May 2014

ARSA staff continually search for resources, guides and tools that might be useful for our members as they work to ensure global aviation safety. This installment comes from the Land Down Under via the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Human Factors
The term human factors refers to a wide range of issues that affect how people perform tasks in various environments. Whether a technician is performing line maintenance, a comprehensive avionics check or at home preparing dinner for family, there are a variety of social and personal skills that complement the necessary technical acumen for appropriately completing their work.

By fully exploring and understanding the human capabilities and limitations involved in maintenance operations, your business can develop the best possible fit between your people and the technical systems in which they work.

CASA Resources
CASA’s Human Factors for Engineers resource kit contains a series of guides, workbooks and videos designed to provide a strong focus on human factors training within the aviation environment. This content includes:

• A variety of useful models (including PEAR—People, Environment, Actions, Resources) for managing human factors in maintenance
• A series of practical examples
• International regulatory requirements (including FAA documents),
• Strategies for mitigating problems

Praise from the FAA
Recently the Federal Aviation Administration’s chief technical and scientific adviser, Dr. Bill Johnson, praised CASA’s human factors training resources. “I have never seen a more professional and comprehensive package,” Johnson said. “It is the new international yardstick (or metric ruler) by which other human factors training programs will be measured.”

To access the resource kit: click here.
To access CASA’s full list of online offerings: click here.

Excerpt from CASA’s Human Factors Resource Guide for Engineers:

Using the ‘Rule of three’ in the field
One of the company’s Cessna 31Os has encountered a propeller control problem en route and has diverted to an intermediate field for a precautionary landing. The pilot reports that the aircraft has diverted and is now AOG. The company has dispatched you and the maintenance supervisor to sort out the problem. The passengers have been picked up and delivered to their destination in the spare aircraft. The chief pilot wants the aircraft repaired and returned to base as soon as possible the following day to pick up a charter the following evening.

The aircraft requires a prop change. It’s been a long day and you and the maintenance supervisor are approaching the end of your duty limits – a situation classified as ‘amber’ (use caution).The aircraft is parked in the open beside the aero club hangar. The weather has turned very blustery and a rain cell is approaching – again, amber. The sun is about to go down and although you have powerful hand-held torches (flashlights), the lack of lighting could cause difficulties with the prop change – amber.

Three ambers mean STOP. You now need to re-assess the situation. What options are there?

• When is the aircraft actually required back at base?
• Can you delay the task until the weather improves?
• Can the prop change wait until first light tomorrow?
• Is it possible to contact the on-site aero club to request the use of their hangar?

After you have reviewed the options, you have to decide how you will manage the risk. That answer depends on the context.

Your inquiries reveal that the spare aircraft can actually pick up tomorrow afternoon’s charter; and the president of the aero club has offered the aero club hangar for you to complete the prop change. Rather than just “getting on with it”, stopping, taking the time to find out more and review your options now substantially reduces the risk level associated with the task.

ARSA Keeps on FAA for Parts Identification Guidance

On May 21, ARSA submitted a follow-up letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requesting guidance regarding the identification that should be referenced in maintenance records when more than one production approval holder number is applied to a part. The association first contacted the FAA about this matter in October 2011. Within a month of that initial submission, the agency expressed shared concern regarding the presence of multiple part numbers. Although the FAA said it planned to review and revise affected policy and guidance as necessary, no such updates were made.

In its new letter, ARSA recommended that the FAA issue the association’s draft joint Information for Operators (InFO), which outlines an acceptable method of (1) recording part numbers in an article’s maintenance record consistent with Order 8130-21, and (2) listing articles by part number on a limited rated part 145 repair station capability list. In all cases, the maintenance provider must be able to recognize the part marking and place correct identification on the § 43.9(a)(4) approval for return to service.

Staying on top of issues like this over the long term is just another example of how ARSA works. To see all the ways that ARSA is working as the voice of the aviation maintenance industry, visit our ARSA Works page.

ARSA Demands Further FAA Scrutiny of Housing Requirements

On May 19, 2014, ARSA received a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) response to the letter jointly submitted by ARSA and AJETON Inc. under the agency’s Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI). The CSI requested the FAA clarify that repair stations seeking or holding a limited airframe rating with only a line maintenance authorization are not required to provide “exclusive” hangar access.

The agency again denied the request by determining “it would be contrary to [its] guidance.” Following its earlier practice in this matter, the agency did not provide information supporting the CSI principles for a “clear explanation of the requirements, alternatives, and possible outcomes associated with [the] request” or “a clear explanation of [its] decisions.”

ARSA and AJETON quickly addressed the denial by pointing out that the local office had already made its position clear, that the request had even been denied by the next level—the region—and therefore it was incumbent upon the Director of Flight Standards Service to perform a review of the situation. The primary purpose of the CSI process is to ensure the consistent application of the agency’s rules and guidance. The process requires the FAA to justify its actions by providing a thorough analysis of the issue and enforcing the regulations. In this case, that standard of review has not yet been met.

To see all the ways that ARSA is working as the voice of the aviation maintenance industry, visit our ARSA Works page.

FAA Final Inspection Guidance Needs Further Review

By ARSA Staff

On May 14, ARSA submitted a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requesting it correct parts of Order 8900.1 that purportedly requires persons performing final inspections be certificated under part 65. This guidance is incorrect and fails to recognize the regulatory distinction between performing a final inspection and approving the work on an article for return to service. ARSA addressed this issue back in November 2010 but the erroneous guidance remains despite the 2013 and 2014 revisions to Order 8900.1.

The regulations clearly demonstrate that the final inspection and “maintenance release” are two separate and distinct activities. This issue almost never arises because most of the time, persons performing the final inspection are also qualified to issue the approval for return to service; however when a repair station separates these activities, confusion ensues. The regulations certainly make the separation and Order 8900.1 should be revised accordingly.

To see all the ways that ARSA is working as the voice of the aviation maintenance industry, visit our ARSA Works page.

New Technical Data Final Order Fails to Bring Clarity

By ARSA Staff

ARSA joined its member, Metal Improvement Company LLC  in submitting a letter under the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI) regarding (1) a repair station’s ability to develop and use work instructions and (2) the exact requirements for accessibility of relevant maintenance data during the performance of maintenance functions.

The Miami Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and the FAA’s Southern Region Office previously determined that the use of internally developed work instructions, even with only minor differences from manufacturer information, was unacceptable without prior FAA approval. The local and regional offices also determined personnel must have “physical possession” of the manufacturer’s maintenance data even if it was not relevant to the work being performed.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states repair stations must ensure maintenance functions are performed in accordance with part 43. The agency has repeatedly clarified (e.g., Order 8900.1 and AC 120-77) that work instructions are acceptable as long as they return the article to its original or properly altered condition. Pre-approval is unnecessary unless the instruction results in a major repair or alteration.

A 2010 legal interpretation from the FAA acknowledged that part 145.109(d) only requires manufacturer’s technical data to be “accessible” and that there will be instances when it will not be used. Additionally, “physical possession” is certainly not required when the repair station’s work instructions contain all of the elements for performing the work in compliance with part 43.

The CSI requests that the FAA confirm that repair stations may create work instructions for its technical personnel and that the manufacturer’s maintenance data need only be “accessible” when relevant work is being performed. The CSI letter recommends that the FAA issue an advisory circular that elaborates on the development and use of work instructions based on parts 21, 43 and 145.

To see all the ways that ARSA is working as the voice of the aviation maintenance industry, visit our ARSA Works page.

Legal Briefs

International Resources: Advocate Global Growth

By Daniel Fisher, Vice President of Legislative Affairs

Regardless of your location, international aviation issues impact your business daily. Gone are the days where maintenance companies can ignore global aviation policy issues. Flight paths are not confined by international borders and repair stations have to find ways to work wherever wheels touch down.

In this global world, it’s important to be familiar with the bodies and processes that facilitate international aviation services.

ICAO: Aviation’s International Watchdog
There is a delicate balance between aviation safety and the rights of autonomous countries and their citizens. Indeed, it’s exactly why after World War II, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) formed.

On Dec. 7, 1944, representatives from 52 countries met in Chicago to sign a treaty — the Convention on International Aviation. The purpose of the Chicago Convention (as the treaty is now known), was to ensure that civil aviation “developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically.”

ICAO is the heart of the treaty; it was created in 1947. Later that year, it established an official relationship with the United Nations that allows each entity to participate in the other’s activities to accomplish the goals of the Chicago Convention and the United Nation’s Charter. In order to become a member of ICAO, a country must ratify the Chicago Convention, which means the nation agrees to be bound by the established processes. There are currently 191 “Signatory (Member) States” (or “Contracting States”).

ICAO has three main bodies: the Secretariat, the Assembly, and the Council. The Secretariat runs the organization on a day-to-day basis (the current head is Secretary General Raymond Benjamin (France)). The Assembly, made up of the Signatory States, meets once every three years to set the organization’s overall agenda. The Assembly also elects the 36 member nations to the Council, the organization’s governing body. The Council President is currently Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu (Nigeria).

The Council adopts standards (“annexes”) to support the Chicago Convention. The Member States are given a period of time to notify the body of any concerns that they might have with a new standard. If there are no significant objections, it goes into effect. After an annex has been adopted, member states incorporate it into their own national laws and regulations. If a nation does not, it must file a “difference” with ICAO to put other countries on notice that it will not comply with the particular standard.

There are currently 19 annexes, containing standards and recommended practices, ranging from “rules of the air” to environmental protection (recommended practices are not required to be adopted into law by member states but are often precursors to standards). ICAO does not act as an enforcement authority. Instead, member states pledge to adhere to the duly adopted standards by establishing civil aviation regulations within their sovereignties, in concurrence with the Chicago Convention annexes.

Nonetheless, ICAO serves as an important intermediary to prevent intrusions into an autonomous country’s laws and regulations by encouraging standardization. As the aviation industry’s global nature persists, ICAO’s mandate must continue to ensure uniformity and efficiency without regard to domestic politics.

BASAs: Aviation’s International Handshake
Bilateral aviation safety agreements (BASAs) are country-to-country arrangements that allow cooperation between regulators in areas including design, production, flight operations, environmental certification and maintenance. These agreements contribute to growth in aviation services by dramatically reducing regulatory compliance costs, making government oversight more efficient, and helping aerospace interests grow and compete globally.

A 2011 ARSA study examined the economic impact of existing maintenance BASAs on certificated repair stations.[1]

The report found it costs repair stations significantly more (almost three times as much) to become certificated by “foreign” CAAs when the home country does not have a BASA. The study determined that initial FAA certification of a repair station located in the United States on average costs a little over $15,000. Approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for U.S. facilities costs slightly less (around $11,500). EASA certification is less expensive because the EU’s BASA with the United States allows the FAA certificate to serve as the basis for EASA approval and the EASA certificate to underpin the FAA approval. By contrast, the cost for a repair station in the United States to be certificated by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) is more than $30,000.

Additionally, BASAs help make repair stations more profitable. On average, FAA certification renewal costs consume two cents of every dollar generated by the part 145 certificate, while EASA renewal consumes about four cents. By comparison, renewing a CAAC certificate consumes 16 cents of the average revenue dollar generated. In addition, non-BASA certificates typically generate lower revenues (relative to BASA business). High certification costs obviously make the work more expensive – and less profitable – for the repair station.

The key is to ensure the agreements — and the sovereignty of participating nations — are respected. Industry should encourage governments to enter into BASAs and to respect current international agreements.

Starting at Home
Knowing the tools for international cooperation is important. Your company must become an advocate; work with your lawmakers and stakeholders to ensure that ICAO remains the international body envisioned in the Chicago Convention and bilateral agreements smooth out turbulence in the international marketplace.

Take the next step—let ARSA show you how to work with your own government to tend to international aviation issues:

(1) Complete ARSA’s global drug and alcohol testing survey on the FAA ANPRM with broad international ramifications;
(2) Visit ARSA’s resources page to learn more about CAAs and international aviation resources; and
(3) Keep ARSA informed about international issues impacting your company.

[1] For the complete study see “Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements: Reducing Costs for the Aviation Industry”, found on ARSA’s website at the following link: http://arsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ARSA-BASAs-ReducingCostsForTheAviationIndustry.pdf

ARSA on the Hill

Regulatory Outlook

Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed by contributing authors do not necessarily state or reflect those of ARSA, and shall not be used for endorsement purposes.

The Economics of Regulation Part II: Lost Opportunities

By Andrew Langer, President, The Institute for Liberty, 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 © 2014 Andrew Langer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Final Documents/Your Two Cents

This list includes Federal Register publications, such as final rules, Advisory Circulars, and policy statements, as well as proposed rules and policies of interest to ARSA members. To view the list, click here.

Return to Top of Page

Quality Time

Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed by contributing authors do not necessarily state or reflect those of ARSA, and shall not be used for endorsement purposes.

Import Requirements – Piles of Paperwork

By Jason Dickstein, Attorney at Law, 2233 Wisconsin Ave NW, Washington, DC 20007. © 2014 Jason Dickstein ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is the fourth in a series of articles discussing import into the United States of aircraft parts. Last month we discussed some of the exceptions that drive some aircraft parts to unexpected places in the harmonized tariff code. This month we will examine the actual import requirements that apply once we have figured out the applicable harmonized tariff code.

Import is different from export. The regulating agencies are different and the regulations are different. Those who frequently export articles are no doubt familiar with the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC). In the case of import, however, one deals primarily with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (and in limited cases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). Thus it is important to make sure that you are applying the correct import laws to your imports.

In this article, we will discuss the entry process.

When you are importing goods into the United States, you (as importer) are required to declare the value, classification, and rate of duty applicable to each article. A common mistake among aviation industry is to misclassify the parts. In previous articles we discussed the use of the Harmonized Tariff Codes, and some of the exceptions that are applicable to repair stations.

Once you know the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Code of the imported part, you can look up the expected tariff using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, published by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The tariff is expressed as a percentage of the value of the goods (e.g., 3.3 percent) and will almost always be found under Rate of Duty Column 1. Column 1 is divided into “General” and “Special” rates. The “General” rate applies to goods from countries of origin with which the U.S. maintains ordinary trade relations. The “Special” rate applies to goods from those countries with which the U.S. has a special trade relationship. For instance, the designation “CA” under the “Special” column would indicate a special tariff for goods from Canada, under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

After determining the applicable tariff, the next step is to actually procure the goods. When an import reaches the United States, the importer must file entry documents for the shipment with the port director at the port of entry. Goods imported into the United States are not considered legally entered until the CBP has examined and authorized the goods and the appropriate duties have been paid. It is the importer’s responsibility to make arrangements for examination and release of goods.

What is actually required of an importer to make arrangement for entry of his or her goods? First, evidence of right to make entry must be provided. For our purposes, an air waybill may be used for goods entered by air, and could serve as evidence of the right to make entry. In other cases, a bill of lading may be used.

The importer must also file the proper documentation to allow a determination that the goods may be released, as well as stating information about duty assessment and statistical data. Within 15 calendar days of the shipment’s arrival at the U.S. port you must provide certain entry documents required by the port director. These may include an entry manifest (CBP Form 7533), evidence of the right to make entry (such as an air waybill), a commercial or pro forma invoice, packing lists, and other documents to determine admissibility as necessary. Further, a bond must be posted with CBP to ensure that all necessary duties, taxes, and fees will be paid. A bond may be secured through a U.S. surety company.

The CBP will use the information provided to review and inspect the shipment (unless they determine it is unnecessary to do so) in order to determine whether the goods may be legally permitted into the United States. They will also use the documentation to determine whether the importer has posted the correct bond amount to cover all applicable duties and other costs.

Finally, to complete the release of goods, within 10 business days of arrival, the importer must complete and provide an entry summary (CBP Form 7501). The entry summary is also used for those goods that are to be released from CBP custody at the time of entry.

It has probably become apparent that a significant amount of paperwork (and a corresponding margin for error) exists in the import process. CBP recommends providing at least eight working hours (or one business day) for document processing. Further, importers should make sure they have a record keeping system in place, as importers are required to retain CBP records and entry documents for five years from the date of entry.

If all this seems a bit complicated to you, you are not alone. If you plan on importing, your paperwork processing can be eased considerably by using CBP’s Automated Broker Interface (ABI) program, available through the Automated Commercial System on the CBP website. For those who are inexperienced or infrequent importers, CBP suggests considering hiring a customs broker to assist you in getting your goods through.

This series is meant to support the ARSA community, so if you have questions, please feel free to email them to us at Jason@washingtonaviation.com. We would love to have your questions help drive topics for future articles (please be sure to let us know whether you are suggesting topics for future articles or seeking legal advice so that we do not inadvertently treat your inquiry the wrong way!).

Return to Top of Page

Legal Waypoints: Strict Adherence to Procedures – GoJet v. FAA Case Study

By Steven E. Pazar, Attorney at Law, 11 Carriage House Lane, Boxford, Massachusetts 01921. © 2014 Steven E. Pazar ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

A recent decision involving a certificate holder’s manual and the FAA’s Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Procedure (VDRP) illustrates how essential it is to follow each and every step in a required process. The case, GoJet Airlines LLC v. Federal Aviation Administration, was decided March 4, 2014 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

The facts involve the certificate holder’s failure to make an appropriate maintenance entry during the repair of a main landing gear assembly. A gear pin to lock the landing gear was installed without the airline’s required note that it needed to be removed before flight. Subsequently, the gear pin remained installed, the landing gear did not retract on takeoff and fortunately, the aircraft returned to the departing airport without incident.

The airline argued that it did not commit violations of 14 CFR § 121.153(a)(2), which prohibits operating an “unairworthy” aircraft, or 14 CFR § 91.13(a), which prohibits operating an aircraft in a “careless or reckless” manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. The type design for the CRJ-700 required all landing gear to be operable, or in this instance, retractable. The certificate holder cited testimony that the aircraft could be flown safely with the landing gear pins in place as in use of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) flight operation. The FAA noted that an MEL was neither requested nor approved and as such the aircraft was operated outside of its certificate configuration. This by definition means the aircraft is “unairworthy” because it did not conform to the type certificate. The court agreed and cited Copsey, 993 F.2d at 739, in concluding that “airworthiness does not mean flyability.”

Proper aircraft maintenance requires attention to detail; it is essential not only in the actual performance of tasks but in the associated records. Checklists and other entries are part of an approved system of checks and balances to ensure that the work performed is compliant with the approved maintenance procedures. This system drives all its participants toward decreasing nonconformities that impact airworthiness. The airline’s own procedures indicated it believed the removal of the pin was essential to proper maintenance making it easy for the judge to side with the agency.

The record also indicates that the airline used the VDRP to self-disclose the incident and submitted the required proposed comprehensive fix to the FAA for review. However, the FAA rejected the proposal indicating that it:

[D]oes not preclude recurrence of this violation. The mechanic involved knew of the [General Maintenance Manual] requirement to make a logbook entry stating the landing gear pin was installed prior to this incident, and yet still forgot to make the entry.  … The comprehensive fix should prevent the same mechanic, or any other mechanic, from forgetting to make the logbook entry and subsequently forgetting to remove the gear pins following maintenance.

The FAA inspector suggested a “pin-removal checklist” be added to the maintenance manual; however, the certificate holder neither adopted the suggestion nor proposed an alternative within the VDRP stipulated deadline. Further, the airline failed to avail itself of a “next level” review available through the program.

While the Federal Aviation Administration seeks to encourage the prompt reporting of identified nonconformities by certain certificate holders through its VDRP, the program must be strictly followed by the certificate holder. The advantage to self-disclosure is that the certificate holder will be issued a “letter of correction” rather than a “civil penalty action.” The incentive is simple – encourage self-disclosure by those most likely to detect errors in exchange for a reduced regulatory penalty so the issue can be remedied quickly. This case study illustrates that not following a certificate holder’s written procedures and the VDRP to the letter only creates an easier target for punishment!

The VDRP is laid out in Advisory Circular 00-58B Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.

Steven counsels businesses operating in high-risk industries – including aviation – he provides templates, tools and training that will improve contracting efficiency, close deals faster and control costs.

Return to Top of Page

Q: In cases where an article comes without identification, we request the removal tag from the aircraft and transfer the information such as part and serial numbers to a custom-made identification label. In the event that no removal tag was available and the customer sent the article with a no serial number (NSN) indication, we then request a letter from the customer assigning a serial number by their quality control procedures.

We added this procedure into our Quality Control Manual (QCM) and presented it to the FAA; however, our Principal Avionics Inspector (PAI) did not accept the procedure. Instead, he wants us to get in touch with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and only use the identification plate listed in the Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC) of the component maintenance manual (CMM) rather than our custom-made label. We state in the QCM that we will place information such as: Manufacturer, Part Number, Serial Number and TSO on the custom label.

Can we use a custom-made label instead of the “OEM ID plate” listed in the IPC?

A: ARSA members have had issues with individual inspectors on this issue several times. Therefore the association requested and obtained this letter from AFS-300 which indicates that an Advisory Circular (AC 43-213A) on this very subject was updated to clarify the fact that a maintenance provider can re-identify an article during 14 CFR part 43 operations.

Obviously, following the AC is an acceptable procedure for showing compliance with the requirements of a regulation; whether the local inspector finds it so is a different matter altogether. ARSA strongly recommends that its members ensure the regulation and the agency’s own advice on this issue is put on the record with the particular inspector (and/or supervisor, Flight Standards District Office manager, etc.). The company should write a polite letter to the individual pointing out the agency has indeed found repair station re-identification an acceptable practice as explained in the AC. You acknowledge that the agency recommends contacting the manufacturer (see paragraph 6.c.2), but the FAA’s regulations does not require that action; indeed, except in limited (no pun intended) circumstances, no part marking is even required (see paragraphs 6.a.(1)(a)-(c)). The letter should reflect the company’s desire to comply with the regulations; if the inspector has another rule that s/he thinks is applicable, that person should please let you know so the specific issue can be addressed.