Par 6-3 Page 31
(3) The Structural Program should include requirements to maintain composite structural details, elements, or assemblies whose failure could affect the structural integrity necessary for the safety of the aircraft. These requirements should take into account that composite structures may be damaged by accidental impact or aging deterioration, and that those composite structures degrade in a different way than metallic structures. Composite structure will be analyzed to create a minimum initial scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements. All structural items will be categorized as either an SSI or an “Other Structure.” (The SSI/Principal Structural Elements (PSE) list is provided by the OEM/TCH in a separate specified document.)
(4) SSIs must not be confused with PSEs (as described in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, § 25.571); however, the SSIs must address all PSEs.
q. Zonal Program Rules. The Zonal Inspection Program (ZIP) provides for the consolidation of a number of General Visual Inspection (GVI) tasks for each zone. A zonal inspection may include GVI tasks derived from MSI and SSI lists. An MSI/SSI task that is in the ZIP must be cross-referenced with supporting documentation and located in the appendix of the MRBR, indicating that an MSI/SSI is being accomplished by one or more zonal tasks. Likewise, the zonal item must be cross-referenced as an MSI/SSI task to ensure content and accountability.
Include the following contents of the Zonal Procedure Rules section of the MRBR:
NOTE: FEC 5 or 8 safety tasks are not candidates for zonal requirements.
(1) The ZIP contains a series of GVI tasks generated from standard zonal analysis procedures. Detailed inspection (DET) and Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) are not to be contained in the ZIP. Zonal inspection requirements apply only to zones.
(2) The ZIP contains GVI tasks derived from EZAPs as well as standard zonal analysis procedures.
(a) Identify zones that both contain electrical wiring and may contain combustible material. For those zones, perform an enhanced zonal analysis that permits the identification of stand-alone inspection tasks that allow appropriate attention to be given to deterioration of installed wiring and EWISs.
(b) EWIS tasks derived during the EZAP process will be identified as GVI, DET, or restoration (RS) tasks. The ZIP will not contain stand-alone EWIS tasks. These special, dedicated tasks reside in ATA 20 of the Systems/Powerplant section of the MRBR, and do not have an FEC.
(c) Uniquely identify all EZAP-derived stand-alone tasks as GVI, DET, or RST in the EZAP analysis for traceability during future changes. This prevents inadvertent deletion or escalation of an EZAP-derived stand-alone task without proper consideration of the risk basis for the task and its interval. All escalations must go through the appropriate FAA oversight office.
(d) The latest version of the MSG analysis develops Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Field (L/HIRF) tasks. The ZIP will not contain stand-alone L/HIRF tasks. These special, dedicated tasks should reside in a separate section of the MRBR. Uniquely identify all L/HIRF tasks.
Page 32 Par 6-3
(3) Access to zones should be easy to accomplish and should not require the use of special tools. Normally, the inspection aids include a flashlight and/or inspection mirror. Inspect the entire visible contents of the zone for obvious damage, security of installation, and general condition, including corrosion and leaks. Refer to the latest version of the MSG document for a definition of GVI.
(4) The following zones do not contain system installations but receive adequate surveillance from other maintenance or structural inspections tasks. Accordingly, the inspection requirements in the ZIP do not specify these zones. (Insert listing of the zones not specified in the ZIP or in other document as specified.) (Insert aircraft zone diagram sheets or in other document as specified.)
r. Appendices. The following is a list of possible appendices that may apply to MRBRs.
• Identification of aircraft zones.
• Extended Operations (ETOPS) requirements.
• All acronyms/abbreviations used in the MRBR.
• Definitions of specific terms, processes, and inspections identified in the MRBR.
• NAA Requirements. An appendix (or appendices), as needed, for each regulatory authority will identify national differences, as mandated by the respective authorities (and approved or accepted by them).
• Other items, as applicable.
Par 7-1 Page 33 (and 34) CHAPTER 7. MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD POLICY BOARDS (MRBPB)
7-1. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) MRBPB.
a. Purpose of the MRBPB. The MRBPB advocates the standardization of Maintenance Review Board (MRB) policy and procedures and provides a structured forum for discussions leading to the development of national and international recommendations regarding all MRB activities. The MRBPB develops FAA/Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) positions for standardized guidance on issues that arise from the MRB/Air Transport Association of America (ATA) latest version of the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) process. Continued development of standardized MRB policies, procedures, and guidance promotes harmonization within the respective FAA AEG offices and participating industry groups.
b. Meetings. Membership includes a designee from the Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300, and one designee from each AEG office. The MRBPB normally meets at least twice a year, with one meeting just before the International Maintenance Review Board Policy Board (IMRBPB). Additional meetings may be held via electronic media. It is the responsibility of the MRBPB to develop harmonized issue papers, procedures, and guidance. It also produces FAA guidance for issue papers recommended for implementation by the IMRBPB. The MRBPB participates in international meetings on MRB policy issues with other regulatory authorities.
7-2. IMRBPB.
a. Function of the IMRBPB. The IMRBPB is a system for the continuing development of policies, procedures, and guidance for the use of personnel operating under the purview of various MRBs. The IMRBPB provides a process of promoting harmonization with other regulatory authorities throughout the world; the IMRBPB advocates the standardization of MRB policy and procedures. The IMRBPB also provides a structured forum for discussions leading to the development of national and international policy regarding all MRB activities. The ATA and the Maintenance Programs Industry Group (MPIG) under the ATA Airworthiness Committee represent the industry at the IMRBPB meeting. The committee is also open to input from the aviation industry.
b. Composition of the IMRBPB. The IMRBPB convenes once a year.
Industry/regulatory discussions are a portion of the meeting. Industry representation should be limited to appropriate representatives dealing with the discussion topics. The meeting venue will normally rotate among the IMRBPB members.
c. IMRBPB Documents. The IMRBPB maintains an issue paper list with associated documents, such as minutes of meetings, action item lists, substantiation documents, and associated IMRBPB policy decisions. The IMRBPB only addresses issues related to the MRB/MSG processes and uses the latest revisions of the following guidance.
• Advisory Circular (AC) 121-22;
• European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Document # WI.MRB.00002-001, Maintenance Review Board Team; and
• Transport Canada Transport Publication (TP) 13850, Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Development Process Manual.
Par 8-1 Page 35 CHAPTER 8. MAINTENANCE TYPE BOARDS (MTB) PROCESS
8-1. GENERAL. The MTB process permits type certificate (TC) applicants to develop minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements when air operators are not available to participate in the process. The MTB and Maintenance Review Board (MRB) processes are similar, except that with the MTB process, there is limited or no operator participation. MTB maintenance instructions are developed using current Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) analytic logic. The minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements are published as manufacturer recommendations.
8-2. MTB PROCESS APPLICABILITY. The MTB process applies to airplanes originally TC’d for nine or fewer passengers and less than 33,000 lb maximum weight, or helicopters originally TC’d for nine or fewer passengers or less than 20,000 lb maximum weight. Refer to the flowchart in Appendix 4, Figure 1, Maintenance Program Development Process Selection Flowchart. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM)/type-certificate holders (TCH) for these aircraft also have the option of using the MRB process.
a. Where the United States Is the State of Design. Where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary type certification authority, the applicant who is seeking a TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this chapter is applicable may develop their scheduled maintenance instructions in accordance with an MTB or request that the Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) convene an MRB.
b. Where the United States Is Not the State of Design. A foreign applicant who is seeking, or intending to seek, an FAA TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this chapter is applicable will invite the FAA AEG to discuss the process under which the scheduled maintenance instructions have been or will be developed and how the FAA might accept that process.
c. Analytic Logic to Use for Scheduled Maintenance Task Development. Use the most current version of the MSG logic when initiating a new MTB. Electrical wiring interconnection system (EWIS)/enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP) analysis may be necessary if applicable by certification rule.
8-3. MTB AUDIT PROCESS.
a. Audit of the Completed Analytical Process. All OEM/TCHs of TC’d aircraft for which a Maintenance Type Board Report (MTBR) has been developed must maintain records of the analysis performed in a manner such that the FAA may conduct an audit of the complete initial analytic process, and any subsequent analytic process, that has led to an amendment of the initial MTBR.
b. Validation of the Associated Maintenance Procedures. The OEM/TCH must develop internal instructions and guidelines to enable the validation of all maintenance procedures written to support MTBR tasks, and then the OEM/TCH must validate those maintenance procedures.
The objective of the validation is to ensure that the procedure can be performed and that the procedure meets the intent of the MTBR task. Where and when requested by the FAA, the OEM/TCH must make available a completed aircraft and the necessary qualified maintenance
Page 36 Par 8-3 personnel to demonstrate to the FAA that Failure Effect Category (FEC) 5 and 8 safety tasks, at minimum, can be adequately performed and that the procedure meets the intent of the MTBR task. Additional tasks may be validated at the FAA’s discretion.
8-4. MTBR.
a. General. The MTBR contains the minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements necessary for a transport category aircraft. MTBRs are dynamic documents that must be reviewed annually to ensure that they reflect the current lessons learned from aircraft operational experience. In this manner, the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft fleet is ensured, and only those tasks that are applicable and effective are performed.
b. MTBR Review and Approval. The OEM/TCH applicant is responsible for developing a proposed MTBR and presenting it to the AEG for approval. The MTBR format and content criteria should be aligned with the criteria used for the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), as found in Chapter 6, Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) Revisions, Format, and Content. Once approved, the OEM/TCH holder publishes the MTBR as part of the aircraft’s instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). It is a means of complying, in part, with the maintenance instruction requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, appendix H, and 14 CFR part 29, appendix A, as required by §§ 25.1529 and 29.1529.
The AEG must approve the MTBR, as well as subsequent changes, before it becomes available for use by U.S. operators.
NOTE: MTBR tasks will be identified as such in the ICA and can only be changed through the MTB process.
c. Disapproval of Proposed MTBRs or MTBR Revisions. The MTB chairperson will notify the OEM/TCH in writing of the disapproval of the MTBR or of any subsequent revision.
The letter will include the specific reason(s) for the disapproval.
d. Publication of the MTBR. When an MTBR has been produced, the OEM/TCH will publish it as part of the ICA for the aircraft.
e. MTBR Annual Review.
(1) The MTBR is intended to be an up-to-date document, and, as a consequence, the OEM/TCH and the MTB chairperson should conduct a joint review, at least annually, to determine the need for revisions. Results of these reviews are to be documented by the MTB chairperson for inclusion in the MTB historical file.
(2) The OEM/TCH and the MTB will convene and evaluate proposed changes to the MTBR. Proposed changes and their supporting data are submitted to the MTB chairperson.
Approval or disapproval of the proposed changes must be processed in the same manner as outlined for the initial MTBR approval/disapproval. Any changes to the MTBR must follow the optimization process in Chapter 12, Implementation and Optimization of Tasking Intervals.
8-5. POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK (PPH).
a. General. The OEM/TCH must develop an internal policy and procedures document or handbook for the purpose of managing the MTB process. The FAA recommends that the format and content of the PPH outline be adopted for the MTB process (refer to Appendix 3, Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH) Format). Present a copy of the PPH to the MTB chairperson for AEG review and acceptance before beginning any task development work. All participants in the MTB process are to use the PPH as the standard to conduct the MTB process. Regulatory authority and industry experience have indicated that the following information is expected in each PPH for the successful latest version of MSG process and development of an MRBR.
b. Process Flowchart. A process flowchart (see Figure 8-1, Maintenance Type Board Flowchart) describes the MTBR scheduled maintenance task development and minimum tasking/interval requirements process and its relationship to the development of ICAs.
FIGURE 8-1. MAINTENANCE TYPE BOARD FLOWCHART Maintenance Type Board T it the aircraft lifecycle) Maintenance Type Board Process Aircraft Operational Life Proposed MTB TC Applicant/ TC Applicant Tasks & Intervals Holder Review requests FAA to convene MTB Operators provide the TC Holder with reports of task adequacy, task failures, unanticipated SC Review MTB Chair problems, and age-condition information SC Analysis Reviews and necessary to substantiate the tasks and to Acceptance? Approves Report adjust task intervals. Operators assist the TC holder to perform age-exploration sampling WG Analysis MTB, SC & WG -Manufacturers Established -MTB Advisors MTB Report TCB Observers Operators implement the maintenance program provided in the ICA or develop their Manufacturer own program, based on the initial prepares design & maintenance program requirements experience data Zonal Prog contained in the ICA and service experience for analvsis and review for WGs, Discussion, feedback & SC and MTB rationalization of CMRs Type Certification ICA Application for TC Final Design Maintenance Manual nance Instructions Introduction Scheduling Info before issuance of first A/W ICA acceptance required AW Control & Operation Systems Description Troubleshooting Info certificate or delivery of firs A/C to customer, whichever Limitations Finalized Identified CMRS Servicing Info | Structural Access General Procedures Replacement Proc is later CMM may be utilized Limitations CMRs Protective Treatme • Special Insp Tech ATA ISpec 2200, GAMA Spec 2 & 7, or AECMA Approved by FAA ACO Approved by FAA ACO ALI/CMR Structural Fastener Special Tools 1000D or other acceptable ICA format Pre-Type Certification Post Type Certification Par 8-5 Page 37
Page 38 Par 8-6
8-6. OEM/TCH REPRESENTATIVES. Representatives of the OEM/TCH who are engaged in performing the analysis for an MTB process must meet the following criteria.
a. Experience. Representatives must have relevant maintenance engineering experience on an equivalent aircraft type, system, or component.
b. Training. Representatives must have undergone training in the analytic logic process to be used.
8-7. REGULATORY AUTHORITIES’ RESPONSIBILITIES. When the OEM/TCH formally notifies the AEG of the intention to develop an MTB proposal, the AEG manager will assign a qualified person as MTB chairperson to establish and manage the MTB. The MTB chairperson selects MTB members/working group (WG) advisors.
a. MTB Chairperson. The MTB chairperson is responsible for performing the following functions:
(1) Determine the number and type of FAA personnel that are necessary, and then organize them into an MTB.
(2) Provide the OEM/TCH with the names of FAA/AEG MTB personnel, their affiliations and assignments, and changes, as they occur.
(3) Establish and maintain a file of all MTB proceedings for the MTB historical file.
(4) Establish the extent of regulatory authority participation and assignment of WG advisors.
(5) Ensure that the OEM/TCH provides the necessary aircraft familiarization/technical training, including MSG training, to all MTB members and WG advisors. Ensure that the training requirements are stated in the PPH for both FAA and non-FAA personnel. Validate that the training provided is adequate and, if it is not, advise the OEM/TCH as to the needed revisions.
(6) Attend steering committee meetings.
(7) Offer advice to the steering committee and the WGs.
(8) Provide oversight of the OEM/TCH validation of the associated maintenance procedures.
(9) Review reports from previous steering committee meetings (if applicable) and from the WG members.
(10) Approve the MTBR, and revisions.
Par 8-7 Page 39 (and 40)
b. MTB Members. MTB members are expected to meet or have the equivalent of the experience and training this chapter requires. In addition, the MTB members are expected to perform the following functions:
(1) Attend WG meetings and provide guidance to the WG members.
(2) Review WG meeting minutes and provide progress reports to the MTB chairperson before the next scheduled steering committee meeting. This review will contain an assessment of WG activities, including a notification of any controversy or potential problem areas.
(3) Attend steering committee meetings, as invited by the MTB chairperson, in coordination with the OEM/TCH.
(4) Attend MTB meetings.
(5) Provide oversight of the OEM/TCH validation of the associated maintenance procedures.
c. Experience and Training Requisites. MTB members must meet the following levels:
(1) Experience:
(a) Valid FAA aircraft mechanic certificate;
(b) Practical experience and theoretical training that is equivalent;
(c) Practical training and experience on an equivalent aircraft type or system; or
(d) Practical industry experience as an aircraft maintenance inspector.
(2) Training:
(a) Aircraft-specific training; and
(b) MSG training.
Par 9-1 Page 41 CHAPTER 9. ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER (OEM)/TYPE-CERTIFICATE HOLDER (TCH) RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE
PROCESS
9-1. GENERAL. OEM/TCHs of airplanes that are less than 12,500 lb or helicopters that are to be type-certificated (TC) in the normal category and are less than 7,000 lb may develop their scheduled tasking/interval requirements in accordance with OEM/TCH internal processes. The OEM/TCH must meet the requirements of the current edition of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8110.54, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Responsibilities, Requirements, and Contents, in addition to the criteria below. OEM/TCHs for these aircraft have the option of using the Maintenance Type Board (MTB) process or Maintenance Review Board (MRB) process.
9-2. RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROCESS APPLICABILITY.
a. The United States Is the State of Design. The FAA is the primary type certification authority, and the OEM/TCH who is applying for a TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this chapter is applicable may develop its scheduled maintenance instructions in accordance with a recommended maintenance process.
b. The United States Is Not the State of Design. A foreign applicant who is applying for an FAA TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this chapter is applicable will invite the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) to discuss the process by which the scheduled maintenance instructions will be developed and how the FAA may accept that process.
9-3. RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROCESS AUDITS.
a. Audit of the Completed Analytical Process. All OEM/TCHs must maintain records of the analysis to develop their scheduled maintenance instructions. OEM/TCHs must keep the records in such a manner that the FAA may readily audit the analytic process and any subsequent analytic processes that may lead to an amendment of the minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements.
b. Validation of the Associated Maintenance Procedures. The OEM/TCH must develop internal instructions and guidelines to enable the validation of all maintenance procedures written to support scheduled maintenance tasks; the OEM/TCH must then validate those maintenance procedures. The objective of the validation is to ensure that it is possible to perform the procedure and that the procedure meets the intent of the scheduled maintenance instruction.
Where and when requested by the FAA, the OEM/TCH must make available a completed aircraft and the necessary qualified maintenance personnel to demonstrate to the FAA that any particular maintenance procedure can be adequately performed and that the procedure meets the intent of the scheduled maintenance task.
9-4. SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTION.
a. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Review and Approval. The instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA), as published by the OEM/TCH, must contain a statement for the scheduled maintenance instruction development that states that the scheduled maintenance
Page 42 Par 9-4 instructions and their associated procedures have been reviewed and approved for use by operators, and must identify any limitations applicable when implementing the instructions.
b. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Publication. The OEM/TCH must publish the scheduled maintenance instructions as part of the aircraft’s ICA. It is the responsibility of the OEM/TCH to issue amendments to the ICA as required.
c. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Development as a Dynamic Document. Before FAA acceptance of the scheduled maintenance instructions as part of the aircraft’s OEM/TCH process, the OEM/TCH must develop an auditable system for continuing analysis of all tasks included within the maintenance instructions. As part of the continuing analysis system, the OEM/TCH should address the following:
(1) A system for acquiring from operators reports related to the adequacy of tasks, failures, failure frequencies, and the consequences of each failure.
(2) An age exploration system for the continuous evaluation of age condition information for the substantiation of current task intervals and for the adjustment of task intervals.
(3) A system for controlling the addition of new scheduled tasks to ensure that they are applicable and effective.
(4) A system for the periodic evaluation of all tasks in the program to eliminate those that are no longer applicable and effective.
(5) A system for evaluating unanticipated problems and determining the appropriate action.