Standard category to Experimental?

Ron Levy said:
:rofl: Wrong.

Wrong again. Field approval of unapproved parts for required flight instruments is hardly "easy," and installation of such unapproved parts for such a purpose is the fast track to an FAA enforcement action.
Click to expand...

This response is absolutely laughable in as much as a person of this stature doesn't know who declares airworthiness of the aircraft and what rules they comply with in so doing.

You also do not realize that all replacement parts are treated the same in the FARs The instruments in the panel as well as the parts built in the field as repairs are all returned to service by the A&P or A&P-IA Who have performance rules in FAR 43 to comply with.

Those compliance rules say nothing about quality of the parts, they either meet the requirements of the production certificate / TCDS or their properly altered condition. or they do not.
There is no FAR rule that mentions "Aircraft quality" as you inferred in your statement, that you avoided answering when you tried to spin this thread.

Just because the TCDS or the production certificate mentions a part number which relates to a make or model of any instrument, does not mean you must use that instrument, simply because there are manufacturer up grades, PMA equivalent, field approved alternatives, and STCed replacements. plus some are simply a minor change, on a log book entry.
 
Tom-D said:
This response is absolutely laughable in as much as a person of this stature doesn't know who declares airworthiness of the aircraft and what rules they comply with in so doing.

You also do not realize that all replacement parts are treated the same in the FARs The instruments in the panel as well as the parts built in the field as repairs are all returned to service by the A&P or A&P-IA Who have performance rules in FAR 43 to comply with.

Those compliance rules say nothing about quality of the parts, they either meet the requirements of the production certificate / TCDS or their properly altered condition. or they do not.
There is no FAR rule that mentions "Aircraft quality" as you inferred in your statement, that you avoided answering when you tried to spin this thread.

Just because the TCDS or the production certificate mentions a part number which relates to a make or model of any instrument, does not mean you must use that instrument, simply because there are manufacturer up grades, PMA equivalent, field approved alternatives, and STCed replacements. plus some are simply a minor change, on a log book entry.
Click to expand...
Tom is out in left field. Individual mechanics are not, repeat not, the final authority in such matters -- the FAA is. Plenty of case law on point. And if the FAA catches you with one of those instruments sold with "For Experimental only, not for use in production certified aircraft" in the catalog entry installed in your Standard airworthiness aircraft, it will be you who flew it, not just the mechanic who installed it and signed the log, facing FAA action.
 
Ron Levy said:
Tom is out in left field. Individual mechanics are not, repeat not, the final authority in such matters -- the FAA is. Plenty of case law on point. And if the FAA catches you with one of those instruments sold with "For Experimental only, not for use in production certified aircraft" in the catalog entry installed in your Standard airworthiness aircraft, it will be you who flew it, not just the mechanic who installed it and signed the log, facing FAA action.
Click to expand...

The whole point of this thread went right over your head.

Or you don't know what a DER is used for.
 
one more time, show me what FAR says what a "Aircraft quality" part is.

Plus tell me who signed airworthiness on your aircraft each year.

Are you contending that any part can not be made acceptable by proper documentation?
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I have moved foreign aircraft into this category. The only major restriction is the local FSDO needs to know where the plane is going past a 300 mile radius. If you are going out side that area an email or fax is all you need send. No reply is needed. It really was not an issue at all. Just send an email any time traveling outside that area.

This would be an easy category to use for the OP's project. I assume you could apply for STC's under the experimental category.
Click to expand...

The STC route would have to come under Experimental-R&D.

Another route some have used is to build an aircraft from parts then put it under Experimental-Exhibition. Just understand the restrictions issued with the airworthiness certificate.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The STC route would have to come under Experimental-R&D.

Another route some have used is to build an aircraft from parts then put it under Experimental-Exhibition. Just understand the restrictions issued with the airworthiness certificate.
Click to expand...

The upgraded engine from a 145 to a 165 warner on the F-24 was simply a DER's engineering evaluation of the fuselage structure, and the FAA issued the STC and the time for testing, after the time was flown off the AWC was returned to the standard category.

the FAA's only restriction was on which prop could be used.

After that the engineering was used on several other aircraft even though it was a 1 time STC application.
 
Ron Levy said:
Tom is out in left field. Individual mechanics are not, repeat not, the final authority in such matters -- the FAA is. Plenty of case law on point. And if the FAA catches you with one of those instruments sold with "For Experimental only, not for use in production certified aircraft" in the catalog entry installed in your Standard airworthiness aircraft, it will be you who flew it, not just the mechanic who installed it and signed the log, facing FAA action.
Click to expand...

There is more than one way to skin a cat. ;)

Your love for the feds and rules is blocking you from seeing any chance for innovation. Adhering to rules blinds you to actually doing something of benefit for aircraft owners and mechanics.

I would defer to Tom on this one. Your negative attitude toward innovation towards aging aircraft is pretty clear. Sad really, I'll bet you never colored outside the lines did you. :rolleyes:

This is why I would rather fly experimental category aircraft, and why is it carrying GA. Too many regulations and those who love to live by them. Think outside the box people! :dunno:

Either you are part of the solution, or part of the problem. I choose the former.
 
Last edited:
Geico you are a dangerous rogue that can only be saved with mounds of paperwork. And stickers, the FAA needs approval stickers for everything, and gold stars for pilots foreheads that get ramped with all the right stickers in place.:goofy::lol::rofl::D
Geico266 said:
There is more than one way to skin a cat. ;)

Your love for the feds and rules is blocking you from seeing any chance for innovation. Adhering to rules blinds you to actually doing something of benefit for aircraft owners and mechanics.

I would defer to Tom on this one. Your negative attitude toward innovation towards aging aircraft is pretty clear. Sad really, I'll bet you never colored outside the lines did you. :rolleyes:

This is why I would rather fly experimental category aircraft, and why is it carrying GA. Too many regulations and those who love to live by them. Think outside the box people! :dunno:

Either you are part of the solution, or part of the problem. I choose the former.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Geico you are a dangerous rogue that can only be saved with mounds of paperwork. And stickers, the FAA needs approval stickers for everything, and gold stars for pilots foreheads that get ramped with all the right stickers in place.:goofy::lol::rofl::D
Click to expand...

What Ron Doesn't realize it is not the FAA that catches the illegal stuff that owners place in service, it is the A&P-IA at annual time. Plus he doesn't know who gets the paper work right on any alterations of equipment using DER to approve modifications.

It's a rare case to see a 150 or a 172 with the old AN1 gyros still installed, most all have been upgraded to modern instruments, and none will have 337s or STCs to do so.

He mentions unapproved parts with out thinking that all parts are unapproved with out the proper paper work, and that paper work comes in many different forms. Using his narrow belief owner produced parts or parts built in the field would never be legal.
 
Tom-D said:
He mentions unapproved parts with out thinking that all parts are unapproved with out the proper paper work, and that paper work comes in many different forms. Using his narrow belief owner produced parts or parts built in the field would never be legal.
Click to expand...
Tom's interpretation of what I wrote is, again, "out in left field." If he went back to my original post, he'd see that. All I said was there must be FAA approval in some form (of which I mentioned several), and that at the end of the day, the FAA, not the installing mechanic, has the final say as to whether a part is acceptable or not.
 
Ron Levy said:
Tom's interpretation of what I wrote is, again, "out in left field." If he went back to my original post, he'd see that. All I said was there must be FAA approval in some form (of which I mentioned several), and that at the end of the day, the FAA, not the installing mechanic, has the final say as to whether a part is acceptable or not.
Click to expand...
You might better read AC 43-18

d. Certificate Holder. Any person certificated by the FAA and authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations as provided in part 43, § 43.3. Within the context of this AC, if a certificate holder intends to fabricate a part for maintaining a product he/she may do so only under the provisions (privileges) of his/her certificate.

The FAA has given the authority to mechanics, DERs, DARs the privilege of approving parts in the field.

And as the AC says this is not the only method of complying.

With out this authority you couldn't make the simplest minor modifications to any aircraft.

It took me 3 weeks and 2 e-mails to gain authority to modify a rudder flight control to mount a Whelen flasher unit using my DER, after my PMI sent the request for field approval back asking for info I could not provide.

The FAA is NOT the only ones who can approve parts and alterations.

So now you try to spin this thread simply because you can't find the definition of what an aircraft quality parts is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top