Standard Equipment not on Type Certificate

A

Anon E. Mouse

Guest
Before handing someone a lot of money and buying a problem, I thought I would ask. For while I have had a pilot licence for many years this would be the first airplane I have bought.

The aircraft has complete logs, I have flown it many times over the past five years, it has an original faa approved poh and was made by one of the "big" GA manufacturers.

Neither the propeller engine combination, nor the fuel tank configuration as described in the poh (both as options as built) are on the TCDS. I am a college graduate and I've read both multiple times. I KNOW (I don't just think that I know) that the aircraft is configured in one of the "models" (the marketing department gave names like "standard, deluxe, super-delux and super-dooper-delux" to) detailed in depth in the poh.

Is this an issue, could there be a STC issued to the company for a new "model." Is it all wink-nod if the equivalent of GM does it? I want to C my A, I want to buy it, and I don't want to call attention to the specific model or specific year.

Anon E. Mouse

(no relation to Mickey)
 
More than likely the engine, prop, and fuel tank were installed under STC's. There should be log book entries indicating those installations, and hopefully the current owner has the paperwork for the STC's.
 
Anon E. Mouse said:
Neither the propeller engine combination, nor the fuel tank configuration as described in the poh (both as options as built) are on the TCDS.
Click to expand...
Anon E. Mouse said:
I don't want to call attention to the specific model or specific year.
Click to expand...
FYI: Without model/year information you cannot answer any questions as it is entirely dependent on model/date of the aircraft. In general, the equipment/option listing is dependent on which format used on the sheet: the CAA format (Aircraft Specification) or the FAA format (Type Certificate Data Sheet) as shown below. So if your aircraft has a TCDS format your factory options are usually listed in separate bulletins.

upload_2021-10-5_11-4-26.png



upload_2021-10-5_11-5-25.png
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
dependent on model/date of the aircraft... if your aircraft has a TCDS format your factory options are usually listed in separate service bulletins.
Click to expand...
+1

You mentioned "fuel tank configuration." On the C-150 the TCDS only lists the 22.5 gal system. A separate bulletin lists the 35 gallon system installed by the factory in the aircraft as it was built. The owner of the plane I fly has a copy of the Bulletin along with a copy of the TCDS. No mas.
 
kgruber said:
done by the factory,.
Click to expand...
FYI: in general, any alteration that is listed in the aircraft/prop/engine specifications, i.e., offered by the factory, does not meet the requirements of a major alteration and regardless who performs the work, needs no further approvals. There are some rare exceptions but these are plainly indicated within the provided documentation.
 
Last edited:
^^^ Which is why I asked Santa for OEM patrol doors... ^^^
 
You may want to get the Records CD from FAA

$5 I believe.

However; it will only have a record of 337s that were actually sent to Ok City.

If you like this particular aircraft it is worthwhile chasing down the documentation.

Without it; it could be wise to pass as it would be up to you to get approvals.

You don’t have to be a college grad to “ read FAA”.

Might be worthwhile enlisting an experienced Tech to assist you.
 
Mr. Mouse, I would somewhat hesitantly point out that there are lots and lots of airplanes out there, and lots for sale at any given moment. If you have concerns about the aircraft for sale and the seller cannot address them the wisest course is to move onto the next example.
 
Tarzan say: "Stuff-- Tarzan's Airplane New-- Not on TCDS."

"Check the Bulletins, Tarzan," said Jane, "they are on the FAA's website."
 
Magman said:
You may want to get the Records CD from FAA

$5 I believe.

However; it will only have a record of 337s that were actually sent to Ok City.

If you like this particular aircraft it is worthwhile chasing down the documentation.

Without it; it could be wise to pass as it would be up to you to get approvals.

You don’t have to be a college grad to “ read FAA”.

Might be worthwhile enlisting an experienced Tech to assist you.
Click to expand...
Now $10... someday downloadable?

Paul
 
Magman said:
You don’t have to be a college grad to “ read FAA”.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I was just trying to figure out what parts put in an airplane have to be PMA. And what documentation of that status entails.

Fortunately I know a lady who reads tea leaves and has a crystal ball...
 
I presume OP is referring to AFM as the POH?

Some aircraft have a list of optional equipment as well as what is actually installed.

Some of the “packages” listed may have your info.

Cessna 150’s did have a larger tank option.

To my knowledge all 150’s used the O-200 that would be TCM but a possibility

of RR also.

There are 4 possible props listed for some 150’s.

All these items are factory so no STC is needed.

There are numerous mods developed by other agencies .

They would generally require an STC and documented by a 337.
 
Magman said:
I presume OP is referring to AFM as the POH?
Click to expand...

According to AC-60-6B aircraft built after 1979 must have an FAA approved AFM. (Prior to that time most manufacturers offered a POH, so if the OP's aircraft was built before the AFM mandate the POH serves as his or her AFM. The structural dishonesty of bureaucracies to assert that everything is how it has always been is maddening to me. I have had several scuffles with-- must calm down and avoid getting kicked off this site over this issue-- let's just leave it at the word perjury being said by the judge, and not being said to me.

The Aircraft Specification for my aircraft type was issued in 1939. My my personal aircraft a Luscombe 8A was certified under the provisions of "Part 4a of the Civil Air Regulations" (A-694) well before the CAA gave way to the FAA in 1958. The FAA has revised A-694 many times, but each revision is effective only on the date of the revision-- not ever retroactively, and not in lieu of a superseded standard. A compliant aircraft-- one with nothing, only placards, a 3x5 card of limitations, a manufacturer's guide, with a POH or whatever the standard was when the aircraft was certified-- cannot be made noncompliant by the issuance of a new change.

Magman said:
Cessna 150’s did have a larger tank option.

To my knowledge all 150’s used the O-200 that would be TCM but a possibility

of RR also.
Click to expand...

The OP did not say it was a 150-- of course he also didn't say it wasn't. :) The third respondent volunteered that his personal aircraft is a 150, and that his information is contained in Bulletins, not the TCDS. Because the same engine (A-65-8) on different aircraft I am familiar with (Aeroncas, Luscombes, Pipers, and Taylorcrafts) have slightly different limitations-- an old A&P told me they had to be "demonstrated" as configured-- I think that Cessna would have to approve a prop for a Cessna built aircraft. (Now I'm talking about Cessnas.) :)
 
Last edited:
Boundary Waters said:
According to AC-60-C aircraft built after 1979 must have an FAA approved AFM. (Prior to that time most manufacturers offered a POH, so if the OP's aircraft was built before the AFM mandate the POH serves as his or her AFM
Click to expand...
That's exactly backwards. The POH is the newer standardized document, the AFM is the older one.
 
Hang 4 said:
That's exactly backwards. The POH is the newer standardized document, the AFM is the older one.
Click to expand...
Now I'm not saying you are wrong...

But, quoting "AC-60-6B - Airplane Flight manuals (AFM), Approved Manual Materials, Markings, and Placards Airplanes. Date Issued: September 25, 1980... Airplane Flight Manual Regulations: Standardized in 1975, AFMs are now required in aircraft built and flown after March 1, 1979. No person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual (if applicable), markings, and placards..."

FWIW: The POH was a 1975-ish industry attempt to stave off the FAA mandated ARM by getting manufacturers to voluntarily use the same standards, and record the same data in the same format. POH's replaced the old "Owners Manual" which replaced Mr. Piper's salesman recruiting the local high school quarterback and teaching him how to fly a J-3 in an afternoon...
 
Hang 4 said:
The POH is the newer standardized document, the AFM is the older one
Click to expand...
FYI: Not quite. The AFM or RFM is the current format/requirement and there is an approval requirement as well. POH format as no approval requirement and has been around for decades. Part 91.9 and 21.5 have the details.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Not quite. The AFM or RFM is the current format/requirement and there is an approval requirement as well. POH format as no approval requirement and has been around for decades. Part 91.9 and 21.5 have the details.
Click to expand...
OK, think it's a bit of both a semantic and date difference. My understanding was that around 1973 the GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) introduced the POH structure as way to standardize the AFM. So a POH prior to then was not a Serial # specific document, but post that date they were serial # specific and POH=AFM. Prior to that the AFM was the only document that was serial # specific. Not familiar with the 1979 change.
 
Hang 4 said:
Not familiar with the 1979 change.
Click to expand...
Maybe you got 1973/1979 mixed up. Its detailed in the Parts I listed above. After 1979 the approved AFM became a regulatory requirement. Some OEMs retained their previous POHs and made them as supplementary information to the approved AFM. So for example, for the latest 172S, Cessna titles that combined document as an 172 Information Manual which states this manual contains the approved aircraft flight manual AND the pilots operating handbook. So its not so much semantics after 1979 as it is two separate documents. Prior to 1979 then yes it was more semantics as AFM and POH were used interchangeably except in certain categories that only used the AFM/RFM reference.
 
EDIT: I posted a question here in error. So I moved it to "Concerns 1969 Cessna 150J...."
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top