Reader Feedback

Nondestructive Frustration

Regarding the article in the November issue of Aviation Maintenance called "Who Can Perform NDT Inspections" (see November 2009 AM, page 26), I feel your frustration and it has been an on going topic of heated discussion between general aviation and the FAA for a long time. The only thing that the FAA has ever done to recognize NDI was the publication of AC No. 65-31A, US Department of Transportation, FAA Advisory Circular, Training, qualification and certification of Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) personnel. And this does nothing to drive or connect the FAR’s to the Advisory Circular, so we remain at an impasse. It is sad that personnel who have completed A&P school apparently can perform NDI yet personnel who have attended weeks of NDI training in the military and who have obtained certifications in various applications, still have to jump through hoops to get recognized by ASNT or the FAA.

Name Withheld

More on NDT

I would like to say your acticle on NDT was very good. The one thing I disagree with is the paragraph (4th from last) on 29 that says, "...if you state that the inspections were done only with reference to the sections that specify the procedures and exclude any sections that specify certification, you should be OK." A mechanic can’t sign off just "a" procedure from FAA acceptable data. He needs to comply with all the acceptable data. For example, ASTM-E-1417 and 1444 both have qualifications and the mechanic must comply with these industry standards. How can you do only part of an industry standard? The mechanic would be in violation of 14 CFR 43.13(a) performance rules. Also any Advisory Circular produced by the FAA also has qualifications.

Name Withheld

More from an Independent

I was gainfully employed and doing restorations and light general maintenance on private aircraft at a local airfield on the side to keep my hand in and also to give much needed technical aid to the local crowd who operated antiques. As such I happily worked out of the owners’ T-hangars until the day the fellow who had the money losing FBO on the field informed the local township planning board that only "Commercially Licensed" mechanics and shops could repair aircraft. [He] was one of the members of the board and since I was cutting his legs out from under him by providing a better service and higher quality than he was, he used this dirty trick to try and force me out. I called the board and informed them that the regs state that "Commercial Aircraft require all work to be done by a suitibly licensed AMO" but there is no such requirement for private GA aircraft. If you are licensed on type, you can release the work. I was informed the board’s word was final and no amount of complaining would change it. Well, 9-11 saw the fall of a lot of aviation related businesses. I moved on to a better field and the FBO owner was forced to close his shop due in part to the antique aircraft owners not having enough free cash to pay his enormous bills.

Name Withheld

T-Birds and Blue Angels

There is an error in the November 2008 issue of Aviation Maintenance magazine on page 31. The USAF Thunderbirds fly F-16s, the Navy Blue Angels operate F/A-18s.

Ralph Kuchenbrod

Director - Strategic Services

Flightstar

Thanks so much for reading the magazine. Several readers wrote to let us know about that mistake. Much to our chagrin, you are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that error and to both the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels, our apologies for the mix up. — Editor