I suggest anyone using that Coleal decision as the basis of doing any preventative maintenance, have a copy of it and quote it in your logbook entries. This will instantly shut down anyone telling you no. YOU have the proof of yes.
If only things were so clear. The FAA could still claim that something you did wasn’t preventive maintenance and go after you for it. The legal interpretation only tells you that the 31 things listed aren’t a comprehensive list and that other things can fall into the preventive maintenance category, but it doesn’t say what those other things are other than checking tire pressure which was the subject of the interpretation. So, anything else is a gray area and the FAA can easily say that a given task isn’t considered preventive maintenance, the Coleal interpretation doesn’t change that.
I think the Cessna 210 inspection came from a 210 here in Australia where the wings came off one that was routinely contour flying - constant small plus and minus G loading, plus corrosion in that area from trapped water. There is a good ATSB report on it.
Some EABs come up for sale that pretty much need everything redone except the airworthiness certificate, so, even if the inspector's note isn't removed, a guy could buy a dilapidated EAB, restore it himself, (with the condition inspection done by an A&P), and still get signed off to take his own A&P tests.
59:25 See Alaska Professional Hunters Assn. v. F.A.A The FAA has their hands tied to existing precedent. For 30 years, the Alaska FSDO told hunters transport by air of clients on hunts was incidental to their business, the cost of which was paid for in the price of a hunt. When the FAA sought to push the approximately 600 registered Alaska hunting guides under Part 135, the courts said no way Jose’. “The Association, joined by two Alaskan guide pilots, contends that the Notice to Operators altered the FAA's well-established interpretation of its regulations and should have been promulgated pursuant to notice and comment rule making. The FAA raises several defenses, among which are that the (FAA) Alaskan Region's interpretation of the regulations did not represent the FAA's view because it rested on a misreading of Marshall (opinion) and that the Notice to Operators was merely an interpretative rule, exempt from the notice and comment requirements of APA (Administrative Procedures Act) § 553. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A).” If more aviationists understood the APA, we’d all be better off.
In 2008, Cessna issued a Supplemental Inspection Document on the Cessna 441 which, in addition to requiring a burdensome and costly tear down and inspection of the airframe, eliminated the airframe from commercial service after 22,000 flight hours. This life-limit SID is mandatory in the USA for air carriers operating the aircraft but is advisory only for private operators. HOW CAN A MANUFACTURER OBSOLETE A PRODUCT 34 YEARS AFTER THEY SOLD IT? Answer: REGULATORY CAPTURE. Regulatory capture occurs when parties subject to regulation (Cessna) convince the regulatory body to act in their best interest while causing harm to other stakeholders (CE441 owners). This is why the content of the SID should have been properly issued as an Airworthiness Directive in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act which compels proper public notice. While I appreciate Mike’s talk about the CE210 spar carry-thru issue, no one talks about the 441 SID. Why?
Everything at the FAA (and the rest of government) has gotten slower. I'm guessing there are many in government still "working" from home since 2020 and that continues to have negative effects on timeliness and quality of their work.
Kind of a dumb decision. Checking tire pressure is more of a preflight item than a preventative maintenance. Do you call yourself a mechanic when you fill up your cars tires with air?
I suggest anyone using that Coleal decision as the basis of doing any preventative maintenance, have a copy of it and quote it in your logbook entries. This will instantly shut down anyone telling you no. YOU have the proof of yes.
If only things were so clear. The FAA could still claim that something you did wasn’t preventive maintenance and go after you for it. The legal interpretation only tells you that the 31 things listed aren’t a comprehensive list and that other things can fall into the preventive maintenance category, but it doesn’t say what those other things are other than checking tire pressure which was the subject of the interpretation. So, anything else is a gray area and the FAA can easily say that a given task isn’t considered preventive maintenance, the Coleal interpretation doesn’t change that.
Learn so much from Mike and these videos
Nice presentation!!!😊
I think the Cessna 210 inspection came from a 210 here in Australia where the wings came off one that was routinely contour flying - constant small plus and minus G loading, plus corrosion in that area from trapped water. There is a good ATSB report on it.
Some EABs come up for sale that pretty much need everything redone except the airworthiness certificate, so, even if the inspector's note isn't removed, a guy could buy a dilapidated EAB, restore it himself, (with the condition inspection done by an A&P), and still get signed off to take his own A&P tests.
59:25 See Alaska Professional Hunters Assn. v. F.A.A
The FAA has their hands tied to existing precedent. For 30 years, the Alaska FSDO told hunters transport by air of clients on hunts was incidental to their business, the cost of which was paid for in the price of a hunt. When the FAA sought to push the approximately 600 registered Alaska hunting guides under Part 135, the courts said no way Jose’.
“The Association, joined by two Alaskan guide pilots, contends that the Notice to Operators altered the FAA's well-established interpretation of its regulations and should have been promulgated pursuant to notice and comment rule making. The FAA raises several defenses, among which are that the (FAA) Alaskan Region's interpretation of the regulations did not represent the FAA's view because it rested on a misreading of Marshall (opinion) and that the Notice to Operators was merely an interpretative rule, exempt from the notice and comment requirements of APA (Administrative Procedures Act) § 553. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A).”
If more aviationists understood the APA, we’d all be better off.
In 2008, Cessna issued a Supplemental Inspection Document on the Cessna 441 which, in addition to requiring a burdensome and costly tear down and inspection of the airframe, eliminated the airframe from commercial service after 22,000 flight hours. This life-limit SID is mandatory in the USA for air carriers operating the aircraft but is advisory only for private operators. HOW CAN A MANUFACTURER OBSOLETE A PRODUCT 34 YEARS AFTER THEY SOLD IT? Answer: REGULATORY CAPTURE.
Regulatory capture occurs when parties subject to regulation (Cessna) convince the regulatory body to act in their best interest while causing harm to other stakeholders (CE441 owners). This is why the content of the SID should have been properly issued as an Airworthiness Directive in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act which compels proper public notice.
While I appreciate Mike’s talk about the CE210 spar carry-thru issue, no one talks about the 441 SID. Why?
Everything at the FAA (and the rest of government) has gotten slower. I'm guessing there are many in government still "working" from home since 2020 and that continues to have negative effects on timeliness and quality of their work.
Kind of a dumb decision. Checking tire pressure is more of a preflight item than a preventative maintenance. Do you call yourself a mechanic when you fill up your cars tires with air?
First comment 🥳
General aviation is dead...