I will provide more details in the near future. Long and short is we believe that this company provided an unworthy aircraft. There were multiple items that were unairworthy but the one I would like to focus on for this post is the HSI.

The head honcho is adamant that per P&W SB 7003 the JT14-5D hot section is a recommended not mandatory event and as such the aircraft he leased me which was due hot sections was still airworthy. Essentially he is saying it is legal to fly JT14D's without complying with the hot section inspection.

Thoughts?

Mark -

This continues to be both a grey area and one rife with disagreement in the industry.

The predominant thinking is that unless the SB otherwise references or is part of an AD, it is not "mandatory."

That point of view may be yielding to stricter voices inside the FAA.

You and and any one else interested in this issue should look carefully at the NTSB Law Decision attached hereto and particularly pages 6-8. It may help better inform your views upon the topic.



The bottom line - the FAA is starting to take a much harder stance on SBs and failure to comply with them may invite an enforcement action - whether it be an A&P/I-A returning the aircraft back to service in an unairworthy condition OR a pilot operating it in that condition.

Not saying that I agree, but there it is.

I should too add that aviation insurance policies often exclude coverage if the aircraft is not being operated in accordance with, among other things, its A/W Certificate. While I personally have not seen an insurer make the argument that it could deny coverage b/c of the failure to comply with an SB, if an engine suffers catastrophic failure of the hot section and that SB was not complied with, it most certainly will.

No mechanic I know would sign off on that thing and the thought to run my turbine past HSI would be on the way to the HSI only. That airplane is good for parts.

Can you post SB 7003?

Inspections are mandatory. Overhauls are not mandatory for PT91 I don't know how a HSI can be said to not be a mandatory inspection.

It is interesting that Willaims does not use the terminology HSI or OH. They call them both MPI - Major Periodic Inpactions. By calling them both inspections Williams makes the OH mandatory for PT91.

If it is a required inspection at some hour point in the maintenance manual then it is mandatory.

To further clarify Allen's excellent point, and per the NTSB decision, if the MM incorporates the SB's they are mandatory. Period. Full stop.

R-

This is all the relevant info including the SB. My A&I did the highlighting to make the point it is mandatory.

Sorry, I disagree.

You have to select an inspection program under 91.409 (presuming turbine twins). If the SB isn't an "inspection", then inclusion in the MM does not make it mandatory.

For example, an SB that says "replace part #X with #Y at 10,000 hours", that is not an inspection and it is not mandatory.

A hot section inspection is an inspection. Mandatory.

This all relates to the power the manufacturer has for making regulations. The FAA has the power to force SBs through ADs, that power is not available to the manufacturers, and simply including it in their MMs does not make it mandatory.

Mike C.

This case is frequently brought up to prove that SB's are mandatory. However a later ruling by the FAA has clearly and unambiguously contradicted that claim. The ruling has been posted several times on this forum.

I think this article says differently - http://aviationweek.com/bca/point-law-far-part-91-maintenance-programs

Current Inspection Program Recommended by the Manufacturer: Owners and operators of large and turbine aircraft must follow an inspection program in accordance with Part 91.409. Most of those Part 91 owners and operators elect to follow a “current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer” under Part 91.409(f)(3).

The word “current” causes confusion. Numerous FAA Legal Interpretations have clarified that the agency holds the word “current” to mean the program as it existed at the time the operator or owner adopted it. So, if you purchased a 2005 aircraft in 2010, the “current” inspection program to follow would have been the one that existed in 2010. Once you select the current inspection program under Part 91.409(f)(3), that program remains the one you must follow regardless of any revision the manufacturer makes subsequently — unless the revision is mandated by an FAA-issued AD or other FAA rule.

So, a “mandatory” Service Bulletin could be part of your current inspection program if, at the time that you adopted the program (that is, when you purchased your aircraft) any Service Bulletin(s) that contain inspection requirements are included, whether they appear directly in the program or are incorporated into it by reference.

So you have been flying around in a jet which has engines past HSI?

Wait till the Europeans chime in...

So we have a quorum that the Hot section inspection is , by nature of it being an inspection, mandatory. Therefore, any flight beyond the hot section limit would require either a formal extension by P&W (for which they charge $10,000 for 50 hours and requires things like a borescope) or a ferry permit.

Thus this aircraft was not airworthy. Correct?

So you have been flying around in a jet which has engines past HSI?

Wait till the Europeans chime in...

It is problematic to put it mildly. Head honcho should get the HSI's done while he can.

It is problematic to put it mildly. Head honcho should get the HSI's done while he can.

So, a “mandatory” Service Bulletin could be part of your current inspection program if, at the time that you adopted the program (that is, when you purchased your aircraft) any Service Bulletin(s) that contain inspection requirements are included, whether they appear directly in the program or are incorporated into it by reference.

Note the highlight.

You only have to do the INSPECTION part of the SB.

Also note that an airplane owned by person #1 can be completely legal and airworthy in their possession but the moment person #2 buys that airplane, it becomes immediately unairworthy due to the immediate requirement to select an inspection program *current* at the moment of purchase.

Thus a seller CAN sell an airworthy airplane, and a buyer CAN buy an unairworthy airplane, and it is the same exact plane.

This situation is absolutely unreasonable and needs to be fixed. An airplane does not become unairworthy just because papers were signed.

Mike C.