SB643B-Bendix mags *mandatory* overhaul every 4 years now?

I was recently talking with my A&P/IA friend about my upcoming annual on my PA-28-180. He said
that there's some particularly disturbing news regarding manufacturer's service bulletins that can
*require* compliance even for Part 91 operators.

The one that brought is up is SB643B from TCM regarding Bendix mags. Basically, it's a the
normal 100-hour inspections, impulse coupling inspections, etc. The kicker is that it also says mags
must be overhauled every 5 years from previous overhaul, or 4 years from the date put in service.

Normally, a Part 91 guy would say, "Service Bulletins aren't mandatory, so I don't need to do
it." TCM added the magic phrase at the beginning of the SB which says: "The following information
constitutes the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness..." Those magic words appear to
make it a mandatory legal requirement as per the FARs.

Has anyone run into this already? The mandatory 4-year overhaul of mags seem excessive for most
owners. The precidence it sets essentially allows a manufacturer to issue an "AD" without oversight by
the FAA and public comments, etc.

-Cory

--

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

wrote:
I was recently talking with my A&P/IA friend about my upcoming annual on my PA-28-180. He said
that there's some particularly disturbing news regarding manufacturer's service bulletins that can
*require* compliance even for Part 91 operators.

The one that brought is up is SB643B from TCM regarding Bendix mags. Basically, it's a the
normal 100-hour inspections, impulse coupling inspections, etc. The kicker is that it also says mags
must be overhauled every 5 years from previous overhaul, or 4 years from the date put in service.

Normally, a Part 91 guy would say, "Service Bulletins aren't mandatory, so I don't need to do
it." TCM added the magic phrase at the beginning of the SB which says: "The following information
constitutes the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness..." Those magic words appear to
make it a mandatory legal requirement as per the FARs.

Has anyone run into this already? The mandatory 4-year overhaul of mags seem excessive for most
owners. The precidence it sets essentially allows a manufacturer to issue an "AD" without oversight by
the FAA and public comments, etc.



Yes and the FAA has already come out stating what we all believed in the
first place. A manufacturer cannot force a part 91 operator to replace
on a certain schedule no matter what the wording of a service bulletin
or any other documents by the manufacturer.

Newps wrote:
: Yes and the FAA has already come out stating what we all believed in the
: first place. A manufacturer cannot force a part 91 operator to replace
: on a certain schedule no matter what the wording of a service bulletin
: or any other documents by the manufacturer.

Where has the FAA said this? If there's something offically said about it, all I'd have to do is
find it.

-Cory

--

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

Tell your idiot IA buddy to prove to you that a manufacturer has the
ability to force a part 91 owner/operator to replace components. The
FAA came out with their letter several years ago. Google for it or call
any FSDO.




wrote:

Newps wrote:
: Yes and the FAA has already come out stating what we all believed in the
: first place. A manufacturer cannot force a part 91 operator to replace
: on a certain schedule no matter what the wording of a service bulletin
: or any other documents by the manufacturer.

Where has the FAA said this? If there's something offically said about it, all I'd have to do is
find it.

-Cory

Newps wrote:
: Tell your idiot IA buddy to prove to you that a manufacturer has the
: ability to force a part 91 owner/operator to replace components. The
: FAA came out with their letter several years ago. Google for it or call
: any FSDO.

My "idiot IA buddy" was told *explicitly* at his IA renewal seminar this past spring by the (Richmond) FSDO instructor
that SB's that carry the "Instructions for Continued Airworthiness" must be complied with just like and AD. Just looking at the
FAR's, it appears that's the case:

http://www.amtonline.com/publication...ubId=1&id=2522

The only information I've found to the contrary is from AOPA and FAA letters of interpretation
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../060614sb.html.

If I were in my IA's shoes, I'd feel bound by the FAR's as well. I'm thinking that siding with the AOPA
interpretation is plausible, but it's certainly not obvious.

-Cory

--

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

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.

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.

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


wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:
: Yes and the FAA has already come out stating what we all believed in the
: first place. A manufacturer cannot force a part 91 operator to replace
: on a certain schedule no matter what the wording of a service bulletin
: or any other documents by the manufacturer.

Where has the FAA said this? If there's something offically said about
it, all I'd have to do is
find it.

-Cory

--

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

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

The increasing complexity and cost of SB's, AD's, and Part 91 regs
will never end... It is the inescapable byproduct of an increasingly
socialized society and a dysfunctional political system... We are
headed where Europe is already, we are simply 20 years behind them...
20 years from now there will be essentialy no private certified
aircraft owned by ordinary persons in europe and we will be slowly
twisting in the wind here...

Experimentals will be the only GA planes a private person can afford
within 20 years...
Don't worry, order an RV7/8/9/10 kit, and be happy...

denny

If it comes to that point Denny, I would be more inclined to just keep
what I have at the time and recertify it as experimental.

The bitch will be if the airlines decide to have the FAA rule that
experimentals can't fly in controlled airspace; probably not in my
lifetime.


Kindest regards,
Jim Carter

Politicians fear most an armed, educated electorate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Denny ]
Posted At: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:59 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: SB643B-Bendix mags *mandatory* overhaul every 4 years
now?
Subject: SB643B-Bendix mags *mandatory* overhaul every 4 years
now?

The increasing complexity and cost of SB's, AD's, and Part 91 regs
will never end... It is the inescapable byproduct of an increasingly
socialized society and a dysfunctional political system... We are
headed where Europe is already, we are simply 20 years behind them...
20 years from now there will be essentialy no private certified
aircraft owned by ordinary persons in europe and we will be slowly
twisting in the wind here...

Experimentals will be the only GA planes a private person can afford
within 20 years...
Don't worry, order an RV7/8/9/10 kit, and be happy...

denny