The FAA is proposing to issue a revision “B” to its Advisory Circular 33.74/92-1B (Turbine Engine Continued Rotation And Rotor Locking). This AC provides guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with the continued rotation and rotor locking requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 33.74 and 33.92.
Marc Bouthillier of the Engine and Propeller Directorate has said that this revision features some updated references, and clarifications of guidance. He has said that the FAA’s compliance guidance IS NOT intended to be changed in this revision.
We’d appreciate your insights about whether you think there are any substantive changes. We’d also appreciate hearing from PMA manufacturers that produce rotating parts, whether you find that the requirements of Advisory Circular 33.74/92-1A (the current version) have been applied to PMA applicants.
In addition, the AC has always included in this AC some requirements that appear to go beyond the strict requirements of the regulations. Many of these are requirements that seem to have been endorsed as sound practices by engine OEMs. We would be interested in hearing whether the PMA community finds that any of the extra-regulatory requirements of the AC are imposing a burden on PMA manufacturers.
Comments on this proposal are due to the FAA by September 12, 2014 so we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments to us at MARPA no later than the end of August. You can also file comments directly with the FAA by emailing them to email@example.com
Today, the FAA announced the issue of AC 21.3o3-4. The title of this AC will be “Application for Parts Manufacturer Approval Via Tests and Computations or Identicality.”
As of this time, the AC is not yet available to the public. When it is available to the public, it is expected to be posted online at this location:
Note: the issue date published on the FAA’s website is March 21, 2014; however the AC is not yet available through the FAA’s online advisory circulars, nor through the Regulatory and Guidance Library (RGL). The note on the FAA’s website states “This document‘s content is not currently available.”
The FAA is proposing changes to the Part 21 manufacturing rules. A number of these will impact PMA holders. It will be important for the PMA community to provide comments to this NPRM.
The proposed changes include:
With respect to the new permission for PMA holders to issue 8130-3 tags, the FAA confirms that the intent is to permit manufacturers to issue the 8130-3 tags, although the NPRM appears to be missing an explicit authority to issue such a release. Instead, the NPRM as drafted requires a procedure for managing the 8130-3 tags process; but subpart L continues to require application to the FAA for issue of an 8130-3 tag. This is something that will need to be changed if the FAA is to successfully implement this provision.
If the proposal becomes a regulation, the rules would include a requirement for supplier control and a parallel requirement for ensuring conformity of supplier products. This appears to suggest that supplier control must be supplemented with 100% conformity verification of incoming supply; but more importantly it would also mean that non-conforming supplier-provided-parts would represent a regulatory violation even when they are caught in the PMA holder’s incoming inspection! This seems to be inappropriate.
The proposed rule is scheduled to be issued in tomorrow’s Federal Register. An advance copy is available online today at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-04330.pdf.
The Administration has announced a plan to draw-down US armed forces to the lowest level since before WWII – this announcement could hold an unseen benefit for the aerospace manufacturing community.
There are a lot of people that could be hurt by this draw-down. Companies that are supporting the U-2 or the A-10 aircraft will feel the pinch when these aircraft have been grounded. Companies that support our military in general will feel the reductions in military needs. The Department of Defense has admitted that this draw-down may require involuntary separations, which will mean that soldiers, sailors and airmen who expected to remain with the military will be cut loose (in an economy with higher-than-average unemployment).
But every challenge represents a corollary opportunity. The PMA community should be looking at this draw-down as an opportunity to find high-quality employees.
The aviation industry has special needs – and the average unemployed worker-off-the-street often does not have the skill set necessary to be immediately successful in an aviation manufacturing environment. But servicemen and women do have those skill sets. They have technical training and they are used to working in controlled-process-oriented environments. They are used to working within quality systems. They understand critical safety environments. They are the sort of people who fit right into an aerospace manufacturing environment.
How many people are we talking about? From a current level of 522,000, our military would be reduced to between 440,000 and 450,000 by the year 2019. That is 70,000 to 80,000 extra employees entering the workforce upon separation from the military over the next four or five years.
So now appears to be a good time for our industry to be reaching out to the US military community in order to let them know about the good jobs that are available in the PMA industry. It is a win for the people separated from the military (who need jobs, and would appreciate the security of knowing there are opportunities), and it is a win for the manufacturing companies that make use of their skill sets.
Note that our new military force levels will be far smaller than the number of people on the U.S. terror watch list, which stood at 875,000 in early 2013.
MARPA members (or others) with ideas about how MARPA can facilitate connections between the military and the manufacturing companies with jobs should contact the Association with your ideas. It would be great if we could do our part to help ease the military separation transition for a few people!
We expect the FAA to publish for new proposed helicopter operations regulations tomorrow (Friday). The proposed rules could reflect new opportunities for PMA manufacturers.
The proposed rules would require all helicopter air ambulance flights with medical personnel on board to be conducted under part 135 (proposed §§ 135.1, 135.601), thus increasing the population of Part 135 helicopter operations. The proposed rules would also require some new equipment rotorcraft operated under Part 135 (including those that have just been redefined as 135 operations by the new rule).
The new equipage rules under Part 135 would include:
These are operational rule requirements, so they do not apply to rotorcraft operated solely under Part 91 operations rules.
MARPA members who see problems or opportunities with the proposed rule (or who perceive areas where the FAA deserves appreciation for its efforts) should let MARPA know, so that the Association can file comments with the FAA that are consistent with the industry’s needs and desires.
In addition the proposed rule would impose new operational requirements for rotorcraft operated under Part 135, such as:
MARPA members who support the rotorcraft industry (especially the air ambulance community) may want to let their customers know about this significant rule change, as their customers may wish to comment on the open rulemaking proposal.
A seemingly innocent EASA rule could potentially undermine US-EU trade in aircraft engine parts.
EASA has issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment that would make changes to the EASA engine vibration rule for engine certification. At first blush, this appears to inhibit the development of an independent turbine engine approved part industry in Europe. The EASA rule and the FAA rule are currently harmonized, and the proposed change would also de-harmonize the rule from the FAA standards, which might provide a basis for an EASA refusal to accept PMA turbine engine parts from the United States, in the future.
One of the reasons that this could be used to undermine US-EU trade is because the current EASA acceptance of FAA-PMA parts is based upon the finding of substantial similarity between the systems, which in turn is based upon the harmonization of the regulations. If the regulations are no longer harmonized, then EASA might choose to reject PMA parts on the grounds that they are not subject to the same sort of testing required by the EASA regulations. It is likely that such an act would not be taken immediately, but the rule change would lay the ground work for a later decision to exclude FAA-PMA parts.
Such a decision to begin excluding FAA-PMA parts on technical grounds would likely violate international agreements, so it is important to prevent EASA from laying the groundwork for such a decision, The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft references the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade for purposes of determining the acceptability of technical barriers. That Agreement specifies that:
“Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.”
If the change would have the effect of creating an unnecessary obstacle to international trade in aircraft parts, then it could reflect a violation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
So what language are we talking about? Here is an example of existing EASA language that is harmonized with the FAA regulations:
“The Engine surveys and their extent must be based upon an appropriate combination of experience, analysis and component test and must address, as a minimum, blades, vanes, rotor discs, spacers and rotor shafts.”
The correlative language in the proposed replacement text would say:
“It must be established by test or a combination of test and validated analysis that the vibration characteristics of all components that may be subject to mechanically or aerodynamically induced vibratory responses are acceptable throughout the declared flight envelope.”
Some people might look at the term validated analysis and wonder what range of analysis that might permit. The AMC language quoted in the NPA clarifies a definition of the term:
“A validated analysis is one with demonstrated predictive capability within a specified domain of applicability that encompasses one or more complementary baseline tests.”
Our first look at this regulatory change suggests that the change makes it far more difficult to create and approve a replacement engine part under the European system. Replacing the option to use component tests with requirements for “test or test and validated analysis” could enforce the notion that an engine part cannot be developed in the European system without full engine testing of that part – no matter how insignificant the systems effect of the part may be (because of its economic effect, such a rule would be tantamount to banning the development of independent turbine aircraft engine parts).
Recently, we wrote about BAE’s efforts to nurture a true independent aircraft parts production industry in Europe. Such efforts would infuse competition, and all of the price and quality advantages that competition traditionally tends to bring. Certainly this independent aircraft parts production industry is in its infancy but it promises to provide jobs and revenues in Europe, while also moderating prices and stimulating safety and reliability advances. But the proposed change could have the effect of strangling the nascent aircraft parts industry by preventing it from producing aircraft engine parts.
We are really curious to hear what the MARPA community has to say about this.
One of the best classes I attended at the AVM PMA Summit in London last week was focused on management skills for an engineering environment.
George Ringger lead a session focused on the difference between decisions and goals in the manufacturing business environment. Ringger has taught at Embry-Riddle and advised business on manufacturing and continuous airworthiness subjects in both the quality and engineering disciplines, so he has seen what works and he has seen what does not work.
He began by explaining that a goal is something you are trying to achieve, and decisions are the choices we make as we try to meet our goals. Using this simple dichotomy as the basis, he laid out a very-effective system for effective and successful management in the modern aerospace workplace.
Ringer presented a case study in which the management goal was to reduce development costs. The business decided to go from three prototypes to one prototype. This should have saved 66% on the prototype costs, but the prototype failed and this resulted in a 12 week delay in the program while a second prototype was built.
Other examples of poor decisions can include using structural analysis when testing is faster and less expensive (or vice-versa). It is important to use the right approach to PMA development! because the correct choice can vary with the parrts.
In case study number two Ringger discussed a. PMA company that reverse engineered a nose landing gear bushing. In fact, the nose landing gear featured 12 bushings that were identical except for dimensions (particularly the materials were identical). By limiting the analysis to only one bushing, the company missed an opportunity to PMA all 12 of the bushings at the same time.
In case study number three, Ringger discussed a. PMA company that reverse engineered a part that perfectly matched the OEM part. But the customer had issues with premature failures on the OEM part, so the failure to engineer the part from the ground up meant that the PMA manufacturer failed to redesign the part and correct the features leading to customer disappointment. This shows that it is important to know what your customer’s concerns are and to choose a design method they permits you to meet the customer’s needs.
By using effective management, Ringger explained how to overcome limitations in order to develop an internal user-centric system. The purpose of this system is to ensure that your parts designs will meet customer needs and desires. He also discussed strategies for setting SMART goals. He discussed his SMART squared approach to goal setting in order to motivate engineers to make smart decisions and achieve results. Goals should feature these ten qualities:
In his program, Ringger explains how each of these elements help to ensure that you establish effective goals, make decisions that support your goals, and develop work assignments to support the decisions.
This was one of the best presentations I have seen for managing engineering staff. We have already reached out to Ringger to invite him to speak at the 2014 MARPA Conference in Las Vegas. Everyone who manages a technical staff should make plans to attend his session!
The FAA has issued two new PMA guidance documents for comment. One of these is a document affecting engine PMA applications (PS-ANE-33.3-05) and the other is a document affecting propeller PMA applications (PS-ANE-35.15-02). Each of them would require additional internal FAA coordination for certain engine and propeller PMA projects.
Under the new policy, when an Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) accepts an application for a PMA for an engine part or a propeller part, where a failure of that part could result in the total loss of thrust or power, the ACO is required to coordinate the project with the office that manages the type certificate and the Engine and Propeller Directorate. Coordination is accomplished by entering the project into the national certification project notification (CPN) database.
While better management of coordination should be a good thing, the reason for such coordination is to obtain more input from the other offices. There are two possible concerns associated with that additional input that should be addressed but that are not raised in this guidance: (1) decreased FAA efficiency in turning projects, and (2) increased potential for release of sensitive business data.
The guidance asserts that the CPN process should not add burden to the PMA applicant. This does not consider, however, whether the process may add additional lag time in processing the PMA applications. If the certificate management office and the Directorate request additional time to study the project and add their comments, then this could slow down the turn-around-time for reviewing packages. We have been made aware of instances where local offices disagreed with a directorate about a technical matter, and the PMA applicant was the real victim, as the two FAA offices brought the application to a stand-still while they hashed out their differences.
In addition, PMA applications are often considered to reflect sensitive company data, because they reveal the company’s business plan. If a certificate management office starts asking questions about a part, even without revealing which company has filed the PMA application, it could still alert a type certificate holder to the potential for competition and the type certificate holder may take action to protect their market in that part before the PMA part is approved (which would be unfair).
But one positive aspect of such coordination is that the certificate management office or the Directorate may have useful information not readily available elsewhere. For example, they may have service information that helps to show where the original type certificated part was not performing as expected. This information could give the PMA applicant an opportunity to improve the part so that it meets customer expectations.
The FAA has opened these two policies up for comment through March. MARPA members who want MARPA to comment on either of these draft policies should let us know by the end of February.
Today’s Federal Register announced that some of the manufacturing policy-makers at FAA Headquarters will merge into a single unit. The engineering division and the production division are currently separated into two different offices, and they will become one office effective February 9.
Today, in addition to the office of the director, there are five different offices/divisions within the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service:
This change will merge AIR-100 and AIR-200 into a single division, which will be known as the Design, Manufacturing, and Airworthiness Division, and will bear the mail-stop code AIR-100. The new division will feature five branches:
The Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) Organizational Design Concept (AODC) has been working for several years on ways to better organize Aircraft Certification. AODC identified some overlap in certain functions being performed by AIR-100 and AIR-200. The merger allows the two divisions to reduce some duplication in those administrative functions.
David Hempe, who leads AIR-100 today, will continue to lead the merged division.
This could be your chance to affect the rewrite of an important engine certification rule! The FAA has asked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to look into engine endurance testing pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 33.87.
An engine endurance test is an accelerated severity test intended to demonstrate a minimum level of engine operability and durability within the approved engine ratings and operating limitations. The test running conditions cover the declared engine rating and operating limitations, but are not intended to precisely simulate the expected in-service operation.
The FAA has found that applicants need to modify their engines in order to meet the testing requirements of section 33.87, but that these modified engines are no longer accurate representations of the type design. Thus, there is a worry that modern engine technology has progressed to the point where section 33.87 no longer meets its intended function.
Dorina Mihail of the FAA Engine and Propeller Directorate is looking for engine technical experts to serve on the working group examining this rule. The FAA must receive all requests by February 11, 2014, so if you are interested in having MARPA promote your application to the working group. then please contact us before then.