Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:23 AM - Part 65 revision news? (Richard T Perry)
2. 06:30 AM - Re: Part 65 revision news? (Mike Ferrer)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Part 65 revision news? |
--> AnPMech-List message posted by: "Richard T Perry" <perryrt@hotmail.com>
Since I know there are at least 4 more of us out there watching this list...
Did anyone else take a look at the early stage proposal to modify FAR 43 and
65 yet? It's available off the PAMA homepage (www.pama.org - I'm not
affiliated with them - they cost too much!). It includes a "white paper"
written by an FAA employee (Bill O'Brien, whom I've met and respect). A
quick summary:
He suggests a two-phase implementation.
In phase 1:
- They FINALLY get around to defining "airworthy" and "condition for safe
operation".
- They make a few changes to the IA progam - 2 year renewals (but double
the amount of required operations), the ability to use 91.409 inspection
programs (large/turbine aircraft) to qualify.
- IA's get the ability to sign an 8130-3 for return-to-service.
- A&P's get the ability to overhaul "wet" compasses.
- They require pilots to be "trained" to perform PM tasks (that's going to
be interesting to prove!)
In phase 2:
- Restructure Pt.43 so that the rules that apply to different kinds
(TC/Experimental/Light-Sport/Public-use)of aircraft are all together and
clearer.
- Change the App A Major/Minor definitions (apparently this had already been
worked, but not implemented)
- Change App. D (Scope and Detail) to an AC and signifigantly revise.
- Update the alt/xpnder check requirements (I'm guessing this is a
requirement from ICAO, given RVSM and all.)
- Develop an "avionics" rating under Pt 65 (this one's a doozy - it's gonna
take a while).
- Develop an "Aviation Maintenance Engineer" rating under Pt 65 (ditto the
above comment).
I'm not sure if it's intended that the AME rating might ever replace the IA
(it requires college coursework, rather than just experience) but it appears
to have a lot of the same (projected) privileges, so if it sounds like a
duck, and looks like a duck, then it must be a Grumman aircraft (sorry, bad
joke.)
Phase 1 looks like it might be out "there" pretty fast, he suggests trying
to attach it to the Commercial Spaceflight NPRM (which is supposed to be out
in November.)
Phase 2 ... My guess is 3 to 4 years until implementation. At least.
Any comments? My overall impression is that it's better than the old Pt. 66
proposal - on the rest, time will tell....
I'm sure that my posting this is like bringing up the value of Morse Code in
a room full of Amateur Radio operators (i.e. sure to provoke a heated
discussion), but I figured I would at least spread the word since this might
affect us all one of these days.
Anyway, back to my tech pub revisions and dreaming about building a
Pietenpol.
Regards -
Richard Perry (A&P/IA)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Part 65 revision news? |
--> AnPMech-List message posted by: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
No, I had not seen this but it does look interesting. The FAA moves so
slowly on controversial things like this that I hesitate to get too excited.
This would really affect me, however, since I do have an A&P, IA, and
Repairman certificates. I also own a one-man Repair Station doing avionics
work.
Phase 1 looks OK and I like 2yr renewall and the 8130 idea. Just have to
wait and see. As long as I don't lose anything, I'm OK with the changes.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard T Perry" <perryrt@hotmail.com>
Subject: AnPMech-List: Part 65 revision news?
> --> AnPMech-List message posted by: "Richard T Perry"
<perryrt@hotmail.com>
>
> Since I know there are at least 4 more of us out there watching this
list...
>
> Did anyone else take a look at the early stage proposal to modify FAR 43
and
> 65 yet? It's available off the PAMA homepage (www.pama.org - I'm not
> affiliated with them - they cost too much!). It includes a "white paper"
> written by an FAA employee (Bill O'Brien, whom I've met and respect). A
> quick summary:
>
> He suggests a two-phase implementation.
>
> In phase 1:
> - They FINALLY get around to defining "airworthy" and "condition for safe
> operation".
> - They make a few changes to the IA progam - 2 year renewals (but double
> the amount of required operations), the ability to use 91.409 inspection
> programs (large/turbine aircraft) to qualify.
> - IA's get the ability to sign an 8130-3 for return-to-service.
> - A&P's get the ability to overhaul "wet" compasses.
> - They require pilots to be "trained" to perform PM tasks (that's going to
> be interesting to prove!)
>
> In phase 2:
> - Restructure Pt.43 so that the rules that apply to different kinds
> (TC/Experimental/Light-Sport/Public-use)of aircraft are all together and
> clearer.
> - Change the App A Major/Minor definitions (apparently this had already
been
> worked, but not implemented)
> - Change App. D (Scope and Detail) to an AC and signifigantly revise.
> - Update the alt/xpnder check requirements (I'm guessing this is a
> requirement from ICAO, given RVSM and all.)
> - Develop an "avionics" rating under Pt 65 (this one's a doozy - it's
gonna
> take a while).
> - Develop an "Aviation Maintenance Engineer" rating under Pt 65 (ditto the
> above comment).
>
> I'm not sure if it's intended that the AME rating might ever replace the
IA
> (it requires college coursework, rather than just experience) but it
appears
> to have a lot of the same (projected) privileges, so if it sounds like a
> duck, and looks like a duck, then it must be a Grumman aircraft (sorry,
bad
> joke.)
>
> Phase 1 looks like it might be out "there" pretty fast, he suggests trying
> to attach it to the Commercial Spaceflight NPRM (which is supposed to be
out
> in November.)
>
> Phase 2 ... My guess is 3 to 4 years until implementation. At least.
>
> Any comments? My overall impression is that it's better than the old Pt.
66
> proposal - on the rest, time will tell....
>
> I'm sure that my posting this is like bringing up the value of Morse Code
in
> a room full of Amateur Radio operators (i.e. sure to provoke a heated
> discussion), but I figured I would at least spread the word since this
might
> affect us all one of these days.
>
> Anyway, back to my tech pub revisions and dreaming about building a
> Pietenpol.
>
> Regards -
>
> Richard Perry (A&P/IA)
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|