July 2014

There are many trade associations in the District of Columbia’s metropolitan area. There are also local organizations that companies join to represent specific interests or to advance corporate or personal interests. This association works with almost every other civil aviation trade group in the nation’s capital. Together we enhance the maintenance industry’s role in guiding international aviation safety laws, policies and procedures.

It is essential that trade groups keep autonomy to work issues specific to the members’ interests, but still recognize the similarities among and between competitors and partners. The government even encourages the need for cooperation and understanding among and between certificate holders by creating Aviation Rulemaking Committees (ARCs) and by renewing the charter of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). ARSA has been a member of several ARCs (Airworthiness Directive Implementation, Consistency in Regulatory Interpretation, Halon Replacement) and is a continuing member of the ARAC.

These groups are given specific issues or problems to address; in return, the committees provide “official” recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on how to deal with the matter. While the advice is not always accepted, it does let the agency know the various positions of the different stakeholders. This enables regulators to weigh the pros and cons of issues and their impact before taking a position, such as issuing guidance material or a regulation.

Trade associations also collaborate on efforts to influence legislators or policy makers—we sign letters to congress or the administration so that those bodies know that an action or inaction will impact the entire industry, not just a particular segment. ARSA always tries to ensure its position is acceptable to others, but if it is not we understand that trade groups may oppose the action. That doesn’t mean we won’t comment or deal with a divisive issue, it merely means we know where others will stand so our friends and foes are known and appreciated when “push comes to shove.”

However, when it comes to regulatory compliance issues, all must stand for the proposition that the government has a different role than the certificate holder. When ARSA attempts to influence regulatory compliance or interpretative issues, it understands that a position may not be confined to its members, but will impact customers and vendors. The same is true when it comes to understanding the position of the trade groups that represent individual owners and operators, air carriers and manufacturers. The regulator should ensure compliance with its rules; it should not let the type of certificate holder dictate compliance or enforcement postures. When a government entity cannot or does not enforce its rules in a constant and consistent manner, it hurts all that are subject to its oversight—those are the circumstances when working together ensures the most success.

Over the years, Sarah has said a lot about working together. Read on in the hotline for some good advice that always rings true.

Return to Top of Page

Latest News

[Net]Work Together

By Brett Levanto, Director of Operations

Come together with us. Start planning now for ARSA’s 2015 Annual Repair Symposium.

Sarah has already described how important industry-wide cooperation is for ARSA and its members. Individually, we complete work and serve customers. Together, we enhance the maintenance industry and protect the flying public.

The repair station community must work together to guarantee the safety of crews and passengers worldwide. ARSA ensures that happens. The symposium is the perfect place to connect with officials from the FAA and other authorities, as well as key members of Congress and your colleagues. It is an opportunity to join aviation professionals from around the world and engage on issues that directly impact the maintenance industry. Indeed, last year’s conference created an opportunity for quick resolution — “ARSA Works: Engagement Sparks FAA Action.”

The 2015 Annual Repair Symposium will be held March 18-20 in Arlington, Virginia. For more information, visit our events page.

Click the image for symposium information.

Meet Max Burnette: 2014 National Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Year

By Sara McDonough, Legal Intern

As the aviation world converged on Osh Kosh, Wisconsin for EAA Airventure, ARSA took a moment to celebrate Max Lloyd Burnette. The General Aviation Awards Program named Burnette the 2014 National Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Year.

Burnette joined the aviation world in 1954 at the age of 17 when he joined the North Carolina Air National Guard. He volunteered to attend Air Force mechanic’s training and completed the 15-week program in 1956, becoming a full-time maintenance technician. Between 1956 and 1992, the year he retired from the military, Burnette worked on a wide variety of aircraft, including F-86 Sabre jets, F-104s, F-102s, T-33s, U-3As, KC-97s and KC-135s at Air Guard units in Charlotte, North Carolina as well as in Tennessee in the cities of Knoxville and Nashville. Most notably, Burnett logged 4,000 hours as a KC-97 Flight Engineer while assigned to the Knoxville unit, and he served as a crew chief and flight line supervisor for a section of C-130 aircraft with the Nashville unit.

Image courtesy of Aviation Pros

In 1986, Burnette made his professional debut in the civil aviation industry after obtaining his civilian A&P certificate. He and his wife, Jean, started their own repair and inspection service, M&J Aero. The business focused on taildragger restorations, repairs and inspections. Although M&J Aero is officially closed, Max and Jean occasionally perform inspections for friends and customers.

Burnette’s interest in aviation did not remain limited to maintenance. He began flying as a hobby in 1956 and continues to fly to this day. Currently the owner of a PA-22 Tri-Pacer, which he completely rebuilt and converted to taildragger configuration, Burnette previously owned a Cessna 170, a Piper PA-18 Super Cub, and a Taylorcraft BC-12D. When he is not volunteering at maintenance clinics and with the Experimental Aircraft Association Young Eagles program, you can find Burnette with his wife, restoring a 1941 Piper J-5 Cub Cruiser.

Burnette graciously agreed to provide some insight into his long and remarkable career, one fueled by an obvious passion for flight and a tireless commitment to keeping the skies safe.

Q&A with Max Burnette

ARSA: What is your favorite aircraft to work on?

MLB: My favorite aircraft to work on are the tube and fabric taildraggers.

ARSA: What is your most memorable project?

MLB: I suppose my most memorable aircraft project was in 1982. I completely rebuilt a 1941 Piper J-5 for a friend. My wife and I are in the process of doing a second restoration on the same plane.

ARSA: What is the most rewarding thing about the work you do?

MLB: The most rewarding thing about my work is being able to see some of the great aircraft that helped build our aviation industry being kept in compliance with today’s standards and being enjoyed by many young folks who otherwise couldn’t afford to purchase or maintain new aircraft. I most like being an aviation mechanic to promote good maintenance and safety practices among those of us who have limited resources to use in our sport.

ARSA: During the course of your career, have there been any advancements or events that had a particular impact on the aviation maintenance industry?

MLB: I can’t really say that any advancement or event in my career has had much of an impact on aviation [maintenance]. The first 25 years or so of my career were military aircraft maintenance, where I learned the discipline of always having the correct technical data before beginning a task and double checking any safety items before releasing a plane back into service. I began working on civil aircraft while I was still in the military. I always try to treat each task as if my life depends on it because someone’s does.

ARSA: After 59 years as an aviation maintenance technician, do you have any words of wisdom for others in the field?

MLB: After all these years, I suppose my advice would be to always treat your customers with the respect that you would want: Don’t be just a parts changer; thoroughly explain to your customers why you must take the time and effort to research the problems that a possible misinterpretation of some pertinent airworthiness directive has caused. Try to be honest and fair with what they have entrusted to your care.

ARSA congratulates Max on his great work and for serving as an example of the aviation maintenance industry at its best. ARSA is a proud supporter of the General Aviation Awards. To learn more visit: http://www.generalaviationawards.com/.

Aviation Maintenance: Global Justice Defenders

Challenges Heard at Aviation Subcommittee

ARSA on Lawson Confirmation: International Inspiration

In November 1997, ER, Friends, Seinfeld and the X-Files were still on TV, Tiger Woods had recently become the youngest golfer to ever win the Masters, the first Harry Potter was published in England, and Beanie Babies were flying off the shelves at a breakneck pace.

It is also the month Sarah MacLeod used her influential column, Sarah Says, to tell us all: “Don’t be eaten alive.”  While new episodes of Friends no longer premiere, Tiger Woods is 38, Beanie Babies aren’t worth nearly as much as collectors expected, and the Harry Potter series has ended, Sarah MacLeod’s advice still remains in the same– the survival of the MRO industry depends on people coming together to solve the industry’s demanding issues. Check out her full article from November 1997:

Don’t Be Eaten Alive 

Click the image to view the November 1997 hotline.

Very few companies can afford to pay attention to every new regulation or law passed by the myriad of legislators and agencies that can impact business. You just don’t have the time or energy to fight each and every battle. From the neighborhood “home owners” association to the local county and city governments, to the state legislature, to the laws passed by our federal representatives and finally to the environmental (EPA), health and safety (OSHA) and aviation (FAA) agencies; each of these entities has the power to put you down and out, personally or professionally. It is enough to scare you into the mountains where survival depends upon your own two hands and luck.

Survival in the business world depends upon many people working together to reach a common goal. The goal expressed by your board of directors of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association is to create a level playing field in the regulatory arena. We have been and are dedicated to making sure the regulations can be interpreted and enforced evenhandedly, whether a large company like Boeing is involved or a small two person general aviation shop. The regulations are there to ensure that all certificate holders work toward one goal– airworthiness.

Aviation manufacturers have had long-term relationships with the agencies that impact their business. They have learned to work together under one trade association to ensure their interests are addressed in legislative and regulatory issues. The large air carriers also have an effective lobbying effort in the legislative and regulatory branches of government. The maintenance industry has not been the most consistent about standing together in these arenas. These entities have always believed that the survival of their business depended upon individual companies being ahead of the curve, not upon working together to ensure that all have an equal chance.

Without united efforts, the regulations can be used to eat you alive. Surely survivors can see the trend, yet many individual businesses still do not believe that a united effort is worth supporting. These companies still tell me that they will not join the association because “so-and-so” is a member” (usually a competitor) or because “Why should I join, Sarah, you will do the work anyway,” (let someone pay for the good of all) or because “Why should my competitor know what I know,” (like the association reveals confidential information) or because “You didn’t save me money last year” (did you ask your quality department how much time we saved you). This short-sighted view of the current business world will create long-term loss.

No one company has the time or resources to review the Federal Register and comment on pending regulatory changes. No one company can keep with the FAA policies and procedures that impact the bottom line. Large companies recognize that joining together can save them all time and money. It amazes me that small companies will not make the investment in their own future—no wonder that they are being eaten alive.

The FAA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is the first stage of a process that could impose drug and alcohol (D&A) testing requirements on aviation maintenance providers around the globe. ARSA has been working for months to help international stakeholders find their voice and speak out against the rulemaking. On July 17, the association made sure its own voice was heard by submitting detailed comments to the agency. The submission elaborates on congressional intent, national sovereignty issues, the importance of adhering to bilateral agreements and protecting small businesses:

• The agency must adhere to the legislation and congressional intent
• National sovereignty must be respected
• Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements must be followed and encouraged
• The agency must ensure operational freedom and analyze the economic impact on small businesses

ARSA has been joined by a broad swath of industry stakeholders in opposing any additional testing burdens on foreign repair stations. To learn more about our coalition, click here.

FAA Answers ARSA, A4A on Alternative MTP

As the 113^th Congress winds down, so do the careers of several lawmakers who have been champions for the aviation maintenance industry.  Unfortunately, they won’t be easy to replace.

Reps. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), Howard Coble (R-NC), and Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) all announced their retirement effective at the end of the current Congress.  ARSA, with the help of our members’ engagement, built a strong relationship with these exiting lawmakers.

Petri was a frequent participant at ARSA Legislative Day, an ARSA Legislator of the Year award winner, a former House Aviation Subcommittee chairman, and a stalwart against efforts to micromanage the aviation maintenance industry and hinder the use of contract maintenance.  Coble, also a long-time House Aviation Subcommittee member, built a strong relationship with ARSA member TIMCO and also defended the industry against false safety and economic arguments.  Hastings, while not on the House Aviation Subcommittee, was an important advocate for repair stations and a frequent visitor to Sonico Inc.’s Moses Lake, Washington location.

None of them arrived on Capitol Hill with a thorough understanding of the aviation maintenance industry and the important role repair stations play in job creation and civil aviation’s stellar safety record. These lawmakers took the time to learn about the industry and ARSA’s top policy priorities. Our members helped.

While we’re losing years of experience, knowledge and enthusiasm for the maintenance sector, Congress and the legislative process will move on.  ARSA has been busy identifying the next generation of aviation maintenance industry champions by hosting and participating in industry meetings with congressional candidates; however, you need to help.

Is there someone in your congressional district that we should have in our sights?  Is there an intriguing candidate that should visit your company or be supported at a campaign event?  ARSA’s legislative team is standing by to help you identify the next generation of industry advocates.

Our industry might be losing great champions, but there are many others waiting in wings.  With your help, we’ll identify, educate and engage.

Return to Top of Page

By Ryan Aggergaard, Associate at Washington Aviation Group, PC.  Washington 2233 Wisconsin Ave NW, Washington, DC 20007. © 2014 Ryan Aggergaard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is the fifth in a series of articles discussing import into the United States of aircraft parts.  Last time we described some of the basic steps required to import parts, now we will examine two important license exceptions that will allow us to return articles to our customers after repair without going through the time-consuming export license application process.

As we mentioned in previous articles, import and export are two different animals, governed by a number of different agencies.  The two of greatest concern for our ability to return parts to our customers are the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC).  These bodies regulate dual-use articles and defense articles that require a license before they can be exported from the United States.

Because different agencies regulate different articles under different regulatory schemes, it is important to always know which set of regulations apply to a particular aircraft part.  A repair exception under each agency’s regulations will allow us to skip the license queue and quickly (and legally!) export repaired parts back to our customers.

The first exception we will discuss is BIS license exception Replacement of Parts (RPL).  Just as export licenses from BIS are more common than export licenses from the DDTC, so too will the BIS’s license exception RPL be more common than the DDTC’s exception 123.4.

BIS license exception RPL allows for the one-for-one replacement of parts or servicing and replacement of equipment, such as in exchange agreements.  To take advantage of the exception the aircraft or article must have been legally exported in the first place – and it is incumbent upon the repair station utilizing the exception to this if the station was not the original exporter.  You should also check the original license to make sure that there are no restrictions on replacement parts exports!

An item is returned to the U.S. under exception RPL for inspection, testing, calibration or repair, including overhaul and reconditioning, must maintain the same part number; no improvements or upgrades may be made to the article.  No changes may be made to the basic characteristics of the article.  When making a one-for-one exchange, the repair station must also obtain the core, or confirm its destruction. Finally, be sure to list “RPL” on export documentation associated with the article to indicate the authority for export without a license.

In the case of defense articles controlled by the International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR), an unclassified U.S.-origin defense article may be imported and then exported without a license if it is imported for the purpose of service, in accordance with regulatory limits.  The first step to take advantage of this exception is to state the following on the Customs (import) documentation: “This shipment is being imported in accordance with and under the authority of 22 C.F.R. § 123.4(a)(1).”

In order to take advantage of this exception, certain conditions must be met.  The article must be serviced and returned to its original exported condition.  Service can include inspection, testing, calibration or repair, including overhaul, reconditioning and one-to-one replacement of any defective items, parts or components.  However, service may NOT include any modifications, enhancements, upgrades or other form of alteration or improvement that changes the basic performance of the item.

This is an important point.  The article must be returned only to its originally exported condition, no more.  This means that software upgrades or other alterations that change the capabilities of a unit may render the unit ineligible for this exception.

Finally, a few more obvious requirements must be satisfied: the importer (in this case the repair station) must be eligible to import the article, the article must be subsequently returned to the country from which it was imported, at the time of the export the ultimate consignee must be the same as the foreign consignee or end user named at time of import and the article must not be from a proscribed country.

Those importers seeking to take advantage of license exception 123.4 must be sure to follow the proper paperwork procedures.  Appropriate Customs documentation must be filed at the time of import, including the statement mentioned above, a complete list and description of the articles imported, including quantity and value must be stated, and upon export, the Automated Export System (AES) Direct filing must cite 22 CFR § 123.4 as the authority for export, and the entry documentation number must be provided.

As with all compliance, the devil is in the details. Repair stations taking advantage of these exceptions should consult export compliance professionals with any questions to ensure they remain compliant.

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

I Need a DER – Or Do I? PART II:  The Major/Minor Determination

By Peter Lauria, Principal, JT Consulting, LLC  © 2014 Peter Lauria ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

More Decisions to Make

You’ve decided to develop a repair for an article in your repair station (see the last article in the June 2014 hotline). You’ve gathered appropriate information about the article, described the extent and nature of the damage, and the potential corrective actions’ impact on the assembly, system and product; you may have already researched the types of DERs needed to help complete the review and analysis. Good start.

Now, other determinations must be made. The main one will be whether the contemplated action will have a major or minor ‘result’ on the product.  The ‘level’ of review and approval required for the action to be performed is affected by this classification. Before you can make that determination, though, you need to figure out whether the ‘result’ will be a repair or an alteration; or, if multiple actions are accomplished, a little of both!

A Look at Repairs and Alterations

You will be hard-pressed to find a definition of “repair” or “alteration” in the U.S. aviation safety regulations. However, an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Working Group (WG), tasked with resolving the “major/minor problem”, with participation by the regulators, airlines, manufacturers and industry groups, including ARSA, defined these terms. It described alteration as “the modification of an aircraft [product] from one sound state to another sound state; the aircraft [product] meets the original airworthiness specifications and standards both before and after the modification.” Additionally, the working group determined repair “means the elimination of damage and/or process of restoration.” (For more information, click here.)

Pretty straightforward?  It would seem so. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where an action may begin as a repair but also have aspects of an alteration due to the scope of the work and the resultant effect on the product.  To simplify, let’s look away from aircraft to something most of us deal with every day—our cars.

You are having issues with your suspension; the ride is getting rougher, the rear of the car bounces merrily along as you cruise down the freeway.  You (or your auto shop technician) determine that the struts have failed.

Solution: Install new struts, thereby returning the car to its original condition.

But, for a few dollars more, you could vastly improve the handling capabilities, ride quality, and lateral acceleration by installing coil-overs and replacing the bushings with higher durometer bushings.

Has the work become an alteration by changing the original design specifications of the car?  Will the increased handling capabilities impact other aspects of design? Will it add to or change maintenance tasks or service intervals?

Back on the aircraft article, if your determination is that the product could be altered as a result of the contemplated action, additional data may be required and additional actions may be needed (e.g., an STC).

For the purposes of this article we will assume that the action will return the article to at least its original design condition, thereby making it a repair.

A Look at Major and Minor

Unlike alteration and repair, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory definitions for major and minor repairs. The definitions can be found in 14 CFR § 1.1 and they are:

Major repair means a repair:

1. That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

2. That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

And;

Minor repair means a repair other than a major repair.

Simple, right? These definitions were established in 1931, and have been confusing and inconsistently applied ever since. In an effort to simplify and clarify, the FAA added Appendix A to part 43, which lists various actions or items that are to be considered major repairs (along with lists of major alterations and preventive maintenance). However, most of the list is only applicable to piston-powered small aircraft, and has not been updated to cover issues that today’s air carrier or business aircraft technicians and engineers are facing.

Many operators and repair stations have established decision flowcharts or classification procedures, in compliance with the regulations, to help their people understand the regulations and make proper determinations.  Those procedures are typically “accepted” by the FAA as part of the airline or repair station manuals. As a result, different procedures will apply depending upon the operations (part 91 vs. 121, experimental, part 133, etc.) and customer. Each owner/operator is ultimately responsible for ensuring the proper classifications are made; they may delegate the decision to the repair station or other maintenance provider; however, standardization is certainly problematic.

In 2002, Advisory Circular (AC) 120-77 “Maintenance and Alteration Data”  was published by the FAA.  The AC is helpful and recommended when making the major/minor determination; particularly its flowchart in the back.  In addition to questions applicable to the definition of major repairs, the first question on the flowchart addresses alterations. However, the guidance does not fit all situations.  In addition to the determination procedures differing by operation or customer (see above), the flowcharts often must be customized to meet the needs of the discipline (structural, propulsion, systems, etc.) making the determination.

Other regulatory bodies around the world have established similar, though not identical, definitions and acceptable procedures regarding repair classifications. For instance, Transport Canada defines major repair, but not minor repair. EASA has both definitions, but reverses the weight of data, so to speak; it defines a minor repair in detail, and a major repair as other than a minor.  Additionally, all repairs developed in Europe under EASA require approval by either the agency or an EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).  However, under the bilateral agreements, major repairs approved by the FAA or FAA-DERs, and minor repair data developed under FAA jurisdiction are considered approved or accepted by Transport Canada and EASA.  For other countries/regions, you must comply with the bilateral agreements, if they exist or the particular country’s requirements.

A Look at the Options for Major/Minor Classification

1. Whether or not you ever develop an independent corrective action, you should understand the difference between a major and minor repair and alteration. Different recordkeeping is required when a major repair or alteration is involved, even when those actions are accomplished in accordance with a manufacturer’s information.
a. Review the recordkeeping requirements of Appendix B to part 43.
b. Review the definitions of major and minor repairs and alterations in 14 CFR § 1.1

2. If your repair station is doing work for an airline, check to see if it has a major/minor decision process (logic diagram, flowchart, etc.).
a. If so, use it (even if your outcome in the classification process might be different), or ask the airline to make the classification.
b. If not, utilize AC 120-77, the definitions in 14 CFR § 1.1, and Appendix A to part 43 and obtain concurrence on the decision from the airline.

3. If the work is for a TC holder or other design approval holder, you can:
a. Ask the holder to make the decision.
b. If the holder cannot or will not help; make the decision in-house, following AC 120-77, the definitions in 14 CFR § 1.1, and Appendix A to part 43.

4. If no process is presented to you in advance, and you don’t have one for developing standard (multiple) repair processes, gather the information suggested in part I of this series and AC 120-77, the definitions in 14 CFR section 1.1, and Appendix A to part 43.

5. A DER can be consulted at any point. They can utilize their years of experience, the information referenced in this article as well as FAA Order 8300.16 “Major Repair and Alteration Data Approval” to help make a particular determination or to help develop a comprehensive process.

Finally, be aware that even if a repair station determines a particular action results in a minor repair, an airline may, based on its process, determine that the repair is major. If you followed a comprehensive process for collecting and analyzing the article, damage, extent and nature of corrective action, utilizing the existing data, a DER can assist you with FAA approval.

Next Time:  The FAA Delegation System

Peter Lauria (jtclauria@comcast.net) has over 30 years’ experience with aircraft manufacturers, test equipment manufacturers, repair stations and airlines. He is the owner and principal of JT Consulting, LLC., providing engineering consulting, DER services and ODA guidance.

Return to Top of Page

Q: Can articles received without an FAA Form 8130 from the authorized distributor of an OEM be installed on a type certificated product?

A: First, let’s remember that “OEM” has no regulatory meaning. The FAA requires persons producing aviation articles to have design and production authority.

In any event, both the “OEM” and the distributor, as “seller” must be able to establish that the part meets the appropriate design and production technical requirements to claim it “eligible for installation.”

As to your “authority” to install the part, that is found in section 43.13(b), which requires you to use replacement articles of “such a quality” as to return the article to at least its original condition. ARSA has always taken that to mean that the part number matches the requirements of the maintenance data and a related Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC). So, ironically, your “authority” to install can be based upon the representations of the “seller” since it is prohibited from making misleading statements about the parts eligibility for installation. Even more ironically, it may be perfectly okay under part 3, but you will note that section 21.9(b) prohibits anyone but a design or production approval holder from claiming an article is “suitable for installation.”

Your determination that the article is eligible for installation can be based upon maintenance data (section 43.13(a)), including the IPC, service bulletins and other information (see Advisory Circular 20-62 Eligibility, Quality, and Identification of Aeronautical Replacement Parts latest revision). Producers are supposed to have an approval from the FAA or another PAH; sellers are prohibited from lying or misleading persons about civil aviation articles in sales or advertising records; claiming something is a particular part number in a sales document and/or on the part is a record.