Aircraft Airworthiness

[A Squared]

>>>>>>On the subject of Administrative action...this isn't a test for knowledge of aircraft airworthiness. This is enforcement action taken by the FAA. A letter or warning or a letter of correction is an administrative action taken by the FAA that's a step short of seeking certificate suspension.

Avbug, while I don't disagree with your synopsis of administrative law, I think that what Chico was talking about was that the FAA was proposing reexamining the instructors, a "709 ride" if you will, although it could be an oral examination, and not a flight test. Anything or anyone with a Certificate is subject to reinspection or reexamination at any time to determine if they or it meet the requirements of issue of that certificate

US Code, Title 49 Sec. 44709. - Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination. -

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.

 

[avbug]

That would make sense. I didn't pick that up from his post, but it would make sense. The 709 (formerly 609, I believe) ride isn't usually given for a single infraction or two regarding a few open write-ups, though. I would suspect that if this is indeed the case, there are bigger fish to fry as part of the effort. Certainly it's the culmination of surveilance action on the instructor's or other individuals in question.

A reexamination is usually done for more significant reasons.

If this is the case, then perhaps there's more to the story, and the flying club is under surveillance for more than just a few minor infractions.

 

[cookmg]

On the issue of what constitues "deactivation" -- my local FSDO's interpretation was "disconnected from the power source". Their example was if a pull off circuit breaker exists for the radio then the CB could be pulled off and zip tied so that it could not be reset. Then the radio could be placarded inop and you'd be good to go. However, a turn coordinator may not be working properly, but to "disconnect from the power source (?)" would require maintenance and an "inop" sticker is not sufficient to comply with 91.213.

On my CFI ride, the inspector had the book "FARs explained". I thought it was funny that this book defined deactivation the same way. There is no official definition, so it's hard to say what legally constitutes deactivation. Some may argue that if they leave the radio off, then it's deactivated.

Mike

 

[avbug]

Mike,

As I explained before, it's not that simple. When considering deactivation, you need to review all the relevant approved data. Simply flipping a switch may be inadequate. You need to review maintenance publications, airworthiness directives, supplemental type certificates, directions for continued airworthiness, field approvals and data provided an Form 337's, service bulletins, and any other data which may be applicable. Deactivation often involves more than one component.

Additionally, in many cases, simply placarding the item inoperative won't cut it; a logbook entry may be required. In other cases, deactivation may constitute a major change in the type design, and may require a field approval and execution of a Form 337.

91.213 sounds simple enough, but it isn't always that simple. Pilots and owners often make a similiar mistake when looking at preventative maintenance items listed in Part 43. Not until they do a little digging do they realize that logbook enties are still required, that they must be in posession of current maintenance publications, that they must perform to the same standard required of any mechanic, that they must use the specific calibrated tools called out for in the maintenance publications, etc. It sounds simple, but that's part of why mechanics are required to undergo more class study than that required for a typical four year degree.

As an example to removing a cannon plug on a faulty instrument; you have just changed the loading, grounding, and resistance on a given circuit. What impact or effect does that have on the restof the circuit, or appended circuits? Have precautions been taken to avoid arcing at the bus? Did that circuit accomplish other functions? What about securing the plug? What do the manufacturs publications say on the issue? Have you consulted both the airframe and the applicance manufacturers publications? Is this item affected by an AD? How does this item relate to other equipment installed by STC or AD, that are not part of the original type certification? What do those publications tell you about compatability and the difference deactivation might make?

Simply tying off a breaker (what else does that breaker affect, or power? If it's serving more than one circuit, you may no longer have protection for the circuit, or you may have created other problems, too. You may have inadvertantly deactivated a system, component, appliance, circuit, or whatever, that had nothing to do with the original issue.

91.213 isn't nearly as cut and dried as some might think, because it's dealing with infinite possibilities with each aircraft and system individually; it's blanket information, and you're responsible for doing the research to ensure that you're in compliance when you do your work.