Where AD compliance is difficult...

[PilotDAR]

I was recently peripheral to a situation with an aircraft and a new AD (the specifics are not pivotal to the discussion). The AD requires a repeat visual inspection for cracking before terminating action to install a doubler to prevent the cracking. THe challenge is that in one of the possible factory configurations of the aircraft, the area to be inspected is pretty well concealed by a doubler. I'm not sure why the author of the AD did not figure this out before issuing it!

The diligent maintainer I am working with noticed this, and I was easily able to verify his observation. He had contacted the Canadian distributor for the aircraft, requesting clarification of the inspection to be accomplished. In an effort to assist the maintainer, the distributor themselves replied with a reworked picture of the area, essentially saying "just inspect here", amounting to less than 5% of the subject area. I confirmed the maintainer's suspicion that this is not acceptable. The well meaning distributor should not have provided the information, and the maintainer was wise to not accept it.

AD's are approved data, and only the authority can alter or clarify them outside their original scope. The distributor has no role in this process, other than perhaps to relay to the manufacturer that the AD is very poorly worded, and the FAA should be told to have another go at it. In the mean time, the AD cannot be complied with as written for that configuration aircraft, and those needing to may have to seek an alternate means of compliance - but they must seek it through the authority, not the manufacturer or distributor. If it were only a Service Bulletin, the manufacturer could tweak it, but once it becomes an AD, it's kinda like and STC, any change must be approved.

[robertw]

The diligent maintainer I am working with noticed this, and I was easily able to verify his observation. He had contacted the Canadian distributor for the aircraft, requesting clarification of the inspection to be accomplished. In an effort to assist the maintainer, the distributor themselves replied with a reworked picture of the area, essentially saying "just inspect here", amounting to less than 5% of the subject area.

Why did your fellow contact the distributor if he had questions about the AD? Shouldn't that have been directed at the issuing regulator? It seems as though he created his own confusion by not getting clarification from the appropriate authority. At the end of all FAA AD's there is a contact person listed for inquiries. I'm not trying to be a negative nelly here, but this seems like a cut and dry example of when an AMOC would need to be required.

[NeverBlue]

 If it were only a Service Bulletin, the manufacturer could tweak it, but once it becomes an AD, it's kinda like and STC, any change must be approved. 

See what you're saying but to play devil's advocate,

AD's are usually produced in consultation with the Manufacture. In a lot of cases they are SBs and the AD just makes them kind of law.
But suppose an SB came out after the AD regarding an inspection in the same area. Would the AD still be the only approved data?
I think that's a no.

[CID]

Neverblue, that really wasn't a helpful description of ADs and service bulletins. An AD contains actions that are required to maintain your C of A. If you fly your airplane with outstanding AD actions, you are breaking the law, not "kind of" breaking the law.

The airworthiness actions prescribed by an AD can be supplied in a service bulletin. An SB is just a convenient vehicle for the responsible approval holder.

If you have a conflict between and AD and an SB or other modification, it must be resolved with the responsible authority. In some cases, an alternate means of complying with the AD must be formulated.

robertw, I don't think PilotDAR is necessarily saying that the mechanic in this case did the right thing. What he's saying is that the distributed did the wrong thing and it had the potential to just make things worse.

[NeverBlue]

Holy Cow you're unbelievable!

Look...I simply asked the question. I was not attempting to describe anything.

I know what a bloody AD is...and I know what a bloddy SB is for Christ sake you arrogant man.

[robertw]

robertw, I don't think PilotDAR is necessarily saying that the mechanic in this case did the right thing. What he's saying is that the distributed did the wrong thing and it had the potential to just make things worse.

Agreed. The distributor should not have taken it upon themselves to "clarify" how to proceed. The mechanic created his own problem by not going directly to the FAA.

[robertw]

See what you're saying but to play devil's advocate,

AD's are usually produced in consultation with the Manufacture. In a lot of cases they are SBs and the AD just makes them kind of law.
But suppose an SB came out after the AD regarding an inspection in the same area. Would the AD still be the only approved data?
I think that's a no.

I think you are wrong on this. The definition for "Approved Data" is this:

“approved data” - includes:

(a) type certificates, supplemental type certificates, part design approvals, Canadian technical standard order (CAN-TSO) design approvals or repair design approvals, including equivalent foreign documents which have undergone the type design examination process set-out in Subpart 521 of the CARs or are otherwise accepted in Canada; and
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

(b) other drawings and methods approved by the Minister or a delegate in conformity with paragraph 4.2(o) and subsection 4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act. (données approuvées)
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

An SB is not approved data and neither is an AD. If an SB comes out after an AD is issued, you'd be obligated by law to comply with the AD, but not the SB. If the SB addressed the AD, you could request that the regulator allow the SB be considered as an AMOC to the AD.

[KISS_MY_TCAS]

NeverBlue, way to look like an ass. It's reassuring to see not only your knowledge, but also your sanity become questionable in a public forum. Kind of a shame you claim to be involved in an industry driven by safety, mental illness is no joking matter. Good employers have employee assistance programs for this kind of thing, I hope you are fortunate enough to be employed by such a place and are offered an opportunity for assistance anonymously and at your employers expense, they take that on to relieve the burden on their employees. Good luck, I hope you find the help you need.

[Troubleshot]

Look...I simply asked the question. I was not attempting to describe anything.

"Would the AD still be the only approved data?
I think that's a no."

Yeah.... you only asked one question, then answered it yourself the next line down in the same post. Based on your history at Avcanada nobody here is gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

I guess you can just throw in your usual disclaimer of "I know what I meant"

[PilotDAR]

unbelievable

There are times I wonder why I bother to post. Happily, I choose the people I work with in every case.

[DonutHole]

 If it were only a Service Bulletin, the manufacturer could tweak it, but once it becomes an AD, it's kinda like and STC, any change must be approved. 

See what you're saying but to play devil's advocate,

AD's are usually produced in consultation with the Manufacture. In a lot of cases they are SBs and the AD just makes them kind of law.
But suppose an SB came out after the AD regarding an inspection in the same area. Would the AD still be the only approved data?
I think that's a no.

I've seen a few airworthiness directives that specify the sb they are to be carried out in accordance with.

Depending on how your mcm is written you might not necessarily need to do some services bulletins, but airworthiness directives are non negotiable.

[NeverBlue]

Ok this was exactly the scenario.

Avionics manufacturer made a SB and it was covered under warranty. Units within a S/N range were affected.
SB became an A/D
Manufacturer became aware that certain S/N units they were covering under warranty did not require the SB because the change had been made during production.
A new SB was then published and sent to repair centers and it was a mandatory SB.
AD was not changed right away.

And SBs are specified data geniuses

I don't care what anyone believes

I am an AME for 30 years.......

[NeverBlue]

...and know body has to do an AD if they choose not to.

Chew on that one...Mr law maker...

That's like saying it's law to have to have a driver's licence moron...

[CID]

It's laughable that someone who uses the term "genius" in sarcastic derogatory terms goes on to use "moron" in poorly spelled responses. So you know "know body"? (Genius)

But I digress....

The definition of the term "mandatory service bulletin" really depends on the origin. In EASA circles, the guidance states "Only SBs related to ADs should be labelled 'mandatory' by the DAH." So if Airbus issues a mandatory service bulletin, it will be related to an AD.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... s_PUBL.pdf

The US treats it a bit differently. In their guidance they state "Compliance with an SB, or a portion of an SB, that is IBR’d in an AD is mandatory." They make no mention of "mandatory service bulletins".

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... 0-176A.pdf

Canada generally adopts the FAA terminology and has applied it very consistently over the years. There is some interesting infomration that I think you should read however Neverblue:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 5-2632.htm

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... h-2464.htm

The TCCA CAWIS site has some pretty intelligent information on the title page as well:

"If in doubt about the existence or applicability of any AD, please consult your local TC Inspector, or TC Aircraft Certification, Continuing Airworthiness Division in Ottawa (cawwebfeedback@tc.gc.ca)."

I'm not going to challenge your claim that you've been an AME for 30 years because just like there are good and bad hockey players there are good and bad AMEs so experience isn't the only yard stick in your ability to understand and disseminate information. What I will say Neverblue is that you have consistently demonstrated a very serious lack of understanding of fundamental principles and I'll continue to reply to your misinformation.

I'll leave you since I'm sure you're just itching to send me another profanity laced private message as you foam at the mouth.

Have a nice weekend.

[PilotDAR]

...and know body has to do an AD if they choose not to.

It is true that nobody has to do an AD if they choose not to [on a certified aircraft].

However, if an AD is outstanding on a certified aircraft, the aircraft is not airworthy, so aside from a flight permit being issued, flying that plane would be unlawful. This is the same as the previously discussed (well, argued) point that even maintenance is not required. You can leave an airplane to sit and rot, unmaintained and otherwise not compliant - it's when you fly it that way you must assure it is compliant.

With the exception of three poorly worded or formulated AD's of the more distant past which come to mind, I otherwise consider AD compliance to simply be wise, let alone the legal implications. Wasn't it Bader who said: "Regulation is for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools".....

I don't care what anyone believes

... is apparent, so what is your interest in participating in these discussions?

[hoptwoit]

...and know body has to do an AD if they choose not to.

Chew on that one...Mr law maker...

That's like saying it's law to have to have a driver's licence moron...

Or need a AME license to sign a maintenance release.. HHmmm I wonder

[NeverBlue]

"If in doubt about the existence or applicability of any AD, please consult your local TC Inspector, or TC Aircraft Certification, Continuing Airworthiness Division in Ottawa 

Why would you continue to be so patronizing and post that!

Yet leave the very important paragraph before out?

To preclude operation of an aircraft in an unairworthy condition, owners of Canadian registered aircraft should also ensure that they receive all available continuing airworthiness information directly from the manufacturer.

You're just a googler CID...

[NeverBlue]

AD's are approved data, and only the authority can alter or clarify them

Alter but Clarify??

Whoa you're full of yourself...

It's a simple inspection...the manufacture told you what to do and you still disagree...it's an INSPECTION.
So what the doubler is there...inspect the area...

And if you think that the manufacturer only has input into the "wording" of an AD...well. ..OMG

[GyvAir]

The possibility that the above poster may actually be an AME with ACA of any scope scares me a little.

[PilotDAR]

The possibility that the above poster may actually be an AME with ACA of any scope scares me a little.

Yes, that thought has occurred to me as well. I have had a role many times in evaluating people for employment as potential pilots or maintainers in our industry. The characteristic which pops up the most red flags for me will be a person who announces they already know what they need to about a task, and openly resists participating in a discussion or recurrent training, whose outcome would be a sharing and refreshing of knowledge. I might remind them that someone has done this before, and maybe written it down, perhaps even as a CAR regulation or standard, or even just an ICA... But that person already knows it all, so will not go back to read an refresh their knowledge, or chirps back the colleague.

I have certainly hired people in aviation who knew more about what they were hired to do than I did, and it was a pleasure to discuss/co train/check out with them, as we both learned something, and more important were both more confident in the knowledge of the other person, because we had shared it, and seen the willingness to learn.

The people who declare that they already know, don't need training, or to refer to the written reference material are the ones who worry me most, and do not get my support when it comes to selection for the next job....

This whole thread was inspired because a very experienced maintainer was unsure about a maintenance task, and asked my opinion. When I considered his observations, I entirely agreed with him, and was able to add some relevant knowledge, based upon a previous experience I had had. That maintainer is just my kind of person, seeking more knowledge, so his job is well done, and eager to collaborate with his colleagues....