This FAA NPRM is a Bad Deal!
I receive this notice from my good friend Brent Taylor along with e-mails from others sounding the alarm. It turns out the FAA has snuck an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) posting, which would severely restrict individuals who inspect our aircraft. It appears to dramatically favor large (read: expensive corporate shops) and would raise everyone's costs.
Because this is so urgent, I am posting Brent's note (#1) below. Then below that is a more detailed posting from another good friend, Robert Lock. Then a posting from the Aircraft Electronics Associaiton.
Please them, then take action by posting your thoughts on the FAA NPRM Web site noted below in Brent's comments!
#1 FROM BRENT TAYLOR:
#2
FROM ROBERT LOCK:
Background
I have been engaged in aircraft maintenance and repair for 54-years, have held the A&P for 49 of those years, and the IA for the past 36 years. I am a recipient of the Charles Taylor Master Mechanic Award and am now semi-retired. Having been active in the aviation industry for my entire life and an instructor in an FAA Part 147 program from 1967 to 1998, I now find the FAA attempting to assault my privilege of holding the IA certificate. Being semi-retired I will not fit the definition of “actively engaged’ as working full time exercising the privileges of my license (if full-time is a 40-hour work week).
Discussion
My expertise now resides in maintaining, repairing and restoring “aging aircraft,” but particularly those aircraft that are now classified as vintage, being manufactured in the late 1920’s. These aircraft rarely have any type of maintenance or parts manuals, or even rigging data. They are generally powered by radial engines manufactured from 1925-1945 and may be equipped with fixed pitch, ground adjustable or early constant speed propellers. The structures are generally constructed from wood or steel tube and are fabric covered. Skills in maintaining, repairing or restoring these aircraft are not taught in A&P training schools – I know, I worked there for 31-years and taught these types of skills as “add-on” training in afternoons after class to those students who were eager to learn. The FAA has downgraded the Part 147 curriculum of all the old skills required for maintaining these aged aircraft. I now write columns for aviation magazines and type club newsletters to pass along my experiences gained throughout my long career in the aviation industry.
Recurrent training has always been a top priority for me, however most privately operated refresher courses focus on very late technology, such as corporate jets, turbine engines, etc. And rightly so, because we vintage aircraft mechanics are a minority when viewing the entire group of certificated mechanics and inspectors. Those who are in this minority have learned the skills from experience and I would surely hate to see we IA’s who do not work full time be penalized by the FAA by not allowing renewal of the certificate. The expertise we older IA’s possess cannot be learned from books or taught in schools or at seminars. The important point here is that most of these vintage aircraft do not have any ATC data available, which would include the OEM drawings and other type design data. This is where experience is very valuable. But that is another subject that will not be addressed here.
It would seem to me that, under the guise of “standardization” of ASI’s, the FAA is now creating a larger problem based on a subjective evaluation of those who maintain the very aged aircraft of the aging fleet and do not fit the definition mold of “full time actively engaged mechanics.” Currently the renewal decision is objective – complete at least four annual inspections, or submit at least eight 337 forms, or supervise and approve one continuous maintenance program, or complete an eight hour refresher course. Under this proposed NPRM, the renewal decision now becomes subjective for IA’s who do not work full time (ref: paragraph 5-1309). Will this proposal not increase workload for ASI’s? In the “discussion” portion of the NPRM the FAA states, “Because the ASI’s determination is unique to each applicant …….” At present my IA is renewed based on completion of an 8-hour refresher course for each year and no determination or subjective decision need be made. I either qualify or I don’t! What avenue does the FAA propose for the holder of an IA to challenge an unfavorable ruling to not renew his or her IA?
As far as the FAA “carving out special requirements for ASI’s who hold the IA certificates,” I am not aware of any ASI who maintains currency to renew the IA other than renewing by training seminars. Let me state clearly here that the expertise in airworthiness issues for aged aircraft lies in the type clubs and not in the FAA. I have met very few FAA folks who still have knowledge of these very old aircraft, however these individuals are few and far between.
Summary
To summarize my position on this NPRM, I am requesting that the FAA not shut the door on we older IA’s who do not fit the proposed mold that the applicant for renewal is working full-time. I am sure that we are a very small minority but our service is invaluable to keeping the antiques flying safely. In closing I would point out that keeping an 81-year old airplane (pictured below) and constructed under ATC 184 airworthy is a full-time job, but it does not require working 40-hours per week.
Robert G.
Lock
KEY POINTS FROM
BOB:
FAA NPRM 2010-1060
BACKGROUND
The FAA is assaulting renewal policy for A&P mechanics holding the Inspection Authorization. What prompted this is unknown to me, however I can speculate that the FAA wants to remove those individuals who hold the Inspection Authorization but are not active as mechanics in the industry, being employed in other areas. These are probably the people who work out of the back of a car or pickup at your local airport. I know the FAA wants to eliminate this type of activity and this could be their way. It’s no different than the NPRM 4521 fight when the FAA attempted to make one policy and mandate that all fit into the mold. Except it doesn’t work. This seems to be the case here.
What I object to as I try to understand the very brief statement in the “Renewal of Inspection Authorization” section is the FAA can evaluate an application for renewal and refuse it based on the attempt to clarify “actively engaged” clause. So, in my opinion the points to make are the following:
- IA’s may not work in the industry full-time, or for that matter part-time. We “old timers” that have retired or are semi-retired probably don’t do work because we need to make a living, however a little extra income once-in-a-while is always nice. However, the liability of doing annuals and maintenance is always lurking in the shadows. Older people have less incentive for exposure into this most libelous of avocations by performing work on other people’s airplanes.
- As the aging fleet of aircraft continues to age, particularly the old vintage aircraft, military aircraft and other types of rare aircraft demand specific expertise from the mechanic. This expertise comes from many years of experience. It does not come from any school, or books, or seminars. Eliminate we older IA’s because we are not “actively engaged” could be very detrimental to safety of older and specialty aircraft. Would I trust maintenance and inspections to a mechanic who knows nothing about wood, steel tube, fabric covering, radial engines, ground adjustable props, etc. I don’t think so! Eliminate we old timers and just watch what will happen to safety of aircraft where there are no maintenance or parts manuals and no type design data. How safe are we now?
- Currently the renewal of the inspection authorization is objective in nature. Comply with 65.91(c)(1) through (4), lay the evidence on the table along with your certificate and it is renewed.
- Future renewals will be subjective in nature. Lay the evidence of compliance on a table along with your certificate, then wait for an ASI to determine if you are “actively engaged” and worthy of another two years of service to the industry as an IA. Quite frankly I don’t want to take that chance of having an ASI tell me I don’t fit the new mold of active engagement and therefore my IA will not be renewed even though I meet the standards of 65.91(c).
These are important talking points (but not all points) that can be included in the response. It is important that our voices be heard. Mechanics, IA’s, airplane owners and enthusiasts need to comment. IT IS THAT IMPORTANT WE BE HEARD. I fought NPRM 4521 when the FAA tried to shut down sightseeing rides and we won! We can do it!
Bob Lock..
=====================================================
#3 IS THIS GOOD
OBSERVATION FROM THE
AIRCRAFT ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION:
SUMMARY: The FAA has issued a policy which is intended to clarify the definition of ‘‘Actively Engaged’’ for purposes of issuing and renewing the A & P Inspector Authorization. [Federal Register]
MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS: This FAA action proposes to clarify the term ‘‘actively engaged’’ for the purposes of application for and renewal of an inspection authorization, as contained in Flight Standards Management System Order 8900.1.
Of particular interest to AEA members is the criteria contained below:
Note:
Actively engaged means exercising the privileges of an
airframe and powerplant mechanic certificate in the
maintenance of civil aircraft. Applicants who are employed
full-time in inspecting, overhauling, repairing, preserving,
or replacing parts on aircraft are considered to be actively
engaged.
Applicants who are employed or participate in inspecting,
overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on
aircraft on a part-time or occasional basis will be evaluated
by the ASI to determine whether the applicant is actively
engaged. The ASI will evaluate the scope of part-time or
occasional activity based on the type of maintenance
activity, including any special expertise required, and the
quantity of maintenance activity performed. To evaluate the
scope of the part-time or occasional maintenance activity,
the ASI will use evidence or documentation provided by the
applicant showing inspection, overhauling, repairing,
preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before Dec. 6, 2010, through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA–2010–1060.
AEA COMMENTARY:
The Association is disappointed with this “labor saving” initiative.
For decades, the FAA, as well as industry, has been frustrated by the lack of career recognition of the Airframe and Powerplant mechanic. And now, the FAA proposes to remove this recognition from those who are in senior management positions with corporate flight departments, repair stations and air carriers who are not exercising their A & P privileges to “inspect, overhaul, repair, preserve, or replace parts on aircraft.”
In an unprecedented addition, the FAA, while minimizing the recognition of publically employed A & P mechanics, has exempted its own employees from this flawed policy.
According to this proposal, because other FAA policy limits the type of maintenance that ASIs can perform (they may only exercise their IA on their personal, non-commercial aircraft), the FAA employees are exempt from this new policy, and “an ASI may renew an IA regardless of volume of maintenance work performed.”
AEA encourages every member who may be affected by this
policy to send comments to the FAA.
For More Information Contact:
Ric Peri, vice president of government & industry affairs
for AEA, by e-mail at ricp@aea.net, by phone at
202-589-1144.
1 Comment
Thank you for posting these responsed to FAA proposal 2010-1060. As of this writing there are over 50 pages (10-responses per page) of postings on the FAA site, so that is over 500 people who have shared their views. We must keep them coming in - it is the only way to win. Bob Lock..
Click here to sign up now.