Managing Business Aviation Maintenance
The director of maintenance for a business aircraft owner is not a job or title recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Part 91 operations do not require such a position and yet companies require the work; it is an unenviable job and not for the faint of heart.
“Business” aircraft can be owned and operated by large, multinational corporations as well as small single country enterprises. The larger companies tend to run their aviation departments similar to a small air carrier with corporate policies and procedures that demand the “highest degree of safety” in flight operations. Since the requirements are determined by the business enterprise and not the FAA, there can be conflicts in the demands on flight and maintenance personnel.
No one understands that dichotomy better than the director of maintenance for the large corporate flight department. That person stands in the breach among the pilots responsible for the “part 91 operations,” the “minimum” standards of maintenance “required” by the FAA and the “highest degree of safety” demanded by the employer.
When an issue arises regarding the continued operation of an aircraft, the corporation’s pilot is often reluctant to make the “ultimate” decision, even if the FAA regulations require that result. If something triggers a doubt in the pilot’s mind about the operational safety of an aircraft, one reaction will be to see if “maintenance” can resolve the uncertainty. You can bet your bottom dollar the director of maintenance will receive a phone call, whether or not an official “squawk” has been identified by the flight crew.
The director of maintenance is now in that unenviable position of having to remind the pilot that it is his or her job to determine whether the aircraft can be flown. Yes, the director of maintenance is responsible under the job title and expectations of the corporation to make sure the work necessary to ensure airworthiness on every flight has been completed. Unfortunately, that expectation does not mesh with the requirements of the regulator. Under the federal aviation safety regulations, maintenance personnel must ensure work is performed in an appropriate manner, but it is the owner/operator’s job to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft generally and for any particular flight. Thus, the FAA holds the owner and/or operator, in this case, the pilot, responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Directors of maintenance cannot be fainthearted when it comes to requiring the flight department’s cooperation in fulfilling the corporate and regulatory demands. Pilots must follow the dictates of part 91, not only in flying the aircraft but in making determinations of airworthiness for each flight based upon the maintenance requirements and records. If squawks are identified, they must be described in the manner demanded by the maintenance department so an appropriate resolution can be reached. The responsibility for airworthiness may be shared, but the roles are distinct and should not be mixed and matched just because the pilot or the passenger wants to get home!
Sarah MacLeod is executive director of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), an organization she helped found more than 25 years ago. She is a managing member at the law firm of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein P.L.C. and is engaged in the legal representation of foreign and domestic air carriers, aircraft maintenance and alteration facilities, distributors, pilots and other individuals and companies in federal court and before federal administrative bodies. She also serves as assistant chair for Air Carrier and General Aviation Maintenance of the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, a post she has held since 1996. A globally recognized expert in aviation regulatory compliance, Ms. MacLeod is a sought-after speaker and has appeared a numerous aviation and MRO events. She is admitted to the bar in Virginia.