Source: http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Archives/2005_03_01_index.shtml
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 01:12:43
Document Index: 539335750

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 145', 'art 145', '§33', '§ 21', 'art 142', 'art 142', 'art 142', 'art 142', 'art 142', 'art 142', 'art 91']

New Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic Programs On The Horizon
In a Notice of policy change published in the Federal Register today, the FAA has decided that it will "accept for approval new Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic (FIRC) training course outlines that meet the standards set forth in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-83E, Nationally Scheduled Federal Aviation Administration Approved Industry-Conducted Flight Instructor Refresher Clinics." Although the notice states that it "rescinds the Federal Register notice (FR Doc. 04-6149) issued March 11, 2004", this is an incorrect citation since FR Doc. 04-6149 is actually a citation to a federal register page dated February 10, 2004. The actual Notice of Policy Change that this notice rescinds appeared in the Federal Register on March 19, 2004 and is available here. (That notice stated that after April 30, 2004, the FAA's General Aviation And Commercial Division, AFS-800, would no longer grant any new FIRC approvals and that it would only consider those FIRC providers holding a current FAA approval for renewal).
The current Notice recommends that training providers interested in developing new FIRC programs should contact the AFS-800 organization for further details concerning the approval process. They should also familiarize themselves with the contents of Advisory Circular (AC) 61-83E, and also Volumes 1-3 of the FAA/Industry Training Standards (FITS) and System Safety training documents located here. These documents provide detailed information regarding preparing and obtaining approval of FIRC programs.
This change of policy will be good for the industry because it will allow additional training providers to develop FIRC programs, making them more readiliy available to flight instructors throughout the country. Not to mention, competition should positively affect the pricing for FIRC programs. Since the programs still need to be approved by the FAA, the quality of the programs will at a minimum have to meet the FAA's requirements. This should reduce the likelihood of some training provider running an inadequate program out of his or her garage.
If you would like more information regarding this policy change, contact Mike Brown, Certification and Flight Training Branch, AFS-840, FAA, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7653; fax (202) 267-5094; or e-mail michael.w.brown@faa.gov.
Advanced Qualification Program To Become Incorporated Into FAR Part 121
The FAA today published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to codify the requirements of the Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). The AQP provides a regulatory alternative program for airlines that seek more flexibility in training than the traditional training program allows. The AQP is currently embodied in SFAR 58 which expires on October 2, 2005. The FAA is now proposing to incorporate the requirements of SFAR No. 58 into Part 121.
The NPRMcontains a history of the AQP and also a detailed explanation of any changes to the AQP and what will become Subpart Y (Sec. Sec. 121.901-121.925) to Part 121. Comments are due on or before April 29, 2005 and may be submitted electronically via the DOT Docket Web Site or the Government-wide Rulemaking Web Site; via U.S. Mail: Docket Management; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001; via Fax: 1-202-493-2251; or via Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC.
FAA Issues Final Noise Rule For Grand Canyon National Park
The FAA today published its Final Rule regarding "Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park". The final rule classifies aircraft used in commercial sightseeing flight operations over Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) by the noise they produce. The FAA felt the rule was "necessary to establish reasonably achievable requirements for aircraft operating in the GCNP to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology." The final rule refers to the designation as "GCNP quiet aircraft technology" rather than the earlier "quiet technology" in order to clarify that the scope of the final rule is limited to aircraft operating in the GCNP.
The final rule discusses and to some extent incorporates the comments received by the FAA. It also includes the FAA's response to those comments. The final rule is effective today. For more information regarding the final rule, you can contact Thomas L. Connor; (AEE-100); Office of Environment and Energy; Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-8933.
GAO Finds TSA's Secure Flight Program Incomplete
This isn't really much of a surprise in light of some of the recent publicity regarding the TSA's use of passenger information. But I guess now it is official. The GA0's report, titled "Aviation Security: Secure Flight Development and Testing Under Way, but Risks Should Be Managed as System Is Further Developed" found that the TSA's efforts on the Secure Flight program were incomplete and that it still needed to complete work in the areas of privacy protections, accuracy of data, oversight, cost and safeguards to ensure the system won't be abused or accessed by unauthorized people. The GAO recommended that TSA "take several actions to mange risks associated with Secure Flight’s development, including (1) finalizing requirements and test plans, privacy and redress requirements, and program cost estimates; and (2) establishing plans to achieve connectivity to obtain data, and performance goals and measures." For more detailed information, you should read the 85 page report.
Effective Date Of Part 145 Repair Station Training Rule Delayed
The FAA today published notice delaying the effective date of its controversial rewrite of Part 145 requiring that repair stations have an approved training program. The original effective date was April 5, 2005. The effective date of the final rule is now April 6, 2006. The FAA wanted to receive and review more comments on its proposed guidance material for repair stations to use in developing their training programs. Also, repair stations need more time between when the guidance material is finalized and the effective date of the final rule.
On a side note, the FAA also indicates that the delay will work to the benefit of repair stations who also approved under European Commission rules to work on European-registered aircraft. The European Aviation Safety Agency now requires those repair stations to meet the repair station manual supplement requirements of EC 2042. According to the FAA, "implementing the Sec. 145.163 training program and EASA supplement to repair station manuals by April 6, 2005 would impose a significant burden on the repair station industry as well as the FAA."
For further information regarding the delay or the final rule, contact Mr. Herbert E. Daniel, Aircraft Maintenance Division, General Aviation and Repair Station Branch (AFS-340), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile (202) 267-5115; e-mail Herbert.E.Daniel@faa.gov or by telephone at (202) 267-3109; or Mr. Dan Bachelder, AFS-340, at the address or facsimile listed above or e-mail Dan.Bachelder@faa.gov or by telephone at (202) 267-7027.
DHS Inspector General Report Critical Of TSA Available Online
The DHS inspector general report issued March 25, 2005 criticizing the TSA for its handling of airline passenger information is available online. To read the report, click here. The report is very detailed and in addition to criticizing the "misinformation" disseminated by the TSA in response to privacy concerns, it also provides 9 recommendations for the TSA to implement to address its shortcomings. It will be interesting to see how the TSA responds to the criticism contained in the report and whether it is able to successfully adopt the recommendations as it proceeds with testing of its Secure Flight program.
TSA "Misinformed" Public About Airline Passenger Data
This AP article is interesting. Yesterday the a Department of Homeland Security inspector general released a report indicating that the TSA had "misinformed" individuals, the public and congress in 2003 and 2004 regarding its obtaining passenger data for use in developing its airline passenger screening programs (CAPPS II and, presumably, Secure Flight). The report states that "TSA officials made inaccurate statements regarding these transfers that undermined public trust in the agency” and that “[t]hese misstatements were apparently not meant to mischaracterize known facts. Instead, they were premised on an incomplete understanding of the underlying facts".
The report identifies a number of the instances in which the TSA provided "misinformation," but it sugar-coats its findings by stopping just short of saying that TSA lied. However, it appears to me from the instances cited that lying is exactly what the TSA did, whether intentional or unintentional. Unfortunately, the revelations contained in this report can only make things more difficult for the TSA in obtaining GAO approval for its Secure Flight program. As I indicated in my March 23, 2005 post, according to the GAO this approval is quite a ways off.
Final And Proposed Rules On Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Airport Published By DOT
Yesterday the DOT published a Notice of Final Rule and Proposed Rule regarding participation by disadvantaged business enterprises in airport concessions. The rule "revises and updates the Department's regulation concerning participation by airport concessionaire disadvantaged business enterprises (ACDBEs) in the concessions activities of airports receiving Federal financial assistance from the airport improvement program (AIP) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)." It also makes the ACDBE concessions rule parallel to the DOT's DBE regulation for Federally-assisted contracts.
In developing the final rule, the DOT focused on issues such as small business size standards, personal net worth standards, counting of ACDBE participation by car rental companies, and the goal-setting process. The Notice provides a detailed analysis of the sections affected by the revisions, comments received to the revisions, explanations of the revisions, the rationale for each revision and the intent for how the revisions should be interpreted and implemented.
The rule is effective April 21, 2005. If you would like further information after reviewing the rule, contact Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590, phone numbers (202) 366-9310 (voice), (202) 366-9313 (fax), (202) 755-7687 (TTY), bob.ashby@ost.dot.gov (e-mail); and Michael Freilich, National External Program Manager, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Phone numbers 202-267-7551 (voice), 202-267-5565 (fax).
TSA To Test Secure Flight In August With Two Undisclosed Airlines
An Article in the Business Travel News indicates that the TSA intends to roll out its Secure Flight program this August using two undisclosed airlines. It isn't clear whether this will be operational testing or whether the TSA is still in the process of confirming viability of the program. Critics abound and are raising the same privacy and oversight issues that sank the CAPPS II ship. However, before the system can be implemented on a wide scale basis, the Government Accountability Office still needs to sign off. According to GAO, such an approval appears to be a ways off.
NTSB Publishes First Issue Of Journal Of Accident Investigation
The NTSB has begun publishing its Journal of Accident Investigation beginning with the Winter, 2005 Edition. The Journal will be published twice each year and is intended to "promote transportation safety through science". The Board's objective is "to provide the public an exchange of ideas and information developed through NTSB's accident investigations in all modes of transportation. The first issue contains a number of aviation related articles including articles by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. Don Young (R-AL), and various NTSB staff members and investigators.
FAA Issues Guidance Material for 14 CFR 33.75
The FAA today published a Notice of Issuance of Advisory Circular for Advisory Circular (AC) 33.75-1, Guidance Material for 14 CFR 33.75, Safety Analysis. The AC sets forth acceptable methods of compliance with the safety analysis requirements of 14 CFR 33.75 relating to turbine aircraft engines. Specifically, 14 CFR 33.75 requires that "any probable malfunction or any probable single or multiple failure, or any probable improper operation of the engine will not cause the engine to: (a) Catch fire; (b) Burst (release hazardous fragments through the engine case); (c) Generate loads greater than those ultimate loads specified in §33.23(a); or (d) Lose the capability of being shut down."
As with other AC's, the "material is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a regulation. It describes acceptable means, but not the only means, for demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations." The AC was issued by the Engine and Propeller Directorate, ANE-100, on March 4, 2005. If you have questions regarding the AC, you can contact Ann Azevedo at the FAA, ANE-104, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7117; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail:Ann.Azevedo@faa.gov.
Final Meeting On Draft Order 8110.RC Scheduled
In a Notice of Public Meeting published today, the FAA has scheduled the third and final informational meeting to "discuss the proposed policy (Draft Order 8110.RC) that the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service personnel, Flight Standards Service Personnel, persons designated by the Administrator, and organizations associated with the certification process required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) will use during the certification evaluation of restricted category aircraft." Order 8110.RC "details the responsibilities and procedures for certification of restricted category aircraft under 14 CFR § 21.25, and supplements Orders 8110.4 (Type Certification), 8120.2 (Production Approvals and Certificate Management Procedures), and 8130.2 (Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products)." In layman's terms, the Order prescribes what you need to do to certify a restricted category aircraft.
The meeting will be held at the Orlando Florida's Flight Standards District Office, located at 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 500, Orlando, Florida from 9am to Noon on Thursday April 7, 2005. Notes from the previous meeting are available here. For more information, contact Mr. Graham Long, AIR-110, Room 815, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3715, FAX: (202) 237-5340, or e-mail: 9-awa-air110-gn12@faa.gov.
Deadline For European Union Mandatory Minimum Liability Limits Approaching
On April 29, 2005, European Union Regulation 785/2004 will go into effect. The new regulation requires commercial and non-commercial aircraft operators to carry liability insurance with the minimum liability limits set forth in the regulation. The liability minimums are based upon an aircraft's Maximum Gross Take Off Weight ("MGTOW"). The required insurance includes liability to third-parties (including war and terrorism coverage), passengers, baggage and cargo.
At this point, it is unclear whether this coverage will be available on an annual basis or a per trip basis. However, what is clear is that aircraft operators traveling to, from, into and over European Union member countries without the minimum insurance will be subject to sanction. The regulation states that sanctions shall be "effective, proportional and dissuasive" and can include loss of license, refusal of permission to land and possibly criminal prosecution.
If you intend to fly to, from, into or over any European Union states after April 29, 2005, make sure you have the minimum liability limits required by the regulation and carry proof of this insurance with you on the aircraft.
Air Carriers Have 90 Days To Confirm Part 142 Training Is Consistent With Ops Manual
On February 18, 2005 the FAA issued Notice N 8000.294 that requires air carriers, air operators and fractional ownership programs to review the training provided to the operator by Part 142 training centers to confirm that all training, testing and checking performed by the Part 142 training center are approved by the operator's principal operations inspector (POI) and meet all elements of the operator's approved training program.
Apparently the FAA believes that some operators are relying upon the training center's approved course to meet the operator's training requirements without making sure that the two are consistent. The FAA is giving operators 90 days within which to perform a "self-audit" to review both the Part 142 course and the operator's training requirements to verify that the Part 142 course is in fact consistent with and meets the operator's training requirements. If the self-audit is performed before May 29, 2005 and discrepancies are found, operators will have the opportunity to take appropriate corrective action under HBAT 94-01A, Voluntary Self Disclosure.
The Notice was issued as guidance for POI's who have authorized operators to use Part 142 courses to meet the operator's training requirments. The Notice contains a series of scenarios with questions and answers and includes supporting information and sample forms that will be used by POIs, Training Center Program Managers ("TCPMs"), as well as operators and fractional program managers. It will be incorporated into FAA Order 8700.1, General Aviation Inspector's Handbook and FAA Order 8400.10, Air Transportation Operations Inspector's Handbook
Depending upon the POI, this may be a "non-issue" or it may be a big issue for the operator. Regardless, operators should obtain a copy of the Notice and review it in conjunction with the operator's review of the 142 course and the operator's respective training requirements.
If you have any questions as this notice relates to general aviation, contact the General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800 at (202) 267-8212. Any questions pertaining to Part 91 subpart K and air carrier operations should be directed to the Air Transportation Division, Training Branch, AFS-210 at (202) 267-8166.
Bill Introduced To Amend Airport Grant Assurance To Require 75-Year Long Term Lease
On March 3, 2005, U.S. Representative Stevan Pearce introduced H.R. 1117 to amend the airport improvement program grant assurances to require that an airport operator granting a lease for hangar construction agree to a 75-year long term lease. H.R. 1117 was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Back in August, 2004, the FAA published a notice to add the assurance requiring that an airport operator who agrees to allow an aircraft owner to construct a hangar will grant the aircraft owner a long-term lease for the hangar that is subject to such terms and conditions on the hangar as the airport owner or operator may impose. The amendment proposed in H.R. 1117 will benefit a hangar owner by giving him or her a longer period of time within which to amortize and recoup the investment in the hangar.
If this legislation passes, this could potentially obligate an airport operator to keep the airport open longer than the current 20-year assurance. To avoid this effect, the airport operator would probably need to have additional language in the lease allowing for earlier termination. However, since this would clearly be contrary to the 75-year language, it would be interesting to see whether such language could be enforced.
For information on the status of H.R. 1117 click here.
FAA Issues Policy For Propeller Ice Protection Equipment
The FAA today published a Notice of Issuance in the Federal Register for its Policy For Propeller Ice Protection Equipment. "The policy clarifies configuration and quality control responsibilities for certificate holders and parts suppliers involved with propeller ice protection systems on type certificated products" and provides guidance for compliance with FAR's 21, 23, 25 and 35.
The policy "does not constitute a new regulation or create a 'binding norm'" and it does not contain the only method of compliance with the applicable FAR's. However, if an applicant’s proposed method of compliance differs from this policy, the applicant will need to coordinate with the Engine & Propeller Directorate Standards Office, ANE-110, through the issue paper process or equivalent.
The policy was issued by the FAA on March 2, 2005. If you would like more information on the policy you can contact Jay Turnberg, FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail jay.turnberg@faa.gov; telephone (781) 238- 7116; fax: (781) 238-7199.
Amazing What An Airman Will Say On A Medical Application
This comes directly from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). In the Certification Update section of the latest edition of the Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin, Dr. Warren Silberman, federal air surgeon, responds to an inquiry regarding an airman's disclosure of marijuana during his initial 2nd class medical application. According to the inquiry, the airman "related that he worked for a high-level government group that requires him to use illegal drugs. He told the AME that he could not say what he does or where he works."
The medical application was deferred to Oklahoma City where Dr. Silberman indicated that "I told our people to deny the airman for the illegal drug use. When the AME went back and told Mr. Hoover that he was going to defer, the airman threatened legal action, but the AME held fast and did the right thing! When an airman gives an AME their medical history, they must be completely forthright. You would think that someone could come up with a more believable story of his drug use!"
It amazes me that someone would actually think they could pull this off! Especially without any backup or documentation. I could see someone using marijuana for medicinal purposes and being able to at least present medical documentation from the medical provider (even though I doubt that the medical would be issued in that case either). Just hard to believe that someone wouldn't know better than that. Oh well.
Failure To Disclose Multiple Driver's License Suspensions On Medical Applications Supports Intentional Falsification Violation
The NTSB recently upheld the revocation of an airman's airline transport pilot and medical certificates based on his falsification of three applications for medical certificates. In Administrator v. Reynolds the airman failed to disclose 11 driver's license suspensions that occurred over the course of his applying for three separate first class medical certificates. On each medical application, in response to Question 18.v, regarding past administrative actions, which “resulted in the denial, suspension, cancellation, or revocation of driving privileges…”, the airman answered in the negative.
The FAA sought and was granted emergency revocation of the airman's ATP and medical certificates. The emergency revocation was upheld by an ALJ after hearing. On appeal, the NTSB Board affirmed the revocations. In analyzing the case, the Board looked at three factors including (1) the falsity of the statements; (2) the materiality of the statements; and (3) whether the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity. The Board held that the airman's negative answer and his failures to disclose the driver's license suspensions, some of which also resulted in jail time for the airman, were false, material and made intentionally.
This case illustrates that Question 18.v does not just inquire regarding administrative motor vehicle actions relating to drugs or alcohol. It includes "any" administrative actions that result in denial, suspension, cancellation or revocation of driving privileges. If you fail to disclose an administrative action and the FAA finds out, you too could face recovation of your certificates.
AME Inaccuracies Can Cause Airmen Problems
The Spring 2004 Edition of The Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin, contains an article titled Airman Medical History Errors that addresses the problems that can arise when an AME incorrectly transcribes an airman's medical history from the medical application to the internet-based record which is sent to the FAA. Apparently some AME's or their staff have been paraphrasing the history and in the process have transmitted the information inaccurately. Unfortunately for those airmen, the misinformation has caused them unnecessary problems.
In one instance, the airman disclosed on his medical application that he attended some type of training for a traffic stop, in lieu of convictions. However, the AME transmitted information about a “DUI” as his complete statement. In fact, the airman had not been convicted of a DUI. Needless to say, the airman was a bit unhappy with the AME when he received the subsequent inquiries from the FAA regarding his failure to report the DUI.
The article also discussed the problem that would be created if the reverse occurred and an airman-­provided history of a DUI was changed to minimize the history. If the FAA subsequently discovered the DUI through the national database it checks for history of alcohol-related convictions on all applicants, the airman could be accused of falsification of the history when the database check reveals an alcohol incident that the FAA believes was not disclosed on the medical application.
The FAA's solution to this problem is that "[a]ll entries by the airman on the FAA Form 8500-8 must be transcribed to the Internet-based record precisely as the airman wrote them. The AME has sufficient opportunity to request the airman to expand on or to modify this written history when reviewing the form with the airman." If this rule is followed, this type of problem should be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.
Can you do anything to protect yourself from this situation? Absolutely! First off, print legibly on your medical application so the AME can read your writing and will then be able to accurately transcribe the information to the internet-based record. Second, always request a copy of your application before you leave the AME's office. That way, you have immediate proof you can produce should this type of error ever occur and you receive the inevitable inquiries from the FAA.
FAA Accepts ASTM International Committee F37 Consensus Standards For Certification Of Light Sport Aircraft
In a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register today the FAA is requesting comments on its acceptance of the ASTM International Committee F37 standards for certification of aircraft under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. The Notice lists the fifteen standards states that "[a]ny light-sport aircraft issued a special light-sport airworthiness certificate, which has been designed, manufactured, operated and maintained, in accordance with these consensus standards provides the public with the appropriate level of safety established under the regulations."
It should be noted that the consensus standards are copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 and more information regarding these standards may be obtained by contacting ASTM at this address, or at (610) 832-9585 (phone), (610) 832-9555 (fax), through service@astm.org (e-mail), or through the ASTM Web site.
Comments must be received by the FAA on or before May 2, 2005 and may be sent via U.S. mail to: Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Programs and Procedures Branch, ACE-114, Attention: Larry Werth, Room 301, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or via e-mail to: Comments-on-LSA-Standard@faa.gov. All comments must be marked: "Consensus Standards Comments", and must specify the standard being addressed by ASTM designation and title.
For more information you can contact Larry Werth, Light-Sport Aircraft Program Manager, Programs and Procedures Branch (ACE-114), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4147; e-mail: larry.werth@faa.gov.
FAA Publishes List Of NDB Approaches It Is Proposing To Cancel
The FAA today published a Notice containing the list of NDB approaches it is proposing to cancel. Based upon the public demand for WAAS capable RNAV procedures, the FAA "has identified NDB procedures for cancellation at runway ends that are also served by an RNAV procedure and a second ground-based procedure (i.e., a ground-based procedure other than the NDB)." The FAA would then devote the resources currently used to maintain these NDB procedures to the development of new WAAS capable RNAV procedures in the NAS.
From an economic efficiency standpoint, this Notice makes some sense. As long as suitable instrument approaches are still available at an airport I wouldn't think this would cause too much of a problem. Especially in light of the proliferation of GPS avionics. I know that given the choice between flying an NDB approach or a GPS approach, I would fly the GPS approach any day. The more interesting question is whether the resources saved from the cancelled approaches will actually be used to expand the GPS/WAAS availability or whether this is in actuality just a budget cutting measure.
Comments to this Notice are due on or before April 4, 2005 and should be sent to the following mailing address: DOT/FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, National Flight Procedures Office, PO Box 25082, Building 5 (ANF-1), Room 101, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 or physical address for overnight submissions as follows: DOT/FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 S. MacArthur, Building 5 (ANF-1), Room 101, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to debra.e.sullivan@faa.gov. You may also contact Ms. Sullivan for further information at (405) 954-3027.
NTSB Affirms Pilot's Duty To Confirm Aircraft Logbook Entries After Maintenance
In a recent NTSB opininion, Administrator v. Sugden, the Board affirmed a 90 day suspension of the pilot's airman certificate for violations of FAR's 91.405(b) and 91.407(a)(1)-(2). In that case, prior to flying an aircraft after maintenance was performed on the aircraft, the pilot "failed to independently ensure that the required maintenance entries were recorded in the logbook...when, in fact, the required entries had not been made." The Board went on to note that in a similar circumstance such as a preflight inspection, "[t]hat maintenance personnel also failed in their duties illustrates the importance of respondent's function; it does not excuse his conduct."
This case illustrates the responsibility a pilot has to inspect aircraft logbooks after maintenance has been performed and prior to first flight to confirm that the appropriate entries have been made. How does a non-A&P pilot know what to look for in the aircraft logbooks? Well, first and foremost, the pilot should make sure that the logbook entry states that the aircraft is returned to service. Beyond that, the nature and extent of the logbook entries will necessarily depend upon the work the maintenance shop performed.
Reputable shops err on the conservative side and provide detailed logbook entries for the maintenance they perform. Additionally, if you as a pilot are unsure of what entries are required and whether the appropriate entries have been made, ask the A&P to explain the entries to you. Not only will this educate you, but it will also give you an opportunity to confirm that the entries have in fact been made and not inadvertantly omitted. After all, if you are going to fly an aircraft after maintenance has been performed, you can be held responsible if the required entries were not made.
Lighters No Longer Allowed
In an Interpretive Rule published today in the Federal Register, the TSA has added lighters to the list of items that are prohibited in airport sterile areas, in the cabin of aircraft, or in passengers' checked baggage. Apparently the TSA is also considering including matches on the list of prohibited items in the future. Gee, I feel so much safer with this rule in effect. Although I would probably feel safer still if the TSA went further and prohibited sticks that could be rubbed together as well.
This Interpretive Rule is effective today. If you would like more information regarding this enhancement of aviation security, you may contact Clint Fisher, TSA-9, Transportation Security Policy, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220; telephone (571) 227-2621.