My maintenance shop sent this link to me today referencing SID inspections on Conquests:

http://www.avweb.com/search/index.html? ... aintenance

So reading that link, you don't have to comply with the SID? What was the inspection program like on the conquest II when it was built?

It is more complicated than that. If, as an owner, you chose and logged the inspection program that was in use at the time, you could continue using that program. However, if you go to sell the airplane, then the new owner is required to use the new inspection program. So effectively.... You either pay for having the SIDS done or you take the equivalent hit to your value.

That's the position my maintenance shop takes on the issue. He also sent me a PDF document with the FAA's position, from which, I presume, this article came. After reading as much as I could stand, the FAA makes it pretty clear they are the sole authority on who makes the rules.

In that most Conquests have had the "big" SID event already completed, our conversation topic was more on recurring SID inspections.

The stance my maintenance guy takes is that only the original inspections in place at the time of manufacture need be in compliance. Disassembling the airplane every ten years is not required for the airplane to be legally airworthy.

(I'm relaying the facts as best I understand them. I'd like to leave myself room to be wrong.)

Makes the rules, yes.

Interpret the rules, no. An administrative law judge does that.

Also, the FAA has to operate under the law. The law limits their power. The problem the FAA ran into is that giving manufacturers power to control the inspection program ceded the power to make what are effectively ADs. That violated the administrative procedures act.

Also, different parts of the FAA can issue guidance and until it is tested by an ALJ, that isn't necessarily the rules.

In this case, FAA counsel said manufacturers can't change the programs. Another part of the FAA, the part that controls inspections, then gave this very nuanced interpretation of "current" which meant a NEW owner had to choose a CURRENT program. In their opinion, an airplane goes from being airworthy to being unairworthy if the owner changes, which is ridiculous.

So here is the "current" not meaning "stay current" opinion:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... tation.pdf

The nuanced interpretation that requires NEW owners to select current inspection:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... tation.pdf

In my view, a manufacturer changing the inspection program like Cessna did is making "substantive rule" EVEN IF THE CURRENT OWNER DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY. The reason is that the program change has a substantial financial impact to the existing owner because their aircraft is no more capable after the change but may cost a lot for the next owner.

Consider a simple change to the program: "After 5,000 hours, replace the wings". Cessna could publish that in the program, and the current owner has lost ALL of his value. That is clearly a substantive rule.

Mike C.

At least some of the FAA disagrees, which doesn't mean they are right.

The FAA says when the NEW owner buys the airplane, they must select a CURRENT inspection program, and if that program is the Cessna one, then it includes recurrent SIDs which include invasive things every 10 years.

Mike C.

So then each owner can decide whether or not to comply with the SID based on his own interpretation of the rules?

So let's say I buy a conquest on controller that says it has the SIDs done. Who tells me what inspection I have to follow? Who is the final authority?

This is what my maintenance supervisor sent to me yesterday:

My interpretation is that no matter how many times Cessna revises their maintenance manual on the 425, the FAA concludes an owner is only responsible for maintaining the aircraft to the standards in place at the time the aircraft was built. If the FAA deems necessary to change that stance, it will happen via Airworthiness Directives. The one difference in moving to a 425…the aircraft now falls under FAR 91.409 (f), as stated under para (e), multi-engine turboprop aircraft must choose one of 4 maintenance programs. The easiest of those is para (f)(4) “A current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer”. This is where the word “current” comes in to play and by FAA definition means the inspection program in 1985. I mentioned to you we had the Caravan on a standard annual inspection, but we can do that because it is a single engine turboprop rather than multiengine. So to be legal, we will need to do the 100 hr, 200 hr, and Phase D inspections as specified in 1985, but we don’t have to comply with SIDs. As I said yesterday, the 100 hr inspection can be done in 1 day, the 200 hr inspection will take 2-3 days, and the Phase D is essentially an annual. The Phase D is due each 12 months or 400 hours, so that should always just be a once a year inspection. Based on your flight history, we will probably do 2 100 hr inspections a year (the 200 hour inspection incorporates the 100 hr items) and one Phase D. We do not have to pay for and use CESCOM if you don’t want to, this can all be done with logbook entries. A lot to digest, but it’s fairly simple.

He also sent me this.

If the aircraft owner is the first owner, and made an election of the inspection program on the day of delivery, then yes.

If the aircraft was later sold, then at least one part of the FAA says the new owner has to select an inspection program current as of the date the plane was bought. So they say the best you can do is go back to you buy date.

If your buy date is past when SIDs were added to the inspection program, then selecting the current program includes SIDs.

I want to see this challenged in court. I think manufacturers promulgating new rules are "substantive" even if current owners do not have to abide by them because of the potential economic damage it does to the current owners. I also think change in ownership should not render an aircraft unairworthy.

Lastly, something that is not dealt with is if a holding entity, say a one aircraft LLC, is sold. The aircraft ownership technically did not change, the LLC still owns it, but the LLC is now owned by someone else. This would seemingly get around the regulation. If the FAA opines it doesn't, then you end up with a weird situation where a company may be acquired by another and all their aircraft become unairworthy when that happens. Bizarre.

So perhaps we all should form single aircraft LLCs and sell those between each other so we can preserve the historical maintenance program.

Mike C.

Then perhaps another part of the FAA says the new owner has to select an inspection program current as of the date of manufacture.

Let's end it there since I'm closing on a 425 next week.

Show me that in writing. I've not seen anything from the FAA which says that.

Mike C.

Congratulations!

Best place for 425 training is Proflight in Carlsbad CA. http://www.proflight.aero/courses/conquest-i-and-ii/initial-training/