Intel
I mx reg log I 1. Time for European-Style PMA?
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is floating the idea of encouraging the use of European-made, non-original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts. Such parts would be like the U.S. parts manufacturer approval (PMA) components that are already used by some European airlines. However, the idea is controversial, mostly between European OEMs and MRO organizations. Although European-made non-OEM parts—known as European Parts Approval, or EPA parts—are legal, they are not really equivalent to PMA parts because of complicating regulatory issues that discourage their use, says Werner Luehmann, manager of regulatory compliance and authorities liaison with Lufthansa Technik. Installation of an EPA part requires a further “installation certification,” he explains. An EPA
part installation is considered, at a minimum, as a minor change to type design and has to be handled via the procedures of an EASA Part-21J Design Organization. This makes use of EPA parts impractical, cumbersome and costly. EASA has not yet set up a drafting group for the new idea although this task is on the agency’s calendar. The recent USEU bilateral agreement also notes: “…the European system has no stand-
alone parts design approval. Replacement or modification parts are approved through design changes or STCs [supplemental type certificates].”
2. Conflict of Interest Rule
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Aug. 19 issued a final rule, banning airlines and other certificate holders from hiring former Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspectors until two years after their separation from the agency. The restrictions apply to former FAA employees who had oversight of other inspectors and of the certificate holders, the agency explained in a press release. The rule is meant to respond to concerns of Congress and the Department of Transportation’s inspector general about the FAA’s oversight of Southwest Airlines, where “an overly close relationship with the [carrier]” was perceived. First proposed in 2009, the rule becomes effective on Oct. 21, 2011.
3. FAA Funding to Flow
Just when the flow of stopgap funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seemed about to be shut off by a single senator, the floodgates have reopened. The Senate on Sept. 15 passed the 22nd extension of FAA funding that will keep the agency afloat through Jan. 31, 2012, following earlier House action. Senators found a way to satisfy objections by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to highway beautification provisions in the bill. Now Congress has several months’ breathing space to come up with multiyear FAA reauthorization legislation.
4. USEU BASA Codifies PMA Policies
As far as parts manufacturer approval (PMA) parts go, the recently signed Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) between the U.S. and the European Union (EU) simply codifies prior decisions by European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). EASA made an executive decision in 2007 to accept noncritical PMA parts, says Pat Markham, vice president of technical services with HEICO. The USEU BASA this year incorporates everything that was in the decision and gives it more force, he says.
5. FAA Penalty Box Fills
FAA recently proposed a number of maintenance-related penalties: *$1.1 million civil penalty against Aviation Technical Services for allegedly making
improper repairs to 44 Southwest Airlines B-737-300s. *$590,000 civil penalty against Alaska Airlines for allegedly operating a Boeing 737-400
on 2,107 flights when it was not in compliance with federal aviation regulations. FAA cites a flight deck ceiling fire, which was traced to the improper installation of a hose clamp. *$298,500 civil penalty against Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. (CCIA) for
allegedly operating eight Boeing 727 aircraft when the aircraft were not in compliance with federal aviation regulations. The FAA alleges that CCIA permitted an unqualified mechanic to perform certain aircraft inspections and to sign airworthiness releases on the company’s aircraft.
20 Aviation Maintenance |
avmain-mag.com | October / November 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63