NATA Maintenance Perspective aintenance P BY CAROL E. GILES Common Sense, Interrupted I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard: “FAA regu- lations don’t make sense.” Or, for the times I know people have wondered “How in the world can federal regulations get so much in the way of common sense?” I’d have a full piggy bank since there are many examples of unpopular regulations over the decades-long history of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Try entering “worst FAA regulation” in a Google search; or bring up the topic of federal regulations over coffee at the Fixed-base Operator. You’ll get a full page, on the first hand, and an earful, on the second. Yet, developing regulations is hard work. It’s compli- cated. I know this full well from my time at the FAA. Writing rules to impose on the aviation industry is a balancing act, including reviewing safety data, drafting the regulation, and checking the many required boxes as the rule works its way through the system. As FAA Associate Administrator Peggy Gilligan explained, “The rulemaking process is complex and time-consuming” and the FAA “must comply with at least 16 statutory requirements and three Executive Orders for each rule.”1 The FAA also has to work with rulemaking commit- 1 http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/01test/Gilligan1.htm tees, address congressional mandates, respond to public comments and concerns, and conduct detailed technical, legal, and economic analyses. Those are all reasons why rulemaking can take a long time. And, frankly, it should, since so much can be at stake. But, sometimes, even though a rule was developed at “de- liberate speed,” it doesn’t come out right. Here’s a recent example2 . If you operate a repair station, then you may have already figured out where I’m heading. It’s the FAA’s posi- tion on housing requirements. The subject of repair station housing requirements and the FAA’s interpretation is not a new subject. Now, I can’t blame you for the Yogi Berra response, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Yet, previously, the issue concerned hangars not having doors, which could mean they were not enclosed, and hangars leased by a repair station, which could mean that they are not “permanent.” This time, the matter-at-hand concerns repair stations that are issued airframe ratings in order to repair airframe components. In fact, the regulation at issue–§145.103(a)(1)3–states: ”Housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with its ratings.” I underlined consis- tent, because it stands to reason (Ah ha, a word that implies common sense) that if you have a small component shop and work on small airframe components, then you would not need a hangar big enough to house an A380. Well, that is what you might think, but if you read further, §145.103(b) states that, “A certificated repair station with an airframe rating must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its operations specifications.” This is the crux of the issue when it comes to the regulation and common sense. While it is obvious that if a repair station has an airframe rating limited to airframe component repair, it does not need a hangar big enough to house the airframe the parts came from. But, it 2 http://arsa.org/component-housing/ Continued on page 53 Aviation Business Journal | 1st Quarter 2016 51
