Service Bulletin No. SB 06-2-23

[Tram]

Just wanted to get a consensus here..

Mandatory Service Bulletins are not "mandatory" for the aircraft owner unless the SB is accompanied by an AD, correct?

Our aircraft has been at the shop, being repaired from an issue over a year ago, still don't have the aircraft back and I got an email from the mechanic yesterday stating this service bulletin has not been complied with and it is mandatory we do it.

I've no issues with complying at this point, there is work being done in the area, let's knock it out, however the mechanic in charge of repairing my aircraft telling me I *have* to comply with this has me wondering if something has changed?

Are mandatory SB's now mandatory to the owner without an AD?

Mel?

[DanBaier]

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, not unless the Airworthiness Certificate is S-LSA. For E-AB, they are not required unless cited in an AD (skipping over the debate of whether ADs apply to E-AB aircraft).

I can't quite tell if this mechanic is being asked to do the condition inspection. It wouldn't be unusual (have seen this in other cases) for an A&P to insist on all service bulletins being done in order to sign off. But the insistence is stemming from his policy and practice toward experimental aircraft, not something regulatory.

Dan

[Walt]

Dan pretty well nailed it.

Even in the "certified" world MSB's are not required unless accompanied by an AD.

Here's the way I do it:
I provide a list of SB's to owners during condition inspection and mark them as:
"Complied With", "Previously Complied With" or "Owner Advised".

That fulfils my "obligation" of advising the owner for inspection purposes, it's up to the owner if he would like the SB complied with.

[Mel]

Yep, that's pretty much it! Nothing is mandatory except ADs, which aren't applicable to EAB airframes.

An inspector signing off a condition inspection may require it to show that "the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation", but there is nothing in the FARs that require compliance.

[rvbuilder2002]

The FAR's specifically exclude E-AB aircraft (any experimental for that matter) from rules that would allow issuing mandatory maint. or repairs by a (kit) manufacturer.
But, the operating limitations are used to reissue requirements that may have been removed by the experimental exclusion.
The prominent one related to this subject, as Mel already pointed out, is the required wording for the condition inspection sign off. It requires the signee to certify with their signature that the "aircraft is in a condition for safe operation".

You wrote

Originally Posted by Tram

Our aircraft has been at the shop, being repaired from an issue over a year ago,

It doesn't specifically say that the work will include a condition inspection sign off, but it implys the work has taken more than a year so I assume it will.

It is one thing for an E-AB aircraft owner to decide they do not need to comply with a S.B. They are personally accepting all of the liability and possible repercussions connected with that choice.

However, it is totally unreasonable to expect a mechanic to put their certificate (livelihood), their personal liability, and the liability of their business or the one they work for, on the line.
This could range from an FAA airworthiness inspector questioning why they thought it was in a condition for safe operation, to speaking in front of a jury, trying to explain why they were more qualified to determine that something wasn't needed, than the designer of the airplane was, and/or convince the jury that the un-complied S.B. had nothing to do with the fatal accident that brought them together in a court room (good luck with that)

I think what your mechanic was probably telling you is it has to be complied with or he will not sign off the airplane as in a condition for safe operation.

I am an A&P that works on experimental aircraft. I wont sign logs on aircraft with unresolved S.B either.

[Walt]

I think one has to be "reasonable" when they maintain experimental aircraft and my belief is it could be easily be argued in court that SB's and MSB's even in the certified world are not required and often are not done even for part 23, 121 135 operators.

Personally I've never heard of anyone going to court over EAB maintenace, but if it did happen, I would imagine as soon as most juries heard the guy crashed in an "experimental homebuilt airplane" that he built in his garage or that he bought that would pretty much be the end of the liability issue.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Walt

Personally I've never heard of anyone going to court over EAB maintenace, but if it did happen, I would imagine as soon as most juries heard the guy crashed in an "experimental homebuilt airplane" that he built in his garage or that he bought that would pretty much be the end of the liability issue.

Different context.
In this case a shop is doing the work so the owner may not have built the airplane.
If he did, then there is no issue. He could tell the mechanic to just document the repairs he did, and the owner can sign off the cond. inspection them self.