UK Part 145 Deadline Approaching: Make Sure You Have the Right Maintenance Release Documentation

December 4, 2024 by Leave a comment

If you have a US-based repair station or if you use US-based repair stations to provide MRO services, then you should carefully look at the approaching UK deadline. The UK has been accepting EASA 145 maintenance approval certificates (EASA Form 1) but will insist on UK CAA 145 maintenance releases (or comparable maintenance release documents accepted under a bilateral agreement) after December 31, 2024.

This means that distributors who sell overhauled components to UK operators and MROs will need those components to be overhauled under standards acceptable to the UK if the maintenance release is dated January 1, 2025 or later. Acceptable maintenance release documents in the UK will include:

  • UK CAA Form 1
  • FAA 8130-3 if signed as a dual-release under UK 145 privileges
  • TCCA Form One

UK CAA Part 145 Repair Station Certification

The practical deadline for U.S.-based repair stations to obtain UK CAA Part 145 maintenance organization approval is December 31, 2024. This certification is part of the UK’s transition following its withdrawal from the European Union (EU).

The new UK CAA approval process replaces the previous recognition of EASA certificates for repair stations servicing UK aircraft. The deadline does not affect maintenance approvals that were issued before the current deadline, so already-maintained parts with EASA Form 1 (issued by or before December 31, 2024) will still be acceptable for installation on UK-registered aircraft. However, parts subject to maintenance release dated after January 1, 2025, will require acceptable release documentation.

As of March 2024, the UK CAA had received about 150 applications from U.S.-based maintenance providers. As of late November 2024, over 700 U.S. entities had applied, with 300 receiving approvals. The UK CAA anticipates more applications in the final weeks of 2024.

Application Process and Deadlines

Applications for UK CAA Part 145 approval opened in January 2023. The agreed application deadline is September 30, 2024, allowing 90 days for approvals before the transition period ends. However, recent statements encourage anyone who hasn’t yet applied to come forward and submit applications as soon as possible, even if the September deadline was missed. New applications may not be approved by January 2025, but shops that have not yet applied should still submit their paperwork. The CAA aims to make the approval process accessible and let the market determine business placements.

Requirements and Eligibility

Applicants must hold a valid FAR 145 Repair Station Certificate issued by the FAA. Evidence of need for UK approval is required, but the bar is not set high; an expression of interest from a potential UK customer is sufficient.

While the UK CAA believes most commercial operator needs have been addressed, they recognize that some gaps in general aviation support may remain. The UK CAA is prepared to work with affected stakeholders and has workarounds in place to minimize disruptions for small GA operators.

Application Procedure

Submit a completed application form to the UK CAA.

Provide necessary documentation, including:

  • Copy of the FAA Air Agency approval certificate
  • Federal Tax Identifier Number
  • Payment of the relevant fee

Upon receipt of the UK Part 145 approval number, submit required documentation to the FAA. The FAA National Coordinator and CAA National Coordinator will keep a record and share the status of applications for UK Part 145 repair stations located in the US to monitor approvals granted by the CAA.

Costs and Validity

The Initial approval fee for organizations holding a FAR 145 Repair Station Certificate is £1,0822.

The Annual fee to maintain approval is £646.

Approvals are valid for 24 months and require renewal.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

SMS Rumors – SMS For Part 145 May Meet Obstacles

December 9, 2022 by Leave a comment

The aviation industry has anxiously awaited the FAA’s Safety Management Systems (SMS) rulemaking. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) had been scheduled for September, 2022, and was then delayed until December of this year. It appears that the proposed SMS rule may have hit another snag.

Industry rumors are suggesting that the SMS rule may have been inadequate to meet the requirements reviewed by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This is based in part on an industry critique that was filed with OIRA; the critique accused the rule of offering inadequate options to small businesses.

If these rumors are true, then it is likely that the SMS rule could be cleaved in half – with the manufacturing portion going forward (but only applying to large manufacturers) and the repair station half being held back.

Regulatory historians will recall that in 1999, the FAA proposed to add quality assurance system requirements to repair stations. That rule was scaled back to just a quality manual. The present SMS proposal for repair stations appears to suffer from some of the same issues that impacted the quality assurance systems rule about twenty years ago. The easiest way for the FAA to deal with this would be to simply go forward with the manufacturing SMS rule but remove the repair station SMS requirements until the FAA could rethink the technical evaluation.

This does not mean that SMS won’t apply to repair stations. EASA has already passed an SMS requirement (EU repair stations entered the two-year implementation period a week ago) and there are air carriers who are talking about flowing down their SMS requirements to their maintenance providers. ASA members with repair station certificates will still need to pay careful attention to their SMS obligations. But those same companies may find that they have more options to meet customer SMS requirements, including voluntary SMS programs.

This is a developing story, and we expect to have more news on SMS developments in 2023!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

UK CAA FAQ: UK CAA Documentation Requirements for Parts

March 1, 2022 by Leave a comment

QUESTION:

UK CAA accepts 8130-3 tags but not EASA Form 1.  Is it possible for an EU based Part 145 organization who has both EASA and FAA approval to provide only a FAA single release certificate and only present this certificate to the UK based organizations as long as the UK based organizations are accepting of a single release certification for a part.  

SHORT ANSWER:

No.  If you ask an EU-based repair station that has both US and EU repair station credentials to maintain an aircraft part and to issue an 8130-3 to document the work it performed, and then subsequently proffer that 8130-3 as the basis for airworthiness determinations prior to installation on a UK-registered aircraft, then the work may be rejected by the UK on the grounds that it does not meet current UK regulatory requirements.

LONGER ANSWER:

Under the new UK CAA standards that go into effect April 1, 2022, the UK CAA will accept maintenance approved on an 8130-3 tag but will no longer accept maintenance released on an EASA Form 1 when issued after April 1.  The questioner offers a clever approach to the impending UK CAA limits.  Unfortunately, this approach puts form over substance.  The root issue is the governmental oversight of the work – not the way that the work is documented.  Therefore, using a clever approach to change the documentation will not be an acceptable way to circumvent UK CAA maintenance controls. 

There are several inherent problems with this clever approach.  First, it undermines the intent of the regulations.  The current intent of UK CAA is that they will no longer accept maintenance performed by EU repair stations.  Second, because the UK CAA intent is to reject maintenance performed by EU repair stations (except when they obtain UK CAA certification), the UK CAA’s established protocols will not permit the UK to rely on maintenance performed by EU-based repair stations (no matter what documentation they use) [NOTE: EU-based repair stations may apply for UK 145 certification, and then their work becomes acceptable under the UK system].  Third, even if it was not undermining UK CAA intent, it is not currently an available process under the existing bilateral agreements because it does not meet their plain language.

To understand why the clever approach does not work, it is important to understand the basis of aviation maintenance regulation.  Under ICAO standards, the country of registry for an aircraft is responsible for the applicable maintenance standards.  This means that the UK CAA is responsible for the continued airworthiness of aircraft on the UK registry.  The UK CAA issues repair station certificates and provides ongoing oversight to those facilities in order to help manage the continued airworthiness processes.

Under normal bilateral airworthiness relationships, one country may agree to accept maintenance performed by repair stations located in the other.  This can be accomplished through “reciprocal acceptance” or through “dual-certification.”

Under a reciprocal acceptance paradigm, the accepting country (which will be the country of registry with the applicable airworthiness responsibilities) would treat maintenance performed by the maintaining country (which will be the country that issued the repair station certificate) as if it had been performed by a repair station subject to the accepting country’s certificates.  Typically, under a reciprocal acceptance paradigm, the repair station only needs one certificate (from its home government) and that certificate is acceptable for work performed for operators from both jurisdictions.  An example of this can be found in the Canada-US relationship, where each country’s operators are permitted to rely on maintenance performed by the repair stations in the other.  A reciprocal acceptance relationship seems easy, but it requires a tremendous level of trust between the aviation safety authorities.  As a consequence, it is more common to see dual-certification relationships described in bilateral aviation safety agreements.

Under dual-certification relationship, the foreign nation issues foreign repair station certificates in collaboration with the home government.  For example, the EU-US agreements have recognized that the repair station oversight systems of both FAA and EASA are very similar and achieve substantially similar goals.  They have also identified a small number of critical differences between the two repair station certification schemes (these differences are known as “Special Conditions”).  Repair stations in the United States that want to get EASA 145 credentials need to create a manual and a system that addresses those Special Conditions.  An FAA Flight Standards maintenance inspector will inspect the EASA-145 applicant who is locate in the United States to confirm that (1) the repair station meets all of the FAA regulations and (2) the repair station complies with the EASA Special Conditions.  If the repair station meets all of the requirements, then the FAA will recommend to EASA that it issue an EASA 145 certificate and EASA may issue such a certificate.

The FAA and EASA maintain a dual-certification relationship with respect to aviation maintenance.  Repair stations must follow the requirements under that relationship to maintain their repair station credentials.  Under the EU-US bilateral agreement, an EU-based repair station that has both sets of repair station credentials must issue an EASA Form 1 as a release document for maintenance.  It does not have an option to issue an 8130-3 tag.  In the event it must release work that is acceptable in the US but not in the EU, the repair station must release the work on an EASA Form 1 that is annotated with the phrase:

The work identified in Block 11 and described herein has been accomplished in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 43 and in respect to that work, the items are approved for return to service under certificate no.________.

This product/article meets 145.A.50 requirements, except for the following items, and therefore is “not” eligible to be installed on an EU-registered aircraft:

[** LIST THE DIVERGENCES **]

US-EU Maintenance Annex Guidance, Section C: Appendix 1, para. 7.5 (March 19, 2021).

So the first problem with the clever solution is that an EU-based dual certificated repair station is required to issue an EASA Form 1 under the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance.

There is an additional technical impediment.  The US-UK Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) do not blindly rely on the 8130-3 tag.  Under that US-UK MIP agreement, the UK CAA accepts approvals “for return to service by an AMO located in the United States under the FAA’s oversight.”  The US-UK MIP does not accept work performed in the EU.  So there is no legal basis for acceptance in the UK of an 8130-3 that documents work performed in the EU.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

European SMS Requirements for Repair Stations; Could Indirectly Affect Distributors

November 10, 2021 by Leave a comment

According to EASA sources, Safety Management Systems (SMS) requirements should be published as a part of the EASA repair station regulations before the end of the year. The part 145 SMS requirements will likely be published by the European Commission this calendar year, with associated AMCs and GMs coming from EASA. 

The EASA SMS rule for repair stations is expected to be applicable 20 days after the publication date (that’s when compliance is permitted).  Compliance with the EASA SMS rule is expected to be required one year later (385 days after the publication date).  The initial one-year period will be for initial implementing of SMS programs.

After initial implementation, the applicable authorities will audit and provide feedback to help get repair stations into full compliance. Each EASA Part 145 organization will have a two-year period for implementing missing elements with the help of the authorities (e.g. for implementing corrective action in response to authority findings). 

This is a new program so we expect that there will be findings issued against the implementers by the authorities.  The two-year transition period is meant to be a period during which all of the authority findings should be closed.

This should not have an immediate effect on US-based EASA 145 organizations because of the way that the US-EU maintenance agreement (and guidance) is structured; but the essence of that agreement is that both regulatory systems are substantially similar, so the addition of SMS to the EU system opens the door to further negotiations. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the United States plans to issue an SMS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for repair station SMS in September 2022.

By the end of 2024, the European Community expects that all EASA Part 145 organizations should be in full compliance with SMS.

SMS requires communications with business partners, so distributors, and others, who do business with European repair stations should not be surprised if they start seeing communications seeking hazard data, and asking about mitigation strategies for known (or recently discovered) hazards. ASA has already provided SMS training for the community, and will be providing more. ASA plans to provide more SMS-related resources for its members to support their smooth coordination with customers’ SMS programs.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

NEW: US Gov’t Payroll Funding for Aviation Businesses

April 6, 2021 by 3 Comments

The US government has recognized the extreme hardship that has befallen many aviation companies and has passed legislation that will provide payroll support to aviation businesses.

This is a new program that has just been authorized and is in the process of being developed. It is known as the Aviation Manufacturing Jobs Protection (AMJP) program, but the actual scope includes more than just traditional manufacturing jobs.

The program is targeted to three categories of aviation business:

  • FAA production approval holders – this includes businesses that hold PC, PMA and/or TSOA;
  • MROs holding FAA Part 145 credentials; and,
  • Aviation businesses providing goods or services under an AS9100 system.

The ASA Community has members that fall into each of these three categories.

The legislation is found in Public Law 117-2 at sections 7201-7202. The Department of Transportation plans to publish a website with resources to facilitate application and compliance under the program (we will let you know once it is published).

What Are the Program Benefits?

In summary, under the AMJP program, the government provides money directly to program participants to subsidize a portion of their payroll

Businesses that participate in this program will have to identify an eligible group of employees who perform a targeted activity (see above). This group can be no more than 25% of your total workforce. The members in this group are limited to employees with a total compensation level of $200,000 or less per year (each).

You will commit to retain this eligible employee group, and in return the government will commit to paying up to 50% of their base pay and benefits (“total compensation“) for 6 months. The government has appropriated 3 billion dollars for this program and if the program is oversubscribed, then this amount could be reduced on a pro-rata basis (which might reduce the government’s potential commitment to each applicant).

This program is for the “retention, rehire, or recall of employees of the employer” so that means that you can use the money to rehire eligible furloughed/laid-off employees.

Example: Let’s say you are a small business that distributes aircraft parts kits under an AS9100 system and is otherwise eligible for the AMJP program. You only have 12 employees. Three of your employees are involved in the AS9100 kitting process, so you designate them as your employee group. The combined annual salary of this group is $300,000 (including base pay and benefits). This means that the government could commit to paying $75,000 (50% of the salary for six months).

Example: Let’s say you are a larger distributor that distributes new aircraft parts under an AS9100 system and is otherwise eligible for the AMJP program. You have 600 employees who are substantially all involved in the AS9100 operations. Let’s say that you designate a group of 150 employees as your employee group. The combined annual salary of this group is $22,500,000 (including base pay and benefits). This means that the government could commit to paying $5,6255,000 (50% of the salary for six months).

As long as the program requirements are met, these funds would not have to be paid-back to the government. The funds would likely be treated like a grant.

What Can You Do Now, to Prepare?

The internal government mechanisms for managing this new program are still being developed, but while we wait for the program to be formally announced, there are some things that businesses can do now to ensure that they are prepared to take advantage of the program:

  • Read the legislation to make sure you understand the terms and conditions;
  • Assess whether you meet the fundamental requirements, which include:
    • US Aviation Business meeting one of the three categories described above;
    • in 2020, you laid off 10+% of your workforce or experienced a reduction in revenues of 15+% (each as compared to correlative 2019 numbers);
  • Read the ineligibility provisions of the law and make sure you are not ineligible (and avoid ineligibliity);
  • Obtain a DUNS number, if your business doesn’t already have one, because that is a likely prerequisite for application;
  • Register in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) because that is the most likely mechanism for government distribution of the funds;
  • Obtain AS9100 certification, if you do not otherwise meet the qualifications.

Finally, you should be thinking of the questions that you may have and sending those questions to us. ASA is generating a list of Frequently Asked Questions and sharing it with the Department of Transportation in order to let them know what the community needs to know to make the program successful. This is an ongoing process, so please share your questions with us as you think of them.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

EASA Proposes New SMS (and other) Changes to Part 21 and Part 145

April 24, 2019 by Leave a comment

EASA has issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) that would establish new SMS regulations for repair stations and manufacturers.

This NPA proposes to apply safety management systems (SMS) to Part-145 approved maintenance organizations, and to production and design organizations approved under Subparts G and J of Part 21.  It introduces elements of SMS into each set of regulations, but also makes a number of other changes in each, as well.

The proposed repair station SMS rules are published in section C of the NPA.  Many of the changes to EASA Part 145 appear to reflect terminology and cosmetic changes to make the existing regulations better reflect the terminology of SMS.  Some language from the CAMO regulations has been adopted for the repair station regulations.  There would be new regulations for airworthiness review staff.  Some changes are meant to better address risks posed by personnel fatigue and by external working teams.  Some of the oversight mechanisms (EASA Part 145.B) have been changed, and this will likely have indirect effects on the operations of repair stations.  There are also proposed changes to record-keeping requirements.  There are also significant changes to the occurrence reporting systems for repair stations.

Most distributors will be pleased to know that EASA 145.A.42 – which governs the documentation required for parts – will not change under this proposed rule.

Once the regulations go into force, existing EASA 145 organizations will have two years to modify their systems in order to comply with the new regulations.  This will likely have delayed effect on US-based EASA 145 organizations, because those organizations are required to comply with US regulations and the additional special conditions (as described in the Maintenance Annex, and also consistent with the implementation guidance in the Maintenance Annex Guidance); but the change in the EASA regulations could lead to a subsequent change in the special conditions.

The proposed manufacturer SMS rules are published in section B of the NPA.

Changes include an expansion of mandatory reporting system to require collection, investigation and analysis of all voluntary reports, in addition to mandatory reports.  It would expand the system to include requirements for reporting and managing internal errors and other hazards that do not fall under the traditional failures, malfunctions, defects and adverse effects occurrences that have been reported in the past.  While it is clearly meant well, this change could have the unintended effect of inhibiting voluntary reports, because of the new collection, investigation and analysis burden associated with these voluntary reports.

The new regulation would also impose on the production approval holder a duplicative collection, investigation, analysis and reporting obligation (currently the burden belongs to the design approval holder).

The reports made to the competent authority will also need to safeguard the identity of the reporter, which could inhibit subsequent investigation by the competent authority.

The new regulations will feature expanded record-keeping requirements and also a requirement for arrangements (like contractual requirements) that make all “partners, supplier and subcontractors” open to competent authority investigations.  This could mean that US suppliers to Airbus, for example would need to permit EASA investigators free access to audit or investigate at any time.

This is not a complete list of all of the proposed changes – it is worthwhile for anyone in the aviation industry to review these changes carefully as they may have wide-ranging effects.  There are also draft Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) for each Part in the NPA.

The public is permitted to submit comments using the automated Comment-Response Tool (CRT).  The deadline for comments on this NPA is July 17, 2019.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Does a Dual-Certificated Part 145 Repair Station Need Documentation for Parts, or Can It Inspect Them, Prior to Installation?

October 15, 2017 by Leave a comment

An ASA member recently asked us to answer a MAG 6 question.  MAG 6 refers to revision 6 of the Maintenance Annex Guidance between the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

QUESTION: The ASA member (a dual-certificated repair stations subject to the MAG 6 requirements) asked “Concerning USED replacement parts intended to be fitted to an engine during the maintenance process, does EASA expect every single one of those items installed during the maintenance process to have a dual-release 8130-3, dual-release TC Form One, or dual/tri-release EASA Form one with it assuming it is not a standard part?  (Reference item 10, Section B, Appendix 1 from US-EU Mag, Chang 6)”

ANSWER: The short answer is that a dual-certificated (part 145) repair station in the US generally need specified documentation for used parts intended to be fitted during maintenance, BUT such a repair station can accept a part without the specified documentation if it inspects the part under FAA Notice 8900.429.

First of all, the reader should note that MAG 6 is DIFFERENT from the EASA regulations and therefore an answer under MAG 6 might be different from the answer to a similar question posed purely under EASA regulations.

MAG 6 explains that when a repair station wants to install used components, those components must meet the following conditions before they are fitted during maintenance:

  • Must be in a satisfactory condition for installation;
  • Must be eligible for installation as stated in the PAH parts catalogue or aviation authority (AA) approval document (like a FAA-PMA supplement);
  • Must include one of these authorized release documents (as a maintenance release for a used component) from an appropriately rated maintenance facility:
    • FAA Form 8130-3 from EASA-approved U.S.-based 14 CFR part 145 repair stations;
    • EASA Form 1 from EASA Part-145 approved maintenance organizations not located in the U.S.
    • Canadian Form 1 from a Canadian EASA-approved maintenance organization;
  • In the case of life limited parts, the life used must be appropriately documented.

The FAA recognized that there are significant problems with this language.  It simply doesn’t cover all of the normal situations typically found in the industry.  So the FAA issued FAA Notice 8900.380 (which expired in 2017), followed by FAA Notice 8900.429 (which effectively extended the policy published in Notice 8900.380).  Each of these Notices permits new and used parts to be inspected by a properly rated repair station (notwithstanding the apparent limitations of MAG 6).  The repair station should have appropriate inspection criteria for conducting the inspection.

FAA Notice 8900.429 will expire August 8, 2018, and is expected to be encompassed in permanent guidance before that date.  If this Notice has not been replaced by appropriate guidance by next summer, then ASA will likely petition to have a third Notice issued in order to protect the industry’s ability to accept and use airworthy parts.

So, in summary, a dual-certificated repair station in the U.S. (and subject to MAG 6) receiving used components that are intended to be fitted during maintenance must either (1) receive them with an appropriate 8130-3, EASA Form 1 or TCCA Form 1, or (2) perform an inspection of the parts and find them eligible for installation.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

ICA Guidance Open for Comment

August 27, 2015 by Leave a comment

The FAA has released for comment two guidance documents pertaining to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA): Draft FAA Order 8110.54B and Draft Advisory Circular 20-ICA. ICA availability is an issue that has a direct effect on repair stations and distributors, and ASA has done a significant amount of work to ensure that ICA are available and accurate in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Draft Order 8110.54B is guidance directed at FAA personnel and persons responsible for administering the requirements for ICA.  Among other changes, the draft reorganizes the Order to reflect material moved to AC 20-ICA (below), and importantly incorporates guidance implementing the FAA’s Policy Statement PS-AIR-21.50.01, Type Design Approval Holder Inappropriate Restrictions on the Use and Availability of Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.  ASA has been supportive of the FAA in the adoption that Policy Statement that is intended to protect the industry from anti-competitive ICA restrictions.

Draft AC 20-ICA is a new Advisory Circular that removes industry-specific guidance from the internal FAA Order and places it in a stand-alone AC.  This effort is similar to the FAA’s actions in revising other Orders, which are directed to FAA employees, and removing guidance that is actually intended to be directed outward toward industry and properly placing it in an Advisory Circular.  Like Draft Order 8110.54B, the draft AC implements the FAA policy on ICA established in the Policy Statement.  The proposed AC provides guidance to design approval holders (DAH) and design approval applicants for developing and distributing ICA.

Not only does the availability of ICA directly effect repair stations, the availability of parts lists that are included as a part of the ICA is an important issue for the supplier community.

After a preliminary review these documents appear to offer very positive guidance for the aviation maintenance and distribution industries.  ASA will be reviewing both of these documents closely and offering comments and support for these policies to the FAA.  We encourage repair stations and distributors to review both documents as well.

Comments on both guidance documents must be submitted by October 6, 2015, and may be submitted to the FAA via email to 9-AVS-ICA@faa.gov.  If you have comments or observations that you feel ASA should include in its comments to the FAA, email them to Ryan Aggergaard at ryan@washingtonaviation.com so the we can include them.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

No, Aircraft Disassembly is Not a Maintenance Activity Under the FAA Regulations

August 28, 2014 by 5 Comments

Many ASA members have entered the exciting world of aircraft disassembly.  A member recently reported that he has encountered some customers who believe that aircraft disassembly can only be performed by a repair station under FAA regulations. This belief is untrue.

Part 43 of the FAA’s regulations requires that alteration, rebuilding, maintenance, and preventative maintenance be performed only by parties authorized to do so under the regulations. 14 C.F.R. § 43.3(a). Other functions that are not specifically regulated by the FAA remain unregulated functions.

Aircraft Disassembly is Not Regulated Under Part 43 nor Part 145

It should be obvious that disassembly of an aircraft does not constitute alteration or rebuilding. But could it be a maintenance or preventative maintenance task?

Maintenance is defined in the regulations to be “inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts….” 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 (definition of “maintenance”). This definition also specifically excludes preventive maintenance, which is defined separately.

Aircraft disassembly is different from inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, so aircraft disassembly is not a species of maintenance under U.S. law.

Preventative maintenance is defined in the regulations to mean “simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.” 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 (definition of “preventative maintenance”). This definition is further refined in Appendix A to Part 43. That appendix limits the scope of preventive maintenance only to certain listed functions (this is explicitly described as a limitation so it cannot expand the definition of preventative maintenance). It clarifies that the removal, installation and repair of landing gear tires is a preventative maintenance function (but this only applies in the context of simple or minor preservation operations, and disassembly alone is not a preservation operation). So removal, alone, without any effort to preserve, is not a preventative maintenance function.

Aircraft disassembly is neither a preservation operations nor the replacement of small standard parts, so aircraft disassembly is not a species of preventative maintenance under U.S. law.

Whereas aircraft disassembly is neither alteration, rebuilding, maintenance, nor preventative maintenance, it is not regulated under Part 43, and therefore is not one of the functions reserved to only certain certificate holders,

Thus, it is clear that the FAA Part 43 regulations (and by extension the Part 145 regulations) do not apply to disassembly of aircraft.

The unregulated nature of disassembly is one of the reasons that the Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association AFRA) stepped in and offered their Best Management Practices (BMP) for disassembly of aircraft in order to encourage practices designed to preserve airworthiness as well as to guard the environment.  The AFRA BMP provides guidance, and the AFRA auditing program supports compliance to the standard.

This does not mean that repair stations are prevented from disassembling aircraft for their parts. Because this is an unregulated function, repair stations may also perform the disassembly function if they wish.

No Obligation Imposed by Advisory Circular

Some have taken text in FAA’s AC 20-62 out of context and suggested that it might impose restrictions on removal of parts. The text in question (take alone and out of context) states: “Parts with removal records showing traceability to a U.S. certificated aircraft, signed by an appropriately certificated person.” But look at this text in its full context and you see a different picture:

“8. INFORMATION RELEVANT TO USED PARTS. The following information may be useful when assessing maintenance records and part status.

d. Seller’s Designation. The seller may be able to provide documentation that shows traceability to an FAA-approved manufacturing procedure for one of the following:

(1) Parts produced by an FAA-PAH by TC, PC, PMA, TSOA.

(2) Parts produced by a foreign manufacturer (in accordance with part 21 subpart N).

(3) Standard parts produced by a named manufacturer.

(4) Parts distributed with direct ship authority.

(5) Parts produced, for the work being accomplished, by a repair station to accomplish a repair or alteration on a specific TC’d product.

(6) Parts produced by an owner or operator for installation on the owner’s or operator’s aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier).

(7) Parts with removal records showing traceability to a U.S. certificated aircraft, signed by an appropriately certificated person.”

Eligibility, Quality, and Identification of Aeronautical Replacement Parts, FAA AC 20-62E, para 8(d) (December 23, 2010).

In its full context, it is obvious that this text is just one of a list of types of parts that are considered acceptable. Most parts removed from aircraft that are intended for reuse will fit into category one (TC, PC, PMA, TSOA), and therefore the analysis will never get to category seven. That category exists for articles that do not fit within one of the first six categories.  Note also that this text harkens back to the time when it was assumed that any part removed from an aircraft was a good part – modern practice recognizes that mistakes are made at installation and therefore modern disassembly procedure scrutinizes each part and its records to properly identify it without making unsubstantiated assumptions.

Further, the FAA does not have any removal record, and has no regulations reflecting removal records. For this reason, no certificate is necessary in order to sign a removal record.

 

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Repair Station Security Rule is Finally Here!

January 10, 2014 by Leave a comment

The long-awaited Repair Station Security rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Monday.

The rules are authorized under the repair station security statute (49 U.S.C. 44924). That statute barred the FAA from certifying any new foreign repair station until TSA security audits are completed for existing stations.  Now that the rules are out, once TSA has audited all existing repair stations, the FAA may be able to once again start issuing foreign repair station certificates.

The final rule contains the following requirements:

  • To Whom Does this Apply?: The regulations apply to repair stations certificated by the FAA under Part 145, except repair stations located on a U.S. or foreign government military base.  All repair stations are subject to inspection as provided in the rule and to Security Directives should there be a security need. However, the rule text requires only certain repair stations, discussed below, to carry out security measures on a regular basis.
  • TSA Inspection Authority. Repair stations must allow TSA and other authorized DHS officials to enter, conduct inspections, and view and copy records as needed to carry out TSA’s security-related statutory and regulatory responsibilities. For repair stations not required to carry out security measures on a regular basis (i.e., those repair stations not located on or adjacent to an airport), TSA does not intend to inspect such facilities, except (1) for compliance with security directives issued by TSA and with airport security programs required by TSA (for those repair stations that are included in an airport security program), and (2) to respond to security information provided to TSA by U.S. or foreign government entities.
  • Implementation of Security Measures: The security measures in this rule cover repair stations that are on or adjacent to certain airports. TSA will consider a repair station to be “on airport” if it is on an air operations area (AOA) or security identification display area (SIDA) of an airport covered by an airport security program under 49 C.F.R. part 1542 in the United States, or on the security restricted area any commensurate airport outside the United States regulated by a government entity.   TSA will consider a repair station to be adjacent to an airport if there is an access point between the repair station and the airport of sufficient size to allow the movement of large aircraft between the repair station and the area described as “on airport.”
  • What are “Security Measures?”: Repair stations required to implement “security measures’ will be required to (1) designate a point of contact(s) to carry out specified responsibilities; (2) prevent the unauthorized operation of large aircraft capable of flight that are left unattended; (3) verify background information of those individuals who are designated as the TSA point(s) of contact; and (4) verify background information of those individuals who have access to any keys or other means used to prevent the unauthorized operation of large aircraft capable of flight that are left unattended.
  • Security Directives: Repair stations are required to comply with Security Directives (SDs) issued by TSA.  We had objected to Security Directives to the extent that they could represent rulemaking activities promulgated in the absence of notice and comment rulemaking procedures.  TSA has added language to the final rule to clarify that repair stations may comment on SDs issued by TSA, but TSA has imposed on itself no obligation to respond to such comments.  Thus, we remain concerned that Security Directives could be used to promulgate new rules in circumvention of the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
  • Notification of Deficiencies; Suspension of Certificate and Review Process: The regulations describe the process whereby TSA will notify the repair station and the FAA of a security deficiency identified by TSA and provide an opportunity for the repair station to obtain review of a determination by TSA to suspend its operating certification.  Such a suspension would be an immediately-effective suspension that would not be stayed through petition for review (note that 49 U.S.C. 44924(c) already requires the FAA to suspend or revoke a certificate upon the advice of TSA).  This could give TSA tremendous power to impose interpretations of their standards that may be beyond the published scope of the rule, and the repair station may be largely powerless to seek review of those standards, because the only practical way to seek review is to be accept suspension during the entire period of the review process (TSA is allowed to grant itself an extension so the time limits on TSA action may be meaningless).  TSA would perform an internal review of the petition for review and would create the record but then the matter would be subject to review by a Court of Appeals.
  • Immediate Risk to Security; Revocation of Certificate and Review Process: The regulations specify that when TSA determines a repair station poses an immediate risk to security, TSA will notify the repair station and the FAA that the certificate must be revoked. The regulations also provide the process for the repair station to obtain review of such a determination.  Many of the same concerns regarding suspension apply to the revocation process as well.

The new rule can be found online at http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102873717486-941/TSA+Security+Rule+Published.pdf.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts