Jump to content

Owner Maintenance Rules and AD Compliance


DVA

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I would like to hear opinions on the following:

The FARs on owner maintenance are clear and state:

FAR 43.3(g): the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135; and,

FAR 43.7(f): A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the provisions of §43.3(g). ; and,

The following preventive maintenance work may be performed by the Pilot/Owner:

FAR 43 Appendix A(c): Preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance is limited to the following work, provided it does not involve complex assembly operations:

[Amongst a number of other items]

(21) Replacing any hose connection except hydraulic connections.

(22) Replacing prefabricated fuel lines.

Based on the above it seems clear that an owner, following the rules of the FAR and using the required manufacturers’ instructions as guidance, may indeed inspect and replace pre-fabricated fuel lines from the fuel flow divider to the fuel injections, and then sign off the required entry in the engine log book and return the aircraft to service.

QUESTION 1: Does anyone disagree with this, and if so, why?

Further, there is a current AD 2015-19-07 that requires the inspection of the these fuel lines on most Lycoming engines (directed by SB-342G and via the AD) both at replacement time AND periodically (every 100 hours).

To comply with the AD and the service bulletin, one must simply visually inspect the line, the clamps and the fittings for damage or leaks, and if nothing unusual is found, record the findings in the log book. If a condition meeting the SB and AD criteria is found, then the AD compliance method is to simply replace the pre-fabricated fuel line and record the findings in the log book.

Considering that FAR 43 allows the owner to completely and totally replace these prefabricated fuel lines (which assumes the necessary and common sense steps of using proper technique and visual inspection both pre and post replacement) the owner is in reality performing all steps that an A&P would perform. This includes making a notation in the log book that the line was replaced and inspected I/A/W manufacturers’ instructions.

QUESTION 2: Given the above, can the owner opine to and thus comply with the AD as a result of his/her authority to perform and inspect the repair?

Please defend your opinion with some reference to the regs or other fact - this is not a LOP or TiT temp thread. :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DVA said:

 

Further, there is a current AD 2015-19-07 that requires the inspection of the these fuel lines on most Lycoming engines (directed by SB-342G and via the AD) both at replacement time AND periodically (every 100 hours).

 

Boy, you scared me there for a minute! Thought I'd missed an AD at last year's annual . . .

Thankfully, this AD applies to "most fuel injected Lycoming engines," so I'm safe!

but the way I read the regs, yes, you can comply with this yourself, but I think AD compliance must still be signed off by an IA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AD's are not "Preventive Maintenance", the way I read 43.3 a pilot could replace the fuel lines but could not sign off the AD. There is an AD that comes to mind that allows a pilot to sign it off and that is the the one for Bendix Ignition Switches, the AD allows the pilot to "Test" the switch as described in the AD and if it passes sign off the AD. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 14 CFR 43:

§43.7   Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) Except as provided in this section and §43.17, no person, other than the Administrator, may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service after it has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.
...
(f) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the provisions of §43.3(g).

From AC 39-7D (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 39-7D.pdf):

"ADs are authorized under part 39 and issued in accordance with the public rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.) § 553, and FAA procedures in 14 CFR part 11."

So, as above (RLCarter), ADs fall under part 39 and not part 43.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deb said:

From 14 CFR 43:

§43.7   Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

Except as provided in this section and §43.17, no person, other than the Administrator, may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service after it has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.
...
(f) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the provisions of §43.3(g).

From AC 39-7D (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 39-7D.pdf):

"ADs are authorized under part 39 and issued in accordance with the public rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.) § 553, and FAA procedures in 14 CFR part 11."

So, as above (RLCarter), ADs fall under part 39 and not part 43.

First Deb, thanks for referencing real stuff to make a point. It always helps to see people backing up opinions with facts!

This is complicated, and I will add that there is confusion at the FAA on this, as well as with experts. I have gotten about 50/50 and no definitive reference yet. I’ve spoken with people from various FSDOs on this particular example and gotten both, “in this case, yes” and “no, never” (which is obviously incorrect as there are a number of ADs out that owners can comply with; RLCarter made just one example of a few I know of).

If you agree that an owner can replace a pre-fabricated fuel line under the FARs and sign off that it is installed per recommended guidance, then it is presumed that absent any AD, that repair can be made safe and valid. The mere presence of the AD which only states that a visual inspection is necessary doesn’t change the fact that a visual inspection was done when the owner properly replaced the line, and that was satisfactory to the FAA.

I may just take the time to apply for Alternate Method of Compliance as a vehicle to get clarification as “Anyone (my emphasis) may propose an AMOC according to § 39.19.” I will reference the above Owner Maintenance FARs and argue that the visual inspection is already presumed to occur in the same manner and with the same end results. This may be the only way to get an “official” response to this as one can easily argue the ambiguity of this example no matter who it is - including reps from the FAA.

Thanks Deb!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no knowledge, but I will bet a lot that this is a contradictory corner there is no answer to. Unless and until someone (FAA) makes an official pronouncement, I bet we will never know.

The good part is that the only guy who will ever see the problem is your A&P/IA at annual time, and he can fix it easier than he can jump you about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bradp said:

DVA pointed me over here. Example of a cracked fuel injection supply line.

This was caught on a preflight. Not during an annual.

 

Once again a great example of an owner, admittedly not a tech guy, opens his cowling and finds something that could have been disastrous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fuel injection line is pre-fabricated in the sense that the ends are installed by the manufacturer, they do require forming in the filed to fit the engine, so I'm not sure how that would be interpreted.  I guess you could argue it either way.

In this case is the owner is replacing the line because he caught a defect not because the AD was due.  

It certainly falls out side of owner maintenance in Canada.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ides of trying to force an AMOC might be a good idea here. It would also get a response to "pre-fabricated' hoses but what I think you will find is that the hoses in question are those made of rubber with AN fittings for fuel and oil. They "can" be made up in the hangar (see Pt 43) but as an owner you can't do that. If you buy a hose kit you're cleared to go the entire way. On these metal fuel lines I think it could be argued either way but the Feds will say- NOT preventive maintenance.  

 

As mentioned, replacing the "line" triggers the AD for A&Ps to do right now. Good luck with your endeavor, I hope it works.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cliffy said:

The ides of trying to force an AMOC might be a good idea here. It would also get a response to "pre-fabricated' hoses but what I think you will find is that the hoses in question are those made of rubber with AN fittings for fuel and oil. They "can" be made up in the hangar (see Pt 43) but as an owner you can't do that. If you buy a hose kit you're cleared to go the entire way. On these metal fuel lines I think it could be argued either way but the Feds will say- NOT preventive maintenance.  

So it begins ... time to define “pre-fabricated”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an extension of another thread where an MSer found a cracked/broken/faulty fuel injector line during a detailed pre-flight...

They are going through the decision process of determining the next steps of getting the fuel line replaced. Included in the discussion is the idea of owner acceptable maintenance...

Best regards,

-a-

Edited by carusoam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StevenL757 said:

Dave, may I ask for a bit more context around your original post, i.e., what's driving the question?

Hi Steve, sure ...

In the case I am presenting, I content that an owner should be able to opine to this particular AD themselves (as is done in some other AD’s). This will save both time and money, and the same results in terms of compliance and safety will be met. I am seeking opinions here before I file an AMOC as a vehicle to both clarify some abigutity and to show that the FARs already prescribe that an owner has the authority to replace and verify that these fuel lines are safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Dave, can you remind us what an AMOC may be?

It’s an acronym for Alternate Method of Compliance. Basically anyone can suggest to the FAA an alternative way to comply with an AD that will bring the same or better results. The FAA has to review the AMOC request, but they don’t have to grant it. They often do, however.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an AD states that the aircraft must be removed from service until compliance , then the answer would be NO , as you must have an IA to return an aircraft to service , an aircraft that has been removed from service.... If I read the regs correctly...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DVA said:

Hi Steve, sure ...

In the case I am presenting, I content that an owner should be able to opine to this particular AD themselves (as is done in some other AD’s). This will save both time and money, and the same results in terms of compliance and safety will be met. I am seeking opinions here before I file an AMOC as a vehicle to both clarify some abigutity and to show that the FARs already prescribe that an owner has the authority to replace and verify that these fuel lines are safe.

Dave, I'm not an A&P (close, but not yet), but given knowledge and experience, have to support Deb and Cliffy here.  Certainly not trying to be a know-it-all, and your shop is your business, but the AD requirement in this case appears to trump 43.3(g) and 43.7(f), which is a bigger issue than  bigger issue than trying to save money and time.  Given the "lightweight" nature of the inspection, how much more time would the client really be paying for if you do the inspection and sign off the AD item?

Although the message back to your client should reiterate that owner maintenance is a good thing, this particular owner-performed maintenance item isn't one of them.  Your shop should perform this inspection and subsequent return to service, and is not something the client should be doing.  I also wouldn't confuse things by invoking an AMAC.  In my opinion, it contributes to the goal of staying a Good Shop.  Thcughts?

Regards, Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan

A&Ps can sign off virtually all ADs  that are issued. Some ADs have wording that the pilot/owner can sign off the AD (Bendix ign switch, Robbie heli blade daily insp, etc.) An A&P can sign off the 100 hr AD on fuel injection lines on Lycomings and virtually all other ADs on our Mooneys. Even if the AD states no flight before the AD is accomplished can be done by an A&P. 

For most people they will come in contact with an IA in two ways, either at annual time when the IA has to sign that HE did the annual inspection or on a Major repair or Major alteration that requires an AI sign off on the 337.

Just curious  did you confuse A&P with AI in typing fast?  :-) :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, StevenL757 said:

Although the message back to your client should reiterate that owner maintenance is a good thing, this particular owner-performed maintenance item isn't one of them.  Your shop should perform this inspection and subsequent return to service, and is not something the client should be doing.  I also wouldn't confuse things by invoking an AMAC.  In my opinion, it's decisions like these that will maintain your reputation of staying a Good Shop.  Thcughts?

Regards, Steve

Thanks Steve, I appreciate your comments.

Just for clarity, there is no client being advised - the post is hypothetical and just an example. We would, of course, do the inspections for anyone as required.

You write: “Although the message back to your client should reiterate that owner maintenance is a good thing, this particular owner-performed maintenance item isn’t one of them." 

I’d like to know why you feel this “isn’t one of them?” - Please consider that absent the AD in this case the owner is allowed to do everything surrounding removal and replacement of the fuel line. 

In the end this about owner maintenance and promoting it - we as a shop want to do that - and I think that helps make a Good Shop. I have seen in 35 years of flying that when owners get involved in the maintenance of their aircraft they are safer in the air.

In this case there is absolutely no reason why (IMO) that if an owner can replace a fuel line under the FARs, then the owner has had to inspect it, too. This particular AD calls only for a visual inspection for compliance, the owner can do that - as an option, and as such I see no need to add time and cost of a A&P wandering over just to take a look.

Best regards,
Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

If an AD states that the aircraft must be removed from service until compliance , then the answer would be NO , as you must have an IA to return an aircraft to service , an aircraft that has been removed from service.... If I read the regs correctly...

 

If we are on remove to service/return to service.  As that would apply to all maintenance. 

FAR Part 91.407 (a) (1)

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless ...

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized ...

 

Seems like an owner is RTS after an oil change.   

I would think the AD would have to state an IA would need to RTS or we could just go with "person approved"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

If an AD states that the aircraft must be removed from service until compliance , then the answer would be NO , as you must have an IA to return an aircraft to service , an aircraft that has been removed from service.... If I read the regs correctly...

 

Pilots can return an aircraft to service too. I do it all the time after I change my oil. I've also replaced fuel lines (pre formed ) and RTS myself as allowed as the pilot is an authorized person in this case  

-Robert 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.