EXEMPTION FROM SUBSECTION 605.88(1) OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS AND FROM PARAGRAPHS (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12) AND SUBPARAGRAPH (13)(B) OF APPENDIX G – INSPECTION AFTER ABNORMAL OCCURRENCES - OF STANDARD 625 – AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT AND M...

From: Transport Canada

Pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, and after taking into account that the exemption is in the public interest and is not likely to affect aviation safety, I hereby exempt Persons who conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subject to an abnormal occurrence from the requirements of subsection 605.88(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) and paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12) and subparagraph (13)(b) of Appendix G – Inspection After Abnormal Occurrences, of Standard 625 - Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards, subject to the condition of this exemption.

Subsection 605.88(1) of the CARs stipulates that no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subjected to any abnormal occurrence unless the aircraft has been inspected for damages in accordance with Appendix G of the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards.

Paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12) and subparagraph (13)(b) of Appendix G - Inspection after Abnormal Occurrences of Standard 625 - Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards - detail the requirements for the inspection of aircraft after abnormal occurrences and state that in certain circumstances AMEs must sign the maintenance release for an inspection following abnormal occurrences. The details of these provisions are attached at Appendix A to this exemption.

Purpose

The purpose of this exemption is to allow persons who conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subject to an abnormal occurrence to have the required inspection for damages performed by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with section 571.11 of the CARs.

This exemption will also allow other persons identified in section 571.11 of the CARs to sign a maintenance release for an inspection following an abnormal occurrence whereas the current regulatory requirements limit this privilege to the holder of an aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) licence issued under Part IV of the CARs.

Application

This exemption applies to persons who conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subject to an abnormal occurrence to have the required inspection for damages performed by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with section 571.11 of the CARs.

Condition

This exemption is subject to the following condition:

  1. No person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subjected to any abnormal occurrence unless the aircraft has been inspected for damages in accordance with:
    1. the revised requirements of paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12) and subparagraph (13)(b) of Appendix G to Standard 625, as detailed in Appendix B to this exemption.

Validity

This exemption is in effect until the earliest of the following:

  1. September 30, 2006; 23:59 EDT
  2. The date on which an amendment to the appropriate provisions of the Canadian Aviation Regulations comes into effect;
  3. The date on which a condition set out in this exemption is breached; or
  4. The date on which this exemption is cancelled in writing by the Minister where he or she is of the opinion it is no longer in the public interest, or is likely to affect aviation safety.

Dated at Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, this 1st day of April 2005, on behalf of the Minister of Transport.

Signed by Jacqueline Booth-Bourdeau

for

Don Sherritt
Director,
Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing

APPENDIX A

Original text from paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12) and subparagraph (13)(b) of Standard 625 Appendix G – Inspection after Abnormal Occurrences

3)

 The inspections detailed in this appendix shall usually be performed by a licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME). In some cases, the nature of the work will be such that the involvement of an AME will be mandatory. This would be the case, for example, where some degree of disassembly was required. It is not possible, however, to state that an AME is required in all cases. Often, at the time of the occurrence, only the pilot of the aircraft is able to assess the severity of the incident or is available to decide the course of action. Some manufacturers recognize this by allowing for the inspection to be performed in two stages. To cater for situations when an AME is not available, the following procedure is recommended.

(4)

 Following any abnormal occurrence, including but not limited to those described in this appendix, an entry shall be made in the journey log describing the event. Where possible, the entry shall include some indication of the relative severity of the incident. Prior to the next flight, the aircraft shall be inspected, preferably by an appropriately licensed AME. If no AME is available, the inspection can be conducted by the captain of the aircraft. In this case, the inspection will of necessity be limited to those items which do not require a maintenance release (i.e. does not involve disassembly).

(5)

 If in the opinion of the captain, the condition of the aircraft is satisfactory for the intended flight, albeit without passengers, he/she shall make an entry in the log to that effect calling for a full inspection by an AME when available. The captain can then proceed, at his/her discretion, on the intended flight(s) until such time as the aircraft reaches a base where the required additional inspection can be performed. No special flight authority is required under these circumstances. At the first opportunity, the aircraft shall be inspected and a maintenance release shall be issued by an appropriately licensed AME.

(6)

 If in the opinion of the captain, the aircraft is unairworthy, or if the severity of the incident was such that even after a satisfactory preliminary inspection its airworthiness is in doubt, then the aircraft shall be inspected by an AME, and a maintenance release signed, before further flight.

(7)

 In the following sections, no attempt is made to differentiate between those actions which may be part of a pilot's preliminary inspection, and those which must be performed by an AME. This distinction will vary according to the type of aircraft and the severity of the incident, and will be primarily governed by the need for a maintenance release. Where there is any doubt regarding the airworthiness of the aircraft, certification by an AME shall be required prior to flight.

(12)

 Immersion in Water

The following requirements are based on immersion in non-contaminated water. It is the responsibility of the AME performing the inspection to determine if any contaminating elements exist, and extend the scope of the inspection as necessary. Examples of contaminants which may have to be taken into consideration include alkali, sulphur, salt, etc. Other important considerations are the length of time the aircraft has been submerged, especially if contaminants exist, and the temperature of the water. If temperatures are below freezing, tubing in the fuselage structure is liable to have been distorted or split through the formation of ice.

… [Remainder of (12) unaffected]

(13)

 Propeller and Rotor Strikes

Engines and transmission systems which have been shockloaded as a result of the propeller or rotor striking the ground or some object while the engine is running shall be inspected in accordance with the following paragraphs:

(b) The need for further investigation will depend upon the results of the preliminary examination, and on the AME's assessment of the probability of further damage, based on the nature of the incident. If further investigation is indicated, the propeller shaft or flange shall be checked for eccentricity (run out check). Limits are those specified by the manufacturer. If the propeller shaft or flange is out of limits, an internal inspection shall be required. In the case of a geared piston engine this shall entail removal of the reduction gear for a check of the crankshaft run out. With a direct drive engine the crankcase shall have to be opened and checked for distortion, cracks or other damage. This check shall include the crankshaft damper assemblies. If the impact was severe, consideration shall also be given to the possibility of structural damage due to loads being transmitted through the engine mounts.

… [Remainder of (13) unaffected]

Appendix B

Amended text from paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12) and subparagraph (13)(b) of Standard 625 Appendix G – Inspection after Abnormal Occurrences

(3)

 The inspections detailed in this appendix shall usually be performed by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11. In some cases, the nature of the work will be such that the involvement of such a person will be mandatory. This would be the case, for example, where some degree of disassembly was required. It is not possible, however, to state that a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11 is required in all cases. Often, at the time of the occurrence, only the pilot of the aircraft is able to assess the severity of the incident or is available to decide the course of action. Some manufacturers recognize this by allowing for the inspection to be performed in two stages. To cater for situations when a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11 is not available, the following procedure is recommended.

(4)

 Following any abnormal occurrence, including but not limited to those described in this appendix, an entry shall be made in the journey log describing the event. Where possible, the entry shall include some indication of the relative severity of the incident. Prior to the next flight, the aircraft shall be inspected, preferably by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11. If no such person is available, the inspection can be conducted by the captain of the aircraft. In this case, the inspection will of necessity be limited to those items which do not require a maintenance release (i.e. does not involve disassembly).

(5)

 If in the opinion of the captain, the condition of the aircraft is satisfactory for the intended flight, albeit without passengers, he/she shall make an entry in the log to that effect calling for a full inspection by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11 when available. The captain can then proceed, at his/her discretion, on the intended flight(s) until such time as the aircraft reaches a base where the required additional inspection can be performed. No special flight authority is required under these circumstances. At the first opportunity, the aircraft shall be inspected and a maintenance release shall be issued by a person authorized to do so in accordance with CAR 571.11.

(6)

 If in the opinion of the captain, the aircraft is unairworthy, or if the severity of the incident was such that even after a satisfactory preliminary inspection its airworthiness is in doubt, then the aircraft shall be inspected by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11, and a maintenance release signed, before further flight.

(7)

 In the following sections, no attempt is made to differentiate between those actions which may be part of a pilot's preliminary inspection, and those which must be performed by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11. This distinction will vary according to the type of aircraft and the severity of the incident, and will be primarily governed by the need for a maintenance release. Where there is any doubt regarding the airworthiness of the aircraft, certification by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11 shall be required prior to flight.

(12)

Immersion in Water

The following requirements are based on immersion in non-contaminated water. It is the responsibility of the person signing a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11 performing the inspection to determine if any contaminating elements exist, and extend the scope of the inspection as necessary. Examples of contaminants which may have to be taken into consideration include alkali, sulphur, salt, etc. Other important considerations are the length of time the aircraft has been submerged, especially if contaminants exist, and the temperature of the water. If temperatures are below freezing, tubing in the fuselage structure is liable to have been distorted or split through the formation of ice.

… [Remainder of (12) unaffected]

(13)

 Propeller and Rotor Strikes

Engines and transmission systems which have been shock loaded as a result of the propeller or rotor striking the ground or some object while the engine is running shall be inspected in accordance with the following paragraphs:

(b) The need for further investigation will depend upon the results of the preliminary examination, and on the assessment by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with CAR 571.11 of the probability of further damage, based on the nature of the incident. If further investigation is indicated, the propeller shaft or flange shall be checked for eccentricity (run out check). Limits are those specified by the manufacturer. If the propeller shaft or flange is out of limits, an internal inspection shall be required. In the case of a geared piston engine this shall entail removal of the reduction gear for a check of the crankshaft run out. With a direct drive engine the crankcase shall have to be opened and checked for distortion, cracks or other damage. This check shall include the crankshaft damper assemblies. If the impact was severe, consideration shall also be given to the possibility of structural damage due to loads being transmitted through the engine mounts.

… [Remainder of (13) unaffected]
Date de modification :

Report a problem with this page

Date modified: