dan43 0 #26 June 18, 2015 Chuck, it had reached it's 40th repack and either had to be retired anyway or sent to PD. FWI; it felt okay, which is why I encouraged the owner to have it tested, small cost if they had re-certified it, but obviously it failed their porosity test. In good faith, PD offered him a discount voucher for a new reserve.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #27 April 5, 2016 === Reviving a year old thread ==== I came across an interesting post on an aviation news site that talks about the degree to which an aircraft manufacturer can change maintenance rules. For a regular FAA certified aircraft you must follow the original manual that came with the product, plus any Airworthiness Directives. Other instructions and bulletins and updated manuals from the manufacturer may be useful but not mandatory. I haven't verified what the guy says but he seems to know what he's talking about. It supports what I think most of us understand about the FAA clarification letter about skydiving gear (even though the letter was a little ambiguous.) It seems to show a consistent line of thinking in the FAA about what manufacturers are allowed to demand retroactively of customers, whether for certified airplanes or parachutes. A company can't add new restrictions unless the FAA formally agrees through the AD process! QuoteMost people don't understand that once the FAA 'blesses' a certificated airplane's design via a Type Certificate (TC) and then likewise blesses their production process via a Production Certificate (PC), the design -- essentially -- belongs to the FAA for non-commercial Part 91 uses. Only an FAA generated Airworthiness Directive (AD) can apply to the airplane, beyond normal maintenance. The manufacturer then becomes the Design Approval Holder (DAH) but the FAA approves changes via the AD process. On Mar 28, 2016, the FAA (in a rare display of common sense) issued SAIB HQ-16-14 entitled, "Service, Replacement Times and Inspections." The thrust of this document is to inform owners and operators that manufacturers CANNOT change maintenance requirements after the fact UNLESS it is AD form issued by the FAA. This is a pseudo form of checks and balances ensuring that the manufacturer can't come up with onerous requirements to "protect" itself. This action was instigated by the famous mechanic, Mike Busch, who was pushing back against Cessna Aircraft's desire to change -- and enforce -- a new Airworthiness Limitations Section of the C210 maintenance manuals. The FAA legal department agreed that Cessna couldn't do that and so they issued the SAIB for clarification purposes. This is SUPERB NEWS for all who own a certificated airplane as it applies to all of them. Simply put, only the maintenance manual's airworthiness limitations in effect at the time of manufacturer -- as updated via AD's -- apply to all certificated airplanes. [Ref: Larry Stencel, 3 April 2016, user comment on AvWeb.com] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 20 #28 April 5, 2016 pchapman... It supports what I think most of us understand about the FAA clarification letter about skydiving gear ... It certainly does. However, the manufacturers of parachute equipment have convinced many riggers that parachute equipment is "different" and that a rigger is much more likely to get sued than aircraft maintenance personnel if they don't follow the manufacturer's recommendations as well as the original maintenance instructions. They may be right, who knows. It is all a matter of money and who can afford to defend their actions or decisions in a court of law if their work comes into question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #29 April 6, 2016 Agreed! It is more about how fancy a lawyer you can afford ... than written regulations. I wasted Monday in the Vancouver Court House listening to a long-winded lawyer and an old bureaucrat babble on about the "intent" of Canadian Air Regulations. Why the witness droned on for so long about a bunch of regulations than he wrote, but were never enacted by South Asian governments ??????? .... and the trial is scheduled to drag on for another 5 weeks! The wounded were relegated to "priority last" back in 2012 or 2013, now the case has devolved to "pissing contest" between - two different levels of government - about who will pay millions of dollars worth of disability benefits for JP Forest. This court case is worse than a waste of time! Grrrrrrdr! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #30 April 6, 2016 Hi Gary, Quote It is all a matter of money and who can afford to defend their actions or decisions in a court of law if their work comes into question. I have been sued ( lost & won ) and have sued ( won everytime ). Also. my son is an attorney, so I do get free legal advice these days. I really doubt that any rigger would ever actually get sued; but then, I have yet to buy a winning lottery ticket. My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off. If I were to ever get sued for packing a parachute over some so-called life-limit, my first efforts would be to depose the local FAA people. Once I had them on record, in accordance with the letter that the FAA put out, I seriously doubt that any plaintiff's lawyer would go any farther. Just my $0.02 on this, Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
