Legality Opinions

[mekstrand]

As a new member of the Association I am disappointed with the amount of drama on the forum regarding legalities. I appreciate the information that is shared, but wonder about the seemingly endless discussion about the "Basis of Approval" of insignificant items. Maybe it’s just me, but unless the person providing the opinion does so on FAA letterhead, it’s just someone else's opinion. I don’t understand why so many operate as if their 60-year-old Cessna is on a 121-maintenance program. Call me crazy but I don’t care if someone chooses to install a second hand shoulder harness, that's between them, their I.A, and the FAA.

Maybe some additional consideration should be given to making our aircraft safer to operate. An excellent example would be the LED position lamps George wrote about. (I know I plan on ordering a set.) The reduced current required to operate the lights would provide the operator with significantly more time with electrical accessories operating in the event of a Generator/Alternator failure. Isn’t that what what’s really important?

My motivation to join the association was to be a part of an information exchange about my aircraft type. I hoped to learn about maintenance issues that others have experienced, and benefit from their specific knowledge. It seems that a portion of the 170-association membership is more concerned with paperwork than safety. Maybe someone could add a new "Legality” topic for those who chose to argue about the traceability of their ashtray.


Marshall

[Hineywheel Bill]

Apparently you've never been in a peeing contest with the FAA. A seemingly trivial "legality" can sometimes quickly morph into a legal action against you or your IA in the event of an accident or even an incident. If the 'small' things are hammered home, then it might serve to keeps us out of some 'big' things with our "Uncle". But, of course, it is possible to carry the 'little' things too far, I suppose.

Bill

[SteveF]

Just before reading Legality Opinions I had been reading the How To Search AD’s Properly forum entry. I was also thinking it is turning into another one of the out of control legal discussions.

I was thinking to myself that I love to fly and depend on my A&P to keep my plane safe. Though it is my responsibility I feel the bulk of the work to keep my plane airworthy paperwork wise is his. He is my main point of contact for mechanical work and maintenance. This is his business and he does it well and it is also what he gets paid to do.

Having been a member for a few years now I have found the association to be an invaluable resource for ideas, facts, and entertainment. There are a lot of members that have many different interests and it shows in these discussions.

Some are dot the I’s and cross the T’s legal eagles. Their discussion is to make us aware of the problems we could have. I generally say great but I bet I get sued no matter what the cause of an accident and how much documentation I have. If not the lawyers then the insurance people so let them thrash out what is legal and what is not I am still going flying.

That being said things like disconnecting the parking brake, draining the bottom of the fuel selector, which way the attach bolts are put on, the size of prop bolts, speaker repair, how to wheel land, flap use and slipping with flaps have all been just a small sampling of great discussions of things to be aware of or have checked or done.

Because there are diverse views the discussions about how to get more cabin heat, rope tricks, digital gages, home made rudder locks, different size tires, windshields, engine upgrades, and on and on give a person different food for thought from many directions. As with most things with many views I take what I want and discard the questionable. There is a fantastic knowledge base here – some on many things and others only on a small area but they are exceptionally helpful in their small area of expertise.

When discussions get heated I know sooner or later an old curmudgeon will make a short entry that gets right to the point and point out that there is to much BS getting into the discussion. Just waiting for these jabs is worth the price of admission. We are fortunate to have some realistic government people who give us the official view. It may or may not be what we want to hear but it makes us aware.

So yes I agree there are personality clashes, one ups men ship, and legal nit picking. This amounts to a small percentage of the forums and the vast majority of all the rest of the useful information far out weights the BS we have to wade through.

This is a great group of people who really are interested in keeping these planes flying. Some as show pieces and some as rat planes but never the less still flying.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Steve that is a great post. You hit so many good points.

As a person who has offered a lot of advise, missing some dots and crossed t's, I sometimes forget who I'm giving advise to. I usually throw in a legal word if it is warranted these days. Some times we forget or simply we assume everyone knows you have to have an A&P license or work undr supervision to accomplish the advice. Then someone else need to chime in and add that important detail.

If you and I were having a private conversation Marshall, first I might know something of your knowledge, experience and paper qualifications. Second our conversation is not heard by anyone else, it is between us. If I knew that your were an expert on the 170 knowing every detail of each of them and you had all the qualifications paper wise my advise could be very simple. Go get yourself some really big tires, throw in some webbing from that lawn chair for shoulder harnesses, fill that puppy up with what ever it'll burn and lets go flying. It would be up to you to figure all the rest out as you see fit.

But this is a forum with lots and lots of eyes viewing it, who knows their qualifications and it may never go away. Advice I gave 10 years ago is still here. Some legalese has got to be part of the conversation.

Keeping our airplanes legal is part of the game today. Many of us, given the climate we now live in, wish that others before us had paid more attention to doting the i's and crossing the t's. Sometimes it's not so easy to simply remove that lawn chair webbing and fill in those 3/4 inch holes someone put in the rear spar.

So legal talk and opinion are an important part of the discussion and forum. We really couldn't have a forum without it. Yes we could use a lot less one up man ship and what appears on the surface to be petty arguments. Unfortunately discussing the FARs and their true meaning, which is open to interpretation, is only slightly better sometimes than discussing politics and religion.

[mekstrand]

Bruce,

Thanks for the feedback. I hope you didn’t misinterpret my post. Perhaps my message wasn’t clear. I was not suggesting that anyone install questionable parts, or not maintain their aircraft in accordance with applicable regulations. I was simply stating that it is a bit monotonous filtering through the legal advice and interpretations offered up by members (who’s qualifications are unknown) on just about every single post. I was suggesting that perhaps it would be nice to have a specific area of the forum where legal advice could be solicited. That would allow information about safety, improvements, and STC's to be disseminated more efficiently.

So you know where I am coming from, I’m an A&P, with a background in Aeronautical Engineering. As a captain for a major airline I can assure you that I probably have a lot more motivation than the average pilot in assuring the legality of any aircraft I operate. My aircraft (the 170 is my 8th) are always maintained in accordance with all applicable regulations, and my paperwork is always in order.

Should a question arise about the legality of a component or installation I probably wouldn’t rely on this (or any other) forum for a definitive answer. I would prefer to query my I.A., the FAA, a DER, or DAR depending on the situation.

[lowNslow]

Marshall, I understand your frustration, but many of the participants in the forum are also AP/IA and FAA and DER - etc. As people who have to deal with this kinda stuff daily you can see that no-one has a complete picture of how to determine all the various legallity issues including the FAA. As an AP (very part time) myself I enjoy these discussions as it gets me into the books and keeps me up to speed on a lot of this stuff. I don't see how you can have a discussion on all the various parts that have been discussed here on this forum and NOT talk about the legality issues. Like it or not, it is part of the onus of maintaining a certified aircraft. Remember,you as an AP, are in a better position to decide if certain things are kosher, but others on the forum may not.

[minton]

Marshall,

You are right on wanting the straight scoop. Sometimes you have to sift through the BS on this site, but all in all it provides alot of otherwise unsearchable information.

When you do have a valid question that requires an "Official" responce, go to the source. Your local FSDO (Regional) and talk with an inspector. If you need a determination, request it in writing. Be sure it specifically addresses the subject aircrafts make, model, "N" number and serial number. They in turn, need to reply in the same manner on "Official" letterhead.

Then you are good to go.

PS, Be ready to jump through a few hoops so do you homework before applying.

If you need further help shoot me a "PM".

John

[voorheesh]

The best way to deal with legalities is to read and understand the regulations yourself. All FARs are either related to safety (the minimum level of safety, by the way) or to administrative matters or miscellaneous details/definitions. The enforceable regulations either require you to do/have something or prohibit you from doing something. I hear people try and pick the regulations apart and make them more complicated then they really are. This is normally unnecessary. Read them, apply your circumstances in a reasonable manner, and you will find the answers are fairly obvious in most cases. To enforce these regulations, the FAA must prove by a preponderance of factual evidence that on a date/time, at a location you violated a specific regulation by a specific act or omission. With some exceptions, the FAA must bring their case within 6 months of the alleged date or it goes stale. You can talk with inspectors and get opinions or interpretations until the cows come home but at the end of the day, it boils down to facts and ability to read the rules. If they are vague, err on the conservative side and you will stay out of trouble. The inspector is not the final word. Having said that, inspectors are good resources and are supposed to help airmen in understanding their responsibilities and in showing them ways to achieve safety and compliance. It is also their job to uphold the aviation rules. If you don't like the FARs in our country, try Europe or Australia.

FAA offices do not give written interpretations. The FAA office of General Counsel in D.C. gives written interpretations in response to specific requests and these only reflect the FAA's enforcement policy (go to faa.gov for more info). The NTSB and United States Court of Appeals give enforceable opinions on the aviation regulations and these along with the actual written rules are the bottom line. All these are available on line with a little research. I would go to AOPA for legal advice since they are very close to FAA headquarters and are up to date on the latest issues such as the recent change in known icing.
All FAA employees must operate within the scope of their duties which means they must follow written orders and other guidance in the conduct of their work. All of this guidance is available on faa.gov. If an FAA employee asks/requires you to do something you do not understand or believe is unreasonable, ask that it be given to you in writing and copy the office manager in your request. If you are troubled or disatisfied with any FAA action ask to file a stakeholder feedback action which, in effect is a request for review at a higher level. This is your right as a citizen. Do not be afraid to use it. If you are suspected of a violation, the FAA will investigate and likely contact you. It is advisable to cooperate but you are under no obligation to talk to an inspector or give information that could be used against you. Do not lie to an inspector. Do not give the NTSB or law enforcement one story and another to the FAA.

If you receive a formal letter of investigation from the FAA, contact AOPA or an attorney because the legal system is too complex for the average pilot or mechanic to navigate. The FAA is required to perform a risk assessment on all alleged violations to determine safety impact and subsequent action/sanction. Generally speaking, if the alleged violator has a compliant attitude, is involved in an unintentional violation (medium to low safety impact using the ICAO SRM matrix), the FAA will use administrative action which is not a finding of violation. It involves a warning letter, a letter of corrective action, or remedial training. This will go on an airman's record for 24 months and be expunged. The reason for this is that the FAA is trying to reduce accidents not write violations. Use the NASA ASRS system because it gets useful data into the safety system and protects violators from sanctions in most circumstances.

The majority of violations involve airspace deviations, runway surface deviations, and issues that come up in accident or incident investigation because these are cases where the evidence is usually incontrovertable and the system is in place to get the matter to the agency's attention. Most of the legal issues that come up on this forum would not usually come to the attention of the FAA unless there was an accident and then it is usually too late to do anything about it. The FAA does not want to pursue enforcements unless necessary, they prefer voluntary compliance. The last thing the FAA wants to do is investigate an accident. The agency is promoting system safety and seeking ways for users to operate using safety risk assessment in their aviation activities.

My apologies to those of you who are tired of legal bickering. My opinions are exactly that and as Bruce says, worth the price you paid for them. I could be wrong and I am sure there are many who would disagree with me. But seriously, I want aviation to be as safe as it can be and my intent in writing is to try and take some of the mystery out of this subject and change the focus to safety. An acquaintance of mine who ran a highway patrol air unit here in California said it the best at a safety meeting one night: The FARs are the absolute minimum level of safety. If you operate at that level, you are putting yourself in a position that even the most minor change or deviation will make you by definition unsafe. To deal with this, the CHP has organizational minimums that are higher than the FARs to provide a workable safety margin. When they bring on new flight officers, they negotiate even higher personal minimums until an experience level is reached where you can operate in accordance with department expectations. If you operate on this level, you just don't have to worry about the FAA and you can enjoy aviation as well as anyone. Fly safe.

[azmuth1]

Whoa...my eyes are tired after reading that one. My experience is at the other end of the learning curve. I'm 54 and have almost 2 years in the air. I'm fresh from all the reading of FAR/AIM...all in all, I do believe all the rules are written for a reason...safety, not just for me, but for everyone else. Yea, I can go to W-mart I by some cheeper replacement part for my car instead of going to my mechanic, I"M ON THE GROUND. However, I don't want to unexpectedly find myself heading to the ground for some bailing wire repair. I want 'it' repaired, fixed, or replaced as intended under the rules.

To make aviators and pilots follow the rules, there are consequeses which usually causes us to cough up heafty fees, fines, and legal fees! A lot of $20 nuts and $200 batteries can be bought for the cost of one lawyer.

This site has so much information it will take me years to read it all. What I have experienced is I get a response within a few days from whatever question I have...either stupid or not (the question). And, no one has ever called my stupid questions stupid. I think this 170 site is accomplishing all that it set out to do..and that is keep em flying.

One could go 'experimental' if he or she wants to try something different. Anyone can built something and fly it at his own risk...that is what invented the flying machine. I believe most aviators on this site chose the 170 for many reasons, and dependability and accountablity is a couple of those reasons.

I'll get off my little sump now. I did kinda get off the subject a little...but I DO feel better now.
By the way, where is that old curmudgeon.

[Brad Brady]

I started, and stopped writing this several times. Legality is a bitch...It starts with something as simple as, "I will not annual your aircraft", because of these reasons.......the owner is in agreement, and goes with me....the next thing I know the FAA is at my door wanting copies of the logs.......(which are sparse at best). After three years, it looks like that the APIA in question, actually has problems Internationaly.....Australia....and here I am stuck in the middle....a place I don't like to be........Brad

[voorheesh]

My reference to aviation rules in Australia was intended to compare them to those here in the U.S. If you read the CASA Enforcement Manual which details aviation enforcement procedures in Australia, I think you will realize that the DOT/FAA has a system that gives pilots and mechanics more "rights" and is, probably more fair to users. My point is that we should appreciate the rights we enjoy here in the United States.

[minton]

I guess that I chimed in on a subject that has many facets. Mine was intended to address the simple things as is it a major or minor repair. This the local FSDO can address in writing. The rest I'll let you "Experts" on those issues hash out.

[Brad Brady]

My reference to aviation rules in Australia was intended to compare them to those here in the U.S. If you read the CASA Enforcement Manual which details aviation enforcement procedures in Australia, I think you will realize that the DOT/FAA has a system that gives pilots and mechanics more "rights" and is, probably more fair to users. My point is that we should appreciate the rights we enjoy here in the United States.

Voorheesh,
Some how I missed this post. I didn't mean to chastise any other government or the way they do business. I was stating that this guy has screwed people in other countries. Not just the US. Sorry, if I got things misconstrued.....Brad

[voorheesh]

The reason I wrote the post was to pass along some of my insight on legality issues because it comes up frequently in this forum and I sense that some members could benefit from the information, understanding it is my opinion only. The guy who started this thread is a professional pilot and would not need to hear about this stuff but there are others who have not had as much experience and may find it interesting. One of the good things about a forum like this is you can choose what you want to read and what you want to say. You can also make up your own mind about the content and don't have to believe everything you see or hear on the internet. I mentioned the aviation rules in Australia and Europe only because they are so much more burdensome than our rules. Maybe we should be greatful that users have input and influence in the US.