0
JerryBaumchen

Non-airworthy designation

Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

A recent thread in the Q & A section got me to giving this more thought.

This thread is for gear mfd/certificated in the USA under the FAA TSO system. *

Who can declare a piece of certficated equipment non-airworthy?

While I have read many, many FAA documents in the last 59 yrs, I know that I have not read them all.

I have never found any reference on who [ other than the FAA ] can declare a piece of equipment non-airworthy.  The FAA usually does this by means of an Airworthiness Directive [ AD ].

I have 'heard' that this subject has been discussed within the PIA.  Apparently, one thinking is that the TSO label is the property of the mfr; therefore, the mfr can remove it.  I disagree with this argument.

IMO the equipment is the property of the owner.  

Thoughts?

Jerry Baumchen

*  I would be interested in how this is handled in other countries.  It might offer some insight as to what could be done here in the USA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a try.

Every rigger has the responsibility of declaring airworthiness or non-airworthiness when asked to pack a rig.  But his decision is not binding on any other rigger.  The owner is free to find someone else to do the work.  Caveat emptor!  I don't think this is what you are asking though.  I think you are asking who can permanently ground a TSO'd component.

And I think the answer is "no one."  Everything is repairable or replaceable, including TSO markings.  When a manufacturer or other expert says something is unairworthy, they are really saying it is economically unrepairable.  How should we convey "economically unrepairable" to the owner?  As important, how should we convey it to anyone else who comes into possession?  The most concise way is to obliterate the TSO marking, by removing it or by writing "unairworthy" or "condemned" or similar on the label, words that are technically not true because it could be made airworthy if time and money were no object.  I'm okay with that, but I'm open to alternatives.

It still belongs to the owner, though, and he should get it back in exchange for the agreed compensation for inspection, shipping, etc.

--Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, mark said:

I'll give it a try.

Every rigger has the responsibility of declaring airworthiness or non-airworthiness when asked to pack a rig.  But his decision is not binding on any other rigger.  The owner is free to find someone else to do the work.  Caveat emptor!  I don't think this is what you are asking though.  I think you are asking who can permanently ground a TSO'd component.

And I think the answer is "no one."  Everything is repairable or replaceable, including TSO markings.  When a manufacturer or other expert says something is unairworthy, they are really saying it is economically unrepairable.  How should we convey "economically unrepairable" to the owner?  As important, how should we convey it to anyone else who comes into possession?  The most concise way is to obliterate the TSO marking, by removing it or by writing "unairworthy" or "condemned" or similar on the label, words that are technically not true because it could be made airworthy if time and money were no object.  I'm okay with that, but I'm open to alternatives.

It still belongs to the owner, though, and he should get it back in exchange for the agreed compensation for inspection, shipping, etc.

--Mark

Hi Mark,

With exception of:  And I think the answer is "no one." 

I am of the opinion that the FAA can.  They did this with their AD on Security's SAC canopy. *  The AD even told the rigger how to mark the canopy [ as I remember ].  I no longer have a copy of the AD to give any actual specifics.

I would not advise obliterating the TSO markings if for no other reason than the determination of 'non-airworthy' is subjective.  IMO obliterating the TSO markings could open one up to litigation.

As I have done in the past, I just returned the rig to the owner, told him how I felt, and that I would not do any work on it for him.

Again, these are just my opinions.  Thanks for your thoughts.

Jerry Baumchen

* IMO the AD was issued because Security was no longer in business & could not answer questions about the mesh failures.

Edited by JerryBaumchen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example is the PD176 Reserve that failed porosity tests at Performance Designs' factory. They sent it back with a note saying that it is no longer airworthy. Since then, no rigger has dared touch it, so it is effectively grounded.

It might be possible to "repair" repair it to airworthy status, but that would require replacing all of the top skins, which is more labor and dollars than the cost of a newly-manufactured reserve.

Let's be honest, the only people that are doing that level of "repair" are restoration shops that haul RARE corroded wrecks out of Papua-New Guinea jungles in order to jack up the data panel and build a new airframe underneath it. By the time they complete "repairs" they have installed new spars, new ribs, new skins, new hinges, new control cables, new hydraulics, new tires, new radios, freshly-overhauled engines, etc. Wealthy warbird collectors are only willing to do that for RARE airplanes that sell at auction for upwards of $1 million. Think P-51 Mustang or Spitfire whose production lines closed in 1945.

For another comparison, look at all the restoration work done on the muscle cars auctioned by Barret-James: new engine, new transmission, new upholstery, new glass, etc. until little remains of the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2023 at 2:53 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

...I would not advise obliterating the TSO markings if for no other reason than the determination of 'non-airworthy' is subjective.  IMO obliterating the TSO markings could open one up to litigation...

Hi Jerry,

The original question that prompted this was the one about UPT refusing to return an 'unairworthy' container, right?

For that particular question, I'd guess Bill Booth has enough experience with litigation that he (and likely his attorneys) have decided that there's less risk of getting sued, and less overall liability exposure in keeping the rig rather than returning it with an admonition to not use it.

Obviously, this is a guess. But I think it's a reasonable one.

And I also think it's not a completely unreasonable position for Bill Booth to take, given the litigiousness of our society.

 

54 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

For another comparison, look at all the restoration work done on the muscle cars auctioned by Barret-James: new engine, new transmission, new upholstery, new glass, etc. until little remains of the original.

There's a saying in the classic car world that certain, particular cars are worth well into 6 figures, even if it's just a pile of rust with a VIN Plate and a title.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

With little authoritative proof / i.e. mostly anecdotal...

In my riggers course (DeWolf ~1999), we discussed removing/obscuring/using permanent marker to indicate the item was no longer airworthy.  The discussion started when talking about acid-mesh, but was enlarged to anything judged to be permanently not airworthy (i.e. beyond normal repair).

Some manufacturers have indicated that their rigs are only airworthy when (and for as long as) a rigger deems it so.  (mostly in discussing repack cycles and gear age limits).  To me this could be taken two ways...
   - as long as you can find some rigger to bully into packing it, your ragged out POS is still airworthy

   - a rigger can determine that your ragged out POS is not airworthy.

 

I have found this issue to be a delicate one, mostly depending on the gear owner...
   - some have quickly agreed that we should permanently remove it from service as it is unsafe.  (some just abandoned it to my loft at that point)
   - some have gotten frustrated and asked for a second opinion (I offer references to other rigger's whose work I would jump)

Unfortunately I had the bad luck of facing this on my first commercial inspection as a newly minted rigger.

I think it helps that, while I will help customers find/spec/inspect/purchase both new and used replacements, it is not a major part of my business.  I don't "just happen to have the perfect thing to replace your bad gear".

 

In general, I don't mark them or remove TSO panels unless that's what the customer wants to do, but I make sure they know my opinion and the "why" its not a good idea to use it again. 

IIRC - there have been rigs that I didn't want to pack and left a note in the container for the next rigger as to why...

 

JW

 

Edited by fcajump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at an Inspection Authorization seminar for aircraft mechanics and I remember one of the presenters said he owned the hatchet that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree.  He said the handle had been replaced 3 times and the head twice.  On an aircraft, you can basically keep replacing parts until none of the original parts remain and still have the "same aircraft".  On a parachute rig, you could replace the harness then later replace the containers and still have the "same rig".   When I do an annual inspection on an aircraft, If I find that it is not airworthy, I give the owner a list of items that need to be addressed.  The owner can take the aircraft to another mechanic and have those items taken care of and that mechanic can sign off the aircraft as airworthy.  Usually what happens is I or other mechanics will tell the owner what needs to be done and the owner will have the mechanic take care of everything then sign the aircraft off as airworthy.  On an aircraft or parachute rig, some things are objective and some are subjective.  It is sometimes up to the rigger or mechanic to use his judgement.  If a rigger feels that a rig or parachute is not airworthy, he doesn't have to pack it.  It would be a good idea to inform the owner why he thinks it is unairworthy and what, if anything can be done to make it airworthy.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bigfalls said:

I was at an Inspection Authorization seminar for aircraft mechanics and I remember one of the presenters said he owned the hatchet that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree.  He said the handle had been replaced 3 times and the head twice.  On an aircraft, you can basically keep replacing parts until none of the original parts remain and still have the "same aircraft".  On a parachute rig, you could replace the harness then later replace the containers and still have the "same rig".   When I do an annual inspection on an aircraft, If I find that it is not airworthy, I give the owner a list of items that need to be addressed.  The owner can take the aircraft to another mechanic and have those items taken care of and that mechanic can sign off the aircraft as airworthy.  Usually what happens is I or other mechanics will tell the owner what needs to be done and the owner will have the mechanic take care of everything then sign the aircraft off as airworthy.  On an aircraft or parachute rig, some things are objective and some are subjective.  It is sometimes up to the rigger or mechanic to use his judgement.  If a rigger feels that a rig or parachute is not airworthy, he doesn't have to pack it.  It would be a good idea to inform the owner why he thinks it is unairworthy and what, if anything can be done to make it airworthy.  

Hi falls,

Re:   On a parachute rig, you could replace the harness then later replace the containers and still have the "same rig".

Not all rigs are certificated this way; however, in today's world, most are.

Based upon the labelling,* RWS/UPT [ and myself ], applied for & received TSO authorization for the harness & the container as separate items.

* If one looks, you will find a separate TSO label for both a container & a harness when you look at a version of UPT's Wonderhog/Vectors.

I did them as separate items because if I were to make a Minor Change, I did not to have to submit total documentation for everything that I was building; IMO too much paperwork.

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2023 at 3:33 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

The original question that prompted this was the one about UPT refusing to return an 'unairworthy' container, right?

Hi Joe,

Bingo.  You get the cigar.  That thread is what lead me to do more thinking about this subject.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As to the rest of your post, that is why I said:  I have never found any reference on who [ other than the FAA ] can declare a piece of equipment non-airworthy.  The FAA usually does this by means of an Airworthiness Directive [ AD ].

If there is some document out there that says any rigger/mfr can legally declare a certificated item non-airworthy, I would really like to see it.  We all could learn from it.

It is also why I was interested in what other countries do in this situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Bingo.  You get the cigar.  That thread is what lead me to do more thinking about this subject.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry,

I quit smoking last century (no joke, quit in 1999).

 

So 'thanks but no thanks'.

And it IS an interesting question. 

For myself as a (mostly retired) rigger, if I found something that bad, and the owner refused to accept that it was not airworthy, I'd refuse to pack/work on it, and then let all the other riggers in the area (I know most of them) know about it, with adequate details. 

This has happened locally - Someone had some seriously dangerous gear, but refused to get rid of it. They went 'rigger shopping' to try to get it repacked. I got a phone call from another area rigger, Not the one that initially refused to deal with it, but one further down the phone tree ('I've called all these people, if there's another rigger you know who I haven't listed, please get in touch'). 
I thanked the caller, let them know that I would not work on it without consulting them (if at all), and never heard anything more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you refuse to repack a rig (return to service) remember the write why on your invoice. That way you have handed a written record to the customer. Keep a photo-copy of that invoice for your loft records ... in case any lawyer tries to sue you a few years down the road.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a story along these lines from when I worked at Para-Flite. Someone took a Strato-Star to Dave Dewolf to have some work done on it. Dave deemed it not airworthy when the owner didn't want to spend the money on it to fix it. Dave returned it with not airworthy tags on it.. The person jumped it unrepaired and broke his femur he sued Dave and Para-Flite. There was no doubt we would win the case the insurance company decided to settle as the case was picking jurors. Shortly there after insurance disappeared. The insurance company caused immense damage to all manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"§ 65.129 Performance standards.

No certificated parachute rigger may—

(a) Pack, maintain, or alter any parachute unless he is rated for that type;

(b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use;...."

If you choose to equate not safe as unairworthy I'd argue this regulation gives every rigger the right AND responsibility to determine the airworthiness of every piece of approved equipment (and non-approved since "parachute" in this case refers to both approved and non-approved equipment) presented to them. I.do not believe that gives any rigger or manufacturer the right to retain equipment not airworthy or not approved for repair by the owner.  Obviously this is item specific, not a model, group or design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The awkward point about not marking the non-airworthy component is that some cheap-skate skydivers will ask two or three riggers before they find one who will pack it. Chances are, the "guilty" rigger is junior and never heard the full story.

Then the "guilty: rigger is left trying to explain why he packed something after two or three more senior/experienced riggers refused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

The awkward point about not marking the non-airworthy component is that some cheap-skate skydivers will ask two or three riggers before they find one who will pack it. Chances are, the "guilty" rigger is junior and never heard the full story.

Then the "guilty: rigger is left trying to explain why he packed something after two or three more senior/experienced riggers refused.

Hi Rob,

I know almost nothing about Canadian law; but, in this country one is innocent until proven 'guilty.'

I would suggest a better choice of words.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  The awkward point about not marking the non-airworthy component

If you were presented with a certificated component that you felt was not airworthy, would you mark it in any manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2023 at 1:07 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rob,

I know almost nothing about Canadian law; but, in this country one is innocent until proven 'guilty.'

I would suggest a better choice of words.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  The awkward point about not marking the non-airworthy component

If you were presented with a certificated component that you felt was not airworthy, would you mark it in any manner?

How about tying a "not airworthy" small paper tag to something like a D line attachment tape?

That tag would be found during any normal inspection. if the next rigger missed the tag, then he/she did an incomplete inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, riggerrob said:

How about tying a "not airworthy" small paper tag to something like a D line attachment tape?

That tag would be found during any normal inspection. if the next rigger missed the tag, then he/she did an incomplete inspection.

Hi Rob,

Or, the owner could just remove it and no one would know.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0