bnt83
Final Approach
If it were minor no STC would be needed as you could just install with a log book entry
That's true. But there are still minor alterations that have been STC'ed, for marketing reasons.
If it were minor no STC would be needed as you could just install with a log book entry
I'm missing something and I haven't found it yet.
And it doesn't help when retailers call it a "drop in replacement": http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/whelenpar362.php?clickkey=9702
And it doesn't help when retailers call it a "drop in replacement": http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/whelenpar362.php?clickkey=9702
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You drop it, you spend another $235 with Spruce. Makes perfect sense to me.
Order 8110.42 PMA approval procedures
3. Basis for Design Approval. These methods are: a. Identicality by Showing Evidence of a Licensing Agreement. (1) The applicant sends the appropriate MIDO document from the TC, STC, or TSO authorization holder authorizing use of their data package. Evidence of a licensing agreement is 6 6/23/08 8110.42C
not a separate approval method, but is a way to show identicality. The applicant uses this evidence to show that the data submitted are FAA-approved and identical to the original part. For FAA purposes, the licensing agreement (in any form) only needs to authorize the applicant to use the specified type design data. See FAA Order 8120.2, Section 5, for more information.
(2) Following the current industry practice, TC holders prepare "assist letters" for applicants to send to the MIDO. This practice meets the requirements of showing evidence of a licensing agreement under 14 CFR § 21.303(c)(4). Find a sample assist letter in FAA Order 8120.2, Figure 10.
(3) PMA Assist Letter. In the assist letter, the licenser (usually a TC holder or a PAH) may identify critical parts to aid MIDO processing of the PMA application. b. Identicality without a Licensing Agreement. The applicant sends the appropriate ACO a statement certifying that the design is identical in all respects to an approved design (for example, TC, STC or TSO authorization). The applicant also provides the data supporting the identicality claim for review and approval. These data verify the identicality in dimensional and material characteristics, special processes and coatings, and test and acceptance criteria. Identicality without access to the original design data is nearly impossible for sophisticated parts with proprietary processes or coatings. Identicality to another PMA is unacceptable because 14 CFR § 21.303(c)(4) restricts identicality to only parts covered under type certificates. c. Test and Computation. The applicant sends the ACO a data package for review and approval. This data package describes the part design, which includes materials, processes, test specifications, system compatibility, maintenance instructions, and part interchangeability. The package also includes a test and substantiation plan to show compliance with applicable airworthiness standards. See chapter 2, paragraph 5 for more details about the data package. d. Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). The applicant stipulates use of the approved data from the STC and refers to the STC number. 4. Draft PMA Supplements. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]After approving the PMA, we will assign a PMA and supplement number. Use the following samples as guides for preparing FAA-PMA supplements:5. Verification of Installation Eligibility.
• Appendix F, Sample FAA-PMA Supplement for Identicality (Non-Licensing Agreement) or Test and Computation, is a supplement based on either identicality without a license agreement or test and computation.
• Figure 11 of Order 8120.2, Sample FAA-PMA Supplement for Licensing Agreement and STC, is a supplement based on either an STC or licensing agreement.
a. A manufacturer’s IPC offers information about installation eligibility, but the IPC is usually not FAA-approved. Consider using the IPC with other data like purchase orders from the PAH, service bulletins, maintenance manuals, a technical publications index, or a master drawing list. We cannot use the IPC to make any engineering finding leading to approval of the applicant’s design data. Also we cannot use the IPC to determine part conformity. Other acceptable documentation is a combination of the following:
• FAA airworthiness approval tag (FAA Form 8130-3),
• Other PMA supplements, and
• “Weight of evidence” evaluations using enough information from various sources to show eligibility.
b. Accept use of the IPC alone as a means for verifying installation eligibility on non-critical parts. When the IPC is the sole means of verifying installation eligibility, confirm the authenticity of that IPC.
c. If the application lacks documentation from the TC or TSO authorization holder (or other FAA-approved data), then the ACO may consider other evidence from the applicant. To verify installation eligibility, check other documents including the type design’s master drawing
[/FONT][/FONT]
To Simplify. The Whelen LEDs come with a very lengthy STC that explicitly calls out manufacturer and model. If your airplane is on it, you can install the LED landing/taxi light with the A&P signoff.
Go look for STC #SA02212AK on Whelen's website which is the installation eligibility. It answers ALL your questions.
That's true. But there are still minor alterations that have been STC'ed, for marketing reasons.
AC 21-40A
1-6. Key Facts about Supplemental Type Certificates (STC).
a. An STC is the FAA’s approval of a major change in the type design of a previously type certificated product
I think this sums it up nicely.
Indeed,
I know we are arguing semantics but these details can cost a good mechanic his certificate
Rice Pierce http://www.aea.net/governmentaffairs/pdf/ViewFromWashingtonApr11.pdf
Stopped here and gave a class on determination of major vs minor alterations & repairs
To sum it up, add the word "certificated" to each of the items listed in part 43 apendix D.
Example. Changes to empty weigh or empty weight CG are not a major alteration unless there was a certificated empty weight or certificated empty weight CG. Changes to the certificated CG limits is major, Changes to certificated gross weights is major.
(xi) Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft.
Adding or changing the electrical Load is not a major alteration, but changing the certificated voltage or capacity of the electrical system is.
(xii) Changes to the basic design of the fuel, oil, cooling, heating, cabin pressurization, electrical, hydraulic, de-icing, or exhaust systems.
etc.
This is straight from the article you just referenced:
Because the regulations are clear that an STC is higher than a major alteration
Remind me again of an STC that is minor?
-VanDy
This thread has really "Shined some light" on this subject for me.
(get it...shined some....ha.....)
This is straight from the article you just referenced:
Because the regulations are clear that an STC is higher than a major alteration
Remind me again of an STC that is minor?
-VanDy
Tell me how 5 minutes of paper work that covers everyone's butts is a bad thing?
So start looking through the certificated requirements of old CAR 3 and tell me how putting Rosen Sunvisors in my 1956 Cessna 172 is a major alteration?
Or just confuse the heck outa everyone
If our forefathers saw how we became a country paralyzed in our legal system, they would all have had vasectomies... The irony of this thread is that all we are talking about is "changing a light bulb". Seems that were jokes written around this topic. I've got a headache now, I'm out...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Are they the part number given in the production certificate for your make, model, and serial number of the aircraft?
Does Rozen have a PMA as the direct replacement part?
STC= the only way to document the change.
What?
major alteration vs. minor...
So now I need an STC to replace fabric on seats too right? Or paint an aircraft with polyureithane insteal of enamle.
If you read 43 B, recovering the seats is approved for the owner to do the work because seats are not structural. However, you do need the flamability cert on the upholstery.
If you read 43 B, recovering the seats is approved for the owner to do the work because seats are not structural. However, you do need the flamability cert on the upholstery.
This thread has really "Shed some light" on this subject for me.
(get it...shined some....ha.....)
If you read 43 B, recovering the seats is approved for the owner to do the work because seats are not structural. However, you do need the flamability cert on the upholstery.
This isn't always true either. In the case of newer helicopters and newer transport category aircraft, and probably others, the seat foam and even the seat covers are part of dynamic crashworthiness regulations.
no you don't.
if you really think that show me the requirement in the regs.
Depends on the type certificate and what they operate under...
If you read 43 B, recovering the seats is approved for the owner to do the work because seats are not structural. However, you do need the flamability cert on the upholstery.
no you don't.
if you really think that show me the requirement in the regs.
CAR3
3.388 Fire precautions—
(a) Cabin interiors. Only materials which are flash resistant shall be used. In compartments where smoking is to be permitted, the wall and ceiling linings, the covering of all upholstering, floors, and furnishings shall be flame-resistant. Such compartments shall be equipped with an adequate number of self contained ash trays. All other compartments shall be placarded against smoking.
14 CFR Part 23
23.853 Passenger and crew compartment interiors.
For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers:
(a) The materials must be at least flame-resistant;
(b) [Reserved]
(c) If smoking is to be prohibited, there must be a placard so stating, and if smoking is to be allowed—
(1) There must be an adequate number of self-contained, removable ashtrays; and
Is there a better link to the CAR's than the this?
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?websearch&site=dot_cars
This isn't always true either. In the case of newer helicopters and newer transport category aircraft, and probably others, the seat foam and even the seat covers are part of dynamic crashworthiness regulations.
Go to FSIMS, then look under Regulatory Guidance Library.
http://fsims.faa.gov/RelatedInfoResults.aspx?mode=RGL
That crappy link I posted is ON the FAA site
CAR3
3.388 Fire precautions—
(a) Cabin interiors. Only materials which are flash resistant shall be used. In compartments where smoking is to be permitted, the wall and ceiling linings, the covering of all upholstering, floors, and furnishings shall be flame-resistant. Such compartments shall be equipped with an adequate number of self contained ash trays. All other compartments shall be placarded against smoking.
14 CFR Part 23
23.853 Passenger and crew compartment interiors.
For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers:
(a) The materials must be at least flame-resistant;
(b) [Reserved]
(c) If smoking is to be prohibited, there must be a placard so stating, and if smoking is to be allowed—
(1) There must be an adequate number of self-contained, removable ashtrays; and
Yep now go to FAR 1.1 and tell me what "Flame resistant" means.