f r o m r I c p E r I
V I c E p r E s I d E n T o f G oV E r n m E n T & I n d U s T r y A f fA I r s f o r A E A
The Aircraft Electronics Association’s international membership continues to grow. Currently, the AEA represents avionics
businesses in more than 35 countries throughout the world. To better serve the needs of the AEA’s international membership,
the “International News and Regulatory Updates” section of Avionics News offers a greater focus on international
regulatory activity, international industry news, and an international “Frequently Asked Questions” column to help promote
standardization. If you have comments about this section, send e-mails to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Global Safety in Challenging Times:
How Can We Better Achieve Harmonized Implementation?
his month’s international column European regulatory teams as well as Ca- on the radar screen for the near term and
comes to you from Athens, Greece. nadian and Australian authorities, and for the far term, allowing open discussion of
Athens was the host city for this the past two years, there has been partici- current issues and international collabora-
year’s Europe/U.S. International Aviation pation from ICAO. tion.
Safety Conference. As in past years, this Fundamentally, this forum reviews all This year’s conference began with the
is a great forum to meet with the U.S. and of the regulatory topics worldwide that are sorrow over the loss of Air France 447
on the night before the conference be-
gan. Any accident is a devastating loss; a
mid-air breakup in the middle of the night
cannot be imagined. The AEA offers our
deepest condolences to the passengers’
families for their loss.
The hot issue during this year’s con-
ference was the U.S. politics regarding
the repair station oversight provisions of
the FAA Reauthorization Bills. While the
FAA and EASA did everything they could
to be “politically correct,” it is quite clear,
should Congress ignore the FAA’s efforts
to develop relationships with the individu-
al National Aviation Authorities of Europe
and EASA, the entire industry will suffer.
The topic of safety management sys-
tems was front and center on the agenda
again this year, with some disappointing
presentations. In spite of EASA’s previous
Ric Peri (left), vice president of government & industry affairs for AEA, greets Elias Kokkotas, commitment to perform a gap analysis and
division manager for AEA member Scandinavian Avionics Greece S.A. in Athens, as part of his
simply add missing elements, EASA now
trip to Greece to participate in the Europe/U.S. International Aviation Safety Conference.
20 avionics news • august 2009
is promising a stand-alone SMS program Europe, so now its regulatory resources FAQ.” These were not new issues; they
like the other authorities. ICAO’s brief- are focused on bringing on the new suite have been raised in the past as well. Spe-
ing on the misunderstanding of ICAO’s of operational regulations. In addition, cifically discussed was the international
intent with system safety fell on deaf au- EASA has a new regulatory structure in acceptance of aircraft parts following
thority ears. It seems this SMS “virus” is the works. It is a radical change to the or- maintenance, repair and alterations. This
spreading faster than the swine flu. From ganizational structure of the regulations issue also was raised during the annual
certification, it looks as though EASA (as but there is very little functional change AEA Europe Meeting in May.
well as the FAA and TCCA) are planning for most of AEA members. When a part is approved for return-to-
a revision to the advisory materials for the A good amount of the panel discussions service after maintenance, it is important
changed products rule (21.101), which kept coming back to the concept of leased to remember the return-to-service author-
should be available late next year. aircraft. Many of the issues we deal with ity is based on the registry of the aircraft
EASA spend a significant amount of on international marketing of business air- the part is to be installed on, not on the lo-
time discussing its new rulemaking struc- craft are very similar to the issues faced by cation of the maintenance facility. For ra-
ture. The AEA participated on the rule- leasing companies. The discussions raised dios in particular, there are few provisions
making working group for the B-3 license the issue of harmonized documentation, for radios to be considered “overhauled”
and led the discussions and proposal for a mutually acceptable repairs and altera- based on the European regulations. In ad-
B-4 license. tions, and the inconsistencies of valida- dition, Europe has specific criterion for the
During the convention’s regulatory tions from authority to authority. substitution of component parts in TSO’d
session, EASA focused on its concept for For most of the topics raised during this articles.
better regulation of general aviation with three-day conference, there are seldom This year’s meeting ended with some
its Part 21 European light aircraft process, any direct solutions, but rather the basis of promising directions to address many of
simplifications to Part M and Part 66, as a long-term regulatory or harmonization the issues raised by the industry. Both the
well as promising proportionate rules for project. FAA and EASA recognized the value of
light general aviation aircraft operations. The panel discussion on parts raised international commerce between the U.S.
EASA recently accepted the regulatory some interesting issues, which are ad- and Europe and promised to continue their
responsibility for operations throughout dressed in this month’s “International efforts to improve harmonization.
marking certain parts and products. These requirements associated with these in-ser-
UNITED STATES requirements generally are contained vice articles.
News & Regulatory Updates in Parts 21 and 45, and they apply only With the exception of Part 45, §45.13(b)
to the production approval holder at the through (e), which applies only to the re-
time of production. Parts not required to moval, installation, changing or placement
FAA Provides Guidance to ASIs on be marked during production also might of identification information for aircraft,
Marking of In-Service Articles have identification information on identi- aircraft engines, propellers, propeller hubs
The Federal Aviation Administration fication plates, tags, labels or on the actual and propeller blades, there are no regula-
issued Notice N 8900.74, dated June 5, part itself. The production approval holder tions (other than life-limited parts) dealing
2009, which provides guidance to avia- or its suppliers may apply such markings. directly with part marking of in-service
tion safety inspectors (maintenance and During the normal course of opera- articles during maintenance or alteration
avionics) for advising operators and main- tions and maintenance, some or all of this of articles. Therefore, this issue must be
tenance providers about the marking of in- information might be missing or become evaluated in light of general airworthiness
service articles. illegible. principles.
The following information is extracted In other cases, the person maintaining While identification data for a compo-
from FAA Notice 9800.74; a review of the the part might have added or changed nent might be part of the aircraft’s type
entire notice is encouraged. marking information. The FAA has pro- design, the fact that it might be missing
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regu- vided inconsistent information to main-
lations provides limited requirements for tenance providers about part marking Continued on following page
avionics news • august 2009 21
INTERNATIONAL NEWS markings should not be routinely “miss- • Knowledge that the article received
Continued from page 21 ing.” Aviation safety inspectors (ASIs) an appropriate incoming inspection and
who become aware of specific TSOA or remains within the control of the same
or illegible does not mean the aircraft is PMA articles with consistently missing operator or maintenance provider
not airworthy when the article is contin- markings should forward the information Even if not prohibited by §45.13(b)
ued in service or installed. The National to the production approval holder’s Man- through (e), it is generally inadvisable to
Transportation Safety Board case law ufacturing Inspection District Office and remove original identification even if it is
and FAA legal interpretations have con- copy the Aircraft Engineering Division illegible. Instead, add additional informa-
cluded not every minor deviation (such (AIR-100). This information can help the tion as described below. For questions
as dents, scratches, pinholes of corrosion production approval holder’s MIDO re- concerning replacing identification infor-
or missing screws), no matter how mi- solve any deficiencies in either the TSO/ mation on parts not covered by §45.13(b)
nor or where it is located on the aircraft, PMA standard or the TSOA/PMA hold- through (e), the ASI should provide the
dictates the conclusion that the aircraft’s er’s design or manufacturing processes following advice:
design, construction or performance has for part marking permanency. • Maintenance providers performing
been impaired by the defect to a degree The following guidance for ASIs con- work for an air carrier or commercial
the aircraft no longer conforms to its type cerns the absence of identification data on operator under Part 145, §145.205, must
certificate. a part (including but not limited to PMA follow the operator’s parts identification
Existing FAA guidance for evaluating and TSOA articles) and the subsequent procedures. If there are no instructions,
parts (such as AC 20-154, “Guide for De- re-marking of these components: the maintenance provider should request
veloping a Receiving Inspection System • Part marking is not essential for de- written guidance from the operator. The
for Aircraft Parts and Material”) recog- termining the continued airworthiness of operator may authorize the repair station
nizes part markings are only one of many an in-service article, provided the opera- to follow the repair station’s own iden-
factors an inspector can use to establish tor and/or its maintenance provider can tification procedure; in such cases, the
the airworthiness of parts for installation determine it conforms to its approved operator should clearly communicate this
on type-certificate products. The current design and is in condition for safe opera- fact.
edition of Order 8130.21, “Procedures for tion. • Encourage maintenance providers to
Completion and Use of the Authorized • Except for §45.13(b)-(e), there are no contact the design or production approval
Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130- regulations (other than life-limited parts) holder to obtain re-identification informa-
3, Airworthiness Approval Tag,” states requiring or prohibiting re-marking of a tion. Unless contrary to §145.205, obtain-
the production approval holder may use part received with a missing or illegible ing a new identification plate, label or tag
a Form 8130-3 as a substitute means of identification plate, label, tag or other from the manufacturer and following its
identifying parts when the information is identifying marks. instructions (such as CMM/service bul-
no longer visible on the part itself. • Except for §45.13(b)-(e), there are no letin) is an acceptable method for remark-
This practical approach to airworthi- regulations (other than life-limited parts) ing/re-identifying the part.
ness means conformity to type design requiring or prohibiting a person perform- • Maintenance providers may develop
of in-service aircraft and other articles is ing maintenance on the part from adding their own written procedures for evaluat-
evaluated under Part 43 and/or the main- identification information. ing identification information and deter-
tenance and inspection portions of the ap- When identification data is no longer mining whether and how to re-apply illeg-
plicable operating rules. The operator or visible, the operator or maintenance pro- ible or missing data or add identification
maintenance provider must employ other vider must determine the part was pro- information. This should include:
suitable methods for determining airwor- duced in accordance with Part 21, and 1. A receiving inspection noting the
thiness if the identification information is might need to investigate further to de- identification marking is missing and/or
missing or illegible. Indeed, this is true termine the article’s identity and airwor- illegible.
regardless of whether the parts were re- thiness. Frequently, airworthiness can be 2. The method for ensuring the article is
quired to be “permanently” marked at the established by other means, including but what it purports to be.
time of manufacture. not limited to: 3. The method for applying the re-iden-
In accordance with Part 21, §21.607(d) • Visual and other kinds of inspections tification or additional information in a
and § 45.15, technical standard order au- • Operational or functional checks manner that will not impact airworthiness.
thorization and parts manufacturer ap- • Reference to an illustrated parts cata- 4. The method the maintenance pro-
proval articles are required to be perma- log and/or a component maintenance vider uses to document its identification
nently and legibly marked; therefore, part manual information.
22 avionics news • august 2009
the requirements of that part of In this instance, I agree with
FREQUENTLY ASKED this subchapter applicable to your inspector in that any change
QUESTIONS the product; (b) information on that is different than the type
United States dimensions, material, and pro- design is a change to the type
cesses necessary to define the certificate. However, his narrow
structural strength of the prod- interpretation that any change
Type Design uct; (c) the airworthiness limita- to the type certificate is a major
tions section of the Instructions alteration is totally unsupported
The following information is from for Continued Airworthiness as by the FARs.
FAA Order 8110.4 and 14 CFR, required by Parts 23, 25, 26, 27, In the U.S. system, we have
Part 21. 29, 31, 33 and 35 of this subchap- a three-tiered system of aircraft
ter, or as otherwise required by changes: a major change in
QUESTION: the Administrator, and as speci- type design, a major alteration
My FAA inspector and I are fied in the applicable airworthi- and a minor alteration. A major
having a disagreement as to what ness criteria for special classes change in type design is defined
constitutes a change in type cer- of aircraft defined in §21.17(b); in 14 CFR, Part 21 Subpart D,
tificate. It is his contention any and (d) any other data necessary “Changes to Type Certificates,”
change to the type certificate is a to allow, by comparison, the and major and minor alterations
major alteration. What constitutes determination of the airworthi- are defined in Part 1.
a change to the type certificate? ness, noise characteristics, fuel Part 21 defined changes in
venting and exhaust emissions type design as major and minor.
ANSWER: (where applicable) of later prod- A major change in type design
Based on your e-mail to me, ucts of the same type. requires the applicant to submit
your inspector is correct that the Because the Federal Aviation for a supplemental type certifi-
proposed alteration is a change Regulations do not define an al- cate (or amended TC if the ap-
to the type certificate. However, teration, I will rely on the Web- plicant is the OEM). A minor
your inspector is wrong in that ster definition. Webster defines change in type design is “ap-
the regulations clearly have an alteration as “the act or pro- proved in a method acceptable
created a three-tiered level of cess of altering or the state of be- to the Administrator.” Minor
changes to the type certificate ing altered.” The dictionary fur- changes in type design (Part 21)
— not one as he is proposing. ther defines the result of altering for in-service aircraft are major
According to §21.41, a type as “a modification.” A little more and minor alterations (Part 1/
certificate includes the type de- reading results in the definition Part 43).
sign, the operating limitations, of the verb “alter” as “to make Therefore, because the regu-
the certificate data sheet, the ap- different without changing into lations define three levels of
plicable regulations with which something else.” change in type design for in-
the Administrator records com- So, any alteration to an aircraft service aircraft, your inspector
pliance, and any other conditions that is different than the “origi- is incorrect that a change to the
or limitations prescribed for the nal” design is a change to the type certificate is automatically
product in this subchapter. original type design. Any altera- a major alteration. The alteration
In addition, §21.31 defines tion to an aircraft that is different might rise to the level of a major
type design to include: (a) the than the “original” design plus change in type design requiring
drawings and specifications, any “altered” design is a change an STC, or it might not rise to
and a listing of those draw- to the “current” type design. Be- the level of major alteration and,
ings and specifications, neces- cause the type design is an ele- by regulation, must be a minor
sary to define the configuration ment of the type certificate, any alteration.
and the design features of the change in type design is a change
product shown to comply with to the type certificate.
Continued on following page
avionics news • august 2009 23
INTERNATIONAL NEWS Regulatory Affairs Agenda
Continued from page 23
Items Set for AEA Canadian EUROPE
Regional Meeting News & Regulatory Updates
At the upcoming AEA Canada
CANADA Meeting, Sept. 10-11, 2009, in
News & Regulatory Updates Toronto, TCCA managers again EASA Issues Various Type
will be present to discuss issues Certificates, Supplemental
of concern to AEA membership in Type Certificates
Transport Canada Updates Canada. As per the second edition of EASA
Safety Management Systems The following items will be on News, the European Aviation Safety
Implementation Date for all AMOs the agenda: Agency’s newsletter, the agency has is-
At the recent Aircraft Certification • TCCA policy for re-certifica- sued 250 type certificates, 4,000 STCs
Delegates Conference, TCCA con- tion of undocumented parts. It is and 8,500 major changes and repairs.
firmed safety management systems anticipated TCCA will take steps Among the ones issued in 2008 are air-
would be mandated for all AMOs to alleviate avionics-rated AMOs crafts such as the Tupolev Tu-204-120CE
approved under CAR 573, effective from the current requirements of and the Eclipse EA500.
Dec. 31, 2009. CAR STD 573.02 (11) (a) and (b), The Tupolev is the first transport air-
To assist small operators, includ- and from the procedures of STD craft designed by an organization from
ing AMOs, in SMS implementation, 571, Appendix H. the Commonwealth of Independent States
TCCA has issued Advisory Circular • TCCA/EASA Bilateral Air- receiving an EASA TC. The certification
107-002, “Safety Management Sys- worthiness Treaty. TCCA will re- process for the TU 204-120CE began
tems Development Guide for Small veal the detailed provisions of this within the Joint Aviation Authorities and
Operators/Organizations.” The AC treaty, which should alleviate the later was taken over by EASA.
includes appendices providing infor- current time-consuming and costly Ongoing certification projects include
mation for an organization to develop process of EASA review of TCCA the Falcon 2000LX, Boeing 787, Airbus
a safety management plan; occur- STCs. A350, Airbus A400M, Learjet LJ85, Em-
rence report and hazard identifica- • Approval of installation of non- braer ERJ 190-100 ECJ, B777F freighter,
tion form; incident/accident analysis; required equipment. TCCA has and Eurocopter EC175.
corrective/preventive action plan; indicated it is willing to adopt the
risk management worksheet; and risk guidance described in RTCA/DO- Joint Aviation Authorities
matrix. 313, “Certification Guidance for Hand Over Reigns to EASA
The appendix for development of a Installation of Non-Essential, Non- On May 28, 2009, the Joint Aviation
safety management plan identifies al- Required Aircraft Cabin Systems Authorities hosted its farewell event to
ternate approaches for both a minimal and Equipment.” More informa- conclude 40 years of serving European
complexity — one-person operation tion should be provided during the civil aviation. The official closing date
— and a moderate complexity – five meeting. was June 30, 2009.
to 10-person operation. Organizations • Supplemental ICAs. TCCA is JAA’s mission to improve overall civil
falling in between minimal and mod- expected to issue an advisory cir- aviation safety by establishing uniform
erate complexity must review any ad- cular to replace the current MSI European rules and regulations and har-
ditional SMS element expectations. 53, which will reflect the new FAA monization with parties outside of Europe
The appendix also includes sample policy on supplemental ICAs to will be continued by the European Avia-
wording for a safety management be defined in a revision to Order tion Safety Agency.
plan for both minimal and moderate 8110.54. It is hoped the new FAA In his speech, Rob van Lint, deputy
complexity organization. and TCCA policies will reduce the inspector general for the Dutch Transport
AC 107-002 is available from burden to STC applicants for sup- and Water Management, addressed the
TCCA at www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAvia- plemental ICAs on simple avionics importance of aviation safety and JAA’s
tion/IMSDoc/ACs/100/107-002.htm. modifications. role in the past years. The Dutch govern-
24 avionics news • august 2009
ment said it was particularly proud of hav-
ing the JAA based in The Netherlands and not claim overhauled unless the
will continue to support the JAA Training FREQUENTLY ASKED article has been restored by in-
Organization (JAA-TO), which remains QUESTIONS spection, test and replacement
in Hoofddorp. International in conformity with an approved
During the event, André Auer, chief manufacturing, design, main-
executive of JAA, performed a ceremo- Dual Release tenance or quality standard ap-
nial handover of responsibilities to Patrick proved by the competent author-
Goudou, executive director of EASA. QUESTION: ity to extend the operational life
A majority of directors general of Civil Can a U.S.-based EASA 145 of the article.
Aviation Authorities from JAA’s 43 mem- repair station dual sign an air- Another area in which the U.S.
ber states took part in the event as well worthiness tag based on U.S. and Europe differ is, the FAA ac-
as leaders of other organizations, such as criteria? cepts the replacement of OEM
the FAA, ECAC, Eurocontrol, IATA and component parts with PMA’d
ICAO. ANSWER: and TSO’d component parts as
The JAA Training Organization will No. If the U.S.-based EASA a function of overhaul and re-
continue with training activities as a Dutch 145 is signing for maintenance, pair. In Europe, any change to a
foundation and associated body of the Eu- repair and/or overhaul of an TSO’d article is a major change
ropean Civil Aviation Conference. Sched- article on an EASA Form 1, requiring an STC.
uled training courses are offered in Hoofd- the maintenance, repair and/or It is important for U.S.-based
dorp, Belgrade, London Gatwick, Vienna, overhaul must be completed in EASA 145 repair stations, when
Luxembourg, Singapore and Abu Dhabi. accordance with the European they are signing an airworthi-
standards. ness release for European acces-
Eurocontrol Issues Business There are subtle differences. sories, to ensure those parts are
Case for 8.22 kHz Operations For example, 14 CFR Section maintained in accordance with
Eurocontrol issued a revised business 43.2 prohibits any person from the European standards unless
case, implementation plan and safety as- claiming an accessory as being superseded by the Bilateral Avia-
sessment for the planned expansion of overhauled unless it has been tion Safety Agreement. q
8.33 kHz operation below FL195. This disassembled, cleaned, inspect-
revised document takes into account the ed, repaired as necessary, and re- Note: The AEA offers “Fre-
results of a frequency usage study, which assembled using methods, tech- quently Asked Questions” to foster
is a key concern for general aviation and niques and practices acceptable greater understanding of the avia-
military stakeholders. to the Administrator. It also must tion regulations and the rules gov-
In terms of frequency demand, simula- be tested in accordance with ap- erning the industry. The AEA strives
tions indicate 1,500 assignments for area proved standards and technical to ensure FAQs are as accurate as
control center and approach services are data, or in accordance with cur- possible at the time of publication;
foreseen until 2027. rent standards and technical data however, rules change. Therefore
The conversion to 8.33 kHz of area acceptable to the Administrator, information received from an AEA
control center and approach services pro- which have been developed and FAQ should be verified before be-
vides the highest benefits, and the con- documented by the holder of the ing relied upon. This information
version of tower services and aerodrome type certificate, supplemental is not meant to serve as legal ad-
terminal information service offers local type certificate or a material, part, vice. If you have particular legal
flexibility. process or appliance approval questions, they should be directed
Given the complexity and the number under §21.305 of this chapter. to an attorney. The AEA disclaims
of impacted aircraft, a phased implemen- In Europe, EASA 145 Block any warranty for the accuracy of
tation for 8.33 kHz below FL195 was 12 of the EASA Form 1 can- the information provided.
identified to be inevitable.
avionics news • august 2009 25