NTSB decision rules that SB's are manadatory...

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192405

The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB prior to
returning an aircraft to service in a part 91 environment. The NTSB
upheld it, breaking with decades of precedent.

This may be the first official ruling, but is really nothing new.

It makes it quite clear in the article that the SB was on a Lycoming
engine, and that the applicable manual states that compliance with
these items is required.

The Lycoming "overhaul" manual rarely gets revised, and they have
relied on SB's & SL's for years as a pseudo-means of revision.

The only "out" for someone overhauling a Lycoming engine is if they can
come up with some other specific "acceptable data" other than the
Lycoming instructions on which to base their approval for return to
service after overhaul.

TC

Dave S wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192405

The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB prior to
returning an aircraft to service in a part 91 environment. The NTSB
upheld it, breaking with decades of precedent.

Dave S wrote:

The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB ld it, breaking with decades of precedent.


It reminds me of the wording of the Piper wing rib service bulliten.

Dave S wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192405

The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB prior to
returning an aircraft to service in a part 91 environment. The NTSB
upheld it, breaking with decades of precedent.

Hmmm. I always thought there was no such thing as a "mandatory" service
bulletin.

I guess that mean those "mandatory" service bulletins we've been seeing
for years from Parker Hannafin regarding replacement of their vacuum
pumps after a couple hundred hours of service are now *regulatory* ???

-(

Jake Brodsky
Cessna Cardinal N30946 Based @ FME

I think the question for the A&P though is "on what basis did you
overhaul the engine?". If the A&P did not use the manufactor's
instructions to overhaul the engine, did he just make it up as he went?
If he's coming up with his own methods of overhauling engines, does he
have engineering data behind him showing that it meets safety
requirements? I think this is more than just following SBs, its trying
to invent new ways of overhauling engines instead of using the Lycoming
instructions. When I overhaul my engine I expect it will be done in
compliance with Lycomings instructions.

-Robert



Dave S wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192405

The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB prior to
returning an aircraft to service in a part 91 environment. The NTSB
upheld it, breaking with decades of precedent.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I think the question for the A&P though is "on what basis did you
overhaul the engine?". If the A&P did not use the manufactor's
instructions to overhaul the engine, did he just make it up as he went?
If he's coming up with his own methods of overhauling engines, does he
have engineering data behind him showing that it meets safety
requirements? I think this is more than just following SBs, its trying
to invent new ways of overhauling engines instead of using the Lycoming
instructions. When I overhaul my engine I expect it will be done in
compliance with Lycomings instructions.

That's basically correct, but has some interesting connotations. A
field overhaul is a repair, not an alteration. This means that
Lycoming (or, in effect, any manufacturer of any airframe, engine, or
accessory) can at any point change its mind about what constitutes an
acceptable repair. Thus, you can fly with it as it is until you need
to fix it, but once you need to fix it, the manufacturer can force you
to comply with any SB. Essentially, the NTSB has ruled that the
manufacturer can at any point decide that repair procedures that were
acceptable before are no longer acceptable.

For example, Lycoming has a list of items that can't be reused when the
engine is overhauled. It could issue an SB saying the crankshafts of
certain (or all) engines must be replaced at overhaul, and whether the
FAA makes it an AD or not, it doesn't matter - you can't overhaul the
engine without replacing the crankshaft. In effect, the crankshaft is
added to the list of non-reusable items. Not that anything like this
would happen...

What this decision does is shift the power balance away from the
individual A&P and towards the manufacturer - which of course only has
your best interests at heart, and would never make you discard a part
just so it could sell you a new one.

One more reason I will never again purchase a certified aircraft.

Michael

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:15:01 -0500, Stache
wrote:


Dave S wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192405

The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB prior to
returning an aircraft to service in a part 91 environment. The NTSB
upheld it, breaking with decades of precedent.

I read the NTSN Order Number EA5221 and what this A&P did was flat
wrong. I agree with the law judge in this case after reading what
happen.

I tried to google for "NTSN Order Number EA5221" and got nothing. Could
you please take a minute and give to me your opinion of what the A&P did
that was flat wrong.

Thanks

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:34:50 GMT, "Jeff Lewis" wrote:


The FAA dinged an A&P for not complying with a "mandatory" SB prior to
returning an aircraft to service in a part 91 environment. The NTSB
upheld it, breaking with decades of precedent.

I read the NTSN Order Number EA5221 and what this A&P did was flat
wrong. I agree with the law judge in this case after reading what
happen.

I tried to google for "NTSN Order Number EA5221" and got nothing. Could
you please take a minute and give to me your opinion of what the A&P did
that was flat wrong.

Misprint by the OP...should have searched for "NTSB EA-5221".

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5221.PDF

Ron Wanttaja