Expert: Christopher McKenna - 2/8/2010

Question
QUESTION: Reference Part 120.105, safety sensitive functions "subcontractor at any tier..." Concerning item 'e'(Aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance duties: If during Aircraft Maintenance repair procedures, a bushing needs to go to an outsource for machining, does that outsource machinist need to be in the safety sensitive drug testing program? Note: The part will be final inspected at our facility upon return from the outsource to determine conformance.

Thanks,

R.K.Miller
Quality Manager
Merrill Tool and Machine

ANSWER: I don't believe that Part 102.105 would apply in this case. Part 102.105 applies to "Aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance duties." The  machining of a bushing, I believe, falls under part manufacturing rules. 102.105 deals with the actual performance of maintenance and repair, not the acquisition of parts.
Having said that, the parts manufacturing rules may require drug testing of people engaged in manufacture, but I'm not sure. I'll have to go look it up.
I hope this answers your question. If not, let me know.










This answer does not constitute legal advice, nor does it imply, infer, or initiate an attorney-client relationship.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I failed to state that this bushing was removed from an existing landing gear assembly, and needs to be re-machined. So this is part of a maintenance/repair procedure.

Does this make a difference?

Answer
Maybe. Obviously, the removal and replacement require that the A&P mechanic be tested. Now we have a machinist making a repair or modification to a part. That might require testing, unless the bushing is being machined in accordance with a TSO; or is a part that is a standard part, conforming to generally accepted standards for these type of items. I know this sounds vague, but as you're aware, the CFRs are not very user-friendly! At some point, we need to apply common sense. Does the smelter of the bronze (or whatever the bushing is made of) need to be tested?
I think, at the point the machinist is working, that he is removed enough from maintenance that testing is probably not required. Of course, your FSDO may have a different interpretation.

How's that for a lawyerly answer? :) It takes a lawyer to both yes and no. This changes the focus of my research a little, but generally I think you'd be OK.

I'll let you know if and when I can find a definite answer.