mandatory SB's

[Jetdriver125]

question your customer comes in with a Mandatory SB for the airplane to maintain its current airworthiness you have to comply with that as if it was an AD AM I Right or Wrong?
Thanks

 

[avbug]

Simply because a manufacturer places the words "mandatory" next to a service bulletin does not make it mandatory. An airworthiness directive does that. The FAA has consistently held that if a manufacturer wishes for that procedure, inspection, or maintenance to be mandatory, then it must submit to the FAA and request it be issued in the form of an AD. Until then, it's not "mandatory."

That said, consider the civil legal implications in which an attorney may use a "mandatory" SB as leverage against a jury that doesn't know any better. After all, to a jury, "mandatory" sounds fairly cut and dried.

Many manufacturers use service bulletins, especially the "mandatory" service bulletins, as ways of leveraging their own liability onto the customer. The idea is that the manufacturer hopes to limit it's own liability and expense by pushing it on the customer as "mandatory," even though the manufacturer knows full well that the item really isn't mandatory and can't be inforced.

From an aircraft value point of view, it's a good idea to be able to show compliance with all SB's.

 

[Jetdriver125]

Thanks That was my take on it as well it was just brought up by someone and I think from a Lawyer stand point all SB's should be complied with and that also leaves no Loop holes for the insurance companies

 

[Tired Soul]

If the manufacturer states the SB to be mandatory then non-compliance would make the aircraft un-airworthy correct?
Essentially a mandatory SB and a AD have the same effect, difference being one is issued by the manufacturer and the other by Aviation Authorities.
At least that is how I understand it to be.

 

[avbug]

If the manufacturer states the SB to be mandatory then non-compliance would make the aircraft un-airworthy correct?

NO!! Absolutely not. The manufacturer doesn't have this authority. If the manufacturer wishes this bulletin to become mandatory, then the manufacturer must petition the FAA to make it an airworthiness directive. Until then, it's a nice idea, but is not required by the regulation.

Essentially a mandatory SB and a AD have the same effect,

They do not.

difference being one is issued by the manufacturer and the other by Aviation Authorities.

The FAA has the authority to make it a legally required, and thus mandatory requirement. The manufacturer does not.

 

[PRATT GUY]

AVBUG is correct

 

[Tired Soul]

AVBUG is correct

I hate to admit it but he seems to be:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060614sb-letter.pdf

 

[Balou]

A Mandatory SB MAY BE required to keep a warranty good. But Avbug is correct, it is not required for Airworthiness

 

[STAL6]

If the aircraft is operated under 91.409(f)(3) for it's inspection program (which is an option that applies to large airplanes that are turbine powered and turbine powered rotorcraft) than a Mandatory SB issued by the manufacturer must be complied with.

Stal6

 

[avbug]

If the aircraft is operated under 91.409(f)(3) for it's inspection program (which is an option that applies to large airplanes that are turbine powered and turbine powered rotorcraft) than a Mandatory SB issued by the manufacturer must be complied with.

Incorrect. Only if the manufacturer includes the service bulletin as part of the approved inspection program, and then only when it's part of the official FAA documentation (eg, part of the maintenance manual and an accepted document). Simply stipulating a service bulletin outside the program, after the fact, is insufficient to require it's inclusion.

The term "mandatory" has no meaning with respect to service bulletins or with respect to the inspection. This is an invented term, something manufacturers tack onto their service bulletins for fear of liability, hoping it carries some import as to why they want it done. The manufacturer doesn't want to go to the AD stage because this is a liability against purchase of the product (nobody wants a product with a lot of AD's attached to it), yet doesn't want to face the inevitable liability attached to the product...and comes up with service bulletins. When the manufacturer wishes to stress how badly they want the user to comply, they make it "mandatory." It carries the same weight as me telling you I've imposed a mandatory fine of one dollar to read my posts. You're going to comply? No? Why?

Because there's no legal requirement to do so. In the aviation maintenance world, this legal requirement comes in the form of an AD.

One who elects to enter a maintenance program for turbine powered aircraft as in 91.409(f) may be lazy enough to simply take an off the shelf manufacturer program, but the regulation also makes clear that the user can design his or her own program in any form (91.409(f)(4)), and it need only be FAA approved to become that operators own official inspection program.

There's no reason one need be subject to a "mandatory" SB unless chooses to be.