Report From Washington

Field Approvals: There have been frequent complaints from maintenance facilities over the years about the difficulties in obtaining field approvals, mainly because of the varying interpretations of what is required by different FAA inspectors across the country, but now the FAA has gone a long way toward solving that problem by issuing an extremely helpful advisory circular titled "Standardized Procedures for Requesting Field Approval of Data, Major Alterations, and Repairs" (43-210). What the FAA does here is gather and clarify in one 35-page AC the policies that have been developed over the past 40 years but have never before appeared in one place and in an understandable format. There are no new regulations or policies in the AC, but rather a cogent codification of the existing procedures. The need for such a document came to a head last year when the FAA published an Airworthiness Handbook Bulletin that only further muddied the waters, and so maintainers began pleading for a general clarification of the whole issue. (See AM, April 2003, page 16.) Accordingly, the AC describes the major steps in the field approval process, gives instructions for completing a field approval checklist, and even provides a sample compliance checklist and describes the necessary data package to accompany the application. Equally important, the AC discusses what alterations and repairs do not require a field approval, something the FAA wants to emphasize because it feels that many field approvals are unnecessary. The AC also notes that the procedures described are not necessarily the only ones that may be used in obtaining field approvals, although these are the ones that are entirely acceptable to the FAA, and it seems that any other procedures must now at least meet or exceed what is contained here. The importance of this AC is that it puts in the hands of the maintenance facility an unassailable reference document in dealing with a local inspector and it lays out clearly what is and what is not required for a field approval. A copy of this invaluable AC belongs in every maintenance facility, and it can be found in the advisory circular section of FAA's Information for Mechanics web site at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/infoformechanics/index.cfm.

Aftermath of a Report: There has been an unusual amount of activity at the FAA following the release of the National Transportation Safety Board report about the fatal crash on takeoff at Charlotte, North Carolina last year of the Air Midwest Beech 1900. (See AM, April 2004, page 8) Ordinarily these reports are received by the FAA without comment, studied over a long period of time, and then perhaps some action might be taken. But this report has stirred things up. The NTSB concluded that the accident happened because of a loss of pitch control during takeoff, and that was caused by a combination of two factors: incorrect rigging of the elevator control system by maintenance personnel and an overweight condition in which the aircraft's center of gravity was considerably aft of the certified limit. The report touched a sore nerve for the FAA when it came to light that the maintenance was outsourced and a new mechanic who was receiving on-the-job-training had "missed a critical step in the rigging process." (The aircraft was actually owned and being maintained by Air Midwest, which was flying that day as US Airways Express). Outsourcing has been an intense concern of the FAA for the past few years and here was an accident that seemed to confirm the FAA's fears. The NTSB had recommended in the report that the FAA "make sure that a contractor uses processes and procedures the same as the airline." The FAA intends to do just that, making sure airlines do better oversight of their contractors, and they also intend to enforce the new Part 145 to see that repair stations have better control over what they outsource. As a footnote to this sad story of the accident, Air Midwest, which is based in Wichita, Kansas now does its own routine maintenance and does not outsource it any longer. The investigation of the accident showed that the aircraft was 600 pounds overweight and the center of gravity was too far aft. After the accident the FAA increased the average airline passenger weight by 10 pounds to 195 pounds and raised the baggage average by five pounds. But the NTSB report says that "the current safety margins are inadequate" and that the FAA should do "a periodic sampling of weight and baggage." The FAA now says it will do that and is considering more weight adjustments. One of the many ideas under review is to use a discreet underfoot scale at the airline checkout counter so that the passenger and his or her baggage are weighed when they step forward. However, the big concern is weight guidelines for smaller regional aircraft where a few extra pounds is more critical and the permitted range of the center of gravity more limited, and the FAA is considering a regulation that would require smaller aircraft to do periodic actual weight checks of passengers and their baggage. This one accident has certainly raised a number of safety concerns.

Upbeat GA News: The mood at this year's Annual Industry Review of the General Aviation Manufacturers Associa-tion here in Washington was quite confident and certain that business was picking up for general aviation and that the future looked good. Clay Jones, GAMA's board chairman, said that general aviation manufacturers "are generally upbeat and optimistic" because deliveries of new aircraft picked up considerably at the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004. Indeed, 2003 was the fifth best year for new general aviation aircraft in U.S. history. The overall deliveries of new general aviation aircraft in 2003 was about the same as the previous year even though the dollar amount dropped. There were 2,686 new GA aircraft delivered last year, but interestingly in this jet age there was a 10-percent increase in the number of new piston aircraft. Of those new airplanes, 1,896 were pistons. In the midst of all this happy talk there was one grim statistic that was not discussed much; the employment level in GA manufacturing dropped 10 percent in 2003.

Passenger Complaints: The FAA says that in 2003 it received fewer airline passenger complaints about such things as late arrivals than in any year since 1970 when it began counting. There were just 5,980 complaints last year, compared with 2002 when there were 9,466 complaints. These record-low statistics were reported proudly by the FAA, but they could statistically mean one of either two things; service was really improving or people are just getting tired of making complaints without seeing any results. Take your pick.