Here's a piece on HB4124, The Revised Aero Engineering Bill. This article I wrote was published in The Aero Engineer in January 2012.
House Bill 4124: Hope for Aeronautical Engineers
By Engr. Ernesto Ferreras Jr.
It cannot be denied that Filipino Aeronautical Engineers are now gainfully employed in many airline and aviation companies here and abroad. Their job functions range from aircraft mechanics and release engineers to aircraft instructors, flight dispatchers and pilots. The Aeronautical Engineering profession is now deeply entrenched in the aviation industry that Aeronautical Engineers have become indispensable in their jobs. In doing so, the question on whether Aeronautical Engineers can contribute to the aviation industry in promoting safety and generating income has now become moot and academic. Aeronautical Engineers have proven themselves to be more than capable.
Going back to 1978, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1570 was signed by the late President Ferdinand Marcos, officially recognizing the Aeronautical Engineering profession and regulating those who want to practice in this field of engineering. Of the 36 sections comprising PD 1570, there are two sections, Sections 27 and 28 which clearly define, and set limits to, the functions of Aeronautical Engineers. These sections actually make Aeronautical Engineers what and who they are.
Section 27 states that: “The practice of Aeronautical Engineering shall constitute in holding out oneself as skilled in the knowledge, science, and practice of Aeronautical Engineering, and as qualified to render professional services as an Aeronautical Engineer; or offering or rendering, or both, on a fee basis or otherwise, services such as planning, designing, analyzing, constructing, assembling, installing, altering or maintaining of aircraft structures, power plants or accessories through scientific or accepted engineering practice, or the teaching of the same in any university, college, institute, or school of learning duly recognized by the Government of the Philippines” [emphasis added].
If we read carefully, Section 27 encompasses three areas of discipline concerning aircraft structures, power plants and accessories. The first is the planning, designing, and analyzing. The second is the constructing and assembling and the third is the installing, altering or maintaining. The first two need not be explained further. It is the third which needs our attention.
Section 27 practically overlaps the established job functions of aircraft mechanics as provided for in Republic Act (RA) 776 and implemented by Administrative Order (AO) No. 04A during the time of the now defunct Air Transportation Office (ATO). This particular provision has been a headache to both Aeronautical Engineers and aircraft mechanics alike as each is claiming that the job of installing, altering or maintaining of aircraft structures, power plants or accessories is the other’s own jurisdiction by legal right. The aircraft mechanics group of course would not relinquish its own profitable job; it is theirs by first right and they have been doing that for years. The Aeronautical Engineers group by virtue of the newer PD 1570 has been insisting that they have now the authority to sign papers pertaining to maintenance release of aircraft, power plants, and parts. In effect, PD 1570 has superseded the authority of RA 776 when it comes to the above-mentioned functions.
Furthermore, when the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) were formulated, one of the four major activities/areas of Aeronautical Engineering practice is Aircraft Operation or Maintenance. Article 1, Section 1 (I) (3) of said IRR states:
“The operation of aircraft or the maintenance, repair, and modification/ alteration of aircraft structures, powerplant, and other aircraft components. Operation here is concerned with pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight checks and functional tests of aircraft and its components. Operation also includes the release of aircraft for flight, monitoring of aircraft performance, and other activities performed on the ground and in flight to insure aircraft airworthiness and flight safety except piloting (directing and controlling) the aircraft in flight which function strictly belongs to the pilot. Marketing or selling of aircraft and/or its components which requires thorough technical knowledge of aircraft/component specifications, performance, maintenance, repair and other pertinent information shall likewise be considered professional Aeronautical Engineering service.”
Also, Article III, Section 2 of said IRR, states that “All firms, corporations, offices, educational institutions, and agencies, whether government of private, whose activities in part or in full involve the operation of one (1) or more aircraft…shall employ the services of Aeronautical Engineers. Planning, design, operation, management or maintenance of airports and their related facilities…shall require professional Aeronautical Engineering services.”
Against this background, past officers of SAEP and the Board of Aeronautical Engineering (BAeE), in countless meetings and consultations with the officials of the former ATO, tried various approaches to harmonize the provisions of PD 1570 and RA 776. It is in this context that, at long last, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed on March 8, 2005 between the PRC/BAeE and ATO. And, one year later, on March 1, 2006, the ATO issued Memorandum Circular (MC) 01-06, to implement the provisions of the MOA; in effect, implementing PD 1570. However, said MC was short-lived: it was suspended on April 20, 2006 and later on, was nullified and withdrawn on August 2, 2006. Obviously, major players in the aviation industry vehemently opposed MC 01-06.
Looking back, MC 01-06 required practically any aviation company and institution to require the services of Aeronautical Engineers: all engineering reports which contain analysis, plans/drawing, and substantiations of any civilian aircraft undergoing major repair, alteration, and/or modification, shall be signed by a registered Aeronautical Engineer. In addition, aircraft checks like performance, weight and balance, symmetry and alignment, and other checks affecting the performance and structural integrity of the aircraft, shall be conducted under the supervision and control of registered Aeronautical Engineers.
These particular provisions of MC 01-06 clearly place into the hands of Aeronautical Engineers the major job descriptions of aircraft mechanics and aircraft engineers (other than Aeronautical). This means, as far as aviation companies and airlines are concerned, revising their operating manuals and procedures to accommodate the provisions of MC 01-06; which, of course, involves time, resources and money. However, the law needs to be implemented. Nevertheless, MC 01-06 never saw implementation.
Just for the record, former BAeE chairman Engr. Amando Villao sent a letter of inquiry to the ATO on June 14, 2006, requesting enlightenment on the temporary suspension of MC 01-06; said letter remained unanswered. Engr. Ernesto Ferreras Jr., the present chairman of BAeE, sent a letter to PRC on December 4, 2006, requesting comments and/or intervention by the Commission regarding the nullification and withdrawal of the controversial MC. The Commission responded in turn on December 12, 2006, asking for a copy of an agreement of the Government with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The Government has an obligation, being a signatory, to adopt and implement the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) of the ICAO. In other words, PD 1570 should be as much in harmony with RA 776 as with the ICAO SARPS.
The withdrawal of MC 01-06 was a serious setback for the full implementation of PD 1570 through the police power of the ATO. It turned to nothing all the efforts that have been spent in formulating the MOA and the MC. However, it is our understanding that the MOA still is in effect notwithstanding the nullification of MC 01-06. We hope to revive the implementation of the MOA in the future.
In the meantime, another project by the SAEP and BAeE was underway: the revision of PD 1570, which hopefully would put more teeth into the Aeronautical Engineering law and clarify the ambiguous line between the functions of Aeronautical Engineers and aircraft mechanics.
The final draft of the revised PD 1570 was submitted to the 13th Congress on March 29, 2006 and was introduced in the House of Representatives as House Bill (HB) No. 5410 under the sponsorship of former Rep. Francis “Blueboy” L. Nepomuceno of the first district of Pampanga, and chairperson of the House Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation.
The Bill didn’t see much action in Congress as it stayed there without even a schedule for hearing or deliberation. Then on January 24, 2011, it was refilled in the House as HB 4124 under the sponsorship of Rep. Rufus Rodriguez. It is hoped that Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV will adopt it in the Senate.
The provisions of HB 4124, tentatively called “The Aeronautical Engineering Act of 2011,” are more encompassing in scope and details than PD 1570. For example, the HB has five (5) major activity areas. Aircraft Operation and Maintenance under PD 1570 is separately listed as Aircraft Operation and Aircraft Maintenance under HB 4124. Moreover, Aeronautical Engineering practice includes planning, designing, analyzing, constructing, assembling, installing, altering, maintaining, or operating of aircraft, its structures, powerplant or accessories. The word “operating” has been added in the HB whereas “operating of aircraft” as part of Aeronautical Engineering practice is found only in the Implementing Rules of the PD.
As regards maintenance, Section 22 (c) and Section 35 of the HB, states, among others, that “All reports, plans, specifications, drawings, designs and other related documents, pertaining but not limited to, major structural repair, major structural modifications, major system repair and modifications, operational limitations, aircraft performance classifications, weight and balance data limits and computations, shall bear the signature and seal of registered and licensed Aeronautical Engineer.”
While PD 1570 does not specifically identify which areas of work need the approval of Aeronautical Engineers, its IRR state so, albeit in general terms: Article I, Section 1 (I) (3) only refers to “The operation of aircraft or the maintenance, repair, and modification/alteration of aircraft structures, powerplant, and other aircraft components.”
Therefore, it is agreed in the final draft of the HB that all major structural repairs, major structural modifications, major system repairs and modifications, operational limitations, aircraft performance classifications, weight and balance data limits and computations are now the responsibility of Aeronautical Engineers. This is a tall order, one which falls directly in opposition to some provisions of RA 776 and its administrative orders (AOs).
While we put our hope on the HB, the ATO was given a facelift through RA 9497, which transformed ATO into Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP). One good news for Aeronautical Engineers was that RA 9497 included the word Aeronautical Engineer in its definition of airman. This is tantamount to recognizing the importance of the functions of Aeronautical Engineers in aviation, which is just putting our place in the proper perspective. However, in the formulation of its IRRs and Civil Air Regulations (CARs), the duties and responsibilities of the IRRs were intentionally left out because it is the jurisdiction of the BAeE and PRC to formulate the job functions of Aeronautical Engineers.
Where can you find the specific provisions in PD 1570 and its IRRs the duties and responsibilities of Aeronautical Engineers? Again, let us reiterate here.
According to Section 27 of PD 1570, the practice of Aeronautical Engineering shall constitute services such as (aside from teaching of the same):
Planning
Designing
Analyzing
Constructing
Assembling
Installing
Altering
Maintaining
of aircraft structures, power plant, and accessories through scientific or accepted engineering practice.
Also, Section 28 (b) of PD 1570, stipulates that any firm or company engaged in
Designing
Planning
Construction
Installation
Alteration
Manufacture
Marketing
of aircraft and its components, accessories, instruments, equipment, and supply should have the
Certification
Supervision
Guidance
of an Aeronautical Engineer.
Again, it is important to state that Article I, Section 1 (I) (3) of the IRR provides the coverage for Aircraft Operation or Maintenance. Operation includes
Pre-flight, in-flight, post-flight checks,
Functional test of aircraft and its components;
Release of aircraft for flight;
Monitoring of aircraft performance;
Other activities performed on ground and in flight to insure aircraft airworthiness and flight safety, except piloting;
Marketing or selling of aircraft and/or its components.
Also, Article II, Section 2 of the IRR pertains to services provided by Aeronautical Engineers. It requires all firms and institutions, whether government or private, whose activities involve the operation of one (1) or more aircraft or the practice of Aeronautical Engineering shall employ the services of Aeronautical Engineers.
It also includes
Planning
Design
Operation
Management or
Maintenance of airports & related facilities.
Furthermore, department/division/unit heads and deputy/assistant heads of organizations who are directly involved in the decision-making or in the implementation of Aeronautical Engineering matters shall be registered Aeronautical Engineers.
In closing, it is helpful to remember this statement from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia about Aeronautical Engineers and maintenance engineers:
“Aeronautical Engineers are engaged in the design, development, testing and production of civil and military aircraft. The maintenance engineer deals with those in-service and maintenance practices and principles necessary that keep an aircraft operational.”
And from Aeronautical Engineers – Australia:
“... any modification or repair that is carried out on an Australian aircraft must be done in accordance with 'approved data'. This approved data is usually contained within the aircraft manuals (aircraft maintenance manual, structural repair manual, component maintenance manuals, etc.) issued by the aircraft manufacturer. However, sometimes there is damage to the aircraft that is outside the scope of these manuals or the operator wishes to modify the aircraft to help it perform a specific function (aerial firefighting, search and rescue, for example) or alter the aircraft in some other way. To ensure that the aircraft continues to be airworthy (i.e., safe to fly), the repair or modification must be examined by an Aeronautical Engineer so that the many complex factors that affect aircraft flight, structures and systems can be assessed and the design change approved as airworthy. To do this, the Aeronautical Engineer assesses the design of the modification or repair against the airworthiness requirements for the aircraft and then must justify that the design meets these requirements through the use of analysis, testing and experience.”
There’s no other simpler explanation than this regarding the job description of an Aeronautical Engineer.
