For my area of Aviation I've had to deal with ICA's and because of my FSDO, I've been responsible for writing into block 8 ICA's with good explanations.  Because avionics have such a wide venue of installations and interfaces it's hard to nail down specifics and because of that, the manufactures ICA's are sometimes vague. 

All ICA’s are required to be in the POH, AFM, AFMS, SFM or some other manual and readily available.  This and the information in it are clearly spelled out in Part 23 Appdx G. 

Most of the installation manuals I can think of off the top of my head include ICA's in the appendix section (or there abouts) that typically span a few pages to hit all the necessary steps.  My beef with writing ICA's in block 8 of the 337 is that block 8 is meant to make a "Clear and Concise" explanation of the major performed and abbreviating the wording of the ICA is the only way to make it fit the page without writing a book report.

It would be nice if the feds would allow you to reference the POH for the ICA rather than make it part of block 8.

MOST OF THE MANUFACTURERS PROVIDE  VALID INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS OF AIRCRAFT, THUS THE SB, ALERT SB'S, AND SL  COMES OUT THRU THE HELP OF INFO. INPUT FROM YOU GUYS.

FOR THE MAINTENANCE MANUALS, IT'S ONLY A REFERENCE FOR YOU TO DO THE JOB.  IT WILL NOT GIVE YOU EVERYTHING.  BUT WITH THE PRESENT AND MODERN COMMUNICATION, E-MAILS, FAX, 1800 CALLS ETC)  YOU CAN ALWAYS CONNECT TO THE MFC. TECH. SUPPORT, WHENEVER YOU NEED HELP UNDERSTANDING THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE MM.

AS FOR LIABILITIES,  MANUFACTURER  ALWAYS OFFER TRAINING INCLUDED IN THE  PACKAGE BUYING A NEW AIRCRAFT, OR RE-CCURRENCY TRAINING TO KEEP YOU UP DATED AND SHARPEN YOUR MAINTENACE ABILITY TO AVOID

INCIDENTS WHICH WE DO NOT WANT TO HAPPENED.

SO AS A&P MECHANIC YOU MUST ALWAYS DO YOUR WORK RIGHT AT THE FIRST TIME.  NOAHRDS

Good question.The manufacturers are covering their ass. Sometimes they do it by being vague. You need to cover yours. Or put your assets in Switzerland. Even if it means giving the job to someone else. Forcing a manufacturer is not a matter of putting your heads together, it's a matter of putting your cash together. It's a very hard world out there. Scapegoats are a valuable comodity.   r.

These things are happening to good Techs with the best of intentions. Some I know, some I have read at aviation legal websites. I was hoping maybe everyone here could put their heads together and come up with a solution to force the manufacturer to provide us with valid Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

I agree that ICA's are typically thought of as 337's for a major performed on the acft., but the maintenance manuals for the aircraft, engines, propellers and accessrories are all ICA's that fall under Part 21, Part 27 and Part 29, to name a few. The regs are written a little vague (go figure) on the exact resposibilities of the holder of the type cert, but its pretty clear that the maintenace manuals (ICA) should contain information applicable to maintaining their product safely without liability.

Hi there, ICA's are relitivly new and come mainly from after production add ons via 337 forms. I have spent many days looking for ICA'a and most of the time the author of that 337 only put "Instructions for continued Airworthiness given to owner" which puts a technician looking at an old GII that returned to US registry scratch his or her head in frustration.

My main job is to put aircraft onto a FAR 135 certificates mostly Gulfstream aircraft. The best thing is we are the ones to need good ICA's so we should write good ICA's.

I ask because I have worked on many different types of aircraft, as have many on this site. I have also been exposed to many different formats of maintenance manuals. Some are pretty good, none are perfect (but neither am I), and some are so bad that Techs tend to stop using them. Over the years, they seem to be getting worse.

I worry about the poorly written manuals causing Techs to stray from written manufacturers procedures (or equivalent, as deemed by the administrator) and putting themselves in the position to be in non-compliance. I have been in the industry for a long time and can tell you some horror stories, usually involving legal preceedings.

These things are happening to good Techs with the best of intentions. Some I know, some I have read at aviation legal websites. I was hoping maybe everyone here could put their heads together and come up with a solution to force the manufacturer to provide us with valid Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.