Legal Dilemma
I was in Minnesota earlier this week to get my eight hours of training for my IA. Even though I wrote the test in AMT that readers can use for four hours of credit, and AMTonline.com has more than nine hours of virtual IA seminars available, I didn’t want there to be any perception of conflict of interest, so I sat in on the two-day seminar put on by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
I’m glad I did. There were a lot of good presentations. One that stood out was a one-hour presentation by Greg Reigel, an aviation attorney, on legal issues of concern to aircraft mechanics. In the presentation, he brought up FAA vs. Law — the case that came out last year where the NTSB ruled that complying with manufacturer’s service bulletins is mandatory. The ruling created a storm of controversy, since FAA had always said that service bulletins are only mandatory if they are referenced in an AD. In the end, FAA clarified their stand and again said that service bulletins, even though referenced in the maintenance manual, were not mandatory for Part 91 operations unless specifically referenced in an AD.
Problem solved, right?
Maybe not. Mr. Reigel warned the room full of IA’s that they may be setting themselves up for a civil lawsuit in regards to logbook signoffs. Apparently, the NTSB ruling created a trend of OEM’s incorporating statements in their maintenance manuals such as, “All service bulletins are considered part of this maintenance manual, and compliance with them is mandatory.” Reigel warns about the possible implications of signing off a logbook entry with the words “Performed an annual inspection in accordance with manufacturer’s maintenance manual.” If that maintenance manual happens to have that wording making service bulletins “mandatory,” that IA could be in an attorney’s sights in the case of an accident. After all, in a legal sense the IA really didn’t do it “in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance manual” if that manual says all service bulletins are mandatory, and the service bulletins were not done.
Reigel offered two tips. One, don’t sign off the logbook referencing the maintenance manual. Instead use Appendix D of part 43 for the annual inspection checklist. The second tip was to make a list of all service bulletins that are not incorporated. Have the owner sign this list saying he or she is aware of the service bulletins not complied with. Then keep a copy for your records. Make a logbook entry stating that a list of all service bulletins not complied with was presented to owner for corrective action. That puts the burden on the owner.
Needless to say, Mr. Reigel’s presentation raised a lot of questions. If the session was two hours long, I still don’t think there would have been enough time to get through all the questions the IAs in the room had.
What do you think about the Mr. Reigel’s warning about logbook signoffs? If we try not to refer to maintenance manuals in our signoffs, are we sacrificing safety and thoroughness in fear of possible legal action down the road? Is it even an issue?
Thanks for reading!
Joe Escobar
If the checklist you use from the maintenance manual does not specificaly mention Service Bullentins then the sign off referencing the manufacture’s checklist is probably ok. I always keep a copy of the checklist and provide the owner with a copy. I do question the owner on Service bulletins. The real world is that some insurance companies are requiring that manatory service bulletins are required to be completed or the insurance policy is null and void. Somthing all owners should check with thier insurance agent/broker!!!!
Good points Wayne. The main thing Mr. Reigel stressed in his presentation was that these new maintenance manual changes could affect mechanics in an unforseen way. He just wanted to make the mechanics/IAs aware of the possibilities.
In the example you give, Mr. Reigel would warn that by referencing the maintenance manual in the first place (even though you specifically refer to the inspection checklist, not service bulletin incorporation), because the manufacturers are incorporating language into their manuals that service bulletins are considered part of the manual, you could be in the crosshairs of an attorney in case of an accident.
Joe Escobar
43.15 “(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.”
Supports Wayne’s method!
Performed an annual inspection in accordance with manufacturer’s maintenance manual checklist
Why is it in our society everything has to be interpruted for us?? Can’t we accept the fact that how a rule(law) is written that’s what it means??? How much time, effort and our tax dollars goes into formulation the “correct” verbage?? On a larger note: The technology advancements in aviation of recent years are tremendous!! Fly by wire, GPS, unmanned aircraft, computer controlled this and that!!!! Boy have we come a long way, no matter!!! Keep in mind one thing, no matter how advanced aircraft get, no matter how many people will fit into an pilotless airplane, NOTHING will fly without me, the mechanic. Whenever something goes wrong where is the first place they come?? Fix it!!! Oh yea, stand tall AMT’s!!!!!!!!!!!
does any one have a working checklist made up which consists of the items in Appendix d. or know if there is a workable one on line somewhere?
Just a note, I work on Hawker 850XP’s. I do not Inspect the aircraft I/A/W the manufacturer’s maintenance manual. I Inspect the aircraft I/A/W ( per 91.409 (f) (3):a current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer. I’m not sure where this is found on smaller planes? If I’m approving for return to service an aircraft after an insection, it is I/A/W the Hawker Aircraft Flexible Maintenance Schedule. In this book it says “operaters should institute a system for the assessment of continuing airworthness information.” To me that means I have to come up with a way of reviewing S/B’,S/L’s, Safty Communiques, information letters, ect. Any manditory Service Bulletins, I know will be an A/D in 6 months, in Raytheons case. Alot of other optional and recommended service bulletins, aren’t inspections. Some are adding and removing optional equipment. In my case when I say I’ve inspected the aircraft I/A/W the Manufacturers recommended program, I’ve done just that to include,looking over all S/B’s S/L’s, ect.