Avionics News February 2022 - 16

THE VIEW FROM WASHINGTON
Continued from page 15
As you can see, language matters. Simple words, " acceptable
to " versus " accepted by, " have very different meanings.
We see similar language in 14 CFR 145.211. Here the
regulation (§ 145.211 (a)) requires " a repair station must
establish and maintain a quality control system acceptable to the
FAA that ensures the airworthiness of the articles on which the
repair station or any of its contractors performs maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations. "
Again, a simple statement; however, there are six important
requirements:
1. The repair station must establish a quality system.
2. The quality system must be designed to " ensure
airworthiness. "
3. The quality system must meet all of the requirements of
the regulations (acceptable to the FAA).
4. The repair station must " maintain " the quality system so
that it continues to ensure airworthiness.
5. The quality system applies to the repair station
(operations and personnel).
6. The quality system applies to each of its contractors.
Since we are talking about the regulations, this isn't the end
of the story, and in my humble opinion, it's where the root
problem begins. 14 CFR 145.51 requires an applicant to submit
the manuals as a function of the application process to which
the manuals must be reviewed by and accepted by the FAA
before the issuance of the repair station certificate (or operation
specifications).
§ 145.51 Application for certificate.
(a) An application for a repair station certificate
and rating must be made in a format acceptable to
the FAA and must include the following:
(1) A repair station manual acceptable to the
FAA as required by § 145.207;
(2) A quality control manual acceptable to the
FAA as required by § 145.211(c);
(3) .....
The FAA Order 8900.1 addresses this by stating: " When a
regulation requires that a submission must be 'acceptable to' the
FAA as a precondition for the FAA to act, the FAA may exercise
discretion as to whether the determination must be made before
or after the FAA acts. For example, operations specifications,
which contain authorizations, typically necessitate an item to be
acceptable to the FAA before the FAA issues the authorization. "
This is where the bad habits begin. We must submit our
manuals for review and acceptance before our certificate can
be issued, and we continue this same process for the life of
the repair station. In many cases, the repair station manual
and quality control manual will use the words " accepted by "
16 avionics news * february 2022
but then require the actions of " approved by. " The FAA Order
8900.1 defines FAA " Approved " as: " Title 14 CFR Part 1, §
1.1 defines 'approved' as 'unless used with reference to another
person, means approved by the FAA or any person to whom
the FAA has delegated its authority in the matter concerned, or
approved under the provisions of a bilateral agreement between
the United States and a foreign country or jurisdiction.'
Note: The FAA affirms approval by letter, stamp of
approval, issuance of OpSpecs, or some other official
means. This affirmation signifies the FAA's or an FAAdelegated
person's assessment of the 'item at issue'
is complete and the FAA accepts and authorizes its
incorporation and use. "
Now, let's get back to " picking your battles. "
If you are an applicant, you can have a thoughtful debate with
your inspector. You should be able to reference some standard
or publication as the basis for the acceptability of what you
have submitted. However, the FAA affirms the acceptability of
your manuals by the issuance of your repair station certificate
and OpSpecs. As such, it assumes some responsibility for your
organization, operations and processes, as you have described
them, and that they meet the intent of the regulations. If you are
separated by a few words, prudence may be the word of the day.
If your organization, operations and processes are shown
later that they don't meet the regulations, and you can
show that they do meet some standard (ideally, an advisory
circular), then it's worthy of a more in-depth discussion.
Mind you, " I think " is not an " acceptable standard, " nor is,
" but we have always done it this way. "
As Will Rogers said, " If you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging. " I get phone calls all the time about a repair station
that has gotten itself into a hole and keeps operating in the
same manner that is in question, arguing it is right. The
first thing to do is stop and get out of the hole; this is not
the time to debate the finer points of your knowledge of the
regulations. As a practitioner of the regulations, this is hard
for me: I know I'm right! While we debate my " rightness, "
the business suffers. This isn't the time to fight. Stop and
get out of the hole. Once your business is back up and
operating, do a deep dive into what went wrong. Did the
inspector really see what he or she thought they saw? Did
he or she see a defect in your system? Regardless, once you
are up and operating and generating revenue, investigate
the discrepancy, look at your processes and procedures,
and develop a corrective action plan. Use this event as a
springboard to evaluate whether your quality system is still
producing " airworthy articles " and your repair station manual
is still current, and then move forward.
There is only a slight difference between being right and
being right to a fault. Know the regulations, but pick your
battles carefully! q
Avionics News February 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Avionics News February 2022
