For all pilots, whether you own or rent, there is no bigger issue than the cost of flying. AOPA member surveys name this as your number-one concern. And it's hard to deny that the costs associated with private flying are high. Your association works hard in numerous ways to keep down the cost of flying. Some efforts are quite obvious, while others often are not recognized. Frequently overlooked is our ongoing effort to challenge expensive airworthiness directives (ADs).
Owners and renters have told us repeatedly that ADs add substantially to their cost of flying. In addition, you've indicated that you're most concerned with your safety and that of your passengers — so your association should not oppose the implementation of an AD that our technical staff deems necessary. AOPA works diligently to minimize the financial impact of ADs, identify legitimate airworthiness concerns, and find the most cost-effective means to remedy the problems. But, as the aircraft fleet continues to age and ADs are issued more frequently, we could use your help.
Year after year, the FAA issues countless pieces of rulemaking that deal with everything from improper positioning of a fuel selector to catastrophic engine failure. We feel that it's our job on behalf of our membership to review each and every one of these and find a balance between safety and economic impact. In responding to these many FAA rulemakings each year, we find ourselves relying more and more on the knowledge and experience of you, the aircraft owner or operator, to identify the legitimacy of a particular airworthiness concern and devise more practical and economical ways to remedy the situation. One of the most important ways that you can aid us in this pursuit is by providing objective comments in response to the FAA's AD proposals. Clearly, as an affected owner, you are often in a better position to assist us in defining the economic impact of a proposed AD and identifying alternative means of AD compliance (AMOC).
Recently, the FAA issued an onerous follow-up AD to address exhaust-system failures on most models of turbocharged twin Cessna airplanes. Although there had been an AD to address this problem for nearly 25 years, the FAA was concerned that the provisions of the existing AD were not stringent enough to prevent future exhaust-system failures. The new AD recommended myriad new inspection and maintenance requirements, which would have led to substantial aircraft downtime, and potentially could have forced a number of owners to scrap their aircraft — because the cost of compliance could easily exceed the aircraft's value.
AOPA immediately went to work. We labored feverishly to convince the FAA that the flying public had a right, and a dire need, to comment on the provisions of the new AD. The FAA's original inclination was to skip the comment period by going directly to a final rulemaking. After some intense negotiation, the FAA agreed to give us pilots a chance to comment.
The FAA granted only a 30-day comment period, and in an unprecedented effort, AOPA mailed an action alert to every registered owner of a turbo-charged twin Cessna on the public record. In some cases, this action alert arrived in the mail before the official FAA notice. As a result, AOPA received copies of comments from more than 200 affected aircraft owners. These comments provided a wealth of information about the economic impact of the proposed AD and listed several excellent ideas for alternative means of compliance.
AOPA also worked with the Cessna Pilots Association (CPA). The technical knowledge and expertise of this aircraft type club and its leadership proved to be a valuable tool. CPA was able to utilize its aircraft-specific technical expertise to develop an alternative means of compliance. Its AMOC not only addressed the FAA's airworthiness and safety concerns, but also substantially reduced the financial impact of the AD.
Although the FAA is still reviewing AOPA and industry comments, I'm confident that the massive industry response will prompt the FAA to make significant changes to the proposed twin Cessna exhaust AD. More important, the success that we've experienced so far with this AD is a direct result of your participation in the process.
Recently, AOPA initiated a joint effort between the GA industry and the FAA to increase the industry's level of participation in the development of an AD. Even though we are some distance from finalizing this new effort, dubbed the "AD Coordination Process," we hope that it will direct FAA engineers to call upon the knowledge and expertise of AOPA and other owner organizations, aircraft type clubs, and aircraft owners before an AD is written. As an aircraft owner, I'm excited about the opportunities that this new program will provide.
First and foremost, those who fly and maintain affected aircraft will have the opportunity to share their common-sense ideas and real-world experiences with the FAA. For the first time ever, we'll be able to recommend alternative inspection and maintenance procedures or other alternative methods of compliance during the development of an AD. If the FAA recommends a procedure that isn't logistically feasible, AOPA can tell the agency before the proposed rule or AD is published. If a manufacturer identifies an airworthiness concern that we're not experiencing in the real world, the information we provide to FAA engineers will allow them to make an educated decision and take the best course of action.
Airworthiness directives are a necessity not only for GA, but also for the safety of all flight — including air carriers. However, AOPA takes its representation seriously on behalf of its member/owners, and we will continue to pursue the highest safety levels for aircraft airworthiness — at a reasonable and affordable cost.
Related Articles
