Car3 Vs FAR?
- Thread starter Skip
- Start date
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Looks like 1965 or so.
The recodification of the CARs into the FARs started in the latter half of 1960 and was completed by the end of 1964. As each new FAR Part was completed it was published for review then put into effect. For example, the new Part 135 was completed in early 1964 and went into effect several months later. However, portions of the CARs are still currently in effect for a number of aircraft namely on the certification side.
I guess I should ask this. Would a 1963 182 fall under CAR rules ? The reason I ask is this. At a breakfast fly in I saw a 150 on 8.50’s. It was a 1963 150. The guy flys it all over the place into farms etc. I asked how he was able to do that. He stated he was still under CAR rules and that “any tire size that supported the weight and speed of the aircraft are acceptable “. It’s just a conversation topic. Nothing more.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
And about seventeen years ago the FARs were incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, thus 14 CFR xx.xx is today's nomenclature. "FAR" doesn't mean what it used to in the Fed acronym list.
wanttaja
En-Route
Actually, I believe *all* 182s were produced under CAR rules. The basic airframe's Type Certificate was achieved prior to the new 14CFR, and thus it would be grandfathered. I looked through a typical C182 TCDS (#3A13) and didn't see any mention of wheels or tires.
Ron Wanttaja
I’m not sure this is accurate or nobody would buy the Airglas fork to put bigger mains on. They would just put larger mains on. I’m very interested to hear what all you guys have to say about this topic.
Yes. Every aircraft wasn't recertified under Part 23 when it went into effect so CAR 3 is still valid. The TCDS states what the certification basis is for each specific model/variant. Now on some newer production variants there might be specific Part 23 rules applied with the main certification still listed as CAR 3.
Ha. No, that's not how it works. In general, CAR 3 = Part 23; CAR 18 = Part 43; CAM 18 = AC 43.13-1B. Owners simply can't interpret old certification requirements to meet their needs just because its CAR 3. That would still be Cessna's territory. For example, even before the FAA, your flying farmer would still need to get CAA approval and have those wheels installed per CAR 18 possibly using CAM 18 as a reference. No different than today. And since CAR 18 and CAM 18 are no longer legally applicable today, and those wheels are not listed in the OEM specifications, he would need the proper Part 43 data/approvals to install them regardless if his aircraft is CAR 3.
I remember this as there was a big move to scrub the "FARs" from everything. It was thought someone might confuse the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) with the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FARs) and cause an aircraft to crash. However, as I recall there was so much backlash and the fact the term FAR was so ingrained in everything FAA that they quietly backed off. Even the local ASIs laughed about it. So while the use of FAR is not what it used to be, a quick search on the FAA website will still result in the FAR acronym used when it comes to FAA regulations.
FYI: I believe the restart 182s are Part 23 aircraft vs CAR 3. And separately, a few of the new engine variants are being certified to Part 33 rules vs CAR 13.
Last edited:
Great reply thanks. So…. As it stands, if nothing in his TCDS lists tire and wheel sizes… and it was manufactured in the CAR era… why wouldn’t he be able to use CAR as the basis? If nothing in part 23 overrides or supersedes the CAR3 of his aircraft…. I am also confused why it wouldn’t be legal.
A Cessna 182 rolls off the production line in 1963 and receives its FAA certification under CAR 3. What process must you follow to modify that aircraft in 1963 or today?
I’m not disputing anything. It’s just confusing. If there was no wheel size specified in the TCDS it’s hard for a layman like me to understand which to follow.
So as a layman, are you familiar with major and minor alteration requirements for an aircraft? If you are not familiar how those rules work then I need to answer your questions a bit differently. Every aircraft must follow those alteration rules regardless if the aircraft is CAR 3 or Part 23 or year built.
FYI: for most aircraft the TCDS no longer lists aircraft specifications, i.e., tire sizes, etc., as pre-1950s aircraft did. Those specifications or parts listings are now found in OEM parts books, SBs, SL, etc.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
“i can do that because it’s a CAR3 airplane” is one of those sentences that allows you to do most anything you want because most people are clueless enough to not know what that means, and those that do won’t have references handy to dispute you even if they wanted to.
“that’s the way it was when I bought it” is another good one.
“that’s the way it was when I bought it” is another good one.
kgruber
Final Approach
Even a King Air 90 is a CAR3 airplane
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
That’s how they put the big tires on it, apparently.
Arnold
Cleared for Takeoff
I’m familiar with the terms but practical application, I’m not educated at all about it. Other than a screw in tailbeacon is a major modification which continues to confuse me. Haha. Man I appreciate your answers. I’m learning a lot here. Thanks.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
Nope.
The above note applies to 182 through 182R and T182. 182 models until the 1979 Q model were strictly CAR airplanes, while the 1979 Q model combined CAR/FAR rules through the R model.
The 182S, 182T, and T182T are strictly FAR 23.
Last edited:
From the practical side, when you want to modify the configuration of the aircraft you must perform that modification via the Part 43 alteration process. That process is broken down into 2 types: a minor alteration or a major alteration which are further defined in Part 1 and in Part 43 Appendix A(a).
Basically, a minor alteration is any modification other than a major alteration that only requires acceptable data and a simple A&P logbook entry. A major alteration is one that meets the stated requirements in Part 1 and Part 43 Appx A, requires FAA approved data, requires an IA to complete Form 337, in addition to the signed A&P logbook entry.
So back to your flying farmer with big wheels. Since the landing gear is listed as a major alteration in Part 43 Appx A (a)(1)(vi) of which the wheels are a part of, he would need to meet all the requirements of a major alteration. Simply because his aircraft is CAR 3 does not give him the authority to install those wheels without FAA approval.
In very general terms, ADSB installations are considered a major alteration due the equipment integration/configuration/external signal and not due to the equipment installation.
There are a lot of misinformed AP’s and Pilots out there. It’s interesting to sit and learn this stuff. Thanks !
I dont know if its "misinformed" as much it is just a lack of knowledge. There's no requirement to learn or understand the rules to get a pilot or mechanic certificate but I think there should be. Throw in the interpretation of a few of those rules is subjective to the person reading the rule like with what is airworthy. But thankfully if you dig deep enough you can usually find enough written guidance to make a good decision vs simply learning/listening from those who think they know. When in doubt always ask for a reference.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
That conversation just ****es people off…they’re ****ed off when I ask for a reference, and they’re ****ed off when they ask for a reference and I provide it.When in doubt always ask for a reference.
I would agree with that. Well put. Can I assume you are an IA? You seem very knowledgeable about this stuff.I dont know if its "misinformed" as much it is just a lack of knowledge. There's no requirement to learn or understand the rules to get a pilot or mechanic certificate but I think there should be. Throw in the interpretation of a few of those rules is subjective to the person reading the rule like with what is airworthy. But thankfully if you dig deep enough you can usually find enough written guidance to make a good decision vs simply learning/listening from those who think they know. When in doubt always ask for a reference.
Nope. A&P only. Had an IA at one time for the day job but let it go. However, all this knowledge is available to anybody who chooses to learn. It's not rocket science. For example, the link below provides an excellent foundation for any person interested in aircraft. Then if more info is desired there are subsequent more detailed levels to follow. The detailed stuff is rather dry to read but when you apply a project to that reading it becomes tolerable like researching the approval process to install big wheels on a Cessna.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...handbooks_manuals/aviation/faa-h-8083-19A.pdf
BoButt
Pre-Flight
CAR 3 enacted 05/15/1956