacher arguing with a kindergartener...
Can you please quote the exact language in appendix G of part 23 that indicates that ICA are approved (AWL section excluded)?
By the way. I like the baseball metaphor.(Pitchers and catchers report on the 14th!)
Also, sometimes kindergarden teachers do have to argue with their students. Its perfectly normal.
Yes, I can! And no, teachers shouldn't argue with kindergarten children. It brings the teacher down to the ignorant child's level...
If you've been engaged with the FAA on a daily basis like I have, Mr. Nobody, you'd know that although the inspectors use Orders to perform their jobs, they are not bound by them. Just like you said, it's GUIDANCE given to inspectors, NOT rules. As a matter of fact, the reason that FAA Orders are as dynamic as they are is because the inspectors challenge their information regularly!
BTW, I didn't ignore anything Mr. Nobody but to repeat for you, read FAR 23 Appendix G. That's where you'll find that the ICAs are Approved Data. And no, I'm not gonna quote the section! If you and Whiteface are as smart as you think you are you can find it like the rest of the experienced techs do...
And as far as your attorney's opinion, I don't see anything there that rebuts my position!
Part 23 appendix G posted for Mr. Pasch. Please help us find the word approved, and the context in which it is used. Where did you learn to read?
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart G—Operating Limitations and Information
Browse Previous | Browse Next
Appendix G to Part 23—Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
G23.1 General. (a) This appendix specifies requirements for the preparation of Instructions for Continued Airworthiness as required by §23.1529.
(b) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for each airplane must include the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for each engine and propeller (hereinafter designated ‘products’), for each appliance required by this chapter, and any required information relating to the interface of those appliances and products with the airplane. If Instructions for Continued Airworthiness are not supplied by the manufacturer of an appliance or product installed in the airplane, the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for the airplane must include the information essential to the continued airworthiness of the airplane.
(c) The applicant must submit to the FAA a program to show how changes to the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness made by the applicant or by the manufacturers of products and appliances installed in the airplane will be distributed.
G23.2 Format. (a) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must be in the form of a manual or manuals as appropriate for the quantity of data to be provided.
(b) The format of the manual or manuals must provide for a practical arrangement.
G23.3 Content. The contents of the manual or manuals must be prepared in the English language. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must contain the following manuals or sections, as appropriate, and information:
(a) Airplane maintenance manual or section. (1) Introduction information that includes an explanation of the airplane's features and data to the extent necessary for maintenance or preventive maintenance.
(2) A description of the airplane and its systems and installations including its engines, propellers, and appliances.
(3) Basic control and operation information describing how the airplane components and systems are controlled and how they operate, including any special procedures and limitations that apply.
(4) Servicing information that covers details regarding servicing points, capacities of tanks, reservoirs, types of fluids to be used, pressures applicable to the various systems, location of access panels for inspection and servicing, locations of lubrication points, lubricants to be used, equipment required for servicing, tow instructions and limitations, mooring, jacking, and leveling information.
(b) Maintenance instructions. (1) Scheduling information for each part of the airplane and its engines, auxiliary power units, propellers, accessories, instruments, and equipment that provides the recommended periods at which they should be cleaned, inspected, adjusted, tested, and lubricated, and the degree of inspection, the applicable wear tolerances, and work recommended at these periods. However, the applicant may refer to an accessory, instrument, or equipment manufacturer as the source of this information if the applicant shows that the item has an exceptionally high degree of complexity requiring specialized maintenance techniques, test equipment, or expertise. The recommended overhaul periods and necessary cross reference to the Airworthiness Limitations section of the manual must also be included. In addition, the applicant must include an inspection program that includes the frequency and extent of the inspections necessary to provide for the continued airworthiness of the airplane.
(2) Troubleshooting information describing probable malfunctions, how to recognize those malfunctions, and the remedial action for those malfunctions.
(3) Information describing the order and method of removing and replacing products and parts with any necessary precautions to be taken.
(4) Other general procedural instructions including procedures for system testing during ground running, symmetry checks, weighing and determining the center of gravity, lifting and shoring, and storage limitations.
(c) Diagrams of structural access plates and information needed to gain access for inspections when access plates are not provided.
(d) Details for the application of special inspection techniques including radiographic and ultrasonic testing where such processes are specified.
(e) Information needed to apply protective treatments to the structure after inspection.
(f) All data relative to structural fasteners such as identification, discard recommendations, and torque values.
(g) A list of special tools needed.
(h) In addition, for commuter category airplanes, the following information must be furnished:
(1) Electrical loads applicable to the various systems;
(2) Methods of balancing control surfaces;
(3) Identification of primary and secondary structures; and
(4) Special repair methods applicable to the airplane.
G23.4 Airworthiness Limitations section. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must contain a section titled Airworthiness Limitations that is segregated and clearly distinguishable from the rest of the document. This section must set forth each mandatory replacement time, structural inspection interval, and related structural inspection procedure required for type certification. If the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness consist of multiple documents, the section required by this paragraph must be included in the principal manual. This section must contain a legible statement in a prominent location that reads: “The Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA approved and specifies maintenance required under §§43.16 and 91.403 of the Federal Aviation Regulations unless an alternative program has been FAA approved.”
§ 23.1529 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with appendix G to this part that are ACCEPTABLE to the Administrator. The instructions may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first airplane or issuance of a standard certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.
[Amdt. 23–26, 45 FR 60171, Sept. 11, 1980]
Appendix G to Part 23—Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(a) This appendix specifies requirements for the preparation of Instructions for Continued Airworthiness as required by §23.1529.
G23.4 Airworthiness Limitations section. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must contain a section titled Airworthiness Limitations that is segregated and clearly distinguishable from the rest of the document. This section must set forth each mandatory replacement time, structural inspection interval, and related structural inspection procedure required for type certification. If the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness consist of multiple documents, the section required by this paragraph must be included in the principal manual. This section must contain a legible statement in a prominent location that reads: “The Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA APPROVED and specifies maintenance required under §§43.16 and 91.403 of the Federal Aviation Regulations unless an alternative program has been FAA approved.”
[Amdt. 23–26, 45 FR 60171, Sept. 11, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 23–34, 52 FR 1835, Jan. 15, 1987; 52 FR 34745, Sept. 14, 1987; Amdt. 23–37, 54 FR 34329, Aug. 18, 1989]
I cut these from the GPO Access web site. They are listed as current as of today. I did capitalize the words accepted and approved where used in the text.The other airworthiness standard rules (25, 33, etc......) have essentially the same wording.
ICA are to be ACCEPTABLE per 23.1529.
An AWL section is a required part of ICA per this appendix and this section (and only this section) is FAA APPROVED.
Way to shotgun Whiteface! Congratulations, you've just hit a major point for my argument and you have no idea how you got there! [I told you] As you so aptly point out, ICAs are REQUIRED by regulation [Appendix G23.1(a)]. Therefore, when performing mx you MUST comply with ICAs. YOU don't have an option to choose which ones!
You will also note that NOWHERE in your shotgun approach to debating do you see a requirement for an ICA to be part of an AWL section as you purport 43.16 to convey.
So now that you've made my case all you have to do is understand what you've done, comprehend what the regs say and comply with ICAs. That wasn't so hard... Oh, wait a minute, I take that back...
The answer to this is really simple for anyone that has ever had to deal with the FAA in getting an STC approved. And obviously had to write ICA's that were mandated to contain an "Airworthiness Limitations" section in them. So that the FAA could approve the "Airworthiness Limitations" section and be able to legally enforce it being complied with on non turbine powered fixed wing aircraft under 12,500.
And the answer is muddied by so many FAA FSDO and ACO employees that try to enforce things that are legally not required.
But there is a fine line that confuses many. The easiest way to explain it is "How" versus "When".
If an STC (or newer Maint Manual, or SB, or Field Approval for that matter ) Has ICA's, which all recently obtained ones are mandated to have, and you do Maintenance to any part of this system, You Must Perform the maintenance in accordance with the ICA's, or Material directly referenced by the ICA's, or other FAA Approved Alternate Methods. That is the "How".
The "When": If the ICA's state that a component of the system is life limited or has maintenance or inspection schedule in any other location than in an FAA Approved " Airworthiness Limitations" Section, they are not mandatory as per the FAA on non turbine powered fixed wing aircraft under 12,500.(although I personally endorse complying with manufacturers recommendations for a variety of reasons, Safety #1, but I'm sure my insurance companies attornies could think of a couple of other good ones too).
If the ICA's state that a component of the system is life limited or has a maintenance or inspection schedule in an FAA Approved " Airworthiness Limitations" Section, they are mandatory as per the FAA on non turbine powered fixed wing aircraft under 12,500.
That is what the "Airworthiness Limitatations" section of ICA's, or S.B.'s, or non-approved Maint. Manuals are for. To make specific FAA Approved material within them MANDATORY. The problem is that everyone doesn't see alot of them. But I'm sure that we will see more and more as time goes by.
To distinguish the things that our government is allowed to regulate us to do is not always easy, But the FAA only makes the "When" Rule of law in three ways on non turbine powered fixed wing aircraft under 12,500.(these do not include Federal Laws or DOT Regulations, Only FAA)
#1: By Type Certificate
#2: By Airworthiness Directives
#3: By FAA Approved "Airworthiness Limitatations" sections that can be included in STC or Field Approval ICA's, Service Bulletins, or ATA Chapter 4 of Maint. Manuals.
These are not my opinions, these are facts. We can all have our own opinions, but we should all only have one set of true facts to base those opinions on.
In no case has anyone ever received a violation that "stuck" for not complying with the "when" of an ICA if not contained in an "Airworthiness Limitatations" section.
The FAA makes manufacturers write instructions to properly operate and maintain their products.ICA's. "How"
The FAA would never give away it's power to a manufacturer to make the people of the United States (the owners) spend money (repair or replace components) to be in compliance with the law, nor should they, without specifically approving it.( If you are 135, 121, or on a AAIP you asked for that privelige)
Just some food for thought: Before the FAA finally approves an Airworthiness Directive under Part 39, They must do a cost Impact analysis and put it out for public comment (unless it's an Emergency AD ) Why do they do this? Do You think that they like to Do this? Maybe it's a law that they have to do this?
A manufacturer can revise or ammend the ICA's for his product without any FAA Approval. As long as it does not pertain to the FAA Approved "Airworthiness Limitatations" section.
If all ICA's were law, then I the manufacturer, could use the government as my big stick to generate revenue from you, the owner, anytime we needed cash, by merely mandating that you replace our components more often, by revising the requirements of our ICA's. And the FAA would have to enforce it without ever even reviewing it.
Does that make any more sense when you look at it from that end of the equation?
Take out all that "on non turbine powered fixed wing aircraft under 12,500' crap and you're pretty damned close...
When do you admit to being incorrect BOB?
Are ICA contained in an STC mandatory?
The methods techniques and practices (the how) contained in ICA are mandatory when performing relevant Mx. unless legitimately using the "other" option [43.13(a)].
Anytime mx. is performed as required by an FAA Approved AWL section of an ICA/Maintenance manual, it must be performed IAW that section (43.16 with specific exceptions noted in the rule).
The other stuff contained in ICA is not (legally) mandatory.
ICA can contain requirements as to "who" can perform certain maintenance tasks. Occasionally ICA state "must be factory trained, or have factory approved training etc......." Again, outside of the FAA approved AWL section, A.D. or other regulatory reference, I don't see any legal basis for this either.
I'm not sure I follow the distinction you make with regard to AWL section of fixed wing under 12,500. Can you give more explaination/regulatory references for this?
Yes, if a battery or an EHSI or a GPS, as examples, has an ICA for that component, that ICA is applicable whether the component is installed in a Piper PA28R-200 (under 12,500 lbs) or a G5 (over 12,500 lbs). That's just ONE example. An ICA for any component is applicable regardless of the size of the aircraft it's installed in. And ICAs for aircraft over 12,500 lbs are just as applicable to them as are the ICAs to small aircraft as well as for engines, propellers and appliances.
So can we summarize that:
1. ICA are required to be developed and made available by the design approval holder (TC, STC, or field approval). 21.5
2. The ICA must conform to the applicable airworthiness standard rule. 21.5
3. ICA are ACCEPTED data (not a part of type design), but must address airworthiness limitations (if they exist). 23, 25, 33......... etc
4. The ICA must contain an FAA APPROVED section (called Airworthiness Limitations section) to address Airworthiness Limitations. 23, 25, 33.......... etc
5. The operator must comply with the requirements of this FAA APPROVED section. 91.403(c)
6. Maintenance providers must perform maintenance required by the Airworthiness Limitation section IAW that section. 43.16
7. Maintenance providers must use the ACCEPTED methods techniques, and practices contained within the applicable ICA/ maintenance manual, or other ACCEPTED methods, techniques, and practices when performing maintenance (outside of the FAA Approved AWL section). 43.13(a)
8. ICA including the AWL section apply to aircraft and components parts thereof regardless of whether they are fixed wing, rotary or other, and regardless of gross T.O. weight unless other accepted or approved data (as applicable) has been obtained various rules. (Specific operations 121,135, etc...can add or change requirements).
Most definitely agreed, just as we have been saying all along.
So, those who state that ICAs are approved data are wrong.
Those who say that compliance with the FAA accepted portions of an ICA are mandatory are also wrong. (: Well done Whitefaced!
The only reason that I used the "fixed wing recip powered aircraft under 12,500" disclaimer over and over, is so that I did not want to mislead anyone into thinking that there was never any circumstances where every part of an ICA was Mandatory. For Example the FAA interperets 43.15(b) on rotorcraft to mean the "How","When",and also the "Who" for that matter. And not just in an "Airworthiness Limitations" section, everything in the ICA's for the rotorcraft, or parts installed on it. Obviously both of you guys are well versed in the Reg's, and there could be many other examples of large aircraft, or turbine powered aircraft, operating under Part 121 or 135 or on other than an "Annual Inspection" program, or AAIP that could require more compliance than just the "Airworthiness Limitations" section of an ICA.
I just wanted to make it clear that to my knowlege there is only one way of operating and maintaining a specific aircraft that I could say for sure, Only needs the "Airworthiness Limitations" section of an ICA complied with and that would be on " Fixed wing, recip. powered, small aircraft, operating and being inspected I/A/W Part 91" I would like to hear other absolute examples, I just couldn't think of any, but there probably are some.
When you sign your name, coward!
No you're singing my song! It' not just rotorcraft!!!
That is an interesting point with regard to rotorcraft and 43.15(b). I always interpreted the rule to only require the use of methods, techniques and practices contained in the ICA specific to the listed areas to be inspected. It is definately not worded in a way that makes it crystal clear.
Do you know of any official opinions from the chief counsel or past cases on this rule?
I do not maintain any rotorcraft, and confess a great deal of ignorance with regard to them, and the associated regulatory nuances of them.
If the interpretation is as you say, it would give a great deal of power to the manufacturer.
Well, at least some may learn something correct concerning ICA compliance here. Poor Bob, never in doubt, seldom correct.
As I study this rule 43.15(b) it seems to address the "when" as it is required with any inspection performed as required by part 91. That does seem to be weak language though in my opinion as there could be many part 91 required inspections that don't have a thing to do with the items listed in 43.15(b). Examples would be things like 91.411 and 413 required inspections, or 91.207 required inspection. A person could be using an Approved inspection program that contains various inspection tasks that may also have nothing to do with the items in 43.15(b). It almost seems that the intent (and I know that assuming intent is a dangerous practice) was to ensure that these specific items are captured during an Annual or 100 hr. inspection, but I'm not sure about that.
As for the "who" part, that is really out there. It would seem that the manufacturer could dictate in the ICA/Maintenance manual just who could perform these inspections outside of the requirements of the rules. That doesn't follow with the long-standing position that the FAA has taken with regard to manufacturer's ability to mandate stuff.
My experience has been that you don't see the "who" requirements outside of part 43/65 without very specific unambiguous regulatory language.
Welcome to the mutual admiration society where the blind leads the deaf and neither one knows what they're doing... Do you guys have ANY experience?
Definition of EXPERIENCE from Miriam-Webster:
1a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
2a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity
So your song lyrics are;
ICAs are approved data, lah, lah, lah lah, lah,
Mechanics must absolutely comply with ICAs without question in all cases, lah, lah, lah, lah.
And the chorus sings;
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LAh!!!!!!!!!!!