Continued Airworthiness Requirement

[brien23]

FAA order 8110.54A and 14(CRF) 21.50 require compliance with Continued Airworthiness. So if I have the plastic tape gap seal on my piper flight controls and the Continued Airworthiness requirement is to poke it with the Maul Fabric tester I have to buy the tester $450 to comply with the requirement of continued airworthiness? Or the power flow exhaust system take it all apart and lube the joints with anti seize every 100hr? Just how many people comply with the Continued Airworthiness Requirements of their STC.

 

[bnt83]

FAA order 8110.54A and 14(CRF) 21.50 require compliance with Continued Airworthiness. So if I have the gap seal on my piper flight controls and the Continued Airworthiness requirement is to poke it with the Maul Fabric tester I have to buy the tester $450 to comply with the requirement of continued airworthiness? Or the power flow exhaust system take it all apart and lube the joints with anti seize every 100hr? Just how many people comply with the Continued Airworthiness Requirements of their STC.

Ask yourself why ICAs have a general maintenance section that is pretty weak and then a section called "Airworthiness Limitations"

(The older the ICA the less likely the format contains Airworthiness Limitations section) A

 

[MauleSkinner]

FAA order 8110.54A and 14(CRF) 21.50 require compliance with Continued Airworthiness. So if I have the plastic tape gap seal on my piper flight controls and the Continued Airworthiness requirement is to poke it with the Maul Fabric tester I have to buy the tester $450 to comply with the requirement of continued airworthiness? Or the power flow exhaust system take it all apart and lube the joints with anti seize every 100hr? Just how many people comply with the Continued Airworthiness Requirements of their STC.

Everyone I’ve ever worked with.

 

[Bell206]

FAA order 8110.54A and 14(CRF) 21.50 require compliance with Continued Airworthiness.

FYI: Order 8110.54 and Part 21.50 are only applicable to design approval holders and require the holder to furnish ICAs with their approved article/product to the end user after a certain date. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the compliance of the ICAs. The use/compliance of those ICAs falls under Part 43.13(a) and other rules.

Whether an ICA is required depends on various factors. For example, for Part 91 aircraft, the only “ICAs” that are mandatory are items listed under an Airworthiness Limitations listing (Part 43.16) and those items listed in Part 43 Appx D, and Part 43.15, if applicable.

 

[brien23]

FYI: Order 8110.54 and Part 21.50 are only applicable to design approval holders and require the holder to furnish ICAs with their approved article/product to the end user after a certain date. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the compliance of the ICAs. The use/compliance of those ICAs falls under Part 43.13(a) and other rules.

Whether an ICA is required depends on various factors. For example, for Part 91 aircraft, the only “ICAs” that are mandatory are items listed under an Airworthiness Limitations listing (Part 43.16) and those items listed in Part 43 Appx D, and Part 43.15, if applicable.

So you have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Stewartb]

For the last several years even field approvals require detailed ICA language.

 

[Bell206]

So you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Ha. One of your typical responses. Perhaps you should hook up with pfarber as it appear you two have a lot in common. Maybe he's even from the PNW as your other partner in crime.

Okay. So where did I go wrong with my reply? Be sure to provide proper references as I have mine ready to go.

 

[Bell206]

For the last several years even field approvals require detailed ICA language.

FYI: ICAs for field approvals have been around since 1998 or so. How detailed they must be depends on the level of alteration or repair and the existing aircraft ICA requirements. But yes they are definitely required.