Mandatory SB missed by maintenance shop
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mandatory SB missed by maintenance shop
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 ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in the hotel
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 . . .
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 . . .
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in the hotel
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in the hotel
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.