IA Renewal

[Steve Pierce]

I have a friend who got his IA and then the FSDO took it because there were to many IAs in their opinion. Turned out a local FBO was behind it. In your case I am sure they want to lesson their work load.

I had a retired FAA Ops guy tell me they needed a mechanics examiner in our locAl area and I should apply. I read up on it and called my FSDO that is over 200 miles away. The inspector complained because he would have to drive all the way to my place to check on me. After a long discussion he agreed to send the letter and told me to send OK City my paperwork. Got a letter from OK City stating that I had to have a letter from the FSDO so I guess he never sent it. I decided I wanted nothing to do with them.

[Clayton Harper]

i wouldn't be surprised if my FSDO was too lazy to take an I.A. away.

[Jeff J]

I would have asked them to show me where it is written that there can only be so many IAs. That would be like taking an instrument rating from a pilot because their are too many in the area. If they took it without anything but opinion I would be calling my government representatives.

[Vagabondblues]

First, I don't work for the FAA.

Second, the body of the FAR that Gilbert posted clearly states "The applicant must show completion of one of the activities in Sec. 65.93(a)". There is also a NOTE in the FAA order 8900.1 that states they cannot mix activities due to the reference of one in 65.93.

Third, the ASI has the right, not a privilege to determine if he can manage the privileges granted to authorized inspectors, designee, etc..

[Jeff J]

Third, the ASI has the right, not a privilege to determine if he can manage the privileges granted to authorized inspectors, designee, etc..

Show the reference otherwise it is just anecdotal. We are talking about government employees providing government services. NOT someone who loses money because they decided not to do a job.

[Gilbert Pierce]

First, I don't work for the FAA.

Second, the body of the FAR that Gilbert posted clearly states "The applicant must show completion of one of the activities in Sec. 65.93(a)". There is also a NOTE in the FAA order 8900.1 that states they cannot mix activities due to the reference of one in 65.93.

Third, the ASI has the right, not a privilege to determine if he can manage the privileges granted to authorized inspectors, designee, etc..

Maybe you should. You write like they think.
It was the FSDO Manager 10 years ago that told me 4 annuals or combination of 2 Major repairs or Modifictions counted as one annual.

Does anyone really do 8 majors in a year?

[Steve Pierce]

First, I don't work for the FAA.

Second, the body of the FAR that Gilbert posted clearly states "The applicant must show completion of one of the activities in Sec. 65.93(a)". There is also a NOTE in the FAA order 8900.1 that states they cannot mix activities due to the reference of one in 65.93.

Third, the ASI has the right, not a privilege to determine if he can manage the privileges granted to authorized inspectors, designee, etc..

I think the point of the post was what the FAR says is confusing and I don't believe the order interpreted it as it was originally intended. Also didn't even know there was an order till the FAA mentioned it. How many people only do 8 337s in a year to meet the requirements? A repair station maybe but not someone running a shop.

[Vagabondblues]

Show the reference otherwise it is just anecdotal. We are talking about government employees providing government services. NOT someone who loses money because they decided not to do a job.

For the Inspection Authorization. Your endorsement is "managed" by the geographically assigned office usually a FSDO. Manage could also be called oversight, routine surveillance, or IA training.

Reference FAA Form 8310-5 (Yellow card that you call your IA)

"This authority expires March 31, ____________ unless sooner revoked by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (more likely your ASI than the adminstrator, but it means the same thing.) or extended by endorsement on the reverse of this card.

Back of card "Endorsement by Inspector" with FAA geographically assigned office.

For the Designee 6/26/18 8900.2C

b. Need for and Ability to Manage a Designee.

Successfully meeting the eligibility requirements does not guarantee appointment as a designee. The managing FAA office, within its sole discretion, determines the need for and ability to manage a designee.
(1) Determining Need.

The managing FAA office considers several factors in determining the need for a designee including, but not limited to:

2-3
(a) Activity level of current designees performing similar work in the managing FAA office’s geographical area.
(b) Demand/convenience to the public, as determined by the:
• Ability to provide examinations within a reasonable period of time, and
• Number of complaints from the public for lack of availability of certification.
(c) Geographic dispersion as determined by the distance an applicant must travel to get to the designee.
Note: The need for a new designee is driven by the needs of the public and not by the impact on other existing designees or the desires of air operators/agencies.
(2) Determining the Ability to Manage. The managing FAA office reviews several criteria to determine the ability to manage a designee including, but not limited to:
(a) Effect of workload on inspectors; Traveling 200 miles to do oversight, annual meeting, observe tests probably a workload he was not willing to do.
(b) Funding (e.g., travel allocation) needed to oversee the designee workforce; and
(c) Availability of trained ASIs (specialists) and/or managers.

I worked in a AAIP on turbine helicopters. Company paid me to have a IA and all I did was major 337s. Ten to fifteen a year.

Worked in multiple FAA regions. Had to inform each region usually a ASI who would manage me.

[Jeff J]

The only word that come immediately to mind is “discrimination” if any action or refusal is taken against an individual based on a single ASI’s opinion. They can revoke at anytime with cause. Anything else invokes the “D” word. 200 miles is NOT a valid excuse if there are any other IA’s in that area or possibly further out. To deny all IA’s in an area can deny critical services to a lot of people. Anything else opens the door to corrupt practices like revoking or denying a person because of their sex, race or refusal to pay a bribe. Personal opinion for revoking or denying a government service is one helluva “press to test” button for an ASI to play with.

The government are our servants. Not the other way around. They only have the power we allow them to have. If we allow individual government employees make policy that negatively affects us then we can only blame ourselves.

[blueshortwing]

65.91(b) An applicant who meets the requirements of this section is entitled to an inspection authorization. I remember when GADO's used to limit the number of IA's in their area, but I have not heard of that for a long time. Don't know if the regulation has changed over the years. IA's are not considered designee's as they are regulated by Part 65 and not Part 183.--Ross