LEGAL SPIN
BY JASON DICKSTEIN
BY JASON DICKSTEIN
The Parts Traceability Puzzle
get a lot of questions about the FAA’s requirements for aircraft parts traceability. And one of the first things I remind people of, when they ask, is that there is no general requirement under FAA regulations for aircraft parts traceability. None. Yes, there are requirements for certain parties to prepare or maintain certain documents under U.S. law. For example, when any authorized party completes maintenance, they must complete a record of that work under 14 C.F.R. § 43.9. When a repair station completes a major alteration, it must complete a FAA Form 337. If that same repair station completes a major repair, then it must either complete a FAA Form 337, or else must place the maintenance release language found in the regulations on the work order (and return that work order to the client). Those who remove life-limited aircraft parts from aircraft are required to engage in safe disposition of those parts, which can include documenting the current life status of the part, but this obligation can also be met through other non-document-based solutions. Operators are required to retain certain records. Records of major repairs must be retained for a year (or until superseded) while records of major alterations must be retained for the life of the product. But in all of these requirements, there is no requirement under U.S. law that ANY document follow the aircraft
I
parts from one owner to the next. This is a surprising revelation to most people in the aviation industry, who are used to the idea that an aircraft part cannot be purchased without “the right traceability.” The idea of treating documentation of aircraft parts differently from documentation of complete aircraft is not a novel one. In FAA Registry cases, for example, the courts have recognized that the way that the law treats documentation of complete aircraft is different from the way that the law treats documentation of aircraft parts. At this point, most of my readers will be thinking “well, Mr. Smarty-Pants Lawyer, if there is no legal requirement
for aircraft parts traceability, then why do all of my customers as for traceability?” The answer is, because of commercial practice. Let’s take life-limited parts as an example. Even though most people think that back-to-birth traceability is mandatory for such parts, the FAA has repeatedly said that U.S. law does not require back-to-birth traceability – not even for life-limited parts. A record of current life status is sufficient to meet the regulatory obligations of the operator. The FAA Chief Counsel’s Office has issued multiple opinion letters on the subject., But just try to sell a life-limited part without back-to-birth traceability! The marketplace has deemed that this is the “appropriate” paperwork for life-limited parts, and so commercial practice has evolved such that this form of traceability is a de facto requirement for U.S. transactions in life-limited parts. If you think about the commercial utility of such traceability, then its value becomes apparent. Life-limited parts are the parts that engineering analysis has shown to need to be removed from the aircraft before a likelihood of failure begins to be realistic. The life-limit is a known safe point, before which failure from fatigue or other related causes is unlikely. Thus, ensuring that a part has not yet reached its life limit is an important safety obligation. It is so important that installers wish to be able to review the paperwork to validate the allegations of current life status found in the records of current life status. Thus, it has become a commercial norm to ask for back-to-birth traceability in order to have the documentation that validates the allegation of current life status. In the 1990s, there was tremendous debate about unapproved parts. Ensuring that aircraft parts were manufactured under FAA production approval (or under a legally acceptable alternative) became an important goal for many in the 1990s. As a consequence, documentation supporting the contention that the part is an “approved” part became more transactionally important in the 1990s. There is no one piece of paper that is always appropriate in every case. Often, an airworthiness approval tag (8130-3 tag) is a very reliable document asserting approval and airworthiness, because it cannot be issued under today’s standards without a finding that the part in question was produced under FAA production approval. And yet it is important for installers to recognize that the airworthiness approval tag tells you that the parts was an airworthy, approved, part at the time that the document was issued. It does not tell you whether the part is still airworthy (It could have been damaged or suffered degradation since the airworthiness approval tag was issued) and that is why the installer continues to play an important role in assessing current status of parts. The installer’s role in assessing parts is another commercial driver for traceability. The installer of a part has an obligation to make a determination of airworthiness under Part 43 of the regulations (find that the part will return the product to a condition at least equal to original or properly altered condition), but it is common to rely on documents to help make that determination. Traceability, is thus an important tool to assist the installer in making the installer’s regulatorily-required findings. So what does this tell us about the “right” traceability? It is whatever the installer feels is useful to help
42 Aviation Maintenance |
avm-mag.com | April 2013
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