Mandatory SB missed by maintenance shop

[Schilke]

I recently had a situation where my maintenance shop 'overlooked' a mandatory service bulleting, resulting in considerable expense and possibly (and unknowingly) flying illegally for a period. I have documentation which I believe implies that all ADs had been complied with, but don't know where I stand legally if I attempt to recover my costs. Does anyone have any experience of this situation or any advice please ?

[His dudeness]

Well, I´m not a lawyer...but still I think its save to say it depends on what your contract with the mx provider and the CAMO orgaization says. Is the mx provider also the CAMO provider?
The way I see it, the CAMO is foremost responsible when it comes to ordering maintenance and AD´s.

But before 'going legal' I´d have an open word with them. That pays off in the long run IMO.

[Schilke]

I'm not clear on the distinction between MX & CAMO :bored:

[Fossy]

Since you’re based in the UK, I assume you’re talking about an EASA registered aircraft. Within EASA, a service bulletin is not mandatory even so called by some aircraft manufacturers. So legally you don't have a problem yet. However there is a reason why it’s called mandatory and normally its safety related. Most of mandatory or alert SB’s will become an AD and then you are obliged to comply with.

Regarding “overlooked” I would like to mention that it isn’t the responsibility of a PART 145 organisation to schedule the maintenance, this is the obligation of the contracted CAMO.

If it was ordered by the CAMO,than you could go back to the maintenance company to discuss it with them.

Source EASA:

AMC M.A.301 - 7- Continuing airworthiness tasks
An operator or a contracted M.A. Subpart G (CAMO) approved organisation as applicable should establish and work to a policy, which assesses non-mandatory information related to the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Non mandatory information such as service bulletins, service letters and other information is that produced for the aircraft and its components by an approved design organisation, the manufacturer, the competent authority or the Agency.
ED 2007/001/R
ED 2009/006/R

[Edgar Jessop]

MX = Part 145
CAM = Part M

Fossy is spot on. Your CAMO is responsible for controlling the mods on your aircraft, and they should consult the operator on when to embody them (which becomes a Part 145 function once scheduled). Depending on the contract you have one company can perform both functions (if appropriately approved) or it can be separate companies. In some cases (such as AOC) the operator himself may be the CAMO and responsible for scheduling mods.

Some SBs are optional and the operator can opt not to take them up. Mandatory ones should be done and the CAMO will normally schedule these in a suitable MX slot. However they do not have a legal status, that is what ADs are for, and ADs will always have a set compliance date. You do not have any choice over these; they must be done and by the time stated, even if it means grounding the aircraft (because it would be illegal to fly outside compliance).

Incidentally if you are on a N, VP or M registration, EASA Part M/Part 145 rules do not apply, however SB/AD embodiment rules are the same. I wouldn't expect an aircraft to be held for a mandatory SB, but that's without knowing the circumstances and there may have been reasons.

Unless your contract provides for damages (and few will cover consequential losses, loss of business etc) you may be better off asking nicely for an explanation of what happened and angling for concessions, rather than demanding compensation.

[Miles Magister]

This is not the first time I have seen a servicing event missed by the maintenance organisation and it will not be the last. The CAMO is meant to be independant of the 145 organisation. Most maintenance organisations have convinced the authority that their own quality department is independent. I dissagree and would urge operators to contract a completely separate team to be their CAMO. I have picked up an amazing amount of issues both large and small over the years on both aircraft I have managed and aircraft I have done pre-buy due dilligance on.

There is a CAA advisory, which unfortunately I do not have to hand, which states that where the CAME is subcontracted to a CAMO the contract must contain a phrase to the effect that although the task is subcontracted the responsibility resides with the owner.

The owner is therefore responsible and you have no comne back on your maintenance organistion. Just get good people in, some think this is too expensive but I am willing to bet my next invoice it would have been cheaper than the costs you are about to incur!

The only reliable way is to do it yourself.

Safe safe, don't assume - Check.

MM

[Miles Magister]

Also,

Take care with manufacturer's mandatory bulletins as you can not incorporate them in EASA land until they have been approved by the relevent lead EASA authority for the type. This is because some buletins in the past have overidden previous national requirements. Whilst this is less likey these days with teh commoning up of FAA and EASA regs and proceedures it is still a requirement.

MM

[Schilke]

Thanks for all the info. For clarity the a/c in on the N reg, and the mandatory SB was mandatory because it became an AD.

I guess the operator (ie. me) is the CAMO because I 'schedule' the maintenance. However I've relied on the mx provider to determine relevant ADs etc. and bring them to my attention.

Call me naive if you like . . .

[johns7022]

What model aircraft are we talking about here?

[Schilke]

Just a PA28, nothing exotic. Other than the resultant costs . . . .

[cldrvr]

Here is the list, print it off before you bring her in and have a sitdown with your maintenance organisation

AD List (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet)

[Fossy]

You are writing in your first post that
QUOTE - I have documentation which I believe implies that all ADs had been complied with - UNQUOTE
Normally the AD refers to the SB and if its like that they had performed the SB as well. Therefore I just would ask them to the sign off of the SB.

[cat159]

What SB was missed? When you have the ARC done all SB/AD should be checked by CAMO them before they issue the ARC. If the SB/AD came out after you had the ARC done and you do not have CAMO looking after your aircraft then it is down to you as the owner.
M.A.201 Responsibilities

(a) The owner is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft and shall ensure that no flight takes place unless:
1. the aircraft is maintained in an airworthy condition, and;
2. any operational and emergency equipment fitted is correctly installed and serviceable
or clearly identified as unserviceable, and;
3. the airworthiness certificate remains valid, and;
4. the maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with the approved
maintenance programme as specified in M.A.302.

(b) When the aircraft is leased, the responsibilities of the owner are transferred to the
lessee if:
1. the lessee is stipulated on the registration document, or;
2. detailed in the leasing contract.

When reference is made in this Part to the “owner”, the term owner covers the owner or the lessee, as applicable.
(c) Any person or organisation performing maintenance shall be responsible for thetasks performed.
(d) The pilot-in-command or, in the case of commercial air transport, the operator shall be responsible for the satisfactory accomplishment of the pre-flight inspection. This inspection must be carried out by the pilot or another qualified person but need notbe carried out by an approved maintenance organisation or by Part-66 certifyingstaff.

(e) In order to satisfy the responsibilities of paragraph (a),
(i) The owner of an aircraft may contract the tasks associated with continuing
airworthiness to a continuing airworthiness management organisation
approved in accordance with Section A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part M). In
this case, the continuing airworthiness management organisation assumes
responsibility for the proper accomplishment of these tasks.
(ii) An owner who decides to manage the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft
under its own responsibility, without a contract in accordance with
Appendix I, may nevertheless make a limited contract with a continuing airworthiness management organisation approved in accordance with Section
A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part M), for the development of the maintenance programme and its approval in accordance with point M.A.302. In that case, the limited contract transfers the responsibility for the development and approval of the maintenance programme to the contracted continuing airworthinessmanagement organisation.

[His dudeness]

all nice and correct, but the airplane in question is N-Reg.

No Camo methinks.

[Schilke]

Yup, it's an N reg. . . .

[Schilke]

And here we go again . . . . 18 months after spending £35k unnecessarily on a new engine, i find that the maintenance shop sent the prop for overhaul to a non-FAA approved organisation (it's an N-reg a/c).

My new & very thorough shop has picked this up & the FAA A&P is now telling me that the prop needs to be removed and re-overhauled . . another £3,5k doen the drain.

Can maintenance shops really do what the hell they like and then claim no responsibility or liability ?

[Fossy]

indeed you could, because if the company which did the overhaul is a non approved FAA repair station, your maintenance facility failed when they did the incoming inspection and installed an unapproved part on your aircraft. Meaning you flew the last 18 months with an aircraft which was not airworthy, because the installation of the prop was affecting the validity of your CofA, your insurance coverage etc.

[Phil Brockwell]

Let me understand the roles of the parties involved -

There is an owner of the aircraft that is not you?
You are employed as pilot or operator / manager

If you are the manager then I would look a little closer to home - If someone is paying you to manage their aircraft - then manage it - it's suppliers / third parties / compliance etc - if you are just the pilot (and therefore not the operator) then take this up with the person who has operational control of the aircraft -

Phil

[His dudeness]

Are you in a bad mood Phil?

Cut the guy some slack...an MX organization deals with that stuff every day, and should know these things, whilst a pilot/manager of a PA28 doesn´t do this on a daily basis (I presume)

Schilke, do you have a contract with them? If so (which should be the case IMO) take it to a lawyer and find out what it really says.

[Phil Brockwell]

Not in a bad mood, but,

"I guess the operator (ie. me) is the CAMO because I 'schedule' the maintenance."

I guess the owner has the wrong suppliers, both management and maintenance.

[Fossy]

an MX organization deals with that stuff every day, and should know these things, whilst a pilot/manager of a PA28 doesn´t do this on a daily basis (I presume)

That's one of the reason, why EASA requires that a CAMO is managing an aircraft.

BTW, also BDCA, CAACI or IOMAR asks for a CAMO or NATR

[His dudeness]

That's one of the reason, why EASA requires that a CAMO is managing an aircraft.

Fossy, that is all nice and well, but I have been the mx manager for an AOC operator pre JAROPS, during JAROPS and also the CAMO manager later and I´m now the 'chief pilot' for a coorperate FD, we contracted a CAMO, which is part of the largest Cessna Dealer outside the US (if their propaganda is correct).

So far they have managed to miss the renewal of the stby battery and 2 bottle rework dates. I caught these issues, thus we could still operate legal. The whole issue is a total mess IMO, the CAAs just want the paperwork to be all right and the rest is...sort of luck, our contracted CAMO requires monthly payments which they get in full height and on time - therefore I would think they would do their part of the contract as well.

They did not, but we sat down together and tried to identify what the cause was.

(I had our legal department put the obligation to check the valid authorization of ANY subcontractor by the mx shop & CAMO into our contract)

When I started supervising mx, the mx shop told us what they would need to do as per the manufacturers mx programs, then I had to tell the very same people what they should do. They were the professionals, whilst I just knew the paper side of the theme. Now we have a mx programme to sent to the authority, they okay it and still issues arise. The european approach of regulating everything to the death does NOT work better than it did before.

BTT, over the years I have seen many issues around mx. Not to check the validation/approval of a sub contracted shop is - IMO - the mistake of the mx shop, not the owner/operator/pilot etc.

Would he have know that he has to look there he´d probably done it.

Now he knows. -> that is learning on the job....

[peterh337]

Mandatory SBs are not actually mandatory on N-reg, under Part 91 ops.

One of the consequences of getting Type Certification is that the holder of the Type Certificate loses the right to dictate maintenance details. He can issue an SB, and if the certification authority (e.g. the FAA) decides it is important enough it will issue an AD and that is mandatory.

For example the infamous Lyco "crankshaft snapping after 50 hours or whatever" debacle was only an SB from Lyco. It was the FAA that made it an AD because it was obviously dangerous. The other authorities (e.g. EASA) then copied the FAA, which is usual these days.

That is how certification works everywhere.

Whether a shop should have implemented an MSB is a non trivial subject.

The main relevance of a "mandatory SB" is that if one is issued within the warranty period, the manufacturer will implement it under the warranty. If an SB is not "mandatory" it is not covered by warranty. So, hey ho, hey ho, the mfg has an incentive to make all SBs non-mandatory until the warranties on all affected airframes have expired and then they make them mandatory which generates a nice income on the parts sales :ok:

[Detling]

Ok so you schedule the maintenance, a question then. If one of your engineers screws up and signs off a mandatory SB on an internet based maintenance reporting system without your knowledge (without said work being carried out) then would you blame yourself or the engineer ?

[Detling]

Oh, and secondly with the sign off already done then it becomes an AD, and you obviously think the work has been done already so the AD gets disregarded, due to the SB sign off. Your fault ? I think not....