I was at the airport this morning. Two older guys were debating airworthiness and so forth. The airplane in discussion was a Cessna 140. He kept trying to say he couldn’t install something on it. And the owner kept saying that he could because the airplane fell under CAR… I came home and googled it. There isn’t much about CAR’s. Were the CAR’s superseded by the FAR’s ? Little confusion here with me. I’ve only ever flown relatively new aircraft. What’s the deal here ?
CAR vs FAR’s…..
- Thread starter Skip
- Start date
Yes. Happened in 1957 when the CAA became the FAA. But the CARs are still applicable today for any aircraft originally certified under them, like a number of "modern" 100 series Cessnas. There used to be a an excellent listing of the CARs, CAMs, and CABs on a DOT website but with all the databases being integrated under the new DRS system they are currently buried from easy viewing. As to the airport debate don't know what it could have meant as from a functional point of view there's basically no difference between CAR/FAR except for various certification requirements. However, in general, it became more restrictive under the FARs than the CARs.
The 140
had 8.00 mains without STC etc. I missed the beginning of the argument. Basically under CAR it allowed that tire size etc.
And the FARs still allow 8.00 mains without an STC as this is part of the aircraft specifications listed on the TCDS as shown below. A major alteration is defined in Part 1 as a change affecting certain items and one that is not listed in the aircraft specifications. This one is so it’s a minor. Alterations on these older aircraft were much more "informal" than today. So this has nothing to do with CAR vs FAR based on what you have posted.
FYI: if you look at some “TCDS” with a number that starts with an “A” you’ll notice they are actually called Aircraft Specifications vs Type Certificate Data Sheet. Hence the term in the definition. Some like the 140 TCDS got renamed for some reason by the OEM but others remain the same as the example below. But the term still applies even today as those aircraft specification lists were moved to the type design so basically any alteration that is called out by OEM documentation is considered within the aircraft specifications and considered a minor. No STC or 337 required.
A lot of aircraft certificated under the CARs used commercial or automotive components, which may be replaced using the equivalent commercial part, with no need for a TSO'd part.
There are operational aspects as well... for example, it's perfectly legal (whether it's smart is another matter) to do aerobatics in a J-3 Cub, T-Craft, or other aircraft certificated under the CARs, when the TCs didn't say things like, "no acrobatic maneuvers allowed except..."
There are operational aspects as well... for example, it's perfectly legal (whether it's smart is another matter) to do aerobatics in a J-3 Cub, T-Craft, or other aircraft certificated under the CARs, when the TCs didn't say things like, "no acrobatic maneuvers allowed except..."
Huckster79
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,395
- Display Name
Display name:
Huckster79
tcds baby… I have 800s on my 140, no STC needed.
Interesting. Thanks.
kgruber
Final Approach
I "think" the King Air 90 is a CAR3 airplane
By that logic a 172 is under the 175 and one could put larger tires than a 6.00 on the mains too.
kgruber
Final Approach
Yes...............The King air 90 is a CAR3 airplane.
kgruber
Final Approach
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
The 175 has its own TCDS, 3A17. It's not a 172 (3A12).
The R172K Hawk XP (190 HP) is on the 175 TCDS, too. Unusual. So is the 172RG series.
I don't see larger tires anywhere on that TCDS.
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...96650ff86257ed2006aa7b5/$FILE/3A17_Rev_47.pdf
yes. The 175 is a strange airplane on it’s own. And then all of the other airplanes that share its TCDS.
It's mainly due to a naming convention and model lineage that there are "172" models are on the "175" TCDS. As I recall, a 175 is a 172 with a GO-300 and a few airframe tweaks. The 175 was certified right at the time of the switch from the CAA to the FAA and there was a number of variances during that change over. Later when the GO-300 developed a bad rep, mainly due to lack of operator education vs a bad design, Cessna rebranded the last "175" models as "172s" and replaced the GO-300 with an injected 360 and most were military models after some assistance from the French. While I don't know for certain, I believe the 172 RG is on there because it had more in common with the 177RG than any true 172 so it was slipped into that "175" TCDS. Given how Cessna designates their structural parts with a lot of model overlap at times, trying to research which parts work where on a "175" can be a bear. Thankfully one Cessna support guy had pity and gave me the above to help as best as I can remember.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
The FAA's practice with subsequent models of a CAR3 certified aircraft is to often require adherence to a couple of specific Part 23 requirements. You have to look at the TCDS to see exactly which ones have been incorporated and into which models. Generally no more than a handful of them.