Is it legal, revisited

JAWS said:
Then why bring all this up again? You don't like my .02, fine. You don't seem to like anyone's so far either.

I wish you luck.
Click to expand...
Read post #1, see who brought this up again?

And remember there never was a crankshaft in question, was just an example of what the CRS can do.

You guys always get wrapped around the example and forget to answer the question, the FAA did.
 
Last edited:
Mooney Fan said:
Interesting. I can take my plane to shop and the IA declares it to be not airworthy and needs A,B,C repairs. I balk, get a ferry permit then fly it off for a second opinion. But if The (Who ever is a CRS) red tags a part its gospel?
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
Read post #1, see who brought this up again?

And remember there never was a crankshaft in question, was just an example of what the CRS can do.

You guys always get wrapped around the example and forget to answer the question, the FAA did.
Click to expand...
Then why do you keep asking it?
 
Post #2, or how to start a troll.
 
Mooney Fan said:
But if an IA or whoever, red tags a part its gospel?
Click to expand...
FYI: An IA doesn't have the same authority as a Certified Repair Station (CRS) so it's no comparison. And "red tags" are actually a component of CRS and production (manufacture) operations--or anywhere there is a requirement to track parts or materials. However, once a part goes through an FAA approved process and is deemed "scrapped", "destroyed", or "unrepairable" (key words) then it will require another approved process to unscrap, undestroy, or make it repairable again.

This whole BS is driven by certain individuals who prefer to take bonafide scrapped items and re-purpose them as repaired/overhauled items for sale. 30 years ago it didn't seem to be a big problem. In the last 15 it has become more common especially in the rotorcraft side and for airplanes models where the salvage parts are dwindling in supply. Add in the OEMs entered the ring and are pressuring the FAA to crack down on this practice because they still get sued whether the part is legit or scrapped.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: An IA doesn't have the same authority as a Certified Repair Station (CRS) so it's no comparison. And "red tags" are actually a component of CRS and production (manufacture) operations--or anywhere there is a requirement to track parts or materials. However, once a part goes through an FAA approved process and is deemed "scrapped", "destroyed", or "unrepairable" (key words) then it will require another approved process to unscrap, undestroy, or make it repairable again.

This whole BS is driven by certain individuals who prefer to take bonafide scrapped items and re-purpose them as repaired/overhauled items for sale. 30 years ago it didn't seem to be a big problem. In the last 15 it has become more common especially in the rotorcraft side and for airplanes models where the salvage parts are dwindling in supply. Add in the OEMs entered the ring and are pressuring the FAA to crack down on this practice because they still get sued whether the part is legit or scrapped.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarifying points. I'll never look at the red tags from my (4) cylinders the same
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: An IA doesn't have the same authority as a Certified Repair Station (CRS) so it's no comparison. And "red tags" are actually a component of CRS and production (manufacture) operations--or anywhere there is a requirement to track parts or materials. However, once a part goes through an FAA approved process and is deemed "scrapped", "destroyed", or "unrepairable" (key words) then it will require another approved process to unscrap, undestroy, or make it repairable again.

This whole BS is driven by certain individuals who prefer to take bonafide scrapped items and re-purpose them as repaired/overhauled items for sale. 30 years ago it didn't seem to be a big problem. In the last 15 it has become more common especially in the rotorcraft side and for airplanes models where the salvage parts are dwindling in supply. Add in the OEMs entered the ring and are pressuring the FAA to crack down on this practice because they still get sued whether the part is legit or scrapped.
Click to expand...
Yet..any A&P can remove a repairable component inspect it IAW the manufacturers manual and return it to service.
 
Tom-D said:
Today I attended the Northwest aviation trade show. While there I asked the FAA representative the question is it legal to use a red tagged part after it has been condemned by a CRS.

Their consensus was, any one doing that would be in violation of.

43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble going to sleep, so I'm gonna wade into this. From an aeronautical standpoint, I have no qualifications whatsoever to do so. However, I do have a document from an institute of higher education which allows me to read and understand the written word, and make informed comments about it. :D

My observation rests on the FAR the FAA representative quoted. His reliance on 43.13(a) to interpret Tom's question is improper, because it has no bearing at all on the suitability or legality of a part or method of determining the compliance of that part with the FARs.

That also means I disagree with Tom's acceptance that 43.13(a) is the appropriate FAR governing his hypothetical CRS rejected part, which is surely a dangerous position to defend. :p

Look at the title of 43.13(a). It is Performance rules. The section very clearly delineates how maintenance must be performed to comply with regulations. It describes the methods acceptable for the physical act, and has no relationship at all with parts or their acceptability for use.

It describes "methods, techniques, and practices".

The key sentence "He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices" clearly illustrates the subject of 43.13(a) is work. It is not parts, nor can any inference to parts be construed in this sentence or any other in 43.13(a).

There is no mention of parts, methods for determining their condition, suitability for use, or legality conferred in 43.13(a). The entirety of 43.13(a) is related to the physical act of performance of maintenance on an aircraft.

User @Dana posted "Deliberate use of out of spec (i.e. red tagged) parts would not be "in accordance with accepted industry practices," nor in accordance with the "current manufacturer's maintenance manual," so either way, not legal."

The portions of 43.13(a) Dana quoted have nothing to do with "deliberate use of out of spec parts". He has improperly assigned a relationship which does not, and cannot, exist. Instead, the phrases he inserted in quotes pertain, again, to the physical act of work or performance, which is the title of 43.13(a).

Once again, I am not arguing about the suitability of reusing rejected parts, the authority to do so, or anything related to it.

I'm simply pointing out that the FAA employee Tom talked to has used an improper FAR reference to support his opinion. His inability to interpret and understand the true subject of FAR 43.13(a) and its inapplicability to Tom's inquiry is obvious.

I have no doubt there is a FAR which properly encompasses the answer to Tom's inquiry, but it's not 43.13(a).

No wonder you guys don't want to call the FSDO.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
I'm having trouble going to sleep, so I'm gonna wade into this. From an aeronautical standpoint, I have no qualifications whatsoever to do so. However, I do have a document from an institute of higher education which allows me to read and understand the written word, and make informed comments about it. :D

My observation rests on the FAR the FAA representative quoted. His reliance on 43.13(a) to interpret Tom's question is improper, because it has no bearing at all on the suitability or legality of a part or method of determining the compliance of that part with the FARs.

That also means I disagree with Tom's acceptance that 43.13(a) is the appropriate FAR governing his hypothetical CRS rejected part, which is surely a dangerous position to defend. :p

Look at the title of 43.13(a). It is Performance rules. The section very clearly delineates how maintenance must be performed to comply with regulations. It describes the methods acceptable for the physical act, and has no relationship at all with parts or their acceptability for use.

It describes "methods, techniques, and practices".

The key sentence "He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices" clearly illustrates the subject of 43.13(a) is work. It is not parts, nor can any inference to parts be construed in this sentence or any other in 43.13(a).

There is no mention of parts, methods for determining their condition, suitability for use, or legality conferred in 43.13(a). The entirety of 43.13(a) is related to the physical act of performance of maintenance on an aircraft.

User @Dana posted "Deliberate use of out of spec (i.e. red tagged) parts would not be "in accordance with accepted industry practices," nor in accordance with the "current manufacturer's maintenance manual," so either way, not legal."

The portions of 43.13(a) Dana quoted have nothing to do with "deliberate use of out of spec parts". He has improperly assigned a relationship which does not, and cannot, exist. Instead, the phrases he inserted in quotes pertain, again, to the physical act of work or performance, which is the title of 43.13(a).

Once again, I am not arguing about the suitability of reusing rejected parts, the authority to do so, or anything related to it.

I'm simply pointing out that the FAA employee Tom talked to has used an improper FAR reference to support his opinion. His inability to interpret and understand the true subject of FAR 43.13(a) and its inapplicability to Tom's inquiry is obvious.

I have no doubt there is a FAR which properly encompasses the answer to Tom's inquiry, but it's not 43.13(a).

No wonder you guys don't want to call the FSDO.
Click to expand...
I really don't believe the NTSB judge would buy that. JMHO
 
3393RP said:
and has no relationship at all with parts or their acceptability for use.
Click to expand...
But 43.13(b) does:
(b) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).

If you're looking for something more specific there isn't anything else. Part 43.13(a), (b), (c) and 43.15 is it when it comes to maintenance guidance. This guidance is all-inclusive: parts used, chemicals used, procedures used, etc., etc. It covers everything.

Not very definitive is it? Now you know why there are so many different results after maintenance is performed by various people. As long as it is acceptable to, or approved by the Administrator it's all good.
 
I think a judge would. The legal term for the presentation of an argument whose underlying structure is flawed is improper foundation, and the use of 43.13(a) to support the disposition of condemned or rejected parts fits that description.

As I said, the title of 43.13(a) is Performance Rules.

Performance rules dictate how work is to be accomplished. How the FAA decided the section has something to do with parts is beyond me. There isn't a single word in it that pertains to them.

Anyway I know nothing about the FAA. I just know how to read.
 
3393RP said:
Anyway I know nothing about the FAA. I just know how to read.
Click to expand...
Well read this,, it is a violation of 43.13 to not use accepted industry practices.

and that is all the NTSB judge would hear.
 
I'm trying really hard. But I am not sure exactly what you guys are arguing about.
 
Tom-D said:
Well read this,, it is a violation of 43.13 to not use accepted industry practices.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue. If there's not another FAR that covers the legality of parts issues, that's an obvious omission of a critically important subject. To rely on a three word phrase in a regulation clearly written to address the physical acts of maintenance for determining what parts can be used is simply wrong.
 
3393RP said:
To rely on a three word phrase in a regulation clearly written to address the physical acts of maintenance for determining what parts can be used is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Agree. But as explained to me years ago, the FAA believes when you perform maintenance you perform it 100%, i.e., in the proper manner, with the proper parts, per the proper reference. Part 43.13 is the catch-all regulation that is used to nail mechanics just as Part 91.3 is the catch-all for pilots, i.e., pilot error.

But remember, the FAA didn't have a legal definition for "airworthy" until 1998 or a regulatory definition until 2003. So why would they go out of their way to worry about the "legality of parts issues" for mechanics?
 
In fairness, I found and read the complete FAR 41.13, and 41.13(b) does contain some relevant verbiage. Tom posted 41.13(a) as the controlling regulation, and since I had never read the complete FAR before, I didn't consider there might be a reference in subsequent paragraphs.

So that makes it Tom's fault again.

I'm just kidding!! :D

No wonder there are endless arguments in here about howta do it. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top