210 posts / 0 new
Last post
bob.pasch's picture

Not only are you a poltroon and an ignoramus in a field you profess to be employed in, you're one horrendous lyricist!

There is one thing I'm correct about, and it's probably why you won't identify yourself. From your conversations and formatting, I believe you're an alien, probably illegal, of European or Mid-East lineage and not well-educated, definitely not in English. Your acquaintances and employers tolerate your sanctimonious, hypocritical and pious personality chalking it up to your heritage. Note I used the word acquaintances and not friends because you're not close to anyone. You see yourself as better than most and won't allow yourself to associate with people below your stature. How'd I do? C'mon man, I nailed you! Admit it...

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Nice attempt at deflection from the issue of you being wrong. Personal attacks are typical in these situations.

Your continued use of uncommon verbiage indicates a desire to present yourself as educated above the level of your peers.

Mighty rich from someone with a 2 year degree.

bob.pasch's picture

No personal attack here, it's called profiling and it's pretty damned accurate! You gave me all the info! It hit home, didn't it? I don't see any rebuttals. I learned that with my 2 year degree.

And I don't profess to be above anyone, like Popeye I yams what I yams. And you sir, are an anonymous alien who doesn't know his anal aperture from Punxatawney Phil's front door!

BTW, there is no use of "uncommon" verbiage, learn the language and become a peer! Also, get an updated resume but then again you haven't been right yet so why start now...

[FYI, Popeye's an American iconic cartoon]

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Wow, thank goodness you don't actually work for any law enforcement or intelligence agency with your (lack of) profiling
ability. You sir, are simply amazing. Regarding relationships, you would seem to have some explaining to do, what with that nasty divorce and all. LOL!

rick miller (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Well this post got interesting. As I understand the rules after thirty years, Icas just like tbo are recommendations unless they are incorporated into the an approved limitations section. However, if you perform any maintenance of the item then all relevant ica's become relevent.

bob.pasch's picture

Nice try dude, strike one... Wanna guess again?

Lyricist (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Au Contraire.(Foreign alien type phrase)
While it may be highly advisable to follow the ICA maintenance instructions that are contained in the FAA accepted section of an ICA, it is NOT a regulatory requirement.

And the chorus sings,

Da do wrong wrong, da do wrong wrong

thruthefence (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Just hung a couple of New McCauley three bladed props on our old 95-B55 Baron, under stc SA1848CH.

And sure enough, the paperwork package contains a document, TR 954, titled "Maintenance Manual Supplement, Instructions for continued airworthiness", and that document references you to the various McCauley Manuals, and of course SB 137.

And this page, and all other pages in the "package" are stamped & signed "FAA approved".

So......I suppose y'all are going to advise me to ignore this ICAW document, "FAA approved" notwithstanding?

I have been in the bid-ness 40 years, and I can tell you that FAA order 8620.2A carries ZERO weight with the plaintiff's attorney in a court of law.

These days, you get an STC, you get a bushel of paperwork, including "FAA approval".

By the way, while I can't give chapter & verse on the accident, a "failure to maintain" on an stc'ed cabin heater led directly to this paperwork nightmare as we know it today, ie, the hoopla over ICAW.

whitefaced's picture

I don't think anyone who has contributed to this discussion has EVER suggested to ignore ICA (quite the opposite), but since it is a discussion regarding the legallities surrounding the application of ICA, you DO need to be able to quote regulatory chapter and verse.

Also, to re-re-re-state: I don't think that anyone has EVER said in any of these responses that FAA orders are laws either, just that they cannot be contrary to laws, and that they ARE indeed evidence of FAA legal interpretation of laws.

Congratulations on 40 years in the "bid-ness". If this were a discussion based on who has the most seniority, you and Mr. Pasch would surley be among the most qualified pundits.

thruthefence (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Thank you for acknowledging my advancing years, but please comment on McCauley prop posting. With the information I have given you (assume I'm not making this up) and your customer who owns a similarly aircraft takes the stand that these "FAA Approved" ICAW need NOT be addressed in your re-licensing at Annual, what would be your response to him?

In the context of this thread, and my description of STC SA1848CH's paperwork package, what say you of the mandatory, or NON mandatory aspects of the ICAW instructions?

thruthefence (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

an amendment to my first post. Here's a link where the FAA was sued over an STC cabin heater, and the plaintiff prevailed.

Note that the mechanics involved were not included in the suit, just the certifying agency.

This is the beginning of the STC process we have today.

whitefaced's picture

Read all previous posts. My position on STC ICA's is unchanged.
I'm sorry, but after reading the article you referenced, I don't see any direct connection to the ICA discussion. The article eluded to a fuel leak as the cause of the crash, but seemed to atribute the leak to a design flaw related to the STC.

Owner, by law, you have to have your propeller inspected in accordance with accepted methods,techniques and practices. If the only place to find these is in the ICA for your STC, then those portions of the ICA are mandatory for performing the inspection.
If the ICA has an FAA Approved Airworthiness Limitations section, those items are mandatory as well.

I have been following this discussion on ICA’s for a while and it all boils down to one rule part 43 Section 43.13 (b) performance Rules properly altered condition. All STC’s are required by part 21 Subpart E to have an ICA since it is changing the original type certificate.

If you are not complying with the ICA of a STC you are wrong and by signing you name to a record entry. Your signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed section 43.9(a)(4). In the case of an inspection under section 43.11, which includes part 43.13 and 43.15 additional performance rules if you do not comply with the STC ICA you are in violation of these rules.

We as mechanics are the gate keeps on this, its our names on the signature block. I know many A&P/IA do not comply with ICAs and they are wrong and it is an incomplete inspection per sections 43.13 and 43.15. Its time to start doing inspection correctly guy’s and quit the name calling we mechanics are better than that. Let the pilots call each other names on other web sites we just don’t need that here. Remember you have a certificate to learn.

There should be no discussion if ICA apply what so ever if you are holding an IA or have signature authority at a part 145 or 121 organization, they do apply as simple as that.

Keep in mind not all FAA Form 337’s will have an ICA, but the rules changed in 1998 on that. Now all 337’s require ICAs just like STCs.

In my new book just published “Gray Matter” I cover this subject in great detail with several other subject that some consider a gray area. In aviation maintenance there is now gray area’s we work in a black and white area. Its either airworthy or it is not airworthy as simple as that.

thruthefence (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Thank you white faced; this is my view as well, regarding "FAA Approved" documents.

Regarding my segue off into the Dove/heater lawsuit, I was attempting to show how the current mountainous STC application checklist came into being.

A previous poster queried the group about accidents caused by not following STC ICAW. Obviously this doesn't apply to this accident, because there WERE NO ICAWS PUBLISHED for the STC. And there hangs the tale.

In a similar vein, our 14 CFR 91.409 rules (ie (e) Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable), turbojet multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplanes, and turbine-powered rotorcraft.) evolved from a DC3 wing failure, where the mfg's instructions were NOT followed.

And 14 CFR 91.207, the ELT rule, came directly from the death of Louisiana Congressman Hale Boggs in Alaske, in 1972.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Stache, your interpretation and position is contrary to FAA order 8620.2A.

Again, while compliance with all ICAs is advised, only the airworthiness limitations section must be complied with.

The courts have upheld this principle numerous times. A manufacturer via the FAA cannot mandate requirements on the public without going through the legal rule making process.

I 100% agree CFR 43.13(a) and 43.13(b) require because it says "SHALL" = "MUST" unless you have another FAA approved way.

As a DER I have a real battle with some uninformed CRS DOM's who think CFR 43.13(a) & 43.13(b) are just suggestions.

I would refer your reader to AC33-9 which not only clearly defines the ICA requirement, but adds the C.O.S. as the applicants responsibility!

Dominick DaCosta

Phil Rich (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

bob.pasch - you would be much better served in making your
point(s) without all of the included ad hominem.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Even though the FAR 43 Appendix D checklist seems vague, it is still a checklist, that if properly used is a very useful tool. I use it in conjunction with the applicable maintenance/service manual, etc. With respect to liability it's the best checklist out there figuring the inspector will be abiding by all FAR's related to MX, using all necessary data to inspect the aircraft completely, per each aircraft manufacturer's data. But I do agree it's short.

T.Rae (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Thank You for those responsible at the FAA. I know that this is still a proposed Advisory Circular, but I'm sure that it clarifies the FAA's intent of what is and is not REQUIRED under Part91 to meet Airworthiness Standards. Sections 9 and 10.5 of this AC 20-ICA should clearly answer this question once and for all.
I.C.A.'s are Acceptable Data and are not required to be complied with unless you are choosing to do Maintenance on an item that has them. If you chose to do Maintenance on that particular item, then you Must use the I.C.A.'s or other Acceptable data to Maintain it.
Airworthiness Limitations Sections of I.C.A.'s (or other documents also), are FAA Approved, and can tell you what you have to do to keep an item Airworthy, and how often that you have to do it, just like an AD.

I am NOT a lawyer and cannot provide any legal advice, but I am schooled on CFRs and at one time in my aviation career work for the FAA as a field inspector and was required to ensure maintainers followed the CFRs.

This subject about Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) is tied to many rules under title 49 U.S. starting first with part 21 the certification rule for all type certified aircraft. Airman, repair stations, and air operators all must follow the CFRs. FAA Order, Service Bulletins untied to an AD, Notices are NOT federal law, but guidance and will not protest you if you break a CFR rule. ICAs are written into the rules to be followed

§21.50 Instructions for continued airworthiness and manufacturer's maintenance manuals having airworthiness limitations sections.
(b) The holder of a design approval, including either the type certificate or supplemental type certificate for an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller for which application was made after January 28, 1981, must furnish at least one set of complete Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to the owner of each type aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller upon its delivery, or upon issuance of the first standard airworthiness certificate for the affected aircraft, whichever occurs.

Second, for us maintainers is part 43 where you will find that we are required by rule.
§43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

Third, §43.15 Additional performance rules for inspections.
(c) Annual and 100-hour inspections. (1) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall use a checklist while performing the inspection. The checklist may be of the person's own design, one provided by the manufacturer of the equipment being inspected or one obtained from another source. This checklist must include the scope and detail of the items contained in appendix D to this part and paragraph (b) of this section.

Forth, §43.16 Airworthiness limitations.
Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other maintenance in accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135, or an inspection program approved under §91.409(e).

Part 43 Appendix D is only the minimum for a 100-hour or annual inspection, however §43.15 is also required for those items installed on a type certificated aircraft not in appendix D. Some of the items are retractable landing gear and all those STC’d items properly installed per part 21 with their ICA’s which are required now to be accomplished since they are part of the type design.

Not accomplishing ICA is a rule bust under part 43, section 43.13 and the mechanic is at fault if they do not accomplish the ICAs. This is not a GRAY area or one that is open for decision. All ICA’s are mandatory and MUST be accomplished by rule.

To put it in simple terms if you are not accomplishing ICAs you are doing a disservice to the owners and breaking federal law. So if you have not been doing ICAs I would highly recommend you start by recalling the aircraft returned to service without the ICA inspections being accomplished and doing them. This is a huge liability on the person who performs the return to service under Part 43.11.

I happen to teach an IA refresher course and this is one of the subject area’s I cover. I am not pointing fingers, just providing information. But I can tell everyone from past experience when an aircraft goes down the FAA will second guess everything we maintainers did and their lawyers will come after us.

whitefaced's picture

I am not a lawyer either. I am not an FAA inspector nor have I ever been one. I have been in contact, and continue to be in contact with numerous inspectors from my local FAA office. I have been in numerous heated meetings with them over the years on topics like this. The issues were always raised by them. I have always responded because there was considerable money hanging in the balance if the wrong conclusion was reached.
The FAA has been wrong in each and every case.

I disagree with most of what you posted (except for the specific quotes from relevant rules).
The only thing I want to point out directly is this. My Google search of the US code of federal regs shows the rules in discussion to be under Title 14, not 49.
Doug Hereford

Anymouse (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Rule bust? Really? Then it should be easy to point us to at least one example of certificate action for non compliance with an ICA, right?

Russ (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

Regarding ICA's. The inspections are not REQUIRED unless the STC has a section specifically containing an "Airworthiness Limitations" section. I reference FAR 91.403 (c): No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturers maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued (that contains an airworthiness limitations section) unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section... Parentheses added for clarity. FAR 43.13 requires you to use the ICA if and when you do the inspection. My opinion!

Anyoneofus (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

ding, ding, ding. Winner! Agree, only the Airworthiness Limitations section of an ICA is required to be complied with.

Well we all have an opinion that is why we are discussing this important issue. All I can say is who every is returning the aircraft to service after maintenance is stating in the CFR 43.9 maintenance entry or CFR 43.11 inspection record entry they complied with all the airworthiness requirements for the task. I have had this discussion before with many individuals in my aviation career and it is always better to comply with any ICA than to argue over it. The person who’s signature and certificate number on the record entry is stating they complied with all required steps/tasks and I am not in a position to second guess anyone any more. For me I will comply with any ICA on STC’s or 337’s as well as the manufactures required ICA inspections per CFR 43.13 and I let my aircraft owner know this up front before I do any work or inspection. I hope we all took something from this discussing to think about and decide for ourselves what options we as mechanics have.

Anyoneofus (not verified)
Anonymous's picture

True and Stache, I do respect your opinion, but this is not a matter of opinion, rather a matter of legality and economics. In many cases, it may be little impact to perform the ICA as part of an annual, or 100 hour inspection. In others, there may be significant impact.

The argument that a mechanic will be held responsible, or expected to comply is not valid. Take service bulletins for example. Mandatory compliance of all service bulletins is advisable, but not required.

Your "better safe than sorry" logic would apply to manufacturer's service bulletins. Do you let your aircraft owner know that you will comply with all SB's?

If not, why not?

My comments may be contrary to an order, however FAA orders are NOT part of the U.S. Code, but advisory. The FAA controls what goes in orders and it does NOT have to be approve as the titles and parts do.

Orders will not stand up in court, but parts like 21, 43, 65, and 91 are US law and that is what the courts hang their hat on. The court will uphold the rule that says "could of known or should have known." I an aircraft has an issue and it was part of a STC ICA that was not accomplished this is where "could of know or should of known' will come in. It all about how much rick are you willing to accept.

Sorry to say I am one of the old gray haired guys that have been around the block once or twice as well.

whitefaced's picture

43.13 is a PERFORMANCE rule. It only applies when a person is actually "performing" maintenance.

Acceptable ICA as developed in accordance with the relevant Airworthiness Standards (23, 25, 27, 33, etc.) require these documents to contain all kinds of stuff other than just Methods, Techniques, and Practices for performing maintenance. None of this other stuff is legally required. This would include things like TBOs, training or personnel certification requirements, parts replacement intervals and the like.
The only exception to this is found in the FAA Approved Airworthiness Limitations section of the FAA Accepted ICA document. Since this specific section is part of the product's Type Design, there are still limits to what can be legally included/mandated. A manufacturer cannot just write in anything in this section, and get some moron at the FAA to approve it as regulatory. A specific example of this would be any requirements of WHO is allowed to perform maintenance. The AWL section cannot mandate this. (Ref. relevant AW standard rule appendix. **.4, 43.16, and 91.403).

Another issue is AD's. There can be times where compliance with every detail of an ICA can actually put the product out of compliance with an AD, and therefore, out of compliance with "Additional Airworthiness Requirements" (ref. 43.15).

Still another example would be the manufacturer's ICA checklist for an Annual inspection. If this portion of the ICA does not contain all of the requirements of 43 app. D, then following the ICA checklist exclusively would result in an incomplete inspection of the aircraft, and therefore, non-compliance with the regulations.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but it is frustrating to hear some of what you say, given your back-ground.

Again, it is 14 CFR, not 49.

Mechanics do not "return aircraft to service". Pilots do that.

Annual inspections must include the scope and detail of 43 app. D.

"Airworthiness requirements" are: 1. unsafe conditions to include Airworthiness Directives, and 2. items that affect Type Design.
With the exception of the AWL section, ICA themselves are not "Airworthiness requirements".

In my opinion, over-reaching positions on maintenance requirements do nothing to enhance safety. They just drive costs up.

Doug Hereford

Mechanics do an "approval for return to service", however the pilot does the actual return to service this has always been the case under part 91. I think a lot of what we are discussing here is lost in the words we choose to use or not use. I am trying to be very careful here to what words I use as I have been in many court cases and the words we use have a lot of meaning. I have seen some very good mechanic use the wrong word in court only to have a lawyer use it against them. This is one reason I do NOT give legal opinions here.

I think this subject would be better it we could all sit down in a open forum and talk openly. When I worked for the agency we often did this and often times had the legal department on a telecom to explain as we discussed it.

I would like the see the FAA at one of the IA refresher courses take this subject on. I would be willing to organize this subject at one of my IA classes and see if I can have an FAA lawyer or an aviation attorney come speak to provide legal guidance. If this is something the group would like to see happen let me know and I would be willing to make the effort.

Lastly, lets not throw mud at each other over this important subject it takes away from the discussion.

Buddy's picture

Wow, first off I am absolutely amazed at the arguments against compliance with ICA’s. Excuse me, but my mentors wired me to do everything in my power to make that machine as SAFE as I can make it.

If you have one ounce of mechanic flesh in you, ask yourself this simple question: Is there a remote possibility the aircraft is safer if I comply with the ICA, or is it safer if I don’t comply with the ICA?

I’m not aware of any STC or Field Approved 337 NOT possessing FAA approval. Are YOU? Considering the ICA’s are very much a part of an FAA approved STC or Field Approved 337, I would think anyone with just half a brain cell would agree ICA’s are therefore FAA approved. I’m also not aware of the FAA approving optional compliance documents. Are You? If you think you have options with an STC why don’t trash all the parts in the STC and run down to Home Depot and Auto Zone and get your parts there, you got options right?

So now that the FAA approved STC/ICA is very clearly saying here is exactly what your going to do, and here is exactly when your going to do it. The mandate of compliance is further nailed down with FAR 43.16, very clearly mentioning ICA’s, and guess what 43.16 is titled “Airworthiness LIMITATIONS”.

Dude, do you not realize you’re tattooing yourself as a “Bottom Feeder”. This is NOT an industry of “Just Enough”. You have obviously been drinking the Kool-Air provided by the bean-counters. Try taking a drink from the SAFETY cup, maybe not near as sweet, but a whole lot better for you and the industry too.

Please allow me to Thank You for your continued contribution to the Safety of Flight

Log in or register to post comments