Repair Station vs. A&P

[Trailboss]

An interesting situation came up at the local airport coffee drinking competition.  Can an IA/A&P override a return to service sign-off by a Repair Station?  A repair station changes some component(s) of a certified airplane.  Using materials and methods available to them thru the FAA, AC43.13, and their approved operations manual, they deem the installation to be a minor modification.  There is no appreciative effect on W/B, Structural components, or performance.  The airplane enters an annual inspection and the A&P deems the work to be a major modification and won't sign-off until a Field Approval / 337 is submitted.  Repair station says they won't approach the FAA for a field approval because they already went down that road for this work 10 years ago and were told it's a minor modification, stop bothering us.  Similar work and return to service sign-offs have been used by this shop on several airframes from 172's to King Air's with no previous issue.

Is it common for an A&P to reject the work approved by someone else?

 

[N201MKTurbo]

What is the basis for your IAs determination? It’s not about his opinion, it is about the regulations.

see part 43 appendix A

[Trailboss]

IA says that when he does similar work, he determines it to be a Major modification.  I assume he feels everyone should.  That's the rub, the FAA says whomever does the work gets to make the decision on minor vs. major.  So, conceivably, they are both right...but the IA doesn't want to accept someone else's decision because it's not the same one he'd make.  Ultimately, the IA is responsible for his own signature.  If he doesn't want to accept something, that's on him...the airplane owner can go somewhere else.  It's just a fascinating grey area.  It opens up questions such as, "if a pilot changes the oil and returns the airplane to service; can an A&P fail the annual because he doesn't believe the oil change was done properly?"  Or does the A&P typically accept the pilot's authority to return an airplane to service (which he should)?  Why wouldn't an A&P accept another shops authority?  

[gsxrpilot]

I would ask the IA if he sees something in the installation that makes the airplane not airworthy. Or does he believe it not to be airworthy solely based on paperwork? If it's just paperwork, then I'd argue it's none of his business and I'd find a different IA.

[takair]

This is a never ending problem area. I’ve started to document the logic behind minor alterations for this reason. Sometimes it helps. The problem is that the final decision is based on the experience of the person making the determination. The one benefit of a repair station determination is that the FAA has oversight of a repair station and to some degree audits their work orders. So, while not an explicit approval, after ten years and multiple mods, it certainly hints at the FAA agreement. What IS strange is if the same FSDO calls it a major for the IA but a minor for the repair station. Are they both dealing with the same FSDO and same inspector?  In the old days when I ran a shop, I used to do more 337 than I probably needed to, just to avoid later conflict and because it was easy. These days it is not easy and the FSDO does push back if they deem it to be minor and doing a true major is no longer a simple matter. 
 

By the way, some repair stations can do major repairs without requiring a 337, at least in the old days. The work order covers them as part of there ops approval. 

[EricJ]

As described above, it can be a Catch-22, the easiest means to escape from which may be to find a different IA.

FWIW, the first annual my IA did on my airplane he found a bunch of missing 337s, STCs, etc.   His solution was to tell me he would file them for me, which he did with zero fanfare, just did it like it was no big deal.

Not all IAs are created equal. 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I’m studying for my IA right now. There is a test question that directly addresses this question. The answer is the IA returns the plane to service. I can post screen shots if I can find the question again.

[RobertGary1]

Some IA's tend to file a 337 as a CYA. But that doesn't obligate others to do the same. Doesn't seem right that an IA would want to not sign an annual because he doesn't agree with the paperwork of another mechanic.

 

-Robert

[chriscalandro]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I would ask the IA if he sees something in the installation that makes the airplane not airworthy. Or does he believe it not to be airworthy solely based on paperwork? If it's just paperwork, then I'd argue it's none of his business and I'd find a different IA.

The question is about paperwork, not the quality of work. 
 

as long as the IA doing the inspection doesn’t find issue with quality of work, I don’t see why it’s his concern. His name isn’t t on the repair. If there’s a problem find a new IA to do the annual. 
 

which I think is what the above quoted is saying. 

[orionflt]

3 hours ago, Trailboss said:

IA says that when he does similar work, he determines it to be a Major modification.  I assume he feels everyone should.  That's the rub, the FAA says whomever does the work gets to make the decision on minor vs. major.  So, conceivably, they are both right...but the IA doesn't want to accept someone else's decision because it's not the same one he'd make.  Ultimately, the IA is responsible for his own signature.  If he doesn't want to accept something, that's on him...the airplane owner can go somewhere else.  It's just a fascinating grey area.  It opens up questions such as, "if a pilot changes the oil and returns the airplane to service; can an A&P fail the annual because he doesn't believe the oil change was done properly?"  Or does the A&P typically accept the pilot's authority to return an airplane to service (which he should)?  Why wouldn't an A&P accept another shops authority?  

the FARs actually define major and minor if you search through them, the problem then becomes the interpretation of the definition. I do not have the actual definition in front of me but the jist of it is any modification that can affect flight characteristics or structural integrity is a major. 

I have actually been in the same situation before during a prebuy, a shop fixed the firewall and some other panels and structure on a brand C, they did a full sign off in the logs but did not do a 337 for the major repair. when I confronted the shop they said the FSDO ok'd the repair as minor because they used a factory firewall. they were partially correct in their thinking, using factory parts for the repair can eliminate the 337 requirement in some cases. in this one, they also manufactured other panels during the repair. those manufactured panels required that a 337 be filed. the FSDO did not support the shops position when the full repair was evaluated.

in the case you talk about above, the repair station has the authority to repair and modify the item IAW an FAA approved repair and operations manual. becuase this has been aproved by the FAA the IA has no authority to override the repair station unless he can show the repair is not airworthy and causes an actual danger if operated in that condition. 

I hate to say this, but because there is so much interpenetration of rules, regulations and repair manuals standards vary. what one person won't accept another would, the big question is did either look at the actual limitations or is it just their opinion?   

Brian  

[N201MKTurbo]

[thinwing]

This

[Trailboss]

Without quoting the full response from N201MK Turbo, I agree with the FAA.  The underlying issue is the Repair Station recorded it as a Minor modification, the I/A thinks it is a Major modification.

[N201MKTurbo]

Just now, Trailboss said:

Without quoting the full response from N201MK Turbo, I agree with the FAA.  The underlying issue is the Repair Station recorded it as a Minor modification, the I/A thinks it is a Major modification.

So, are you going to tell us what the modification was?

But from the regs, as far as the IA is concerned, it doesn’t matter. The signed work order from a repair station covers both.

[OR75]

I am not sure if that has changed since, but a few years back Rosen visors where considered a minor mod by a FSDO, and a major one by others.... 

always wondered what would happen if I installed it in a FSDO that considered it a minor mod and was ramp checked in another that considered it a major ...

[Cruiser]

IT would seem that the annual inspection covers the condition of the plane and the paper work. I don't see how the annual inspection is a judgement on someone else's approval, that is left to the FAA.

The annual should be signed off as complete and approved for return to service.

[ilovecornfields]

My lopresti hubba hubba wheel covers required a 337. My IA rolled his eyes while filling out the form.

Totally worth it though since I gained 5 kts in cruise. 

[Guest]

A subtle difference, in Canada an airplane is only determined to be airworthy when the C of A is issued. After that we only attest to the maintenance being done “in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness” never airworthy.

Clarence

[Sean S]

If your IA has a problem with the paperwork from previous work accomplished, he could always inspect the work and submit the documentation he believes to be required. I would consider that good customer service.