Interior Upgrade Question

Brian Sponcil wrote:

There's an auto upholstery shop in town that is very well regarded and while
talking with him regarding my car I got to wondering if I could pull out my
Cherokee seats and have him leatherize them.

Yes.



Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather"

Yes.


(or pleather
for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
primary structure"?

In the vast majority of cases, no.


I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
just wondering how "legal" it is.

Perfectly.

For aircraft built under FAR 23 and the materials used for any
covering, FAR 23.853 is very clear. You have to test it to FAR 23
Appendix F. Commercial and automotive materials may have been tested,
but not to meet that FAR. There is no distinction between natural or
man-made material. If it goes in a Type Certificated FAR 23 aircraft
it gets tested. CAR 4b certified aircraft probably have to meet a
lower standard, but why take a chance? I don't work in the small
aircraft world, but I'm sure there are many shops out there that can
do reputable work with proper materials and sign off what they do at a
fair price.

If I were to accomplish an Annual Inspection on an aircraft that has
been re-covered, I would review the burn tests and log entries. No
required burn test documents and log entries and it is unairworthy.
So it looks like you have some options. Try it on the cheap and risk
your life and the probability of having to re-do it properly at
annual time (on a Part 23 aircraft) or doing it right the first time.
The other option is homebuilding. You are free to put in materials
that may kill you and do the work yourself, but at least you die
legally.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:09:22 -0600, Don Hammer wrote:
If I were to accomplish an Annual Inspection on an aircraft that has
been re-covered, I would review the burn tests and log entries. No
required burn test documents and log entries and it is unairworthy.
So it looks like you have some options. Try it on the cheap and risk
your life and the probability of having to re-do it properly at
annual time (on a Part 23 aircraft) or doing it right the first time.
The other option is homebuilding. You are free to put in materials
that may kill you and do the work yourself, but at least you die
legally.


The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:14:32 -0600, Almarz wrote:

snip
You are free to put in materials
that may kill you and do the work yourself, but at least you die
legally.


The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

ROTFLMAO!

TC

"Don Hammer" wrote in message
...
If it goes in a Type Certificated FAR 23 aircraft
it gets tested. CAR 4b certified aircraft probably have to meet a
lower standard, but why take a chance?

I didn't notice all of that regulation helping the swiss air passengers too
much.

If I were to accomplish an Annual Inspection on an aircraft that has
been re-covered, I would review the burn tests and log entries.

Yikes! This is the very reason I don't have my local FBO do my annuals.


-Brian
N33431

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:47:47 -0600, "Brian Sponcil"
wrotD:


"Don Hammer" wrote in message
.. .
If it goes in a Type Certificated FAR 23 aircraft
it gets tested. CAR 4b certified aircraft probably have to meet a
lower standard, but why take a chance?

I didn't notice all of that regulation helping the swiss air passengers too
much.

If I were to accomplish an Annual Inspection on an aircraft that has
been re-covered, I would review the burn tests and log entries.

Yikes! This is the very reason I don't have my local FBO do my annuals.


-Brian
N33431


Brian,

My experience is with large transport category Part 25 aircraft and
the burn test requirements are much more severe than Part 23. Read
25.853 sometime. It costs $5000 to burn test each material installed
in a Gulfstream or other transport category aircraft. There is one
reason we have to do all that and it is because a whole plane load of
people died on the ground from smoke inhalation on Air Canada in 1979.
Everybody was alive when the aircraft first touched down and if I
remember right, 60 or so died in their seats. See AD 79-08-05 R1 for
the reason. Ever wonder why you get the briefing on every commercial
flight about lavatory smoke detectors even though they don't allow
smoking? You wouldn't believe the steps it takes to certify an
entertainment system now and it is because of Swissair. Every
accident is a learning experience that usually results in regulatory
change.

I am an A&P with IA and haven't done an annual in over thirty years.
I like small aircraft and fly them all the time, but I refuse to put
my livelihood on the line because the owners of small aircraft such as
N33431 decide to sneak something by me that wasn't legal because they
are too cheap to do things right. Worse yet, can you imagine how any
mechanic would feel if someone died in your aircraft because he missed
something on your inspection? Would you be able to sleep well if the
next owner of your aircraft dies because of something you did? What
would you say to the family and jury at the trial? Think you won't
have a fire? Swissair or Air Canada didn't think they would either.

Why do you feel you have the right to put anyone in that position and
advise others to do the same? Proper maintenance is part of ownership
and if you can't afford to maintain the aircraft, then sell it.

I may be overly sensitive about fire issues, but once you've had smoke
in the cockpit, late at night, at 50W over the Atlantic - trust me,
you will remember it.

Enough said - down off the soap box.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:40 -0600, Don Hammer wrote:


My experience is with large transport category Part 25 aircraft and
the burn test requirements are much more severe than Part 23. Read
25.853 sometime. It costs $5000 to burn test each material installed
in a Gulfstream or other transport category aircraft.

Strange, I just looked over the paperwork/billing for a brand spanking
new interior on a "transport category" aircraft, and the only
additional charge was roughly $5000 (total) to burn up one of each
type of seat cushion/back to meet the fire blocking regs.

Does that make "my" interior illegal?

TC

I, as well as many others here, do really see your point. Judging
from your posts, it's probably best that you stay away from little
airplanes. Most models of the aging fleet have so many idiosyncracies
that you would never be able to learn them all, thus never be
confident enough in your own ability to make a logical decision. That
could be dangerous to an owner who depends on a person to do his
maintenance. Stay with the big boys where they find it necessary to
employ lawyers to write manuals on how to properly wipe down your
tools after performing a task.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:40 -0600, Don Hammer wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:47:47 -0600, "Brian Sponcil"
wrotD:


"Don Hammer" wrote in message
. ..
If it goes in a Type Certificated FAR 23 aircraft
it gets tested. CAR 4b certified aircraft probably have to meet a
lower standard, but why take a chance?

I didn't notice all of that regulation helping the swiss air passengers too
much.

If I were to accomplish an Annual Inspection on an aircraft that has
been re-covered, I would review the burn tests and log entries.

Yikes! This is the very reason I don't have my local FBO do my annuals.


-Brian
N33431


Brian,

My experience is with large transport category Part 25 aircraft and
the burn test requirements are much more severe than Part 23. Read
25.853 sometime. It costs $5000 to burn test each material installed
in a Gulfstream or other transport category aircraft. There is one
reason we have to do all that and it is because a whole plane load of
people died on the ground from smoke inhalation on Air Canada in 1979.
Everybody was alive when the aircraft first touched down and if I
remember right, 60 or so died in their seats. See AD 79-08-05 R1 for
the reason. Ever wonder why you get the briefing on every commercial
flight about lavatory smoke detectors even though they don't allow
smoking? You wouldn't believe the steps it takes to certify an
entertainment system now and it is because of Swissair. Every
accident is a learning experience that usually results in regulatory
change.

I am an A&P with IA and haven't done an annual in over thirty years.
I like small aircraft and fly them all the time, but I refuse to put
my livelihood on the line because the owners of small aircraft such as
N33431 decide to sneak something by me that wasn't legal because they
are too cheap to do things right. Worse yet, can you imagine how any
mechanic would feel if someone died in your aircraft because he missed
something on your inspection? Would you be able to sleep well if the
next owner of your aircraft dies because of something you did? What
would you say to the family and jury at the trial? Think you won't
have a fire? Swissair or Air Canada didn't think they would either.

Why do you feel you have the right to put anyone in that position and
advise others to do the same? Proper maintenance is part of ownership
and if you can't afford to maintain the aircraft, then sell it.

I may be overly sensitive about fire issues, but once you've had smoke
in the cockpit, late at night, at 50W over the Atlantic - trust me,
you will remember it.

Enough said - down off the soap box.

Don Hammer wrote
My experience is with large transport category Part 25 aircraft and
the burn test requirements are much more severe than Part 23. Read
25.853 sometime.

I have, and it reads exactly the same as 23.853. That should give you
a clue - 23.853 aqpplies ONLY to commuter category aircraft certified
under 14CFR23. Not normal, utility, or aerobatic aircraft. The
standards for those aircraft (as well as those certified under CAR 3)
are much less stringent. Years ago, when AC 43-13 was mistakenly
printed with a paragraph requiring burn tests for all Part 23
aircraft, Rod Farlee (who used to be a regular here) sent a letter to
O'Brien himself, and got a reply stating this - and also stating that
AC 43-13 was wrong and would be corrected. And so it was. I'll be
happy to send a copy of this letter to anyone here.

In other words - everything you said is totally inapplicable to small
aircraft not operated under Part 135. It was nothing but FUD - Fear,
Uncertainty, Doubt.

I am an A&P with IA and haven't done an annual in over thirty years.

Good. We don't need people trying to apply regulations written for
large commercial aircraft to small private aircraft.

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the info. I am not here to cause a ****ing contest and
certainly defer to professional mechanics in the small aircraft world
and I would appreciate comments from any mechanics here. I don't
think other pilots are the best source of information such as this.
If I have pilot questions, I ask other pilots. Maintenance issues, I
talk to the professionals in that field.

I do think that newer light aircraft are certified to Part 23 and
those standards apply.

The title of Part 23 -
Airworthiness Standards: normal, utility, aerobatic, and commuter
category airplanes

Part 23 was first issued in 1964 and any design certified after then
is under that part. Older ones are CAR 4b and those standards don't
apply. The easy way to tell is to look at your Airworthiness
Certificate and see how it was certified. I think some older designs
may have been Grandfathered, but I am not sure.

Myself, I would treat upholstery on an old CAR 4b aircraft no
different than how an engine is overhauled. Hey - in the old days we
used mineral oil. Would I do that today? No way as the newer stuff
is so much better. If I could bring the interior up to the latest
standards, it is in my best interest to do that. That is all I am
saying. I've been in an aircraft on fire, so that made an impression
on me. I'll take engine failure any day.

Thanks again,

Don

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com