Gear SAIB

[T. Peterson]

On 3/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, Shadrach said:

Some folks just love reading regulations in the most impractical and burdensome way possible

Well said! I loved this line:

“Some folks just love reading regulations in the most impractical and burdensome way possible.”

[Pinecone]

The problem is, in most cases, that is how the FAA reads them.

[Hank]

I still don't understand the logic here:  too many people are ignoring our Service Bulletin. So let's write another Service Bulletin telling them to comply with the Service Bulletin that they're ignoring.

???  

[cliffy]

On 3/25/2023 at 10:47 AM, T. Peterson said:

Well said! I loved this line:

“Some folks just love reading regulations in the most impractical and burdensome way possible.”

If you've never been part of an FAA investigation then you may not have a realistic view of how 

THEY read regulations. I've been dealing with them for over 60 years and have had many good friends among them over those years. And the regulations may get read differently at each GADO/FSDO (yes I'm going back many years)

[Shadrach]

19 hours ago, cliffy said:

If you've never been part of an FAA investigation then you may not have a realistic view of how 

THEY read regulations. I've been dealing with them for over 60 years and have had many good friends among them over those years. And the regulations may get read differently at each GADO/FSDO (yes I'm going back many years)

This statement is somewhat incongruent in that it suggests that “THEY” have a consistent way of reading regs and that experience will help a maintenance professional to read the regs in the same way that “THEY” (Powers that be ) read regs. This may be true at a regional/personal level when one is working with the same individuals, but all bets are off on a national level or when there’s a personnel change regionally. The reoccurring theme/problem is that “THEY” are not consistent in how they read/interpret the regulations under which we all operate. No one can say with a degree of certainty how ”THEY” are going to view a specific scenario. The frustration with this state of affairs is not limited to pilots and maintenance professionals. I know firsthand of folks within the regulatory and enforcement divisions of the administration that are frustrated not only with the inconsistencies but also with some very problematic interpretations that their peers have made. 

[T. Peterson]

22 hours ago, cliffy said:

If you've never been part of an FAA investigation then you may not have a realistic view of how 

THEY read regulations. I've been dealing with them for over 60 years and have had many good friends among them over those years. And the regulations may get read differently at each GADO/FSDO (yes I'm going back many years)

I think our view is quite realistic. Thus the cynicism.

[A64Pilot]

The SAIB is just a reminder guys, no requirement exists.

IF it gets a couple of Mooney drivers asking their mechanics “you did comply with SB xx didn’t you” and that saves a couple of gear ups, then it was worth issuing. Nothing wrong with informing pilot / owners.

But yes FAR’s are very difficult to interpret and they evolve over time as the FAA tries to close loop holes, but in doing so the original intent somehow seems to get muddled.

I had one inspector telling me that no airplane was allowed to fly in the US in any airspace if the 91.411 and 413 inspections weren’t current (transponder and altimeter) while his boss was standing right beside him shaking his head.

Ask three inspectors a simple question and you’ll get two different answers and one long involved discussion that doesn’t answer anything.