Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: Long-Standing Issues and Recent Developments

In a recent survey of domestic and international repair stations certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), more than half of those responding (57 percent) indicated they struggle to obtain instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) from one or more manufacturers. The results of that survey, conducted by the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) in September 2012, show that ICA availability continues to plague the industry despite FAA regulations requiring that they be provided. However, at long last, it appears the FAA may be moving closer to recognizing its ICA rules.

Specifically, the FAA has recently taken a position against use limitations placed on maintenance documents that design approval holders (DAHs) are required to provide. As described in FAA policy statement PS-AIR-21.50-01, the FAA’s aim is to “address actions taken by some type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC) DAHs . . . to inappropriately restrict the availability, distribution, and use of instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) through restrictive language in the ICA or through restrictive access or use agreements.” In its response to comments received on the draft policy, the FAA repeatedly states that “[the] policy statement is intended to make FAA personnel and the DAH aware of restrictive language in ICA or restrictive access or use agreements for ICA which do not meet the intent of 14 CFR 21.50(b).” That section of the regulations requires that:

The holder of a design approval, including either the TC or STC for an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller for which application was made after Jan. 28, 1981, must furnish at least one set of complete ICAs to the owner of each type aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller upon its delivery, or upon issuance of the first standard airworthiness certificate for the affected aircraft, whichever occurs later. The instructions must be prepared in accordance with §§23.1529, 25.1529, 25.1729, 27.1529, 29.1529, 31.82, 33.4, 35.4, or Part 26 of this subchapter, or as specified in the applicable airworthiness criteria for special classes of aircraft defined in §21.17(b), as applicable. If the holder of a design approval chooses to designate parts as commercial, it must include in the ICA a list of commercial parts submitted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. Thereafter, the holder of a design approval must make those instructions available to any other person required by this chapter to comply with any of the terms of those instructions. In addition, changes to the ICA shall be made available to any person required by this chapter to comply with any of those instructions. (Emphasis added.)

The policy is a noble step in the right direction by the FAA in identifying barriers to compliance with its rule. For instance, the FAA points out that a DAH cannot furnish ICA, then limit its use through restrictive language or agreements because doing so is not within the spirit of the rule. Similarly, the FAA notes that a DAH’s claim to intellectual property rights cannot interfere with the requirement to make ICA available as required. It is also clear that owners cannot be prevented from providing ICAs to the maintenance entity of their choice. In light of that rationale, four unacceptable practices, identified as violations enforceable by FAA legal counsel, are listed in the policy:

1. Requiring the owner/operator to install only DAH-produced or authorized replacement parts, articles, appliances or materials.

2. Requiring that alterations or repairs must be provided or otherwise authorized by the DAH.

3. Requiring the use of only maintenance providers or other persons authorized by the DAH to implement the ICA.

4. Establishing, or attempting to establish, any restriction on the owner/operator to disclose or provide the ICA to persons authorized by the FAA to implement the ICA.

However, the FAA policy does not discuss the “definition” of what constitutes ICA. Section 21.50(b) states that the ICA must be prepared in accordance with the applicable airworthiness standards — Part 23 for normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes; Part 25 for transport category airplanes; Part 26 for continued airworthiness and safety improvements for transport category airplanes; Part 27 for normal category rotorcraft; Part 29 for transport category rotorcraft; Part 31 for manned free balloons; Part 33 for aircraft engines; or Part 35 for propellers. Although the airworthiness standards differ, for illustrative purposes in this article we focus solely on the Part 25 requirements for ICA.

As provided in Appendix H to Part 25, ICA for each airplane must include ICA for each engine, propeller, appliance and any required information relating to the interface of those appliances and products with the airplane. The ICA must contain maintenance instructions with scheduling information for periods at which each part of the airplane and its engines, auxiliary power unit, propellers, accessories, instruments and equipment should be cleaned, inspected, adjusted, tested and lubricated, and the degree of inspection, applicable wear tolerances and work recommended at those periods, along with recommended overhaul periods and inspections necessary for the continued airworthiness of the airplane. On its face, it appears the rule and its requirements for “information essential to the continued airworthiness of the airplane,” is all encompassing, and includes component maintenance manuals or other detailed instructions covering every bit of the airplane. The FAA, however, has not subscribed to such a plain reading of its rule.

Indeed, the FAA has oversimplified the requirement for “information essential to the continued airworthiness of the airplane” to the extent that it considers simple remove-and-replace instructions to be sufficient ICA. In ARSA’s opinion, that rationale reads the detailed requirements for ICA right out of the rule. As a result, the industry is left with the undesirable prospect of dealing with “ICA” that lack meaningful maintenance information while, despite the specificity in its rules, the FAA looks the other way. To resolve the issue, the FAA must recognize that the detailed information described in its rule is essential to the continued airworthiness of the airplane and must be provided in the ICA. Without such acknowledgment, the great strides the FAA has taken in its recent policy prohibiting restrictive language or agreements could be limited by the content provided in the ICA. We hope that instead, the recent FAA policy marks the beginning of renewed agency focus on ICA, to include detailed content requirements as well as availability to maintenance providers.

Next month, we will visit issues that arise for maintenance providers as a result of inadequate or unavailable ICA, and ARSA’s past and present efforts to resolve those issues.

Craig Fabian serves as vice president of regulatory affairs and assistant general counsel for the Aeronautical Repair Station Association and is an attorney with the law firm of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod, and Klein. Fabian worked for Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein from 2006 – 2007 and rejoined the firm in 2009 after serving as director of technical operations for the Air Transport Association (ATA; now known as Airlines for America). He was previously an attorney in the aerospace practice of another Washington, D.C. law firm. Before practicing law, Mr. Fabian spent nearly 15 years in the aviation maintenance industry; first as an aircraft mechanic and avionics technician for Northwest Airlines, then as a maintenance control supervisor for US Airways. He holds an FAA mechanic’s certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings, and is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.

All references in this article are to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).