Welcome to GlobalAir.com | 888-236-4309    Please Register or Login
Aviation Articles
Home Aircraft For Sale  | Aviation Directory  |  Airport Resource  |   Blog  | My Flight Department
Aviation Articles

Components of Airport Certification (14 CFR Part 139)

by Tori Williams 2. April 2018 14:18
Share on Facebook

If there is one thing I have learned during my time in aviation, it is that sometimes you learn the most when you research aspects of the industry that you generally feel aren’t “relevant” to you. Pilots can learn so much from Air Traffic Controllers, Airport Operations can learn so much from MRO facilities, and the list continues on. Taking the time to look at daily happenings at airports, whether from a flight, operations, maintenance, administrative, or another perspective can help you gain valuable insight to further your career and enrich your experiences.

Just in the way that airport operations personnel could benefit from learning how to fly, pilots could also benefit with learning some basics of how airports are run and which regulations they must adhere to. It should be no surprise that airports have their own special section of the Federal Aviation Regulations that they must follow, and that is 14 CFR Part 139. In this article I would like to give an overview of the main parts of Part 139 so that pilots can better understand why things work the way they do at airports.

Although Part 139 is the baseline for airport certification, not every airport in the U.S. has to follow it. The regulations are specifically for airports that serve scheduled and unscheduled air carrier aircraft with more than 30 seats, serve scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more than 9 seats but less than 31 seats, and that the FAA Administrator requires to have a certificate.

The Airport Certification Manual (ACM)

Perhaps the most vital piece of Part 139 compliance is the Airport Certification Manual. This is a document that outlines exactly how an airport will conduct their operations to comply with Part 139. The airport operator writes the ACM, and then every single page is reviewed and signed by the FAA inspector assigned to that airport. If approved, the airport is then issued an Airport Operating Certificate (AOC) which allows flight operations to proceed legally.

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting

Often referred to as simply “ARFF,” aircraft rescue and firefighting is a major component of airport operations because they have constantly to be ready for any aircraft emergencies. The airport’s “ARFF Index” (designated by letters A-E) is dependent on the longest air carrier aircraft that serves the airport with five or more average daily departures. The ARFF personnel and equipment must be able to properly handle the aircraft type, and they must do a drill where they successfully reach the midpoint of the furthest runway from their station within 3 minutes of being alerted to an accident.

Airport Inspections and Maintenance

There are four types of inspections that airports are required to do under Part 139. These are regularly scheduled, continuous, periodic, and special inspections. Airport operations personnel must physically drive or walk around the airfield, carefully inspecting several key features. These include signage, markings, pavement condition, lighting, FOD (foreign object debris), wildlife, and many others. Regularly scheduled inspections can happen several times a day, and the airport operator outlines in the ACM just how many they are required to do.

Wildlife Hazard Management

Unfortunately, airports can quickly become a very dangerous place for pilots when birds or wildlife are in the area. Just look at Sully! Part 139 airports are required to have a wildlife management plan in place, to help mitigate and eliminate the natural hazards that animals can create. These programs are designed to focus not only on scaring away wildlife already on the airfield, but to move their habitat outside of the security fence so they are less likely to be there to begin with.

Airport Emergency Plan (AEP)

As mentioned before, airports must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Thus, a Part 139 airport must submit an airport emergency plan to their FAA inspector in addition to the ACM. This document is a handbook on what exactly should happen in case of an emergency. All possible scenarios should be covered, including terrorism, fuel farm fires, natural disasters, and of course aircraft accidents. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-31C, Airport Emergency Plan, provides guidance in meeting the requirements for the plan.

Snow and Ice Control Plan (SICP)

Depending on the airport, snow and ice may be a major problem that has to be dealt with every year. Keeping the airport safe and open is the biggest concern during a snow event, so airports are required to submit a plan for how they will tackle the runway contaminate. This plan must include staffing expectations, equipment usage, priority areas that will be plowed first, and much more. During this time they must also monitor the conditions and let pilots know how what to expect when landing.

Records Keeping

Part 139 is very clear about which records must be kept on site and for how long. Most records, including inspection reports, NOTAMs, incident and accident reports, and fueling inspections are required to be kept for 12 calendar months. Records for the training of personnel who operate in the movement area (the portion of the airfield controlled by ATC) are required to be kept for 24 calendar months.

I’ve barely scratched the surface of Part 139 Airport operations, but I hope that this broad overview helps you to understand the daily happenings at an airport at least a little better. There is more than meets the eye, and airports have to constantly work to stay on top of every aspect of their operation. If you’re curious about what else Part 139 covers, bring out your FAR AIM and take a look! You will definitely learn something you did not know before.

Tags:

Aviation Safety | Airports | Tori Williams

Falsification And The FAA’s Revocation Of Certificates: Same As It Ever Was.

by Greg Reigel 2. April 2018 08:38
Share on Facebook

As many of us know, revocation has been the FAA’s choice of sanction in medical application falsification cases for a very long time. This was especially true prior to enactment of the Pilots Bill of Rights I (the “PBR-1”), when the National Transportation Safety Board (the “Board”) was “bound by” the FAA’s choice of sanction. In all of the case law prior to PBR-1, the Board relied upon this language and deferred to the FAA’s imposition of revocation in falsification cases.

In 2012 the PBR-1 removed the “bound by” language from the regulations. Since that time, the Board has followed the traditional doctrine of judicial deference set forth in Martin v. OSHRC and subsequent cases when determining whether to defer to the FAA’s imposition of revocation in falsification cases. However, the deference the Board must accord to the FAA in sanction review is not unfettered, and it does not eliminate or replace the due process requirement for the Board’s evaluation. In each case the Board must consider aggravating and mitigating factors and compare factually similar cases to determine whether the FAA’s choice of sanction is appropriate.

In practice, administrative law judges have discussed the need to analyze and weigh the facts and circumstances of each case when they apply the principles of judicial deference to determine if the sanction selected by the FAA is appropriate. In each of those cases, the Board on appeal also considered the merits of the FAA’s sanction choice, even though in both instances it was within the recommendations of the FAA’s Sanction Guidance Table. And yet in each case the sanction of revocation was affirmed.

Although the FAA will often state that it "carefully followed the sanction guidelines when it proposed revoking all airman certificates held by the respondent", this is self-serving at best. 14 C.F.R. § 67.403(b)(1) provides for suspending OR revoking airman and medical certificates. However, contrary to Section 67.403(b)(1), FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B-4-b(1) (the FAA's Sanction Guidance Table) states that revocation of all of an airman’s certificates is the only available sanction.

And although the FAA may deny it, a review of the Board’s past and present docket, as well as Board precedent, clearly shows the FAA very rarely seeks any sanction other than revocation of all airman certificates in cases where it alleges falsification. So, to say the FAA "carefully followed the sanction guidelines" implies analysis and consideration that the FAA’s own guidance does not permit.

Also, the FAA almost always claims its chosen sanction is appropriate because the alleged falsification shows the airman lacks qualification to hold any airman certificate or airman medical certificate. Yet after one year from the date of the order of revocation the airman will typically be allowed to reapply for airman certificates, and provided the airman is otherwise qualified, the prior revocation will not prohibit the airman from being issued airman certificates.

And in the meantime, the airman can apply for and be issued a new medical certificate provided he or she is able to demonstrate that he or she is qualified to hold a medical certificate under 14 C.F.R. Part 67. The fact that the regulations and the FAA permit application for and issuance of both airman and medical certificates after the FAA concludes that an airman is not qualified to hold those certificates, as a matter of course, belies both the accuracy and the legitimacy of the FAA’s conclusion.

It is hard to understand how revocation of all of an airman’s certificates, rather than suspension, is anything other than a punitive sanction that the FAA automatically assesses without thought or consideration to the factual circumstances of each case. Further, the FAA’s often-heard claim that it "has limited its decision to what is prescribed by the sanction guidelines" is an admission that it has disregarded the clear language of the regulation permitting revocation OR suspension. The FAA's singular selection of sanction to the exclusion of what is otherwise provided in the regulation is, both on its face and in application, arbitrary and capricious, and should not be entitled to deference.

But, in spite of the above, both the Board and the courts continue to defer to the FAA’s imposition of revocation in falsification cases and to rely upon pre-PBR-1 precedent to support those decisions. It isn’t clear to me why the Board and the courts may rely upon those cases as precedent when they were decided based upon the requirement that the Board was “bound by” the FAA’s choice of sanction, and that requirement is no longer present. Unfortunately, in falsification cases where the FAA’s continued "knee-jerk" reaction is to revoke all of an airman’s certificates, the words of The Talking Head’s seem apropos: “same as it ever was.”

 

Tags: , ,

Greg Reigel

Aircraft Technical Analysis

by David Wyndham 12. March 2018 10:15
Share on Facebook

To continue our review of the components of a successful Aircraft Acquisition Plan, I will be discussing the technical analysis. The technical analysis is as varied as the types of missions. They keys are to adequately define the key missions and evaluation parameters. Use those to develop the objective criteria to judge candidate aircraft.

I just finished a fleet plan for a client. Before starting the report, the Chief Pilot was sure that the best aircraft for their mission was the "BelchFire Warp 2K." But to placate the boss, the Chief Pilot hired us to do an analysis. As it turned out, their preferred aircraft was number three on the list of best alternatives. The other two had similar speed and range capabilities and offered the bigger cabin the boss was looking for. While in many instances, your initial instinct is correct, the technical analysis can reveal other alternatives, some of which may be better suited for your mission than the initial pick.

Aircraft Technical Analysis

The focus of the technical analysis is on size, features, range, and performance. The acquisition cost, cost of operation, and other financial and ownership matters are for a second analysis.

Make sure the requirements are listed correctly. An eight passenger cabin and 2,500 NM range are different than a range of 2,500 NM with eight passengers. Perform the basic analysis with the objective of developing a short list of candidate aircraft that will be used in the detailed analysis. Then you are ready for the detailed analysis:

* Determine the most (likely) demanding payload, range, cabin size and/or passenger seating requirement as defined by your key mission.

* Compare those requirements against the capabilities of a range of aircraft from the sources of information you have gathered.

* Eliminate all those that do not meet the requirements.

* Eliminate those aircraft that are vastly more capable than required. The cost of acquisition and ownership does up dramatically as size, range and speed increase.

How many aircraft should you end up with the do a detailed analysis? An absolute minimum would be two aircraft but three to nine aircraft is the preferred goal. If you end up with only one aircraft to analyze, go back and review your key missions. It is rare than there would be only one aircraft that can perform your mission. If that is the case, it is likely that the aircraft seller may know that and thus, you will have little room to negotiate on price. More than nine aircraft and your analysis gets unwieldy - better to go back and come up with some more restrictive requirements.

The detailed analysis is designed to outline clearly the various capabilities of the candidate aircraft in relation to your key mission. Depending on your key mission, the following may be included:

* Weight buildup. This includes passenger payload, baggage capacity and even weight and balance considerations. Also include baggage size considerations. Four sets of skis may not weigh much, but will require a longer baggage compartment than will four overnight bags. Four fully-equipped SWAT Team members will weight a lot more than four medical personnel. Remember the mission drives your requirements.

* Range and reserves. Given your weight for the key mission, can the aircraft fly the required trip? Make sure the fuel reserve calculation is correct for your mission. Run specific scenarios to make sure the aircraft will perform as required. Do you need to lift two med-evac patients from a high altitude location on a hot day? What about navigation requirements such as FAMS-1, ADS-B,  minimum engine inoperative altitudes if operating over mountains, etc. can be important considerations.

* Airport restrictions. Do you fly into a short runway? Narrow taxiway? What is the weight limitation on your parking ramp? Where you operate will define things such as runway requirements, climb and obstacle clearance criteria, etc.

* Have a hangar with a twelve foot opening? Don't find out that your new aircraft is 12 feet 2 inches tall after the sale is completed! 

* Features and Equipment. This can be a short list or an extensive one. It can include things such as auxiliary power for ground and air use, a private lavatory, single point refueling capability, crew rest areas, a separate cargo door, and required ground support equipment. WiFi here in the US is a different requirement than WiFi with global capability. Again, the key mission defines the parameters.

* Reliability and Support. This can be hard to quantify as very little quantitative data exists. A good source of this type of information is to talk to other operators of the type of equipment that you are evaluating. In addition, magazines conduct and publish product support surveys. Locations of factory approved service centers can be important, as can spares support. If the manufacturer is still producing the same or similar aircraft that you are evaluating, support could be better than trying to find qualified support for old, out of production models for which there is no major spares supplier.

These are some of the major items. Your evaluation parameters may likely include others. Once you have performed the analysis, it is time to rank order the aircraft.

Determine how many criteria each aircraft meets, did not meet, or exceeded. The minimum Key Mission criteria is mandatory - failure to meet them will result in the aircraft being removed from consideration. Other criteria should be rated as desired in that it will enhance mission effectiveness or add extra capability. Not meeting desired criteria can still result in a mission capable aircraft. See which aircraft, having met all the required criteria, also meet some or all of the desired criteria. Adding the deficiencies and excesses can result in a numerical score. You may add your own multiplier to favor one criterion over another.

If no aircraft meets the required criteria, what do you do? Go back to your key mission and carefully evaluate each of the evaluation parameters and how, if changed or removed, would affect the key mission. In other words, find out what you can live without.

There still may be an occurrence where no one make/model will adequately perform your missions. In that case, maybe acquiring one aircraft to do 90% of the missions and chartering an aircraft to perform the remaining 10% may be the solution. I had one client with a lot of trips with four to six passengers of 150 NM and under. The next requirement was for three to four passengers to fly 2,000 NM. In their case, a turboprops served the short trips quite well and since the longer trips were infrequent, a fractional share was a good alternative for those trips.

The technical analysis is as varied as the types of missions. The keys are to adequately define the key missions and evaluation parameters. Use those to develop the objective criteria to judge candidate aircraft. It is better to explain to the boss why his favorite pick (1) can't perform the mission and to offer alternatives than to acquire a less than desirable aircraft and find that out after the fact.

Note (1): Yes, I’ve seen a thorough analysis identify a best-fit aircraft only to have the decision maker get a different, less capable aircraft because of personal reasons. My job is to provide the factual data to allow for a fully informed decision. 


Tags:

Aviation Technology | David Wyndham | Flight Department

FAA Suspected Unapproved Parts Program

by Tori Williams 1. March 2018 08:00
Share on Facebook

What are “Unapproved Parts?”

Aviation is such a complex industry, with so many (literal) moving parts. While learning about MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul) operations, we touched briefly on the FAA Suspected Unapproved Parts Program, and I was intrigued. If you think about it, there are billions of aircraft parts in circulation in the U.S. Aviation Industry at any given moment. The majority of these parts are vital to aircraft operations, and can put passengers in danger if they fail. How do aircraft operators ensure that their parts are actually the high quality that they are relying on when they purchase them?

In 1993 the FAA created the Suspected Unapproved Parts Program in order to decrease the amount of aircraft parts in circulation with unknown or questionable history. The purchasing and installation of these unapproved parts can cause a hazard to flight operations, as their quality is undetermined and they may be unacceptable. The ultimate requirement of an aircraft operator is to maintain airworthiness as specified in the particular part of the Federal Aviation Regulations that governs that type of operation, which also includes all individual parts being in compliance.

Advisory Circular 21-29C defines a S.U.P. as, “A part, component, or material that is suspected of not meeting the requirements of an approved part. A part that, for any reason, a person believes is not approved. Reasons may include findings such as different finish, size, color, improper (or lack of) identification, incomplete or altered paperwork, or any other questionable indication.” So really, a S.U.P. could be anything.

The Advisory Circular makes a clear distinction between aircraft parts that are sold with the understanding that it is for decorative purposes only, and parts that are disguised as airworthy. It is the responsibility of the buyer to request and receive the documentation necessary to show the purpose of the part. Selling a part that is clearly not airworthy is not a crime, as long as the seller does not do it under the premise that it is airworthy.

How are they caught?

There is a process that the FAA has created to report a suspected unapproved part. First, you could call The Aviation Safety Hotline to report unsafe practices that affect aviation safety, including the manufacture, distribution, or use of an S.U.P. Their number is 1-800-255-1111 or 1-866-835-5322. If requested, the caller may remain anonymous.

There is also a standardized form, FAA Form 8120-11, that outlines the information needed about the S.U.P. This includes the date the part was discovered, the part serial number, information about the company that supplied the part, a description of the issue, and several other important facts that the FAA will need to investigate. This form can then be sent to the Aviation Safety Hotline via e-mail or to their physical address in Washington, DC. Although this is a relatively low-tech solution to the problem, it is a solid system for reporting S.U.P. and has done a lot of good.

The FAA then investigates the S.U.P., and if it is found to be unacceptable they will send out an Unapproved Parts Notification (UPN). These are available to the public, and can be found on the FAA website. The most recently posted UPN was put on the site on February 15th, 2018, and outlines various parts distributed by Genesis Aviation Inc. This report recommends that aircraft owners who have installed the parts to inspect and remove them from their aircraft to keep it airworthy.

Why even bother?

The goal of the S.U.P. program is to improve safety and promote transparency in aviation. By having a system in place to detect and report unapproved parts, aircraft maintenance personnel and aircraft owners have an easier way to ensure they are using the best parts available. Removing all unapproved parts from the U.S. Aviation Industry is a huge undertaking, but with the task force making it their personal mission it is much more likely to come to fruition.

This leaves one to wonder what happens to the company or individual that gets caught selling unapproved parts. According to a press release fact sheet sent out by the FAA on the matter, “if the FAA determines that a manufacturer, air carrier or other user violated Federal Aviation Regulations regarding approved parts, they could be subject to anything from a warning letter to a stiff fine. In the case of criminal activity, the appropriate law enforcement authority and judicial system can pursue the case.”

Unapproved parts are a very serious matter that affect the safety of air travel. The FAA has created a great way for any possible unapproved parts to get caught and removed from the U.S. Aviation system.

 

Tags:

Aviation Technology | Maintenance

Aircraft Management Services Are Now Exempt From Federal Excise Tax

by Greg Reigel 27. February 2018 14:35
Share on Facebook

When the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the "Act") became law, its provisions immediately and significantly impacted business aircraft owners and operators in a number of ways. One of the key provisions of the Act resolved an issue between the IRS and aircraft management companies. Prior to the Act, the IRS was taking the position that fees paid for aircraft management services were subject to Federal Excise Tax ("FET"). Of course, the business aviation community objected to the IRS's position. As a result of the ongoing dispute (and discussions aimed at obtaining guidance from the IRS and/or changing its position), although the IRS had audited aircraft management companies and assessed FET, it was not attempting to enforce those assessments.

The Act addressed this situation and now provides a specific exemption to FET for aircraft management services. The following amounts paid by an aircraft owner for management services related to maintenance and support of the owner’s aircraft or flights on the owner’s aircraft are exempt from FET:

  • Payments for support activities related to the aircraft itself (e.g. storage, maintenance, and fueling);

  • Payments for the aircraft’s operation (e.g. hiring and training of pilots and crew);

  • Payments for administrative services (e.g. scheduling, flight planning, weather forecasting, obtaining insurance, establishing and complying with safety standards); and

  • Payments for other services as are necessary to support flights operated by an aircraft owner.

It is important to keep in mind that these payments are exempt from FET only to the extent that they are attributable to flights on an aircraft owner’s own aircraft. Payments for services that apply to other aircraft in addition to the aircraft owner’s aircraft are still subject to Federal excise tax. Also, to the extent that monthly payments are allocated to flights on the aircraft owner’s aircraft and other non-owned aircraft, then FET must be collected on the portion of the payment attributable to flights on the non-owned aircraft.

But, you might be wondering, what about the many aircraft owned by single-purpose entities and leased to operating companies who operate the aircraft in connection with their businesses? How does the Act affect the operating company lessees? Well, with respect to aircraft lessees, the Act considers an aircraft lessee to be an aircraft owner to which the exemption is available provided that the lease is for a term of more than thirty one (31) days and the aircraft is not leased from the aircraft management company or a related party.

So, within the parameters of the Act, we now have clarity on when payments for aircraft management services are, and are not, subject to FET.

Tags:

Greg Reigel



Archive



GlobalAir.com on Twitter