ARSA routinely reminds certificate holders and regulators of the industry’s responsibility for showing compliance for the government to find. Guidance offers tools to achieve that end, but it cannot and should not become a required standard adjacent to the regulations.
In November, ARSA and its staunch ally, the Aircraft Electronics Association submitted a pair of draft advisory circulars for FAA consideration to replace the agency’s proposed update to Advisory Circular 43-9, Maintenance Records. The dual documents address the existing AC’s problematic entanglement of maintenance provider recordkeeping requirements with those expected of operators under part 91.
The proposed update to AC 43-9D establishes the persons with authority to perform maintenance, delineates the responsibilities of maintenance providers and operators, then lays out the maintenance recordkeeping requirements from the rule. It covers the information that must be captured under §§ 43.9 and 43.11, for major repairs or alterations, and to support compliance with airworthiness directives (since operators bear the regulatory responsibility for accomplishment of those directives and operating their aircraft in compliance with them). The proposed guidance also provides instruction for administrative details such as record correction and management (e.g., computerization) before providing instructions for using an FAA Form 8130-3 for maintenance record purposes.
To capture the operator responsibilities pulled from the agency’s current version of the AC (and maintained in its suggested update) proposed AC 91-417 was created. The proposal highlights the record-making and keeping requirements placed on operators beyond those under part 43. Though mechanics and repair stations should focus on the elements of compliance for which they are responsible under the maintenance rules, knowing the expectations of customers supports overall system safety and is a good business practice.
The best practice is to establish a solid recordkeeping policy and stick to it. Mechanics must create records under §§ 43.9 and 43.11 for the maintenance, alterations, and inspections performed. Those regulations require a record to be made by any person performing work on a civil aviation aircraft or component. The rules do not require the mechanic keep a copy…but individuals not keeping track of what they did, for whom, and when open themselves to accusations of non-compliance.
For companies with repair station certificates, there are records that must be kept and those that should be kept. Section 145.219 requires maintaining records demonstrating compliance with part 43 (i.e., those required by §§ 43.9 and 43.11) for two years after the work is approved for return to service (actually, § 145.219(c) incorrectly starts the recordkeeping clock at the date “the article was approved for return to service” despite § 43.9(a)(4) clearly stating the approval is for the work and not the article…nonetheless, the timeframe for recordkeeping is clear). That is only to satisfy the FAA, not customers. Contracts may require retention for much longer spans of time.
Now the job is to press the agency to adopt the suggestions. Providing the government with answers is step one…seeing them through is steps two through 100. Maintenance professionals are wise to review and institute the associations’ suggestions regardless of how regulators respond. Good guidance, whether blessed by the FAA or not, assists in compliance without creating new requirements above and beyond the rules. A certificate holder can institute its own recordkeeping procedures to comply with the aviation safety rules. As with its training sessions, manuals and other tools made available to industry, the associations guidance meets that standard.
