Conquest Owners.Org

From: Steve Frost
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:22 AM
To: Richard Bacon; Leo Toews
Subject: Re: FAA "Info" document

Well, I hope someone can enlighten me as to how to interpret the FAA's attempt to get the Genie back into the bottle after the legal interpretation of 91.409(f) was released.

I certainly agree with the sentiment contained in InFO but, I have no idea what weight it bears. I have not seen an InFO notice before, it is not a rule, it is not a supplement to the FAA Inspectors handbook, as much as I much as I would like this to be the gospel, I do not think it carries the weight of a legal interpretation of the rule and as such I must assume it is ADVISORY ONLY and one way of complying with the rule.

As for the owner operator of the aircraft selecting and identifying an inspection program and stating it in the aircraft records, this is a rule that has been overlooked for decades, short of a few Part 135 operators that have written a AAIP this statement is rarely seen. I am informing my customers about this need as we see them and their records. If they have not selected a program they must do so and in as much as the legal interpretation of 91.409(f) may certainly change how they select their inspection program, I do not feel they could be held liable to incorporate a program they felt they must use due to everyone's apparent erroneous earlier interpretation of this rule.

As a part 145 repair facility, I have a need to know what to advise my customers, InFO, I believe was an attempt to clarify this but, I need someone in the FAA to tell me that the information in this document is THE RULE, I question this.

Steve Frost

Corporate Air Technology

----- Original Message -----

From: Richard Bacon

To: Leo Toews

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:43

Subject: Re: FAA "Info" document

Leo:

Thank you for the attached e-mail.  

The reason a Conquest may be a candidate for a Inspection Program that includes a SID extension is because it is a very low time aircraft and no significant corrosion history.  It is important to remember that these qualifiers simply make the aircraft a candidate.  The additional factors that Gregg mentions: landing cycles, location of operations, and lost records will be explored and weighed in the decision of whether or not to allow the extension of the SID.  Some of the other important factors are: where the operator will be operating the aircraft, how many hours (and cycles) per year will the aircraft be used, what type of operations (past and future), hangar (history, current and future) (enclosed, temperature controlled), maintenance history, physical examination of the aircraft, and maintenance log review.  

As you know, the SID is not an AD.

The owner/operator of a qualified aircraft has the choice of applying for a Inspection Program that includes the SID, but extends only the yearly deadline based upon the history, the condition, and the future usage of the aircraft.  

The SID inspections are quite invasive and this needs to be considered in the decision.  

Additionally, buy extending the yearly deadline of the SID, it gives the owner/operator the ability to incorporate portions of the SID at logical times during the continued maintenance of the Aircraft.  (When replacing boots, is the logical time to inspect under the boots) (When changing engines is the logical time to inspect areas requiring removal of the engines)  

I would hope we would work together to create Inspection Programs that are logical and the best overall programs for the owner/operator.    

Respectfully,

Richard Bacon

On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Leo Toews wrote:

Good Afternoon All,

I too have talked with Rusty a couple of times and asked very specific to the point questions.  I believe Richard’s statements are factual but there is more.  When I asked Rusty how someone in the FAA could approve an inspection program that doubles the manufacturers initial compliance time from 20 years to 40 years without any testing or analysis he told me the FAA has no control over the FSDOs or individual inspectors and some may approve things he wouldn’t necessarily approve.  It is up to the local FSDO where the aircraft is based to approve the program.  Following is a quote from the Fresno FSDO office regarding Mr. Bacon’s letter dated June 17, 2009:

Leo:

This is just one side of the story.  If FAA has agreed to the items mentioned, he should request some sort of written document so that it may be included as a part of the inspection program.  How and who will determine what a low time/low corrosion airplane is.  How about landing cycles, foreign country operations, lost records or funny looking wrinkles in the skin.  This is going to be a difficult subject for some time yet.  I still do not understand the last InFo that explained the AGC-200 ruling.

Not sure the info was correct or useable.  More will have to come from AFS-300/320 before I will have anything to do with a (f)(4) inspection program.  To many variables at this time.

Gregg

Feel free to respond,

Leo Toews

Corporate Aircraft

From: Richard Bacon
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:04 AM
To: Richard Jaffe; 
Subject: FAA "Info" document

Gentlemen:

Many owners of Conquests are taking the position that they are not required to do the SID because of the legal memorandum dated 12/5/08.  

Rusty Jones, FAA Manager, Special Programs Branch, AFS-320 issued a Information for Operators (InfO) document on 5/22/09.  

There continues to be misunderstandings on whether or not Conquest owners can simply choose to not do the SID.

I just spoke to Rusty Jones, the author of the FAA "Info" document on SID inspections.  The conversation was lengthy and detailed.  The FAA's position is:

1) A Conquest owner must do the SID if their last Inspection was after August 31, 2007 (the day before the SID was issued).  The exception will be: if before that date, in the aircraft maintenance records, the owner selected an approved inspection program other than the current Manufacturer's inspection program.

2)  If no inspection program was selected as required in 91.409(e&f) then the "current" Manufacturer's inspection program, at the time of the last inspection is controlling.

The bottom line is: the great majority of Conquest owners did not select (written in the a/c maintenance records) an inspection program other than the current Manufacturers inspection program.  And, the great majority of Conquest owners last inspection was after August 31, 2007.  Therefore, the great majority of Conquest owners are required to do the SID inspections.

3)  I further clarified that the Inspection Program I am suggesting, which includes the SID inspections, but delays the SID inspections due to the low time and low corrosion, is a valid inspection option for low time, low corrosion Conquests.  

Rusty is being included in this mailing, if anything I have stated is not 100% accurate, please respond to all parties.

Regards,

Richard Bacon

Attorney

Aviation Consultant 

1268 Northridge Court

Golden,CO 80401