Cherokee 140 - LASAR vs. Powerflow vs. Laminar Speed Kit

Yea... That seems like a not very good plan of action. I would pay the
extra $$$ to have the work done properly so I would not have to worry
about the FAA asking questions. Telling them to "stick it" when you
didn't follow the regs is not something the FAA will ignore.

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon


wrote:

play really really stupid if the FAA (one chance in a million) asks
who redid your interior.

Or save the certs from the fabrics and tell them to stick in their
ass.

It wouldn't be the FAA that asks. It would be ANY AI worth his salt. Why
would the stupid owner want to risk his life and the livelihood of his
mechanic by pulling off some illegal upholstery job?

I'm with you, do it right or sell the piece of junk!

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Chris G." wrote in message
reenews.net...
Yea... That seems like a not very good plan of action. I would pay the
extra $$$ to have the work done properly so I would not have to worry
about the FAA asking questions. Telling them to "stick it" when you
didn't follow the regs is not something the FAA will ignore.

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon


wrote:

play really really stupid if the FAA (one chance in a million) asks
who redid your interior.

Or save the certs from the fabrics and tell them to stick in their
ass.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:34:56 -0700, "karl gruber"
wrote:

It wouldn't be the FAA that asks. It would be ANY AI worth his salt. Why
would the stupid owner want to risk his life and the livelihood of his
mechanic by pulling off some illegal upholstery job?

ROTFLMAO.

So tell me, just how would said AI determine that A) the work was
"illegal", and B) what would this alleged "illegality" be based on?

TC

writes:


So tell me, just how would said AI determine that A) the work was
"illegal", and B) what would this alleged "illegality" be based on?


He looks for the USDA CHOICE brand on the inside of the Naugahyde;
if it's missing.....call the cops.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:46:21 -0700, "Chris G."
wrote:

Yea... That seems like a not very good plan of action. I would pay the
extra $$$ to have the work done properly so I would not have to worry
about the FAA asking questions. Telling them to "stick it" when you
didn't follow the regs is not something the FAA will ignore.


It's a case of get educated or get out.

"pay the extra $$$ to have the work done properly" is a sad joke in
GA, expecially when it comes to aircraft interior rework.

Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

I'll give you a hint, there isn't one.

If there isn't a specific reference, the FAA can stick it. If there
isn't a reg, it's pretty tough for them to say that you didn't follow
it.

BTW, how much personal contact/interaction have you had with FAA GA
maintenance ASI's?

TC

wrote:


Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf

Yup. Real straightforward as far as I'm concerned:

A manufacturer's statement
is acceptable due to neither the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (CAA) nor the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) having
published an FAA fire standard for either flash
or flame resistance for interior materials for
CAR-3 aircraft.

I believe that in my original post I mentioned that if you were truly
concerned about the legality of the institutional materials
(flash/flame resistant) used, save a piece of the material with the
stamp on the back.

It would be a totally different ball game if you were trying to buy
interior "parts" instead of performing a re-rag, or if you were talking
about a non-CAR3 aircraft.

TC


Newps wrote:
wrote:


Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf

Right, part 23 aircraft are different. For CAR3, expecially if
placarded "No Smoking", any material that meets any federal spec qualifies.

wrote:
Yup. Real straightforward as far as I'm concerned:

A manufacturer's statement
is acceptable due to neither the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (CAA) nor the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) having
published an FAA fire standard for either flash
or flame resistance for interior materials for
CAR-3 aircraft.

I believe that in my original post I mentioned that if you were truly
concerned about the legality of the institutional materials
(flash/flame resistant) used, save a piece of the material with the
stamp on the back.

It would be a totally different ball game if you were trying to buy
interior "parts" instead of performing a re-rag, or if you were talking
about a non-CAR3 aircraft.

TC


Newps wrote:

wrote:


Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf