on work regardless of the aircraft’s registration or its currency: “No current FAA regulation proscribes an approval for return to service of a U.S.-registered aircraft…if the aircraft’s registration is not current.” Now we return to our consideration of experimental certifi cates. Understanding the applicability of part 43 must be done in the context of every rule governing operation and maintenance of the aircraft. In 2010, the builder of a kit turbine-powered rotorcraft sought the ability to use an annual inspection under § 91.409(a) in lieu of a FSDO- approved maintenance program as specifi ed in the certifi cate’s operations limitations. In his request for interpretation, the rotorcraft owner cited the statement in § 91.409(e) that “the owner or operator of a turbine-powered rotorcraft may elect to use the inspection provisions of § 91.409(a), (b), (c), or (d) in lieu of an inspection option of § 91.409(f).” However, annual inspections are to be performed “in accordance with part 43”;
§ 91.409(c)(1) specifi cally notes it does not apply to “an aircraft that carries…a current experimental certifi cate.” So, the agency determined that an annual inspection
cannot be used in lieu of an approved maintenance program. The reference to 43 and the clear exclusion in § 91.409(c)(1) of experimental certifi cates prohibits the owner from utilizing an annual inspection. So, performing work in
accordance with 43 may be required for an aircraft holding an experimental certifi cate. In 2015, the FAA considered the limits of the experimental certifi cate against requirements in part 91 for testing and inspecting equipment required for instrument fl ight rules operation. “Therefore, even though part
43 by its own terms does not apply to experimental aircraft, § 91.411(a) and (b), and § 91.413 (a) and (c), incorporate certain part 43 requirements,” the interpretation said. It then answered the ultimate question regarding the ability of a certifi cated repair station to perform the work even if not rated to do so, noting that in many cases this is “the only viable option” for an owner/ operator and that “[b]ecause part 145 specifi cally does not apply to certain experimental aircraft, neither does the prohibition in § 145.201(b) that no repair station may ‘maintain or alter any article for which it is not rated’. Answering questions of applicability starts with § 43.1,
including its statement regarding the aircraft’s previous certifi cation, but it doesn’t end there. Recognizing the basic connection between FAA jurisdiction and the maintenance rules and then fi nding instances when it does apply are essential to maintaining both airworthiness and compliance.
“The exclusion of experimental
aircraft from part 43 has consequences throughout our regulations,” the FAA said in its 2015 interpretation. The implications stretch beyond the rules into the operations of every certifi cate holder, experimental or otherwise.
Sarah MacLeod is managing member of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. and a founder and executive director
of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association. She has advocated for individuals and companies on international aviation safety law, policy and compliance issues for 30 years.
Kimberly R. Villiers is an associate of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. assisting with international aviation safety regulation compliance.
29
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
