ARSA CORNER BY SARAH MACLEOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AERONAUTICAL REPAIR STATION ASSOCIATION EXCEPT WHEN IT DOES
A RECENT CONVERSATION ABOUT WORKING ON “EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT” BROUGHT AN INTERESTING DILEMMA TO LIGHT: ACCORDING TO SECTION 43.1, PART 43 DOES NOT APPLY TO EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT “UNLESS” THE PRODUCT HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED ANY OTHER TYPE OF AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY.
The question became, how the heck does the maintenance provider know whether another certifi cate – like restricted category – had ever been issued for the aircraft? Even more important, does it really matter pragmatically? The maintenance provider is going to use “methods, techniques and practices” acceptable to the FAA and is going to do the work in such a manner as to return the aircraft to at least its original condition. Since part 43 will be followed, what is the “real” issue? Enforcement is the issue – when does the FAA’s jurisdiction cover maintenance activities? Discerning the applicability of part 43 and its impact on compliance with the safety rules in general is vital for any airman, no matter what the tail number on the aircraft or the origins of its certifi cate.
Start with the fundamentals: The country of “registry” controls aircraft maintenance, ergo, part 43 applies to aircraft with certifi cates of airworthiness from the FAA. A 2011 legal interpretation provided to the Environmental Protection Agency helps explain jurisdiction from ICAO’s standards for operations and maintenance oversight to the FAA’s regulatory verbiage. “The FAA has no jurisdiction to impose operations and maintenance requirements (e.g., plans for aircraft drinking water systems) for a foreign registered aircraft operated by a foreign carrier, because the FAA is neither the State of Registry of the aircraft, nor is the FAA the State of the Operator for the foreign air carrier,” the interpretation said. When part 43 does not apply it does not apply to any maintenance
provider certifi cated by the FAA; a 2010 interpretation regarding articles to be installed on a foreign-registered aircraft considered the applicability of 145 and its relationship to part 43. “Nothing in the part 145 applicability section was even remotely intended to address maintenance or alterations of aircraft and parts of those aircraft not within FAA’s jurisdiction,” the agency said, referencing an earlier interpretation fi nding that the performance or signing off on work does not in itself require U.S. regulatory oversight. “It is our opinion that a repair station is not exercising the privileges of its certifi cate when it performs work for which part 43 is not applicable.” So part 43 applies to U.S. aircraft,
but what about one with an “expired registration”? According to a 2012 interpretation, persons can sign off
Come Visit Us at 28
DOMmagazine.com | july 2019
ASA / AFRA, Montreal, QC July 14-16, 2019
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 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
