2015 – Edition 9 – October 1

the hotline 1984

Table of Contents

Sarah Says

Hotline Features

ARSA Works

Legal Briefs

ARSA on the Hill

Regulatory Outlook

Quality Time



AVMRO News Portal

Upcoming Events

Sarah Says

Genius in Disguise

By Sarah MacLeod, Executive Director

“Genius, that power which dazzles mortal eyes, is oft but perseverance in disguise.” – Henry Willard Austin

The Aeronautical Repair Station Association has been around for some thirty odd years; it deals with even-longer standing issues for the world-wide aviation maintenance industry. The regulatory problems and concerns faced by the association’s members began the moment government found it necessary to oversee the design, production, operation and maintenance of civil aircraft. As technology develops, businesses are bought, sold and remade, markets grow and regulators seek even more control, the system becomes increasingly complicated.

In its three decades, ARSA has amassed a wealth of knowledge and experience. However, the association’s genius – to paraphrase Henry Willard Austin – is in its perseverance. The longer a problem is allowed to persist and exist the more ingrained it becomes, the harder it is and the longer it takes to resolve. Your ARSA insurance policy, as we call it, amortizes the cost of the big payoff – a victory years in the making – and pays immediate dividends with small, but important wins along the way.

Let’s take a look at two important matters that the association has worked to resolve since its inception:

Availability of maintenance information

Since a rule change in 1980, information “essential to continued airworthiness” of products, i.e., aircraft, engines and propellers has been required to be compiled and made available to “persons required to comply” with the instructions. What information is “required” has never been substantively defined by the agency; rather, the FAA has allowed design approval holders to define the “information essential to continued airworthiness” ignoring the fact that the same government entity “requires” maintenance providers have “current” maintenance information from the manufacturer available. Additionally, the FAA ignores the fact that engine, rotorcraft and propeller design approval holders have been required to provide maintenance manuals since the 1930s.

ARSA has attempted to resolve the issue through reason, legislation and formal complaints. Members are directly impacted by the inability of the national aviation authorities (now including Transport Canada (TCCA) and the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA)) to reconcile what they expect from design approval holders versus what is demanded from maintenance providers (particularly repair stations). The basic premise articulated by ARSA since its inception has not changed—the government must determine what is “essential to continued airworthiness” from both the design and maintenance perspective. It cannot favor one certificate holder over another when its job is to establish, explain and enforce minimum standards of safety.

The maintenance community should not be required to attain or obtain information that is not required to be provided by the design approval holder. This basic approach will continue to be used in its attempt to make the agencies see reason, but it will not be quickly resolved and it won’t be easy.

Bilateral agreement implementation procedures

Government attempts to reduce burdens of oversight apparently result in additional costs to industry. First, most bilaterals do not include maintenance provisions so while a design and production approval holder may get products and articles accepted by the trading partner, maintenance providers must apply for “foreign repair station” certificates. Further, when maintenance implementation procedures are incorporated and developed between nations, they do not balance or align the requirements with the design and production procedures.

Consequently, situations like requiring FAA Form 8130-3s for “domestic” shipments that will become “exports” under the technical implementation procedures (for production approval holders) are created and have to be resolved. The association has been pointing the anomalies out with little success — either the governments do not understand or internal politics overcomes rational thought. That does not stop ARSA from its mission: widespread creation of real mutual acceptance procedures similar to those between the United States and Canada. Obviously, we have a long way to go.

No Easy Solutions

There are other issues that have plagued the industry for years that are being worked by the trade association, and some of that persistence has paid dividends. For example, the continued confusion over whether a repair station certificate can “issue” and “sign” an air carrier’s logbook or airworthiness release. Although the latest legal interpretation still does not clearly delineate the “persons” involved, the FAA has stated that a repair station is a “person” able to issue the logbook or airworthiness release. Obviously, the individual signing the document must be (a) certificated under part 65 as a repairman or mechanic, (b) otherwise qualified by the repair station under its training program, (c) listed on the repair station roster and (d) qualified and trained by the air carrier.

Another long and involved method of influencing government is involvement in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and various Aviation Rulemaking Committees (ARCs). ARSA has been a member of the ARAC since its inception and has led the maintenance subcommittee for years. The association has been involved in two extremely important ARCs: the Airworthiness Directive Implementation (AD-ARC) and the Consistency in Regulatory Interpretation (CRI-ARC). These committees attempted to resolve complicated issues, with many sides and aspects and no easy solutions. However, that does not stop the attempts or the process or progress.

Perseverance rewarded

The bottom line is that part of the association’s value is involvement in long-standing problems and attempted solutions. It is ARSA’s history of success that has enabled the maintenance industry to influence today’s government maneuvers. Just as the association’s genius is really in its perseverance – constantly striving for answers to difficult, entrenched problems – yours is the persistent devotion to the cause shown through membership and support.

When you need instant gratification, real-time information on regulatory compliance issues is available through our Member Asked services.

For long term solutions, earn the rewards of our perseverance: Keep paying those membership dues! Better yet, spread the wealth, send a recruitment letter to your maintenance partners, vendors, customers and sign your aviation inspector up to receive the newsletter.

Return to Top of Page

Hotline Features

FAA, EASA Release MAG Change 5

By ARSA Regulatory Staff

The FAA and EASA released change 5 to the Maintenance Annex Guide (MAG), effective Sept. 9. The document contains extensive changes; notably when Form 8130-3 must accompany new components that will be installed by a U.S. repair station during maintenance subject to EASA jurisdiction. Specifically, the FAA and EASA changed the word “should” to “must” on pages 99-100 where the 8130-3 requirement is placed. This was intended to emphasize the mandatory nature of when Form 8130-3 must accompany a new part received from a U.S. production approval holder.

ARSA is disappointed the agencies have yet to recognize the equivalent nature of the two regulatory systems as it relates to the manner in which airworthiness approval is evidenced for new articles. In Europe, a production organization approval (POA) holder must (and has the authority to) issue an EASA Form 1, regardless of whether the article will be used domestically or exported. In the United States, production approval holders are not required to issue Form 8130-3 (nor do they have that privilege in the absence of an FAA designation). Instead, the FAA rules provide equivalent evidence of airworthiness, either in the way of identification requirements under 14 CFR part 45 for top assemblies or (recently added documentation requirements) for sub-assemblies in part 21.

When a production approval holder (PAH) sells new approved parts to a U.S.-based repair station it is a domestic sale not an export (which requires the FAA Form 8130-3 under the Technical Implementation Procedures). Since most production certificate holders have not been delegated the authority to issue the Form 8130-3*, the document is not provided for domestic shipments (nor need it be). If the repair station subsequently uses that article in maintenance for which a dual release will be issued, how is it supposed to cure the absence of Form 8130-3 from the PAH?  ARSA has yet again asked that question of the agencies and will advise members when it receives a response.

On a positive note as the mandated requirement relates to used parts installed during maintenance under EASA jurisdiction, per the FAA’s letter to ARSA of Aug. 25 repair stations may issue Form 8130-3s in a parts recovery (i.e., continue in service) situation to document an inspection of articles provided they are rated to perform maintenance on the associated top assembly (i.e., aircraft, engine, accessory, etc.).

To remove this Catch-22 ARSA will now ask for similar recognition for new parts.

Click here to download change 5.

The association has carefully reviewed the change and is working to address continuing issues with parts marking requirements. For a complete breakdown of the change, including ARSA’s analysis and recommendations for repair stations, read this month’s legal briefs.

*Update: After the hotline went to publication, the FAA issued its final rule to allow PAHs to issue FAA Form 8130-3s instead of requiring an FAA designee’s signature. 

FAA Posts Draft Revised Air Carrier Contract Maintenance ACs

By ARSA Regulatory Staff

On Sept. 22, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released two draft revised advisory circulars (ACs) updated to reflect the agency’s air carrier contract maintenance requirements regulation. The rule takes effect on March 4, 2016.

Proposed revisions to “Certificate Holder Maintenance Programs” (AC 120-16G) and  “Scope and Recommended Content for a Contractual Agreement Between a Certificate Holder and a Maintenance Provider”(AC 120-106A) reiterate the regulations’ requirements for air carriers and maintenance providers performing “covered work.”

The draft ACs also outline the means for submitting maintenance provider list (MPL) as required by the rule. Air carriers must provide to FAA certificate-holding district offices (CHDO) a list of maintenance providers, including the name and physical (street) address or addresses where each maintenance provider performs work for the certificate holder and a description of the type of maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration the provider will perform at each location.

The FAA details the manner that the MPL must be provided to the agency.  There are two acceptable templates available to air carriers: MPL Template-Excel and MPL Template-XML. Both can be downloaded from the Flight Standards Service Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) web site under the AFS-300 Job Aids section.

Comments on the drafts are due by Oct. 21. ARSA is working with its air carrier partners to ensure the rule’s implementation has minimal burden on the industry.

For an ARSA document detailing the mandates and restrictions of the new regulation and other information, review related material on

Congress Buys Time on FAA Law

By ARSA Legislative Staff

It’s déjà vu all over again. The current FAA law was set to expire on Oct. 1 and Congress hadn’t even started work on a multiyear reauthorization. Twenty-three extensions were necessary to finally enact the FAA Modernization & Reform Act in 2012 and it was wishful thinking to expect an orderly process this time around.

Consequently, the House and Senate worked quickly to extend the FAA’s operational authority until March 31, 2016. The extension isn’t surprising; in recent weeks, aviation leaders in both chambers signaled at least six months would be needed to give lawmakers more time.

While lawmakers promised to complete a new FAA law in 2015, a packed agenda and a desire to enact a “transformational” bill proved to be too heavy a lift for Congress. Though no drafts have been produced, key facets of a potential reauthorization package have already riled controversy: Proposals to privatize the air traffic control (ATC) system have upset labor groups and general aviation interests while airlines and airports spar over a potential increase in passenger facility charges.

While eluding an agency shutdown is necessary, Congress must avoid a plethora of short-term extensions that prevent the FAA from planning and operating efficiently. It created the FAA and continues to place mandates on the agency and aviation companies; it must give the agency the resources and certainty to do its job.

“This extension does little to change the situation facing our nation’s aviation community,” said Daniel B. Fisher, ARSA’s vice president of legislative affairs. “We can turn back the clock as often as Congress wants, but time will continue to run out. Until we have a responsible, long-term bill that adequately funds the FAA and guarantees the competitiveness of aviation companies, we’re all running out of time. Further delay is unacceptable and the men and women who work every day to ensure aviation safety deserve better than endless patches and punting that has characterized prior reauthorizations.”

Stay tuned to ARSA as the reauthorization process continues and use to weigh-in with your lawmakers about the need to balance aviation safety with your company’s operational freedom.

Ways & Means Committee Approves Permanent Depreciation Bonus Legislation

By ARSA Legislative Staff

While the House of Representatives already approved legislation to permanently increase higher Sec. 179 levels on Sept. 17, the chamber’s chief tax-writing panel affirmed its commitment to bonus depreciation.

On Sept. 17, the House Ways & Means Committee approved a bill introduced by Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) to make 50 percent bonus depreciation a permanent part of the tax code (H.R. 2510).  The important capital investment incentive expired at the end of 2014.

The latest action follows last February’s advancement of the America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015 (H.R. 636), which permanently increases the maximum amount and phase-out threshold to the levels in effect in 2010 through 2014 ($500,000 and $2 million respectively) and allows for inflation adjustments.

Prior to the August congressional recess, the Senate Finance Committee approved reinstating 50 percent bonus depreciation and increased Sec. 179 levels for two years (2015-2016).  While movement on these important capital investment incentives is encouraging, the provisions likely won’t be enacted until year’s end as part of a broader “extenders” package.

Meet Donald Streitenberger Jr: 2015 National Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Year

By Sarah Hartley, Communications Coordinator

The General Aviation Awards program and the FAA annually recognize deserving aviation professionals for their accomplishments in flight instruction, aviation maintenance, avionics and safety. This year the National Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Year works at the top of the food chain, maintaining business jets for the nation’s largest grocer. ARSA congratulates Donald Streitenberger Jr, chief inspector for The Kroger Company and 2015 National AMT of the Year.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Kroger has 2,625 stores spread across 31 states. Because their operation requires the use of business jets, Streitenberger directs fleet inspections and approves work for return to service. Each aircraft in the Kroger business fleet operates an average of 600 hours per year and directly impacts business success. The fleet makes it possible for executives to fly to and from distant events in the same day if needed, saving wasted time on the ground.

Before working for Kroger at Cincinnati Lunken Airport, Streitenberger studied aviation maintenance at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College and worked as a lead mechanic for Jet Couriers. He joined the Kroger aviation department as a line mechanic in 1985. Streitenberger is an FAA certified repairman and mechanic with airframe and powerplant ratings and inspection authorization.

He serves his local aviation community through involvement in Ohio Aircraft Technicians Society (OATS), the Cincinnati chapter of the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association (PAMA) and the Lunken Airport Days Aviation Career Fair. Streitenberger is also the recipient of the technician safety award and a number of certificates of appreciation for pro-bono aviation maintenance work.

To learn more about Streitenberger and his aviation experience, ARSA asked him a few questions about his career.

ARSA: How long have you been an AMT?

DS: About 35 years.  I started out working in line service while attending A&P school.  During my second year at Cincinnati State I began my first co-op at Avionics Inc. here at Lunken Airport.  After receiving the Airframe and PowerPlant ratings for my mechanic’s certificate, I worked for an organization called Jet Courier.  Jet Courier moved canceled bank checks across the U.S. which gave me an opportunity to travel and allowed me to develop my technical and mechanical skills performing a wide variety of maintenance items.  I left Jet Courier to work as a line technician for The Kroger Co. and have been there for 30 years and counting.

ARSA: What drew you to aviation maintenance?

DS: Where do I start?  My dad loved airplanes. My whole family would pack up and go to Dayton for all the airshows featuring the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds.  The static displays at the Dayton airshow gave us an opportunity to get up close and personal with airplanes. In the early days, the airshow was at the Wright Patterson Air Force base. After the airshow we would visit the Air Force museum (it was still outside back then).

Then as a boy playing knothole baseball, I was the kid in the outfield who couldn’t tell you how many outs there were, but I sure knew what type of aircraft just flew overhead – and I could tell you everything about it!  I must say that although times have changed, still today when my team is in the hangar working and we hear the sound of a radial engine or a military engine sound, we all run to the hangar door and look at each other and laugh at how much we are still like the little kids we all were years ago!

ARSA: What are some of your most memorable career highlights?

DS: It starts with completing all of my exams and receiving my A&P Certificate; this was truly my first big accomplishment. Then I must say it was getting my job with The Kroger Co. as a line mechanic and being promoted to the chief inspector position. Next on my list was passing my IA test and receiving an IA rating. Finally my most memorable highlight was receiving the National 2015 AMT of the Year Award.

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

DS: I think it is the respect that I get from my flight crews and the company. When we release an aircraft our flight crews have full confidence in our work that was performed.

ARSA: During the course of your career, have you advanced or impacted the aviation maintenance industry?

DS: I hope so. I think that we as a group tend to forget the value we bring to aviation. I always try to keep up my general appearance while in and around our passengers and try to keep all conversations professional. There are always complaints about the separation of maintenance and flight crew compensation and respect, but we need to show that we deserve respect. To be compensated as a professional, we need to look and act professionally.

ARSA: What are the benefits of being involved in professional aviation organizations in your community?

DS: I started out as a member of the Ohio Aircraft Technician Society and then served as treasurer, vice president and president. We host monthly seminars on topics like wood dope and fabric, borescopes and hangar first aid training.  We all need to understand the importance of education today because we are in a rapidly changing environment. I have always said if just that one seminar saves you a six hour repair on a Friday night it might just be worth it!

ARSA: Do you have any advice for aspiring or new AMTs?

DS: Education, education, education.  Get involved with your local AMT groups or form a group. Read all the printed literature. Like my father said, “you will only get out of it what you put into it.” Get your NCATT ratings and learn about electrical theory.  Almost everything on an airplane today has a computer plugged into it – from flight controls to fuel systems.

Once again, ARSA congratulates Donald Streitenberger Jr. and thanks him for sharing his perspective and insight.

Don’t Take ARSA’s Word For It – the RSQM

By ARSA Communications Staff

The association strives to provide members with a broad range of benefits to improve the business of repair stations. Whether in advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill and in the halls of government agencies, or through training, publications (model manuals, forms, supplements) and web-based resources (, ARSA works to make you better.

You don’t have to take ARSA’s word for it, though. From time to time, staff members receive feedback or endorsements from members who have taken advantage of all the association has to offer. Read a testimonial about the value of the model repair station quality manual (RSQM), then hit the publications page and ensure yours is up-to-date:

I am the Accountable Manager at Texas Pneumatic Systems. Back when the big 145 changes occurred at the beginning of 2004 I worked with [ARSA Executive Director] Sarah [MacLeod] extensively during the creation of the first Model RSQM.  We are probably the first Repair Station to utilize the Model RSQM.  Eleven years later we still use the manual with its corresponding revisions. One of the many beauties of the Model RSQM is ARSA continually revises it as rules change, saving us a lot of research time and preventing potential audit findings.

The biggest endorsement comes second hand from my PMI. Because the Model Manual is well laid out and covers all the requirements he has told me the manual is complete and easy to review and accept. He likes it so much that when he is working with repair stations that have manual problems he recommends that they buy the Model RSQM.  His logic is that if they buy the model he will have less review time and it will be quicker and easier for the repair station to have a compliant manual. He has told me many of his repair stations that have bought the Model RSQM based on his recommendation have thanked him for it later.

Rich Simmons
Texas Pneumatic Systems

Return to Top of Page


ARSA Works

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

FAA Extends ICA Comment Periods

By ARSA Communications Staff

In response to an Aug. 25 request from ARSA and a coalition of aviation trade associations, the FAA has extended the comment periods for both of its draft documents addressing Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

The original deadlines were extended by 30 days: Comments on each draft are now due on Nov. 5:

FAA Affirms Repair Station Personhood

By ARSA Regulatory Staff

On Sept. 11, the FAA issued a legal interpretation in response to a request for clarification whether a part 145-certificated repair station may prepare an airworthiness release on behalf of an air carrier for work it performed on an aircraft. The agency affirmed that a repair station, defined as a “person” in 14 CFR § 1.1, may “prepare, or cause to be prepared” an airworthiness release or an appropriate aircraft log entry.

Repair station “personhood” had already been established by ARSA: In 2009, the agency responded to an inquiry from the association with the same analysis regarding the legal status of a maintenance provider.  The new interpretation adds that the person signing the airworthiness release must be an appropriately-certificated mechanic or repairman authorized by the air carrier. Obviously, no domestic repair station may authorize an individual to issue an approval for return to service (i.e., the airworthiness release or log book entry) unless that person has an appropriate certificate – mechanic or repairman – under part 65.

FAA Follows CRI ARC Recommendation in Draft AFS Order

By ARSA Regulatory Staff

On Sept. 10, the FAA released draft Order FS 8000.AFSGDD, “Flight Standards Service Guidance Document Development,” for comment. The draft order supports the agency’s efforts to provide internally and externally consistent guidance by instructing Flight Standards Service (AFS) personnel.

The document follows the CRI-ARC’s recommendation for ensuring clear and consistent methods for creating and changing guidance and includes tips for agency writers as well as details on when, how and why it should be issued. The information is presented in a straightforward and concise manner and will help regulators while shaping aviation safety and business practices:

Order FS 8000.AFSGDD, Flight Standards Service Guidance Document Development: This order establishes the policy and guidelines for AFS personnel who develop, update, or change AFS directives and advisory circulars (AC). For more information and for instructions on how to comment, visit

The draft is open for 30 days, with comments due on Oct. 9.

“New” Compliance Philosophy Begets AFS Policy

By ARSA Communications Staff

In keeping with the administrator’s “new” directive for focusing compliance resources, the Flight Standards Service (AFS) put some meat on the bones of expected actions by the aviation safety inspector workforce by updating its own policy. Notice N8900.323, effective Sept. 8, seems to be airline operation directed but still contains constructive methods for resolving issues between the agency and its certificate holders.

While ARSA objects to the assumption that the certificate holder is always wrong in discussions involving compliance; AFS certainly provided its workforce positive tools rather than an enforcement hammer.

Return to Top of Page

Legal Briefs

This material is provided as a service to association members for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or professional advice and is not privileged or confidential

MAG Change 5 and Parts Tagging Requirements

By Crystal Maguire, Vice President of Operations

On Sept. 9, the FAA and EASA signed change 5 to the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG CHG 5); compliance will be required by Dec. 8, 2015, unless a later date is agreed to by the authorities. To facilitate industry’s review, ARSA created a comparison document red-lining the changes. Repair stations should ensure their supplement is updated by the compliance date.

While the MAG’s Section A (authority interaction) and Section C (certification processes for EU-based repair stations) were revised, the most notable change for ARSA’s membership is contained in Section B addressing processes for U.S.-based repair stations.

A summary of the notable revisions to that section follow, many of which do not directly impact repair stations. Unfortunately, one is creating reverberations throughout the aviation industry—

  • Defined aviation safety inspector (ASI) and replaced references to PMI, PAI and PI throughout. This change merely aligns the MAG with current FAA job titles.
  • Identified Flight Standards (specifically AFS-300) as the “FAA national coordinator” and replaced references throughout. The change is merely a consistency measure.
  • Identified EASA standardization department as FS1 and replaced references throughout. Another consistency measure.
  • Provided the process by which a repair station may continue to issue dual releases while changing its name (page 85). This is a welcome revision.
  • Clarified that the repair station need only provide procedures for maintaining its repair station roster in its RSQM (page 99). Another positive reinforcement, but in reality the MAG should only address special conditions, not aspects of 14 CFR part 145 that have been determined equivalent to the European system.
  • Provided “clarification of instructions” for issuing an approval for return to service document when the article being maintained is eligible to be installed only on an EU-registered aircraft (i.e., not eligible for a dual release) (page 102). MAG CHG 5 revises language first inserted in MAG CHG 1 (11/22/2011) and provides instructions for completing FAA Form 8130-3 when a dual release is impossible. Although CHG 5 remains ambiguous, it appears to apply when products or articles with an EASA Form 1 single release are installed in a “final” assembly that is part of a design approved by both authorities. (In contrast, it would not apply if the design of the final assembly being maintained was only approved in the EU or the U.S.) ARSA has been working this latter issue since 2007 when it requested the two agencies allow single releases when the maintained articles were only eligible for installation under the other’s regulatory system (e.g., when the design was only approved by the other authority via a TC, STC, etc.) The request was denied because the FAA could not issue a rating for an article unless the design was approved in the U.S. and the EASA certificate could not exceed the scope of the repair station’s FAA ratings—that catch-22 still remains.
  • Listed the methods acceptable for reporting an unairworthy condition to EASA when serious defects are found in EU-registered aircraft or components received from an EU customer (i.e., EASA online platform, occurrence reporting form, FAA service difficulty report, or FAA SUP report) (page 104). ARSA will provide more information on utilization of EASA’s online platform for reporting serious defects in subsequent newsletters.
  • Clarified that the repair station’s audit plan should include parts 43 and 145 requirements in addition to the EASA special conditions (page 105). Although apparent to companies that are experienced in developing and maintaining a quality assurance system, the expectation that compliance with 14 CFR should be specifically included has been unclear to many smaller repair stations. The obvious justification is that the EASA approval is based upon compliance with 14 CFR and the special conditions. If the basic requirements are not reviewed, the system would miss the majority of the audit standard’s aspects.
  • Clarified that the repair station’s list of contractors should contain the function being performed in addition to the name, address and certificate (page 107). We are unsure why this was included since it is requirement of 14 CFR section 51(a)(6) and is not be a special condition. It would seem the clarification would best have been emphasized to ASIs and U.S.-based repair stations.
  • Noted that EASA-approved line stations are limited to those listed in an FAA repair station’s D107 operations specifications paragraph (page 110). An interesting update, since at one time, the FAA did not list EU-operators’ U.S. line stations in that paragraph. Hopefully, ASI guidance has been aligned. (See ARSA 2008 letter and the FAA’s response.)
  • Overhauled EASA Form 9 FAA Recommendation (page 117). The form is utilized for initial certification and renewal; the revision is significantly streamlined. Instead of asking specific questions about MAG compliance, as did its predecessor, the new form only requires that an ASI make generic confirmation that the repair station’s supplement “addresses required information contained in the [MAG]” and that the supplement is “customized to accurately reflect company procedures”.
  • Replaced the word “should” with the word “must” in various places including in provisions addressing—
    • Facility access to EASA and FAA to “ascertain compliance” (page 95). A minor adjustment considering everyone should know they must allow access.
    • Potential for enforcement action by EASA (page 95). Hopefully, everyone already understood that EASA must enforce EASA requirements.
    • Documentation of new and used components installed during maintenance (page 99-101).

This last sub-bullet is the most regrettable. While prior versions of the MAG raised questions about whether an FAA Form 8130-3 with a left side signature from the PAH’s designee for new parts was mandatory or discretionary, this change clearly requires a U.S. repair station to obtain an FAA Form 8130-3 from the production approval holder’s (PAH) designee for new parts.

While ARSA has long-fought the “requirement” (see letters dated April 20, 2010, July 6, 2011, November 10, 2011, January 23, 2012, and April 3, 2012), MAG CHG 5 elevates the issue. Obviously ARSA would prefer that EASA accept the FAA system as equivalent to the EU system (which it is), that is not likely to happen without strong FAA pushback which has not occurred to date. Hopefully, most U.S. manufacturers will eventually have designees to issue FAA Form 8130-3s for all new parts because it will be administratively easier than figuring out which buyers are going to issue dual releases or eventually “export” the part. (This is reminiscent of the mid-1990s when U.S. repair stations were “forced” to drop the yellow tag and issue Form 8130-3 to comply with contract and international regulatory requirements.)

Specifically, the MAG language addressing parts-tagging for new components states: “a release document issued by the OEM or Production Certificate (PC) holder must accompany the new component. For U.S. OEMs and PC holders, release must be on the FAA Form 8130-3 as a new part. PMA parts may only be accepted as detailed in EASA Part-21 or in Annex 1 of the Agreement” (see page 99). (The obvious misstatements in the requirement are (1) “OEM” has no meaning under either FAA or EASA regulations, and (2) a U.S. PAH cannot issue the FAA Form 8130-3; only the FAA has that privilege. Equally obvious is that the agencies need not be careful about compliance or understanding or stating their own requirements clearly; that is left to certificate holders.)

In effect, EASA has taken the position that the FAA Form 8130-3 is required on new parts because an article installed during maintenance transfers from the U.S. regulatory system to the EU system whenever a dual maintenance release will be issued. Therefore the shipment from the U.S. PAH to the U.S.-based EASA repair station is an “export” within the meaning of the Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP) (which states an export occurs when the article is” released” from one regulatory system for subsequent use by another).

The U.S. industry has not previously considered parts sent to a U.S. repair station as exports under the TIP; thus, most U.S. PAHs don’t routinely issue FAA Form 8130-3s for “domestic” shipments. Indeed, a U.S. PAH cannot issue an FAA Form 8130-3; it must be issued by the FAA or the agency’s designee (e.g., ODA, DMIR, DAR). While a pending FAA rulemaking proposal would allow a U.S. PAH to issue the form without having to use a designee*, moving 14 CFR closer to EASA part 21, U.S. repair stations that hold EASA part 145 certificates are currently in an impossible situation of being required to obtain a document they don’t control.

So what do we do?

ARSA will continue to press EASA and FAA representatives to provide a solution. The association also supports a pending request by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) that a transition period be established to allow the FAA to issue its final rule allowing U.S. PAHs to issue FAA Form 8130-3s for all new components without the services of the FAA or a designee. (The transition period was reportedly discussed at last week’s Bilateral Oversight Board (BOB) and Certification Oversight Board (COB) meetings, though action items that came out of it are not yet known.) This is particularly important for new parts already received into a repair station’s inventory.

Some repair station members have been advised by their local office that the repair station must either obtain a “retroactive” FAA Form 8130-3 from the PAH or hire a DAR to issue the form. Neither option is practical; additionally, hiring a DAR is contrary to the MAG because the “release” would not be coming “from” the PAH (i.e., a designee located at the PAH’s facility). The association will ask the agencies not to apply the FAA Form 8130-3 requirement to any inventory received prior to December 8, 2015, the implementation date for MAG CHG 5. This is consistent with the fact that the FAA Form 8130-3 was not mandatory until the word “must” was substituted for “should” in these provisions.

In the interim, ARSA suggests that repair stations that routinely execute dual releases ensure their purchase orders to U.S. PAHs include language that the article is intended for use in a bilateral export situation, such as—

The articles covered by this purchase order are intended for export as defined in paragraph 1.6(o) of the Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP) for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). As such, the new articles covered by this purchase order must be accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3 as required by paragraph 5.0.1 of the TIP and section B, appendix 1, paragraph 10(k)(1)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) between the FAA and EASA.

Since the requirements for the PAH to have an FAA Form 8130-3 issued for new components transferring from the FAA to EASA are found in the TIP and MAG, most PAHs that sell internationally should accommodate this request. If the repair station notifies the PAH that the articles will be used for export to a bilateral partner, the issuance of the FAA Form 8130-3 will become a contractual requirement for the PAH.

ARSA has received inquiries from members about whether the requirement for FAA Form 8130-3 also applies to fabricated parts. Unlike standard parts, which are not subject to this requirement per the MAG, fabricated parts are not specifically addressed. We consulted EASA’s Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) for EASA section 145.A.42(c) which addresses fabrication by maintenance organizations generally. In pertinent part, the AMC states:

Items fabricated by an organisation approved under Part-145 may only be used by that organisation in the course of overhaul, maintenance, modifications, or repair of aircraft or components undergoing work within its own facility. The permission to fabricate does not constitute approval for manufacture, or to supply externally and the parts do not qualify for certification on EASA Form 1. (emphasis added)

In view of this language, ARSA believes the FAA Form 8130-3 requirement does not, and indeed cannot, apply to fabricated parts for the same reasons stated in the AMC with respect to EASA Form 1. Nevertheless, we have asked EASA to confirm this conclusion.

With regard to used components, the MAG requires “an FAA Form 8130-3 issued as a dual maintenance release must accompany used components from EASA-approved U.S.-based 14 CFR part 145 repair stations” (page 100).

No one questions the longstanding requirement that an FAA Form 8130-3 must be issued for maintenance subject to a dual release. However, what about parts recovery (i.e., used parts inspected during maintenance and stocked for installation at a later date)?

EASA recognizes Approved Maintenance Organization processes for recovering internal and attached components from top assemblies during maintenance on the top assembly. Specifically, EASA section 145.A.50(d) provides: When an organisation maintains a component for its own use, an EASA Form 1 may not be necessary depending upon the organisation’s internal release procedures defined in the exposition. (This statement is reiterated in the AMC/GM.)

We believe EASA allows its approved maintenance organizations to issue a white identification tag or similar internal identification, place the “repair detail” in inventory and install it later provided it has a procedure in its exposition. If EASA accepts these practices for its own repair stations, a U.S.-based repair station should be treated similarly. However, the agencies did not make this clear in MAG CHG 5 and therefore ARSA has sent an official inquiry to EASA about whether it will accept an equivalent internal part identification issued by U.S.-based repair stations.

Stay tuned for an analysis on MAG CHG 5 sections A and B in next month’s newsletter.

ARSA staff is conducting a thorough review of the ARSA model EASA Supplement. While minimal changes are expected, a revision incorporating MAG CHG 5 will be available for purchase in the coming weeks. Those that have previously purchased the publication may order a revised version for free.

*Update: After the hotline went to publication, the FAA issued its final rule to allow PAHs to issue FAA Form 8130-3s instead of requiring an FAA designee’s signature. 

Return to Top of PageARSA-NoBS-HalfPage-20140121

ARSA on the Hill

Different Congress, Same Result

By Daniel Fisher, Vice President of Legislative Affairs

Despite a new congressional session and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, Congress still can’t seem to perform basic governing functions.

Promises of regular order and production greeted the American people when the GOP assumed control of both chambers in January. Capitol Hill was optimistic that basic work would be completed on time and Washington would function once again.  Unfortunately, reality sucks.

The legislative branch is supposed to authorize federal agencies every few years and appropriate funding annually.  Congress hasn’t passed all twelve annual appropriations bills in over 20 years—that’s right, it has the “power of the purse,” yet hasn’t fully completed one of its primary functions since the mid-1990s!  And, it frequently fails to authorize federal agencies in a timely manner resulting in a series of extensions (the FAA’s authorizing law was continued 23 times before a reauthorization was completed in 2012).

The current Congress is no different.  Before the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30), lawmakers managed to keep the federal government open until mid-December and extend the FAA operating authority through 2016’s first quarter. The good news is the government and the FAA continue operating.  The bad news is old policies are extended into perpetuity and reforms are kicked down the road.

With a presidential election rapidly approaching, don’t expect the situation to change.  Punting tough decisions will continue, meaning agency priorities (particularly the FAA’s) will be outdated and inadequately funded (while many outmoded programs are actually overfunded).

While eluding shutdowns are necessary, Congress must avoid a plethora of short-term extensions that prevent the FAA from planning and operating efficiently. It created the FAA and continues to place mandates on the aviation community; it must give the agency the resources and certainty to do its job.

I recently spoke to a senior House Aviation Subcommittee member.  When asked about the prospects of completing the FAA reauthorization process before the new extension’s March 31, 2016 deadline, he said, “Honestly, Congress probably won’t even seriously talk FAA reauthorization until March!”

While it is frustrating and creates uncertainty, the delay provides a unique opportunity for the aviation maintenance industry to shape the final bill; there’s no better place to engage Congress than on Capitol Hill.  Fortunately, ARSA strategically scheduled the next Legislative Day for March 16.  Mark your calendars and plan to join us for what should be a pivotal time in the process.

Return to Top of Page


Regulatory Outlook

FAA Provides Incomplete Clarification on Return to Service

By ARSA Regulatory Staff

The FAA Chief Counsel’s clarification of its letter to ARSA is incomplete—as the association’s original letter attempted to delineate, there will be more than one person involved in accomplishing work for an air carrier. The person of interest will depend upon the qualifications required for the actions being taken.

In the situation of issuing an airworthiness release or logbook entry on behalf of an air carrier, there will be three different “persons” involved. The individual “person” that can be given the authority on behalf of a repair station to place a signature on an approval for return to service (airworthiness release or logbook entry) must be appropriately qualified by both the repair station and the air carrier. ONE of the qualifications is that the individual be certificated under part 65 as a repairman or a mechanic. The repair station person’s qualifications are ensuring the certificated individual person is (a) generally qualified under § 145.151, (b) capable of performing assigned tasks under § 145.163 training requirements, (c) specifically qualified under § 145.157, and (d) placed on the appropriate roster under § 145.161. Additionally, the air carrier person must qualify (and perhaps train) the certificated individual person and assure the appropriate listing and updating of information in its manual. The certificate number that will be responsible for the totality of the work performed will be the repair station person, not the individual person certificate holder.

The air carrier person will be responsible for ensuring the work is performed in accordance with its procedures—including qualifications of individual persons actually accomplishing work for it and the method of completing the logbook entry and/or airworthiness release. If the work is performed improperly, the air carrier person could be dinged by the agency for such things as (1) flying an unairworthy aircraft, and (2) failure to ensure work was performed in accordance with its procedures. It would not be appropriate for the agency to accuse the airline person of actually performing the work incorrectly; the agency should be looking at the repair station or individual persons for any failures to comply with part 43.

The Chief Counsel’s Office is not as steeped in the variety of facts that will surround a particular situation; it therefore tends to gloss over nuances in an attempt to provide a “clear” answer. Unfortunately, the law and therefore its interpretations must appreciate and note nuances to ensure proper and complete evaluations and determinations can be made in the real world. Hopefully, as ARSA and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) originally requested, the guidance material will be changed to read:

Airworthiness Release or Aircraft Log Entry Required by §§ 121.709 and 135.443. For the purposes of contract maintenance, it is important to note that §§ 121.709(b)(3) and 135.443(b)(3) outline specific requirements for the individuals authorized to sign an airworthiness release or aircraft log entry. While a repair station may be the “person” under the regulations that is issuing the approval for return to service, the individual signing the airworthiness release or log entry must be appropriately qualified and authorized by the repair station and the air carrier as required by its General Maintenance Manual. One of the qualification requirements is that the individual be certificated under part 65, subparts D or E (i.e., be a repairman or certificated mechanic). The exception in the rule is that repair stations outside the United States are not required to have the individual certificated under part 65, however, the individual signing the airworthiness release/log entry must still otherwise be qualified and authorized to perform that function.

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

Legal Waypoints for Hiring a Drone

By Steven E. Pazar, Attorney at Law,

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.

“Wouldn’t it be great if we could get a drone to take a photo or video of our [you fill in the blank: construction project; outdoor wedding; home for sale; public concert; football game; cell tower; farm field …].”  A quick search online finds several local drone operators claiming they are ready, willing and able to meet your needs.  Sounds easy enough but here are some questions you should be asking before you hire a drone operator:

(1) Is the drone operator’s business legally authorized by the FAA to operate a drone/UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) for commercial purposes?

If you plan to pay the operator then he is a “commercial” operator not a hobbyist.  Commercial drone operators need an exemption from certain FAA regulations. (The legislation that enhanced the agency’s ability to allow deviations from its rules specifically for drones was contained in section 333 of the FAA’s 2012 reauthorization, so the process is known as an FAA Section 333 exemption.   All such exemptions are available on the FAAs website so it is smart to search for the document and make sure the operator is on the up and up.  These documents are fairly complex but the operator should be able to point you to the sections that provide the authorization to do your project.

(2) Does the operator’s company have insurance for operation of the drone?

Specifically, coverage for the personnel associated with the crew, and for potential third-party liability claims should something go wrong.  An operator should be able to provide a certificate of insurance documenting the nature and extent of the coverage that may apply to your project.  Don’t rely on chasing the assets of an LLC in the event of a loss.  Consider being included as an additional insured on appropriate policies.

(3) What are the drone operators’ terms and conditions of service?

These terms should be in the form of a written scope of service with a mutually agreed commercial basis, including warranties and remedies for unsatisfactory services; indemnification/limits of liability/insurance; confidentiality; ownership of data; schedule expectations.  These are early days for this industry so don’t be hesitant to negotiate where needed to protect your interests but keep in mind the risk/reward balance associated with your individual project.  Be wary of any operator who claims to offer 100% protection or similar overreaching guarantees.

(4) Is the person who will actually be operating the drone a licensed aircraft pilot?

Current FAA regulations and the legislation in Section 333 require a licensed aircraft pilot.  The pilot is the person in command of the flight and should be a different person from the person controlling an onboard camera or sensing device.  For best result it is recommended that the pilot operating the drone focus solely on the flight and not be distracted by the task of running a camera or other equipment required for your project.

(5) How does the drone operator obtain the permissions it may need to fly over property that you don’t own or control?

Most FAA exemptions require that the operator obtain permission to fly a UAS from the property owner before the start of each mission.  This is easily accomplished for property that you own or control as part of your contract terms with the drone operator.  However, this requirement extends to neighbors as well.  The issued exemptions are not entirely clear what form this permission must take but they do require that the drone operator prove s/he has permission. So, written permission from relevant neighbors is no doubt the best approach.

Best advice: If you are not getting satisfactory answers to these questions then you need to find another drone/UAS operator.

Steven E. Pazar, Attorney at Law, 11 Carriage House Lane, Boxford, Massachusetts 01921 (617)797-7277

Return to Top of Page


School’s In Session – Regulatory Training at Heli Expo

By Brett Levanto, Vice President of Communications

Going to HAI HELI-EXPO 2016 in Louisville, Kentucky? ARSA’s great regulatory minds will be there, and a front-row seat in their classroom is waiting for you.

Marshall S. Filler and Sarah MacLeod, the association’s foremost experts in regulatory compliance (and managing members of the firm of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod and Klein, PLC) will be leading professional education courses at HAI HELI-EXPO. Register now to make the most of your time in Kentucky and get to the head of class.

Mr. Filler and Ms. MacLeod’s training sessions are listed under the “Maintenance Management” track, but are in fact substantially valuable to any aviation professional. (Register before midnight on Jan. 15, 2016 and save more than 20 percent.)

All three classes are approved for IA renewal credit:

Regulations 101 – Law for the Aviation Professional
Feb. 28, 2016 – 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Marshall S. Filler and Sarah MacLeod

This one-day course will cover the basic FAA requirements associated with making day-to-day decisions on purchasing, designing, manufacturing, operating, maintaining, or selling civil aviation products and parts.

Register Now

Audit Activism
Feb. 29, 2016 – 8:00 a.m. to Noon
Sarah MacLeod

Attendees will learn a proactive approach to audits. The session will start by covering the differences between regulatory and business requirements and how to create appropriate interfaces among the certificate holders, governments and customers who must work together toward compliance. Finally, attendees will walk through managing an audit process that ensures appropriate, timely and effective responses.

Register Now

Public Aircraft
Feb. 29, 2016 – 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Marshall S. Filler

This course covers the basic requirements for an aircraft to be operated as a public aircraft on behalf of federal, state, and local governments, including the difference between government-owned and government-leased aircraft, what constitutes an eligible governmental function, and the practical implications of using the same aircraft to conduct both civil and public operations.

Register Now

Can’t make it to Kentucky? The association provides plenty of opportunity for you to learn from its experts. See more at

ARSA Training: Parts in Three Parts

By Brett Levanto, Vice President of Communications

Join ARSA Executive Director Sarah MacLeod for a three-session series of training on the regulations and other requirements affecting the purchase, stocking and sale of parts.

Registration Includes:

  • Access to the on-demand, recorded version of the session.
  • A copy of the presentation and all reference material with links to relevant resources and citations.
  • Upon completion of the class (including any test material), a certificate.

Register today for individual sessions ($75 each for members) or bundle all three together and save.

Regulations Impacting the Purchase of Aircraft Parts
Description:  The course will review the rules in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that impact the purchase of civil aviation parts, as well as other requirements that should be considered when making such purchases.
On-Demand – Available Anytime
Length: 60 minutes
Click here to register and get 90-days of access to the recording.

Regulations Impacting the Receiving, Inspection and Stocking of Aircraft Parts
Description: The course will review the civil aviation regulations in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that impact the receiving, inspecting and stocking of civil aviation articles for maintenance purposes, as well as other requirements that should be considered.
On-Demand – Available Anytime
Length: 60 minutes
Click here to register and get 90-days of access to the recording.

Regulations Impacting the Sale of Aircraft Parts
Description: The course will review the civil aviation regulations in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that impact the sale of civil aviation articles, as well as other requirements that should be considered when selling parts.
Date: Oct. 7, 2015
Time: 11:00 am EDT
Length: 60 minutes
Click here to register and get 90-days of access to the recording.

Interested in all three? Click here to purchase them together and save.

The parts training series is provided through Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klien, PLC, the firm that manages ARSA. To go directly to OFMK’s training portal, visit

Orlando Outreach & Training with Marshall S. Filler – Oct. 21

By Brett Levanto, Vice President of Communications

This October, Orlando will be the happiest place on earth for regulatory compliance.

Marshall S. Filler, ARSA’s managing director & general counsel, will lead the all-day session on Wednesday, Oct. 21 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the JetBlue Hangar in Orlando. After a morning discussion of ARSA’s work on behalf of the aviation community, Filler will provide an afternoon of regulatory compliance training focusing on design, production and maintenance issues.

The event is open to the entire aviation community, regardless of ARSA membership. The registration fee is $150/person, which includes continental breakfast, lunch in addition to training and presentation material.

What: ARSA Orlando Outreach and Regulatory Training Session

When: Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Who: Marshall FillerARSA Managing Director & General Counsel

Where:  JetBlue Hangar, 8900 Hangar Blvd, 3rd Floor Conference Room, Orlando, Florida

Cost: $150/person

Registration: Use the form to register. You will receive an invoice for the registration fee within 48 hours.

Special thanks to


Thales Logo


JetBlue Logo

Regulatory Compliance Training


Member Spotlight – 2015 ARSA Strategic Leadership Conference Sponsors

As the 2015 Strategic Leadership Conference approaches, ARSA thanks the following sponsors for their contributions. This invitation-only event for aviation maintenance executives is made possible due to the generous support of sponsors.


arsaARSA-SLC-CoopesaLogo-20150811         ARSA-SLC-AARLogo-20150811



Have You Seen this Person? Capt. Billy Nolen

By Sarah Hartley, Communications Coordinator

Capt. Billy Nolen, Senior Vice President of Safety, Security and Operations, Airlines for America

Billy Nolen

Capt. Billy Nolen, SLC Keynote Speaker and A4A Executive

The 2015 ARSA Strategic Leadership Conference is just around the corner and Capt. Billy Nolen of Airlines for America (A4A) will kick the event off with a keynote address. As Senior Vice President of Safety, Security and Operations for A4A, Nolen sets safety and customer service standards and procedures for leading U.S. airlines.

Nolen leads the operations division and works closely with the federal government to ensure airlines operate in a regulatory environment that emphasizes the importance of safety. He oversees the Air and Ground Safety, Security, Flight Operations, Air Traffic Management, Engineering and Maintenance and Cargo Services divisions.

Before joining A4A in July 2015, Nolen held a number of safety-related positions with American Airlines, including managing American’s Operations Aviation Safety Action Partnership program and acting as Senior Manager of Flight Safety. He became an American Airlines pilot in 1989 and is currently a captain on the B757/767. Nolen was also an Aviation Safety Officer and Rotary Wing/Fixed Wing Pilot with the U.S. Army from 1980-1989.

A native of Alabama, Nolen graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in professional aeronautics from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and has a number of aviation safety program certificates from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, U.S. Army Safety Center and University of Southern California.

To learn more about Capt. Nolen, visit

Take Advantage of ARSA’s Members Getting Members Program, Get 10% Off on Membership Dues

The best form of advertising is word of mouth. Use the Members Getting Members Toolkit to recruit an ARSA member and your company will receive a discounted membership rate for your next membership term.

Get more information at

Target Your Message: Advertise Today in ARSA’s Newsletters and Website!

ARSA has a menu of advertising opportunities for, the hotline and the ARSA Dispatch.

Take advantage of these great opportunities today to showcase your company, a new product or event. For more information go to

Exhibit, Sponsor the 2016 Repair Symposium

As the maintenance industry’s top event devoted exclusively to regulatory compliance, the ARSA Symposium attracts a highly qualified professional audience.

Use this opportunity to promote your company while showing support for ARSA. Get more information at

Return to Top of Page

A Member Asked

Q: Our H.R. Department may be interested in posting openings on How can ARSA members post there?

A: offers considerable flexibility for job advertisers to create postings to meet their needs. Essentially, there are three package options – basic, enhanced and premium – that offer a variety of tools for extending the reach of each posting. At each subsequent level, the advertisement will be aided by various tools that help to improve visibility and engage more candidates.

The system also allows for “a la carte” flexibility. After purchasing a “basic” posting, a user (e.g., H.R. rep, hiring manager) can add specific “boosts” to construct the recruitment package most fitting to the organization’s needs.

Each package is also available in small bundles, so that organizations hiring multiple positions can save some investment with a bulk purchase.

To get started, visit or cut directly to the job posting page.

Return to Top of Page

AVMRO News Portal

ARSA strives to provide resources to educate the general public about the work of the association’s member organizations; should you need to provide a quick reference or introductory overview to the global MRO industry, please utilize

AVMRO Industry Roundup

ARSA monitors media coverage on aviation maintenance to spread the word about the valuable role repair stations play globally by providing jobs and economic opportunities and in civic engagement. These are some of this month’s top stories highlighting the industry’s contributions.

You can explore these stories through ARSA’s Dispatch news portal.

Return to Top of Page

Upcoming Events

Industry Calendar

ACI-NA 2015 Annual Conference & Exhibition – Long Beach, California – October 4-7

ARSA Strategic Leadership Conference – Washington, D.C. – October 7-9

2015 Cirrus Partner Symposium – Duluth, Minnesota – October 12-15

MRO Europe – London, England – October 13-15

EASA Annual Safety Conference 2015 – Luxembourg – October 14-15

ACI 2015 Public Safety & Security Fall Conference – Arlington, Virginia – October 19-22

Orlando Outreach & Training – Orlando, Florida – October 21

MARPA Annual Conference – Las Vegas, Nevada – October 28-29

MRO Asia-Pacific – Singapore – November 3-5

EAAP Human Factors in Aviation Safety Conference – Derby, UK – November 9-10

ALTA Airlines Leaders Forum – San Juan, Puerto Rico – November 15-17

NBAA2015 – Las Vegas, Nevada – November 17-19

Airline E&M: Central & Eastern Europe Conference – Tallinn, Estonia – November 18-19

Aerospace Meetings Brazil – Sao Paulo, Brazil – December 8-10


Previous editions:

2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2012: Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Return to Top of Page


The FAA is very concerned about counterfeit aircraft parts. They call them Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP). Having any in your inventory could be a legal disaster!!

  • There is onlyone centralized DataBase of Suspected Unapproved Parts – Over 60,000 of them. Find the ones on your shelves before the FAA fines you.
  • There is onlyone integrated PMA/AD System. Find ADs that apply to or reference any of almost 1,000,000 PMA parts. Do multi-level PMA research.
  • Due Diligence is the key phrase and The Aviation DataBase® is the only source for an easy and inexpensive way to do it. Head off the legal problem before it occurs.
  • There is a User friendly and searchable copy of the Flight Standards Information Management System (FAA Order 8900.1) in The Aviation DataBase®.
  • Do you need an Aviation Regulatory Library?: Over 18,000 ADs – Large & Small AC, Over 1,500 Type Certificate Data Sheets, Over 1,200 FAA Advisory Circulars.
  • Call Aviation DataSource, Inc. (800) 952-8844.You can be using The Aviation DataBase® within minutes.

the hotline is the monthly publication of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), the not-for-profit international trade association for certificated repair stations. It is for the exclusive use of ARSA members and federal employees on the ARSA mailing list. For a membership application, please call 703.739.9543 or visit This material is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, consulting, tax or any other type of professional advice. Law, regulations, guidance and government policies change frequently. While ARSA updates this material, we do not guarantee its accuracy. In addition, the application of this material to a particular situation is always dependent on the facts and circumstances involved. The use of this material is therefore at your own risk. All content in the hotline, except where indicated otherwise, is the property of ARSA. This content may not be reproduced, distributed or displayed, nor may derivatives or presentations be created from it in whole or in part, in any manner without the prior written consent of ARSA. ARSA grants its members a non-exclusive license to reproduce the content of the hotline. Employees of member organizations are the only parties authorized to receive a duplicate of the hotline. ARSA reserves all remaining rights and will use any means necessary to protect its intellectual property.

© 2015 Aeronautical Repair Station Association