Flight Design Safety Directives... and You (USA owners)

[Anticept]

There is a simple word that completely changed the course of this post. Please pass over the strikethrough sections, I am leaving them up for reference only.

 

 

If you aren't already aware, there are actually quite a few safety directives out there, and quite a few aircraft are missing the required compliance here in the USA. It appears to stem from the fact that there is confusion between a "Service Bulletin" and a "Safety Directive".

 

To put it simply: Service Bulletins, and Safety Directives, are effectively the same thing in S-LSA. It's probably a European thing... here in the USA, service bulletins are considered optional with standard airworthiness aircraft in Part 91 operations.

 

Anyways, per http://flightdesignusa.com/support/safety_directives/ :

 

There are three types of Safety Directives:

 

Service Notification: For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information.
Service Bulletin: For notifications that do not require immediate action but will REQUIRE some future action.
Safety Alert: For notifications that require immediate action.

 

Flight Design has a few "Safety Alert" and "Safety Bulletins" for various aircraft models. So what is a "Safety Alert" and "Safety Bulletin"?

 

Terminology regarding safety directives, and the types that are issued, are laid out in ASTM Designation F2483, which is one of the accepted sections by the FAA. AC 65-32a clarifies this on page 6, item "z", by stating the following:

 

 

z. Safety Directive ASTM Designation F2483. A directive issued by a manufacturer of a special LSA intended to correct an existing unsafe condition. Compliance with safety directives is addressed in 14 CFR part 91, § 91.327 and the recording is required in § 91.417. Safety directives are addressed in applicable consensus standards which include provisions for maintaining the continued airworthiness of an aircraft and correcting safety-of-flight issues. Safety directives are considered mandatory on SLSA.

 

(1) Safety Alert. For notifications that require immediate action, see ASTM F2295.

 

(2) Service Bulletin (SB). For notifications that do not require immediate action but do recommend future action, see ASTM F2295.

 

(3) Notification. For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information, see ASTM F2295.

 

 

So, in this document, we can see that Service Bulletins are "recommended", (contrary to what FDUSA's website says), making them OPTIONAL. Since that AC is an FAA document, you can use that for regulations compliance if anyone challenges you. That said, there are still a few Safety Alerts that are issued by Flight Design.

 

So, where does one obtain these documents? You can always contact FD USA for them, or use their website, which will point out where to get them. Right now, FDUSA's site points to FD Germany's website, which has a nice page here: http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/?page_id=117

 

You need to select your Aircraft Model, and Certification Code: ASTM

 

Quite a list right? Well you're not done. I need to point out a specific document. You will find "SB-ASTM-CTLS-99" in the list. This document is revised regularly. If you open that up, you'll find it references several third party documents, of particular note, are a number of Rotax documents and whether or not they are being made mandatory by Flight Design.

 

So if you have an S-LSA and have been ignoring some of the Rotax documents, but they are listed as mandatory in this document... well you need to get on it!

 

Also, be sure to pay attention to 91.417! Just like how we track airworthiness directives (for those familiar with it), it states that we must keep records:

 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

[Roger Lee]

"they are the same thing:

 

So someone isn't confused they aren't the same thing.

I safety bulletin is not the same thing as a safety directive even if the service bulletin says mandatory. FAA says Safety Directive's are a flight safety issues and is an absolute requirement to do to. These are like AD's in the certified world. 

A safety bulletin even though it says mandatory is not required and most times not a flight safety issue, but a good idea to do. The aircraft MFG can not make policy and the FAA says the two items are different. These were discussed and researched through the FAA a few years back and even brought up to Rotax. FD has no safety directives. Rotax has no safety directives. Rotax considers SB's as such, but again the FAA says they are different.

 

That said I fully believe all Rotax and FD SB's should be followed because even though some think they know better than the aircraft and engine MFG they are usually wrong  and the bulletins are there to protect the owners from themselves. Before some say we don't need it I would say those are the ones that do need it. They just don't pull bulletins out of a hat and say we need to post something this week. Someone did something dumb or parts failed and the MFG's are trying to keep you safe. (in spite of some owners. You know the ones that always say "They can't make me do it".

 

"So, where does one obtain these directives?"

 

There are no FD Safety Directives. They are all SB's. SD's can be found on the FAA site to, but there isn't any for FD.

[Anticept]

EDIT!!!: I'm leaving this post unedited. However, as I have found a reference in AC 65-12a stating safety bulletins are "recommended" (as now stated in my first post), I now agree with Roger regarding safety bulletins being optional. However, Flight Design does have "safety alerts", which ARE required per that Advisory Circular.

 

Now see, if you are going to make that claim, then you should provide FAA issued documentation that can be given to any FAA officials... This one is pretty serious, and really should have official documentation to back it up.
 
What you are saying is contrary to what I had been told, and seems strange if we look at 91.327's wording:
 

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except—

(4) The owner or operator complies with each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition. In lieu of complying with a safety directive an owner or operator may—

(i) Correct the unsafe condition in a manner different from that specified in the safety directive provided the person issuing the directive concurs with the action; or

(ii) Obtain an FAA waiver from the provisions of the safety directive based on a conclusion that the safety directive was issued without adhering to the applicable consensus standard;

In addition: 21.190:

21.190   Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft.

( Eligibility. To be eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category:

(5) State that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus standard;

Finally, please refer to AC 65-32a:
 

z. Safety Directive ASTM Designation F2483.
 
A directive issued by a manufacturer of a special LSA intended to correct an existing unsafe condition. Compliance with safety directives is addressed in 14 CFR part 91, § 91.327 and the recording is required in § 91.417. Safety directives are addressed in applicable consensus standards which include provisions for maintaining the continued airworthiness of an aircraft and correcting safety-of-flight issues. Safety directives are considered mandatory on SLSA.
 
(1) Safety Alert. For notifications that require immediate action, see ASTM F2295.
 
(2) Service Bulletin (SB). For notifications that do not require immediate action but do recommend future action, see ASTM F2295.
 
(3) Notification. For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information, see ASTM F2295.

 
 
 
On the point about the manufacturers trying to write policy: I suspect that in reality, what happened was the FAA looked at what they were trying to do when they were trying to force factory training, and applied 91.327( :

( No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category unless—

(1) The aircraft is maintained by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 43 of this chapter and maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;

(2) A condition inspection is performed once every 12 calendar months by a certificated repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; 

Nowhere in this regulation does it state that these individuals must be factory trained. Further, going back to 91.327(a)(4)(ii), if they try to issue time limits, such as TBO, then it has to either be in the consensus standard, or it cannot be enforced as we can go to the FAA and complain. I don't have access to the ASTM, so I don't know if it actually says anything about TBO.

[N456TS]

Roger is correct.  If they are not safety, then they are not required (legally). 

I'm sure Roger can provide citation if he is interested, but you can also call the FAA light sport branch.  This subject was cleared up by the FAA many years ago.  I think one of the letters is on Rainbow's web site. 

FD can claim all sorts of things, but they are not the authority.  A "Service Notification" is not legally required.  A "Service Bulletin" is not legally required.  A "Safety Alert" IS legally required. 

[Anticept]

Roger is correct.  If they are not safety, then they are not required (legally). 

I'm sure Roger can provide citation if he is interested, but you can also call the FAA light sport branch.  This subject was cleared up by the FAA many years ago.  I think one of the letters is on Rainbow's web site. 

FD can claim all sorts of things, but they are not the authority.  A "Service Notification" is not legally required.  A "Service Bulletin" is not legally required.  A "Safety Alert" IS legally required. 

 

Safety directives are actually defined by the ASTM part F2483. The FAA has their own advisory circular (AC 65-12a) which further reinforces it, page 6, item Z.

 

EDIT Ho ho ho, I do like how it says "(2) Service Bulletin (SB) For notifications that do not require immediate action but do recommend future action". Oh that clever difference in wording between that AC and FDUSA's website, which I missed so easily!

 

As such, I now agree with you and Roger's assessment regarding service bulletins. Flight Design has issued Safety Alerts, and those are still mandatory though per that AC. Edited my posts accordingly.

 

That said... this is a huge deal and a great find... actual written documentation, instead of hearsay, regarding manufacturer service bulletins and that they are optional for S-LSA!

[FlyingMonkey]

So which FD items are safety alerts, vs bulletins?  I can look it all up, but I'm guessing somebody knows the alerts off the top of their head since they are probably very few.

[Roger Lee]

SB's and SA's are labeled just that. Same with Rotax.

 

Even though words can be technically wrong between the FAA and MFG's I would always recommend and follow any FD or Rotax SB's. It's always in your best interest because they have far more information when they wrote this than you do. Usually when they issue an SB or SA they have had a couple of issues or failures some place to generate concern. Nobody pulls these out of a hat just for the sake of posting something.

[FlyingMonkey]

SB's and SA's are labeled just that. Same with Rotax.

 

Even though words can be technically wrong between the FAA and MFG's I would always recommend and follow any FD or Rotax SB's. It's always in your best interest because they have far more information when they wrote this than you do. Usually when they issue an SB or SA they have had a couple of issues or failures some place to generate concern. Nobody pulls these out of a hat just for the sake of posting something.

 

Agreed.  

[Anticept]

SB's and SA's are labeled just that. Same with Rotax.

 

Even though words can be technically wrong between the FAA and MFG's I would always recommend and follow any FD or Rotax SB's. It's always in your best interest because they have far more information when they wrote this than you do. Usually when they issue an SB or SA they have had a couple of issues or failures some place to generate concern. Nobody pulls these out of a hat just for the sake of posting something.

I disagree. They are using the ASTM defined safety directive system. They have numerous service bulletins (optional per that AC), but also 4-5 safety alerts, which the ASTM states (as that AC says) that they require immediate action.

 

If you disagree, then we need to find out how a manufacturer can technically issue a safety directive, because those regs are pointing to the fact that they can. Yes, I agree that they can't make policy, such as requiring training, but I fail to see how that prevents them from issuing safety directives to make corrections to their aircraft.

[Roger Lee]

Rotax, FD or any other MFG can issue a SD, but they won't. An alert is different from an SD

[Anticept]

That's not what the ASTM or the Advisory circular says though! I repeat from AC 65-32a:

 

 

 

 

 

z. Safety Directive ASTM Designation F2483.
 
A directive issued by a manufacturer of a special LSA intended to correct an existing unsafe condition. Compliance with safety directives is addressed in 14 CFR part 91, § 91.327 and the recording is required in § 91.417. Safety directives are addressed in applicable consensus standards which include provisions for maintaining the continued airworthiness of an aircraft and correcting safety-of-flight issues. Safety directives are considered mandatory on SLSA.
 
(1) Safety Alert. For notifications that require immediate action, see ASTM F2295.
 
(2) Service Bulletin (SB). For notifications that do not require immediate action but do recommend future action, see ASTM F2295.
 
(3) Notification. For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information, see ASTM F2295.

 

Further, from that same AC:

 

 

302. SLSA. To be issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under § 21.190, an aircraft must meet an industry-developed consensus standard acceptable to the FAA, which addresses aircraft design, production, and airworthiness. The aircraft’s operating limitations address its continued airworthiness. The aircraft manufacturer has the authorization to make changes, issue safety directives, and approve major repairs and alterations in accordance with the ASTM standard the aircraft was built to at certification. The Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) lists the persons authorized to perform maintenance and inspections including the training required to perform a specific task. All maintenance on an SLSA has to be done by persons certificated under part 65 in accordance with part 43 except the recording of major repairs and alterations on non-FAA-approved products.

 

 

FD says they have 5 safety alerts for CTLS. I even got letters in the mail for the last one that applied to mine, which is exactly what the manufacturer is required to do when an SD is issued.

 

I'm going to be flat out honest, it sounds more like we're trying to find ways around compliance of safety alerts based on some FAA ruling that probably isn't even related to safety directives and their types.

 

I know the FAA told Rotax and the other manufacturers that they can't make policy, which arose out of trying to require manufacturer training. That's fine. That doesn't mean they can't issue corrections for their aircraft, and I have every reason to believe, based on my FAA documentation presented, that those Safety Alerts are binding. If not, then we need documentation to say otherwise, per 91.327(a)(4)(ii).

 

Here are the 5 safety alerts:

 

CTLS Type Aircraft SAFETY ALERT

 

SA-ASTM-CTLS-01_rev.02 Checking of the Crankshaft Journal for ROTAX® Engine Type 912 and 914

SA-ASTM-CTLS-02   Inspection for Applicability of Rotax ASB-912-061 / ASB-912-061UL

SA-ASTM-CTLS-03 Inspection of Applicability of Rotax ASB-912-062UL R1 / ASB-914-044UL R1, ASB-912-062 R1 / ASB-914-044 R1

SA-ASTM-CTLS-04_rev.01 CTLSi Engine Installation Redundancy Diagnosis

SA-ASTM-CTLS-05_rev.01   Installation Verification of BRS Pickup Collar

 

When I read these, they don't look at all like they are trying to make policies, but correct an actual, legitimate, unsafe conditions.

[Roger Lee]

I think all SB's and SA's should be complied with ASAP, but in reality that rarely happens. If you read these Safety Alerts from all MFG's  some say before next flight (serious) and some say up to 2 months away (must not be that bad). If it is that severe to be a safety alert then why give 2 months to comply.

The problem hasn't been the FAA, but MFG's that mix and match SB and SA's with no consistency on what they mean or the seriousness of an issue.

[Anticept]

Airworthiness Directives are written the same way.

 

Here is AD 2013-02-13 for various Piper aircraft. Page 5 lists the applicability models and compliance. It's based on age of the aircraft or time in service.

 

Here's AD 2008-26-10 for a huge number of cessna models. Starting on page 9, there's a big table which state compliance dates and times, many are "within the next 100 hours or x months, whichever is first"...'

 

You could pretty much just look at any AD and see a "grace period". Feel free to look: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/

 

Some ADs are issued that require immediate compliance upon receipt. Usually those are Emergency ADs and are actually quite rare.

 

The idea is it is to correct a safety issue on an aircraft that will have an eventual risk to life, so they issue such ADs to give maintenance shops and owners time to order the parts and get them installed. Said Emergency ADs, like the problems the 787 had with the lithium batteries, grounded the entire fleet immediately for months. If the FAA did that every time there was a bolt out of place or a little corrosion on a wingtip, congress would stomp on them.

 

Anyways, I had called FDUSA a couple months back and asked about those safety alerts. Yes, they ARE safety directives. If we want to argue that they aren't, then that needs to be done with the manufacturer, or with the FAA. I would love to get my hands on ASTM F2483, but I'm not paying $44 to win an argument lol

[Runtoeat]

This thread is perfect for my current research into the TBO for our Rotax engines.  My 2006 CTSW AOI tells me that I need to refer to the Rotax engine manual for the maintenance of my engine.  Referring to the Rotax Line Maintenance Manual, the "mandatory" TBO shown for me is 12 years or 2000 hours.  I called Edsel Ford Jr., FAA Specialty Aircraft Examiner to try to find out what the FAA says about this.  Mr. Ford referred me to a FAA legal interpretation which dealt with a Beech Baron owner that requested direction from the FAA regarding a "mandated" maintenance of his aircraft.  The legal brief, referred to as the "McMillan letter" basically states: "if other methods, techniques and practices are used, they must be acceptable to the Administrator".  I have attached this letter. It appears to me that the claim made by Rotax that an owner of a 912ULS is mandated to overhaul or replace his/her engine based on calendar time or hours time exceeds what the FAA considers to be "acceptable".  A discussion with my local FSDO inspector resulted in the same response.  My conversations with Roger Lee indicates that he supports the option to go "on condition" with a Rotax engine that is at or past TBO.  I have been informed that perhaps Flight Design is unique among SLSA manufacturers for including text in the AOI which refers to adherence to engine TBO but have not verified this.  Should one decide to use "on condition" it appears this must utilize scheduled inspections which follow the engine manufacturer's recommendations.  My information indicates that this option is recognized by the FAA for maintaining internal combustion aircraft engines operated under Part 91.  I would appreciate any comments by Corey or those who deal with this daily.  Roger, I know your feelings but run this by me again.  I learn each time.  I am attaching those documents found in the CTLS AOI and the Rotax Line Maintenance manual which deal specifically with the TBO topic.

TBO package of docs.pdf  MacMillan.pdf

[gbigs]

Why tweek what is mandatory and what is informational or elective?  If it applies to your aircraft why not just treat them all as mandatory?  Is it a money thing?

[Anticept]

Runtoeat: yes I am familliar with that. Still, that doesn't have bearing on safety directives. None of those safety alerts are referencing TBOs.

 

If they put one out that DID, we could probably take it to the FAA and get an exemption made if it is a good case.

 

A few manufacturers from the certified world tried to do this too. Bell Helicopter for one.

[Runtoeat]

Corey, this is my point.  This TBO cannot be safety related.  If it was, there would be a SD or SA issued and this would truly be "mandatory".  And, you are spot on regarding your comment about taking this to the FAA and what their response would be.  My recent talk with the local FSDO inspector resulted in the same conclusion as yours. I posted because I am interested in learning if there are others who have considered this and, if so, to learn what decision they might make?  There is no penalty to answer this.  The FAA is fine with "on condition" for engines. Based on my discussions with the FAA, this isn't something to dwell on.  The FAA allows the option of using "on condition" maintenance for LSA owners, the same as it allows this option for operators of all other internal combustion engines operated under Part 91.

 

Hamburger, The reason is a good part money related and is also "other".  When my TBO "runs out", I'll have less than 1500 excellently maintained hours on the hobbs in 2018.  This leaves 500 hours of engine life on the table if 2,000 hours is considered.  This leaves 500 hours of unused service.  Field data appears to show an average life of a 912ULS being operated in the U.S. can have a safe operation well into 3,000 or more hours being typical. I see no reason to plunk down between $14,000 to $18,000 (depending on whether a overhaul or replacement is done) when this is being done to follow a "recommendation" to replace my engine which would still have conservatively 1,000 or more safe hours left on the hobbs.  If I follow other options, such as "on condition", my costs will be thousands less and in so doing I will also fulfill FAA's "recognized guidelines" for maintenance.

[Anticept]

I see, I thought you were making an argument against Safety Directives

 

Here's the thing about TBO: What does the ASTM say? If the ASTM talks about on condition, then there really is no basis. The FAA requires that decisions regarding limitations placed on an aircraft be in the ASTM. Rightfully so too, manufacturers can't be trusted to always keep their customers needs in mind above their pocket book.

[Runtoeat]

Corey thanks for the response.  There are references made to ASTM documents.  The CTLS AOI refers to F2295.  This costs $44 to obtain.  There is another, F2339, which my CTSW AOI refers to.  My CTSW AOI does not refer to F2295.  I have not obtained either of these.

 

You indicate, "The FAA requires that decisions regarding limitations placed on an aircraft be in the ASTM".  Can you give me a reference where I might find this statement?  As I said this is a learning experience for me.  As many others, I am almost totally in the dark regarding how the FAA and the ASTM have set up the LSA rules.  Also, those whom I talked to at the FAA made no reference and did not suggest that I need to go to the ASTM to find rules pertaining to the Rotax TBO.  The comments I got were basically, "we don't require anything regarding maintenance other than use acceptable standard  practices".   There remains other FAA people I can contact.  I originally contacted the FAA maintenance section in Washington. The receptionist I reached recommended that I contact my local FSDO but said to call back if I don't get my questions answered.   I'll continue to keep digging into this.  It would sure be nice if there might be someone from the FAA lurking on the forum who might anonymously provide some words of wisdom here. 

[gbigs]

Corey, this is my point.  This TBO cannot be safety related.  If it was, there would be a SD or SA issued and this would truly be "mandatory".  And, you are spot on regarding your comment about taking this to the FAA and what their response would be.  My recent talk with the local FSDO inspector resulted in the same conclusion as yours. I posted because I am interested in learning if there are others who have considered this and, if so, to learn what decision they might make?  There is no penalty to answer this.  The FAA is fine with "on condition" for engines. Based on my discussions with the FAA, this isn't something to dwell on.  The FAA allows the option of using "on condition" maintenance for LSA owners, the same as it allows this option for operators of all other internal combustion engines operated under Part 91.

 

Hamburger, The reason is a good part money related and is also "other".  When my TBO "runs out", I'll have less than 1500 excellently maintained hours on the hobbs in 2018.  This leaves 500 hours of engine life on the table if 2,000 hours is considered.  This leaves 500 hours of unused service.  Field data appears to show an average life of a 912ULS being operated in the U.S. can have a safe operation well into 3,000 or more hours being typical. I see no reason to plunk down between $14,000 to $18,000 (depending on whether a overhaul or replacement is done) when this is being done to follow a "recommendation" to replace my engine which would still have conservatively 1,000 or more safe hours left on the hobbs.  If I follow other options, such as "on condition", my costs will be thousands less and in so doing I will also fulfill FAA's "recognized guidelines" for maintenance.

 

My understanding is that the TBO is not a regulatory number...one can fly well past it if the engine is strong and maintained well.  Also, the cost of a new engine versus a overhaul is pretty close on Rotax right?  Would it make sense to replace it at a certain point?

[Roger Lee]

An overhaul is roughly $12K and a new 912ULS is about $16.7. I have friends with 3K-4K hrs. If you maintain it why worry needlessly and spend money. TBO is recommended not required. TBO is a good money maker for service centers. 

 

You guys need to think of this engine more along the lines of a Honda Goldwing motorcycle engine and not an air cooled aircraft old technology engine.

[Runtoeat]

Roger, do you travel to Michigan much............?  I know that you really went out of the box and came out to Ohio this winter.  Can't always go to the Bahama's you know.  Maybe you could stop by my hangar this June?

[Runtoeat]

Hamburger, Roger just posted costs.  Yes, there is always the time to replace mechanical things.  I won't gamble my safety or my passenger's safety because of cost.  We all know this is a costly sport and we must accept this and do what's right.  If my mechanic told me the block was cracked and the engine was done, it is coming out and will be replaced.  If my mechanic tells me it's time to replace, then it's time.  But this will be based on examination of my engine's vitals compared to Rotax specs.  This is no different than if I were operating a Lycoming or Continental etc. in my aircraft.

[Roger Lee]

For the month of June and half of July we are going to start in Utah and keep heading north to Montana and then eventually back home. Going to take the dogs and the Polaris SxS 1000, start small and chase marmots, then turkeys, then Antelope then Grizzlies. The Grizzlies haven't seen my little female and they should be afraid. She might rip off one of their toes. 

 

 

p.s.

I have been doing this awhile and see things most don't. You should relax and just enjoy your Rotax for at least 3K hrs. There is no need to sweat 2K hrs TBO. It won't be any less reliable then as it is now.

 

Look into my eyes. I see valium in your future.  

[Runtoeat]

How come you sound EXACTLY like my friend who's also an A&P,  Helicopter Dave?  He is constantly pulling my chain and telling me to chill out!  Do they teach this stuff at A&P school?  I know, it's the helicopter backgrounds both you guys have!