FAA/Industry Guidelines Show Easier Path to LOAs

The issue of FAA delays in approving letters of authorization (LOAs) for operations such as RVSM continues to fester. At this month’s NBAA Convention, the FAA’s Roger Sultan will join attorney David Norton of Shackelford, Melton, McKinley & Norton to help pilots and aircraft operators understand the LOA process, learn how recent changes might accelerate LOA approvals and give feedback about their experiences obtaining LOAs.

AIN continues to receive complaints from operators about how long the LOA approval process takes. One such complaint came from the owner-pilot of a turboprop who upgraded this year to a new version of the airplane. Because he had been operating under an LOA from his previous airplane, he thought that the LOA for the new airplane would be a routine and quick change, especially because the manufacturer of the turboprop wrote the RVSM manual, and this manual formed the basis for his earlier LOA.

Unfortunately, the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) inspector who reviewed the new LOA application rejected it for, among other things, lack of detail about how various avionics are connected to the emergency bus. The owner-pilot-owner took his RVSM LOA application to another FSDO where he felt he might obtain better service.

This situation involved a new aircraft, although the same pilot would be flying it, and while there is a new streamlined process in place to expedite the LOA application and approval process, not all of the new criteria are met when a new aircraft is involved.

The streamlined process is designed around new guidelines for FAA inspectors. It splits RVSM authorization into three elements: RVSM-compliant aircraft, RVSM-approved maintenance programs and RVSM-knowledgeable pilots. The idea is that an application for a new RVSM LOA shouldn’t have to get bogged down in reinventing any of those elements if they meet certain criteria. As NBAA points out in its summary of the streamlined process, once a specific aircraft has been determined to be RVSM-compliant, the FAA should not need to redo this determination “even if it was for another operator” and provided no modifications changed that aircraft’s RVSM status. The same “portability” concept applies to the RVSM maintenance program and the pilot who has received training in RVSM operations.

So in the case of the owner-pilot above, his RVSM application should have been a simple matter of confirming that his new aircraft, which came out of the factory RVSM-equipped and was among many other exact same models also newly delivered, was indeed unmodified as delivered. And since the pilot had already been flying under an RSVM LOA, his qualifications should not have been called into question. The maintenance program should have been portable to the new airplane with some slight changes.

One Owner’s Experience

Mark Huffstutler, CEO of The Skyway Group, was one of those who submitted information about extreme delays in RVSM LOA authorizations, and he even went to the trouble of writing a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. In his letter, Huffstutler, whose company–Sierra Industries–buys, sells and modifies business jets frequently, complained about the months that it takes for RVSM authorizations, even when changing the name of the company that owned one of his aircraft was the only change. That process took more than a year. As he wrote to Huerta, “The current system is an imposition on both the public and the FAA in that there does not appear to be a valid reason why it must be so complicated, costly and time-consuming. In addition to burning significantly more fuel flying below RVSM airspace while we wait for the new LOA to be issued, the process consumes valuable time your inspectors could spend doing other things.”

Huffstutler’s letter was passed to John Duncan, the FAA’s director of Flight Standards Service. Part 91 operators are under no obligation to work with their local FSDO, because Part 91 operators are not certificate holders and, wrote Duncan, “the typical considerations for determining a ‘principal base of operations’ do not apply. Therefore, there is no requirement that the [principal base of operations] coincide with the location where the aircraft is normally based.”

In addition, Duncan explained, Huffstutler’s RVSM authorization request involving just a business name change “should have been processed as an ‘administrative’ change. In short, the RVSM LOA should have been reissued identical to the initial RVSM LOA in all respects other than reflecting the new amended information, without requiring further inspections.

“The FAA’s goal is to promote a safe, efficient aviation system while providing considerate, respectful service to the public. To that end, I am sending your concerns to the offices involved to determine if the regulatory requirements or policy were misinterpreted in this instance. You have my assurance that we will address any confusion regarding these requirements.”

Duncan went on to suggest that if Huffstutler runs into future problems where “the FAA is not acting in accordance with regulatory requirements or in a consistent and efficient manner” to use the Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI) process. Of course, most operators are loath to provoke their local FSDO inspectors by going over their heads and resist using the CSI process to escalate a problem up the FAA ladder.

Cooperative Effort Needed

Attorney Norton, who is hosting the LOA meeting at the NBAA Convention and who was industry co-chair of the FAA/Industry RVSM LOA Process Enhancement Team, is well aware of problems that operators are having obtaining LOAs in a timely manner. But he cautions applicants to study the authorization process before getting mad at the FAA and potentially causing even more delays.

“I think they [FAA inspectors] do care,” he said, adding that in the case of RVSM at least, LOAs are unavoidable because of the way the regulations were written when RVSM was implemented. “We can’t simply get rid of it,” he said, “so let’s make it as painless as possible. The [streamlined] process we came up with is a good one.” He admits that FAA inspectors’ workload adds to the problem and that budget cuts aren’t going to help in that regard, so operators need to do as much as possible to make their LOA applications complete.

“A lot of industry folks want to [get it done by sending one email],” Norton explained. “But the FAA’s job is not to pull information. I’ve had guys call me because they’re mad at the FAA, and they gave the FAA one piece of paper. I ask, ‘Did you read the guidance or the rules?’”

It will take some time for every one of the FAA FSDO inspectors to become acquainted with the new guidelines so they can expedite RVSM authorizations, he said. But it’s still up to the applicant to deliver a proper package to the FAA. “Lots of my clients have no clue what the requirements are,” he said. “You’re going to get a faster response if you know what the requirements are and make the inspector’s life as easy as possible and hand them what they need.”