Jim Burns wrote:
: The case I remember reading was an NTSB decision, without stating or
: referencing any precedent, that stated a manufacturer could include, by
: reference, Service Bulletins into their overhaul manuals. So if an overhaul
: manual referred to an SB, compliance of the SB actually became part of the
: overhaul procedure and therefore mandatory at OVERHAUL. (which would make a
: blanket statement of "must comply with all SB's" posted at the end of an
: overhaul manual pretty spooky) But this was an NTSB case against an A&P,
: not an FAA case. To my knowledge, Part 43 Appendix D doesn't include
: compliance with manufacturer's SB's in the scope and detail of either a 100
: hour or annual inspection, and all the FSDO inspectors or training personnel
: in the world can't make that ink magically appear. I'd like to know if the
: FAA ever issued an opinion or agreed/disagreed with the NTSB.

That's what the AOPA's request for a letter of interpretation seems to say. To respond to your
"spooky" situation of a manufacturer adding that into an overhaul manual, the legal person I talked with
at AOPA seemed to think that such a blanket statement wouldn't be approved by the FAA. The 2001 letter:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...sb-letter2.pdf
says "FAA policy does not permit a predetermination that compliance with some future document is
mandatory."... so such a thing shouldn't get approved.

: This may be one of those "OJ" situations... FAA says your A&P didn't commit
: a crime, but the NTSB finding gives the family of the deceased enough
: ammunition to secure your lifetime position in the poor house.

Just like every confusing FAR question I've ever investigated.... if you look close enough, you
*might* find an answer, but if something happens, you're gonna get busted anyway.

: The continued airworthiness statement is most often seen in STC's where a
: manufacturer submits it's methods of continued airworthiness to the FAA and
: if the FAA agrees, they sign off on it and it becomes part of the STC.
: Without an FAA sign off on "methods of continued airworthiness" I see no
: authoritative confirmation that these methods meet the requirements of the
: FAA, although the manufacturer may insist that they do. Imagine a
: manufactoers "MoCA" that happend to be directly contrary to current FAR's or
: proper safety practices. Now who is right? The manufactorer and his SB? or
: the FAA with it's FARs, ADs, and ACs?

: Jim

So it seems that even though SB's might contain the magic phrase "instructions for continued
airworthiness," they're not mandatory for part-91 because it's not FAA-approved. At least that's how I
read all of this.

Thanks,
-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************