Avionics News May 2015 - 12

In this monthly column, Ric Peri of the AEA's Washington, D.C., office, informs members of the latest regulatory updates.

B Y

R I C

P E R I
A EA V I C E P R ES I D E N T O F G OV E R N M E N T & I N D U ST RY A F FA I RS

Back to school
F

ortunately I didn't have Professor Terguson in school,
or maybe I did. You may remember Professor Terguson as the rambunctious character portrayed by Sam
Kinison in the popular movie, Back to School.
During the past month, I had a couple of interesting events
occur that caused me to get back into the regulations and, in
one case, go back to the basics and read the history of the
rule, and in another, learn something new. Both events were
enjoyable - in a sick sort of way. I'm sure it's nothing unexpected for those of you who know me.
When the Aircraft Electronics Association conducts its
Repair Station Training course taught by yours truly, I begin
the week with aviation civics, a review of rulemaking and
under
how the tools of rulemaking can be used to better understand the regulations, especially the intent of the regulations.
The issue at hand was fairly straightforward. A Federal
Aviation Administration inspector was recently performing
an inspection of an operator's aircraft and discovered that
the Part 135 operator had a Mode A/C transponder in the
aircraft. When asked why this was a problem, the inspector said
that the aircraft was not in compliance with paragraph 135.143
(c). Paragraph 135.143 (c) essentially says that any transponder
installed after Jan. 1, 1992, must be an appropriate class of TSOC112 (Mode S) transponder. But this aircraft has not had a new
transponder installed since it was brought onto the Part 135 operator's certificate, and the Mode A/C transponder was appropriate
and acceptable for Part 91 operations when it was installed.
This began a series of questions in an ever-increasing circle in
search of "the answer." Most importantly, this exercise highlights
the value of rulemaking and the FAA's requirements to follow
the Administrative Procedures Act, and why it is so important to
both the next generation of agency and industry personnel.
12

avionics news

may

2015

Obviously, the questions start with the inspector who suspected the discrepancy. Having dealt with hundreds of aircraft
being brought onto a Part 135 certificate in my 20-plus years in
Washington, D.C., the inspector's conclusion wasn't consistent
with my experiences. After speaking with other industry experts,
it is inconsistent with their understanding, as well.
Part 135 does not apply to the aircraft until the aircraft is put
onto a certificate. As a result, it is a common understanding that
paragraph 135.143 (c) affected future installations. In this case,
the inspector was applying the rule to past installations.

While this project was specific to transponders,
it became an excellent tutorial in how and why
rulemaking is such a precise exercise that we,
as industry, must insist continues.
So in asking the inspector for the reference for the position,
the inspector was able to point to a 3-year-old FAA document, specifically FAA InFO 11018 published Oct. 11, 2011,
titled Clarification of the Part 135 Transponder Equipage
Requirement. The document's purpose is to clarify the transponder equipage requirement for an aircraft to be eligible for
operations under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135.
The FAA does a good job of not creating conflicts in its policies
and guidance contrary to the regulations. The industry continues
to struggle with inspector guidance (FAA Orders) that are interpreted to be stricter than the regulations intend, but seldom do
we see clear conflict. In this case, the FAA document states:
"Aircraft equipped with an ATCRBS transponder may only be

Avionics News May 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Avionics News May 2015