337 for interior plastic

I'm not sure paranoid has anything to do with it. The question was if
there was any reasonable to do with with FAA blessing. Wanting FAA
blessing, if possible, is not paranoid in my book. If anything, its
helped me gain a better understanding of regulations with regard to
non-TSO'd parts.


This news group has value to some of us as a forum to share experiences
relating to the rather inexact science of airplane ownership. Given an
airplane's unique ability to delight, thrill, bankrupt and/or seriously
kill you, the discussions are at times rather unique.

In terms of a cosmetic parts swap like interior plastic, there is plenty
of "gray" area in the rules to spawn a diverse response to many
questions. Unlike questions about strictly procedural tasks, like "how
do you change wheel bearings in a Bugsmasher 2000", this plastics
discussion is less about safety and more about FAA legalities.

For those who give advice like "just do it", remember, the jury is
forever "out" whenever you yourself do such a thing. At any time, some
A&P or FAA inspector on the ramp may tap YOU on the shoulder and say "I
don't think so" to the very operation you are recommending to others.
Yes, the likelihood of someone KNOWING about some of this stuff may be
quite slim. But, we have all read the horror stories of what happens
when someone is forced to get a "new" mechanic ("hey, nice interior
plastic, where's the paperwork?????"). Remember Jay's wing tip strobe
"adventure".

To those considering taking the advice they receive here, remember that
it is always YOUR safety and YOUR responsibility if something goes
wrong. Many who post here do so with a certain zeal that might give the
newbie the impression of authority or experience. That may be absolutely
true or false. An A&P mechanic may say something that is completely
untrue, and the non-credentialed airplane owner may say something that
is spot on. Truth is in the eye of the beholder and can be quite
fleeting. Again, it is up to the reader to decide. Look for patterns of
rational responses. Consider throwing out the top and bottom 10% of
responses ("screw the Feds, just do it" and "YOU ARE GONNA DIE
MAN!!!!!!!").

Like the weather reports, you may run into serious trouble either
completely believing someone, or completely disbelieving them. In the
airplane world, if it sounds simple, cheap, or quick, it is likely to
prove to be an unwise path.

Good Luck,
Mike

On 19-Nov-2005, Mike Spera wrote:

For those who give advice like "just do it", remember, the jury is
forever "out" whenever you yourself do such a thing. At any time, some
A&P or FAA inspector on the ramp may tap YOU on the shoulder and say "I
don't think so" to the very operation you are recommending to others.
Yes, the likelihood of someone KNOWING about some of this stuff may be
quite slim. But, we have all read the horror stories of what happens
when someone is forced to get a "new" mechanic ("hey, nice interior
plastic, where's the paperwork?????"). Remember Jay's wing tip strobe
"adventure".


I think that some common sense is in order here. Remember, the intent of
the regs with respect to maintenance is flight safety, not creating a
"gotcha" situation. The fact is, application of the rules regarding
preventative maintenance (which can be performed by the pilot/owner) leave
quite a bit of room for interpretation. Patch a hole in seat upholstery?
Sure, no problem. Completely recover the seat? It seems like that would be
allowed as "replacing seat parts" but you have to use parts "approved for
the aircraft" whatever that is. On the other hand, one could argue that
recovering a seat is "repairing upholstery" which is allowed without mention
of using approved parts.

My take on repair, painting, or even replacement of simple interior plastic
pieces is that this falls under the category of "repair" of "decorative
furnishings" even if the components in question are involved in cabin
ventilation. My thinking is that such maintenance is far less likely to
impinge upon safety than, say, performing an oil change, which is certainly
allowed.

I would hazard a guess that if some anal retentive FAA examiner wanted to,
he/she could find at least one maintenance violation in just about any
privately owned airplane that is more than a few years old. Here's an
example from our Arrow: It came from the factory equipped with cloth
curtains that could be used by rear seat passengers to shade the sun. They
really don't work very well and are generally a pain in the butt, so we
simply removed them. Now, since they comprise maybe a total of two ounces
of the "official" empty weight and are part of the airplane as certified,
and since there is no mention in the POH that they can be removed if
desired, strictly speaking they have to be there for legal flight. My guess
is that if we ever get a ramp check we will be given a pass on this one.

--
-Elliott Drucker

Remember, the intent of
the regs with respect to maintenance is flight safety, not creating a
"gotcha" situation.

As an A&P, I believe this is absolutely not true. The regs actually
make it more difficult to do proper and safe maintenance, and easier to
do a shoddy but approved job. The intent of the regs is exactly to
create a "gotcha" situation so as to empower an FAA inspector to ground
any aircraft at will. The sooner you understand that, the easier it
will be to figure out what does and doesn't make sense.

I would hazard a guess that if some anal retentive FAA examiner wanted to,
he/she could find at least one maintenance violation in just about any
privately owned airplane that is more than a few years old.

Any airplane that is out of warranty - period. Only reason for the
warranty exception is that the factory might fight him on it if the
factory is responsible for the repair, and there's some money and clout
there. They can bring in people to overrule him. You can't.

I've seen it happen. I've seen airplanes grounded for illegible
(supposedly) TSO tags on seatbelts and placards curled up at the
corner, and the pilots written up for flying those supposedly
unairworthy airplanes. The rules are the way they are so feds can do
that. Safety doesn't enter into it.

Michael