91.409

[avbug]

 

 

Here is how I know this. When I was with FH1100 Manufacturing, there was one of "our" ships (manufactured before my friend bought the TC) which had components that were over their life limit. We knew this for a fact. We wanted the ship grounded; the owner told us to go screw off. He sent us a copy of a letter from the FAA in Washington that said, basically, that life limits do *not* apply under Part 91! We were flabbergasted to say the least. And there was nothing we could do.

 

Separately, I also had an A&P/IA come to me one day with a hypothetical situation. And this guy was sharp - he was no corner-cutter or schlub. He asked, "Suppose I Annual my own ship, but the tail rotor blades only have 25 hours left on their life at the time of the Inspection. They are not timed-out, so I sign the Annual off. I end up flying the ship over 25 hours that year. Am I illegal?"

 

I had to stop and scratch my head. My gut reaction was, "You cannot overfly a life-limited component." Because logically...emotionally we *want* the operator/pilot to be responsible for adhering to the component life-limits. But the FAA does not look at it that way, as we found out with the FH1100 (which ultimately ended up crashing when the guy ran it out of fuel, by the way).

 

I know that historically we consider finite life limits to be mandatory for all helicopters (piston and turbine) operated under all parts. We've thought that way for so long that we get to believing that the regulations require it.

 

But we are wrong.

 

And by "we", I mean Avbug.

 

 

Your "understanding" of the regulation is pathetic and poor, and I'll address this in more detail later when I have the time, but it's clear that you've neither the experience nor the background to properly address the topic and you're mixing your references quite badly (as well as misidentifying them.

 

Your client wasn't operating the helicopter with passengers for hire and legally exceeding component times.

 

You don't have a letter from the Administrator showing otherwise, else you'd have attempted to post it...but no such authorization exists.

[aeroscout]

I had a feeling that would go over like a lead balloon.

It seems to me that if you are talking about carrying passengers for hire (legally) you aren't talking about part 91 anymore. That is the part applying to passengers for hire (legally).

[Nearly Retired]

You can carry passengers for hire under Part-91.

[aeroscout]

You can carry passengers for hire under Part-91.

Yes, but then your aircraft must comply with parts of 135. That's the part I think that is in question in the thread, unless I have totally missed the whole point of the thread.

[Nearly Retired]

Negative. First you look in FAR part-119 to see if you need a certificate. 119.1(e) spells out the numerous types of commercial flying you can do without a 135 certificate. Like powerline patrol. You're still operating for-hire and may even be carrying a passenger, but it is not part-135. Or flight instruction, same thing.

[Nearly Retired]

Aviation is complicated. We motor along, thinking we know what the regulations say. Some of us, like Avbug have been doing things one way for so long that they get to thinking that IT'S THE LAW. Often it's not. Such is the case with helicopters and life-limited components.

 

I've already shown that 91.409(e ) is not mandatory, and that a helicopter operator can go by the INSPECTION criteria set forth in 91.409(a) and (b ) and forget about (e ). For (e ) to apply, BOTH clauses of the part have to be in effect. The first part of the paragraph does *not* exist separately and independantly of the second. This is simply not arguable.

 

Most people read that first part of (e ) and stop. They assume that's all there is to that. They forget the part that says, ...AND the aircraft is inspected by a method detailed in (f).

 

Which you don't have to do. Just go by (a) and (b ).

 

So. How then do we account for components that might reach their finite life limit in between the intervals of an Annual or 100-Hour Inspection? Well...this is where it gets complicated.

 

iChris gives us some references, and we thank him for that. But they do not completely answer the question. Part 43 spells out the approved maintenance procedures. However, part 43.16 only references inspections. An inspection could occur *after* a part has already "timed-out" as we say.

 

iChris also published an exerpt of the Bell 206 Maintenance Manual, but by itself the MM is not legally binding. (The manufacturers don't get to make law.) But the other letters/FAA interpretations are again vague. For there is no regulatory requirement to track flight time and life-limited parts when an aircraft is operated under FAR Part 91.

 

What about the TCDS, Bob? Ahh yes! What does the FAA say?

 

Any language on a TCDS, by itself, is not regulatory and is simply not enforceable. There must be a corresponding rule to make any language on the TCDS mandatory. For example, there is a mention of "operating limitations" on most TCDS. The corresponding rule for "operating limitations" is 14 CFR § 91.9(a) which states, "Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry." Without § 91.9, the TCDS requirement to comply with operating limitations would not be enforceable.

 

AHA! Now we turn to the RFM. Component finite life limits are mandatory if...that is...*IF* the Limitations Section of the RFM contains wording that life-limited components must be adhered to and not exceeded. Does the Limitations Section of the Bell 206 RFM contain such wording? Let's find out together! (Pardon me while I leave this page and pull up my electronic copy of the RFM.)

 

...Drumroll...

 

Nope! And neither did/does the FH1100 RFM.

 

So if you read the letters iChris linked, the FAA clearly...CLEARLY...has some issues with life-limited parts. Under Part 91 there is no regulatory requirement that their life must be tracked...UNLESS wording exists in the Limitations Section of the RFM. THEN it becomes the responsibility of the pilot/operator to track flight times. Other than that it comes down to the inspection process - which might mean a 100-Hour/Annual if the aircraft is not on an approved "progressive inspection" program.

 

Guys like Avbug can swear I'm wrong. They can stomp their feet and threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue. They labor under the misconceptions of "that's the way we've always interpreted it!" And they're just wrong.

 

However Avbug is right about one thing: I do not have a readily-accessible copy of the letter from the FAA to the FH1100 operator about finite-life parts. I worked for FH1100 from 2001 until 2004. Some of the things I had access to were proprietary and/or confidential. I do not know if I made a hard copy of that letter and kept it, or if I might have scanned it and filed it on some computer that is now defunct. It was a long time ago and those files are buried somewhere as they sometimes get over time.

 

But I'll tell you, when we saw this letter we were flabbergasted. We simply could not believe that the FAA would "allow" someone to exceed the life-limits set forth by the manufacturer. And they don't, really, *IF* the manufacturer follows all of the arcane and complex FARs.

 

And if your RFM Limitations Section does not specify that the finite life-limits of certain parts must not be exceeded...or wording to that effect...or if there isn't a placard in the cockpit advising the pilot of such...then you can fly blissfully along until your next 100-Hour or Annual. Period.

 

Is this a loophole? Yes! Absolutely. Do I like it? Nope. But it is what it is.

[Guest pokey]

how dare you challenge the all mighty avbut ! shame, shame , shame ! ! ! he has flown things that have not even been invented yet, and all over the solar system.

 

btw? i would NOT wanna be the one in court that killed someone because my tail rotor blade was "timed out" at the time of the accident.

 

oops,, that should have been a double TT sorry bug

 

edited to warn NR that avbut has the authority to ground your aircraft !

Edited September 23, 2014 by pokey

[aeroscout]

I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. When it comes to FARs and their correct application it isn't my first time either. And it probably won't be my last.

[Guest pokey]

I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. When it comes to FARs and their correct application it isn't my first time either. And it probably won't be my last.

 

likewise scout, however, this is just the internet, and some claim to be experts. I personally as an A&P and IA cannot legally ground a certificated aircraft, i know of no instance where it is legal to overfly a life limited item either. So? i can do an annual on my helicopter, ALL the life limited items have 5 minutes to time out,, i can legally fly it for another year? even if i fly 500 hours that year??

[Nearly Retired]

Pokey:

I can do an annual on my helicopter, ALL the life limited items have 5 minutes to time out,, i can legally fly it for another year? even if i fly 500 hours that year??

 

 

Pokey, the answer to your question is, "Yes." Under Part-91, if your ship passes its 100-Hour/Annual Inspection with no timed-out components, it's good-to-go for another year or 100 hours. You *could* fly the helicopter for 500 hours if you were not using it commercially. But if you were, then you'd presumably catch the "timed-out" components at the next 100-Hour.

 

UNLESS! Unless the Limitations Section of your RFM makes some mention of not overflying the service life of components, and/or unless the list of life-limited components is included in the Limitations Section of your RFM, or unless there is a placard in the cockpit which says that you must adhere to the service life limits as they are spelled-out.

 

The various maintenance, overhaul, structural repair and inspection manuals apply, obviously, to the maintenance of the aircraft as outlined in FAR Part 43 and generally occurs after-the-fact.

 

It is the RFM that concerns the operation of the aircraft in the here-and-now. The FAA approves certain data, and that part is binding. The rest is informational, nice-to-know stuff that is not regulatory nor mandatory.

 

Weird, no? I mean, you'd think that the FAA would specifically, by regulation prohibit life-limits from being overflown. But they do not. Common sense dictates that you not fly your tail rotor blades (or whatever) beyond their service life. But the helicopter will probably not spontaneously explode if you were dumb enough to do so.

 

And even if "somebody" insists that 91.409(e ) applies to *ALL* turbine-powered helicopters, where does that leave aircraft such as the Bell 47, Hiller 12, R-44, Enstrom and other piston-engine helicopters? What about the S-55's I fly in commercial work up in Washington State every summer? Do they not have some life-limited components as well? Of course they do! But doesn't 91.409(e ) apply to them? Well, no it doesn't. And neither does it apply to your Bell 206 if you ELECT to use the 100-Hour/Annual Inspection program.

 

Below is the cockpit placard for the Bell 206B. Bell has put placards like this in their ships since the model 47. But notice that although it mentions the operating limits specified in the RFM, it does not mention component life limits. Neither does the RFM.

 

[iChris]

iChris gives us some references, and we thank him for that. But they do not completely answer the question. Part 43 spells out the approved maintenance procedures. However, part 43.16 only references inspections. An inspection could occur *after* a part has already "timed-out" as we say.

 

iChris also published an exerpt of the Bell 206 Maintenance Manual, but by itself the MM is not legally binding. (The manufacturers don't get to make law.) But the other letters/FAA interpretations are again vague. For there is no regulatory requirement to track flight time and life-limited parts when an aircraft is operated under FAR Part 91.

 

There still seems to be some confusion about what’s mandatory with respect to life-limited parts.

 

Again, the key is to determine if the maintenance is mandatory or just a manufactures recommendation. If the maintenance is listed in the type design (as FAA approved), Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (which is FAA approved), or any other sections of maintenance manual approved by the Administrator, it’s mandatory. That also applies under part 91.

 

The mandate is in §43.16

 

§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).

 

§1.1 General definitions.

 

Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance.

 

In the case of the example above, the Bell 206 maintenance manual contains the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness/Airworthiness Limitations section (which is FAA approved), the replacement of life limit parts listed therein are mandatory even under part 91.

 

Lets look at four conductions that could determine if the maintenance is mandatory:

 

1. The maintenance is listed in the FAA approved Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

 

2. The maintenance is listed in any other sections of maintenance manual approved by the Administrator.

 

3. An Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates the maintenance.

 

4. the maintenance is listed in the type design (as FAA approved),

 

Yes, there are regulatory requirements for tracking time in service and life-limited parts under FAR Part 91.

 

91.417 Maintenance records.

 

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph of this section:

 

[ a ](2) Records containing the following information:

 

[ i ] The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.

 

[ ii ] The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

 

[ b ] (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

Edited September 24, 2014 by iChris

[iChris]

AHA! Now we turn to the RFM. Component finite life limits are mandatory if...that is...*IF* the Limitations Section of the RFM contains wording that life-limited components must be adhered to and not exceeded. Does the Limitations Section of the Bell 206 RFM contain such wording? Let's find out together! (Pardon me while I leave this page and pull up my electronic copy of the RFM.)

 

...Drumroll...

 

Nope! And neither did/does the FH1100 RFM.

 

And if your RFM Limitations Section does not specify that the finite life-limits of certain parts must not be exceeded...or wording to that effect...or if there isn't a placard in the cockpit advising the pilot of such...then you can fly blissfully along until your next 100-Hour or Annual. Period.

 

 

Your Pilot's Operating Handbook or FAA Approved Flight Manual, captioned "Limitations," is the section that complies with these regulations. That section is FAA approved and contains mandatory operating-type limitations; however, it does not contain mandatory maintenance-related airworthiness limitations.

 

Recall the Q&A from the FAA interpretation

 

Question:

 

The aircraft POH is approved by the FAA. So any inspection, overhaul and replacement times are therefore FAA approved. True/False?

 

Answer:

 

As discussed above, the premise of your question is not entirely correct, as only the "Limitations" section of your POH is FAA-approved and mandatory. That section does not contain an Airworthiness Limitations section, which would contain those types of intervals.

 

You're looking in the wrong place. It's in the FAA approved Airworthiness Limitations section of the Bell 206 maintenance manual under Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

 

If we look at the TCDS for the FH1100 it should tell us were to find maintenance instructions: REF: LINK TCDS - H2WE

 

NOTE 4b (page 8)

The Model FH-1100 helicopter(s) must be serviced, maintained in accordance with instructions specified in the Model FH-1100: Service Manual, Inspection Guide, Structural repair Manual, and Overhaul Manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for type design changes or other methods, techniques and practices acceptable to the Administrator.

 

NOTE 3 (page 6)

The retirement times of critical parts are listed in the following tables. These values of retirement of service life cannot be increased without FAA Engineering approval.

 

Tail rotor blades are not listed on that list. If there’re also not listed on any of the maintenance documents, in an FAA approved format, or part of an AD, the FH1100

tail rotor blades are on-conduction, not time-limited. However, if they ended up on a Service Letter or Bulletin, they could be life-limited under Part 135

 

 

If we look at the TCDS for the Bell 206 it too tell us were to find the information we need: REF Bell 206B TCDS - H2SW

 

NOTE 3 (page 16). The retirement times of critical parts are listed in the following table. These limitations may not be changed without FAA engineering approval.

 

MODEL 206A and 206B (Refer to FAA approved Chapter 4 of the Maintenance Manual, BHT - 206A/B-MM-1, for airworthiness lives of components applicable to the 206A and 206B)

 

Edited September 24, 2014 by iChris

[Guest pokey]

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/e04785a1d30b972f86257b4f0057406f/$FILE/4H12_Rev_31.pdf

 

there is copy of the tcds under which my 300 was type certificated, with all due respect to all other FAR's, i don't see any legal way of getting around the life limits published here.

 

I had a guy many years ago wanted me to build him a 300 with parts that had no records, or the ones that did have records ?---were timed out, he wanted me to put it in the experimental catagory for him ! what do ya think i did? ( and NO i didn't call avbug for advice)

[HighCountry]

Pokey, I'm guessing you missed your opportunity. Everyone knows the cheapest and most difficult thing to work with on any helicopter is the owner. I would have suggested (sarcasm ON) it sounded like a great plan but unfortunately you were just too busy and passed along the name of the only mechanic you know with the skills and knowledge to pull it off (sarcasm OFF)

[Nearly Retired]

iChris:

You're looking in the wrong place. It's in the FAA approved Airworthiness Limitations section of the Bell 206 maintenance manual under Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

 

 

I get that, Chris. But you seem to want it both ways - and you can't have it.

 

Yes, the person performing maintenance or an inspection on the aircraft under 43.16 must adhere to the limitations in the MM or instructions for continued airworthiness. Yup, no argument there, I agree. And if your mechanic discovers during his inspection a life-limited part that is timed-out he is obligated to remove/replace it.

 

But 43.16 doesn't affect us pilots. In between inspections all we have to go by is the RFM, which spells out how we operate the aircraft. The RFM does not indicate that we must adhere to anything but the limitations published therein. You'll agree that most flight manuals don't say anything about life-limited components...or anything in the maintenance manuals for that matter. (They can, but they typically don't.)

 

Again, I do not disagree that life-limited parts that have expired must be replaced upon inspection. I'm just saying...as the FAA has affirmed...that under Part-91, in between inspections you're on your own.

 

The maintenance records you mention (91.417) are just that...maintenance records. Historically...traditionally, mechanics make entries that comply with 91.417. These airframe and engine logbooks are typically not kept in the aircraft (for obvious reasons). Few pilots who operate aircraft under Part-91 keep daily aircraft flight logs. If nearly any pilot gets ramp-checked, he would be unable to demonstrate on the spot to the FAA Inspector that the aircraft was within its Annual or 100-Hour Inspection, much less the exact time until the next engine overhaul (or whatever). That information is not required to be kept in the aircraft.

 

This procedure seems to be acceptable to the FAA, for they have not come out and suggested an alternative. And they certainly must have performed enough ramp-checks to know how aircraft records are kept.

[iChris]

But 43.16 doesn't affect us pilots. In between inspections all we have to go by is the RFM, which spells out how we operate the aircraft. The RFM does not indicate that we must adhere to anything but the limitations published therein. You'll agree that most flight manuals don't say anything about life-limited components...or anything in the maintenance manuals for that matter. (They can, but they typically don't.)

 

Again, I do not disagree that life-limited parts that have expired must be replaced upon inspection. I'm just saying...as the FAA has affirmed...that under Part-91, in between inspections you're on your own.

 

The maintenance records you mention (91.417) are just that...maintenance records. Historically...traditionally, mechanics make entries that comply with 91.417. These airframe and engine logbooks are typically not kept in the aircraft (for obvious reasons). Few pilots who operate aircraft under Part-91 keep daily aircraft flight logs. If nearly any pilot gets ramp-checked, he would be unable to demonstrate on the spot to the FAA Inspector that the aircraft was within its Annual or 100-Hour Inspection, much less the exact time until the next engine overhaul (or whatever). That information is not required to be kept in the aircraft.

 

This procedure seems to be acceptable to the FAA, for they have not come out and suggested an alternative. And they certainly must have performed enough ramp-checks to know how aircraft records are kept.

 

The pilot in command is only responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.

 

§91.7 - Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

 

However, to prove a violation of section §91.7 the Administrator must show that the airman operated an aircraft that he knew or reasonably should have known was not airworthy.

 

Administrator v. Bernstein, NTSB Order No. EA-4120 (1994), and cases cited therein. Quoted, neither Mr. Adams nor Mr. Briglia ever told respondent that the airplane was unairworthy. Further, we agree with respondent that the signed maintenance entries he was given by Mr. Adams and Mr. Briglia could reasonably be relied upon as an indication that the airplane was safe to fly.

 

Therefore, the pilot relies upon the aircraft owner, company maintenance personnel, and airworthiness information provided by their company. The owner or company responsible for operating your aircraft hold the primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition.

 

§91.403 General.

 

[a] The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

 

§91.417 Maintenance records.

 

[a] Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph of this section:

[iChris]

 

I get that, Chris. But you seem to want it both ways - and you can't have it.

 

The maintenance records you mention (91.417) are just that...maintenance records. Historically...traditionally, mechanics make entries that comply with 91.417. These airframe and engine logbooks are typically not kept in the aircraft (for obvious reasons). Few pilots who operate aircraft under Part-91 keep daily aircraft flight logs. If nearly any pilot gets ramp-checked, he would be unable to demonstrate on the spot to the FAA Inspector that the aircraft was within its Annual or 100-Hour Inspection, much less the exact time until the next engine overhaul (or whatever). That information is not required to be kept in the aircraft.

 

This procedure seems to be acceptable to the FAA, for they have not come out and suggested an alternative. And they certainly must have performed enough ramp-checks to know how aircraft records are kept.

 

Any part that reaches its life-limited is required to be removed from service irrespective of any other inspection.

 

The FAA gets to have it both ways. If you’re “The Man”, pilot, owner, and operator, you’re responsible for it all, §91.7, §91.403, §91.417, etc. That between inspections argument and “the FAA never took action before” will not pass muster.

 

So, if on that next ramp inspection, they request an arrangement to see your maintenance record in the next 10 days, what you gonna do?

 

Then at the end of the 10 days, when you can’t produce the required records, what you gonna do when they come for you?

 

§91.417 Maintenance records.

 

[c] The owner or operator shall make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In addition, the owner or operator shall present Form 337 described in paragraph (d) of this section for inspection upon request of any law enforcement officer.

 

See, e.g., Administrator v. Wang, NTSB Order EA-3264 (1991). In our judgment, so long as the request itself is reasonable, in the sense that compliance presents no undue or inappropriate burden, the Administrator is not obligated to explain or establish why he wants or should be permitted to see the logbooks or other records he is authorized to review under regulations that impose no restrictions related to his motives.

 

See Administrator v. Chaffin, 5 NTSB 1341, 1343 (1986) The Board agrees with the Administrator's argument that an airman, upon reasonable request, does not have the liberty to decide whether to comply with the inspector's request to see his personal logbook."). There is no showing here that the Administrator's written request for production of the logbooks within 10 days for inspection was unreasonable.

 

http://youtu.be/NG2ci9CyiwI

Edited September 25, 2014 by iChris

[rotormatic1]

Here is the rule that requires an owner/operator of an aircraft to comply with replacing life limited parts associated with an FAA approved airworthiness limitation between inspections:

 

91.403c

 

No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times have been complied with.

 

(rule edited for clarity)

Edited September 26, 2014 by rotormatic1

[Guest pokey]

 

91.403c

 

No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times have been complied with.

 

 

that is exactly what most of us have been trying to say

 

and don't forget how that aircraft was originally certified