Mandatory SB missed by maintenance shop
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in the hotel
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an MX organization deals with that stuff every day, and should know these things, whilst a pilot/manager of a PA28 doesnŽt do this on a daily basis (I presume)
BTW, also BDCA, CAACI or IOMAR asks for a CAMO or NATR
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's one of the reason, why EASA requires that a CAMO is managing an aircraft.
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 heŽd probably done it.
Now he knows. -> that is learning on the job....
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Southerner
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Southerner
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
