Unapproved Plastic Elevator Tips Question

What regulation allows someone to manufacture and install something on
their own, or anyone else's aircraft?

The one that is conveniently made up based upon an interpretation of
what idiots on newsgroups say! I'm sure you'll get a few "soundbites"
or should I say regulations quoted, but they usually don't give you
the entire picture BRBR


FAR 21.303 (b) 2

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...2002/Parts.htm

http://www.awp.faa.gov/fsdo/ans_jan2_98.htm

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...gust/IvsWe.htm

AC 21-29

How many more do you want?


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

On 08 Jan 2005 08:24:13 GMT, ode (nuke) wrote:

What regulation allows someone to manufacture and install something on
their own, or anyone else's aircraft?

The one that is conveniently made up based upon an interpretation of
what idiots on newsgroups say! I'm sure you'll get a few "soundbites"
or should I say regulations quoted, but they usually don't give you
the entire picture BRBR


FAR 21.303 (b) 2

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...2002/Parts.htm

1st piece of bull**** based on an opinion

http://www.awp.faa.gov/fsdo/ans_jan2_98.htm

and this doesn't mean squat! Tell yo o how to drive but not how to
tay under the speed limit.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...gust/IvsWe.htm

And I just guess that the sound bite crew can only read the parts that
they want to read.

AC 21-29

How many more do you want?

What I'd like to see is for you to find and list the section where the
owner needs to make the part of equivalent design and engineering.
Here's a hint. Where does one find the specs on a part? Where does
one find someone who can verify that the new part is within specs?

Now don't shoot the messenger, these rules don't apply to me,
especially when it's my ass in the air and I know I can make a better
part. Just want you to realize that the whole idea is full of hot air
and not actually as legal as you think.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:07:56 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 06:49:00 -0600, Jon A. wrote:



What I'd like to see is for you to find and list the section where the
owner needs to make the part of equivalent design and engineering.


If you are looking for a "cook book" version of what to do... it
doesn't exist. The "authorized person" performing maintenance or
alteration is going to have to exercise some discretion and undertake
some liability for their actions. That is why many A&P/IAs are totally
gun shy about making any decisions and ask for FAA 337 approval for
"minor" jobs. (Which the FAA, by it's own guidance, shouldn't
approve.) The basic guidance is given in FAR 43.13 and FAR 21.303.

Precisely! That's why everyone feels that as an owner, they're
qualified to "make" a part. Ain't true.

Here's a hint. Where does one find the specs on a part?

Very simple. It is either reverse engineered from the original part or
drawings are procured from the manufacturer or from the FAA via the
Freedom of Information Act. If you alter a part by making it "better,"
you'd better make sure your enhancements don't, themselves, cause
unforeseen problems. And the onus of "better" is on you and the
installer.

You're on the right track, Gene. But I would like to see you (or
anyone for that matter) get a set of engineering drawings from Cessna,
Piper or Beech using the Freedom of Information Act. The FAA doesn't
have these. Did you ever try to get a set of engineered drawings from
an STC holder? You would have better luck following them as they
drive home to see if they toss any money out of the window.

Where does one find someone who can verify that the new part is within specs?


Again, very simple. The owner declares the part airworthy (which means
that it is within specs) and the inspector and/or installer verifies
same at installation. (Feel a little exposure there????) Otherwise,
seek approved data via field approval..... then you only have to do
it like the FAA said was OK....


I guess that a DER is just a nobody. Oops, did I just give an answer?


Now don't shoot the messenger, these rules don't apply to me,
especially when it's my ass in the air and I know I can make a better
part. Just want you to realize that the whole idea is full of hot air
and not actually as legal as you think.

It isn't as full of hot air as it is potential liability. This is
really no different than a person or company seeking PMA approval and
trying to prove that their product is equal to the original part or
better than the original part and that the alterations meant to
improve the part don't cause problems themselves. It is a task
accomplished on a daily basis.

Yes, but not without the pain, endurance and expense.

The only trick is that you can get engineering specs - - - - no, I
just can't give that one away. Too many high powered people will be
real ****ed!

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:42:03 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:53:48 -0600, Jon A. wrote:


You're on the right track, Gene. But I would like to see you (or
anyone for that matter) get a set of engineering drawings from Cessna,
Piper or Beech using the Freedom of Information Act. The FAA doesn't
have these.

Yes, they do.... but you won't get a copy as long as the company is
in business. You can, however, get drawings via FOA from the
Guvernmint! Ever wonder how Superior got the drawings on the Lycoming
engines? Yep..... guvernmint contracts... FOA.

But, you are right. If you want to make a Cessna wing skin, you'll
have to reverse engineer it.

Did you ever try to get a set of engineered drawings from
an STC holder? You would have better luck following them as they
drive home to see if they toss any money out of the window.

Ditto above.


I guess that a DER is just a nobody. Oops, did I just give an answer?


Yeah.... and that really bothers me. The bean counters at the FAA are
trying to push as much "approval" off on these designees as possible.
They know that it simply isn't affordable. (And they say they learned
their lesson with the DAMIs....)


Yes, but not without the pain, endurance and expense.

Uh..... you forgot..... reams of paperwork.....

Yawn away and keep believing that by shouting a myth a million times
it'll become true.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:24:19 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:44:45 -0600, Jon A. wrote:

The only trick is that you can get engineering specs - - - - no, I
just can't give that one away. Too many high powered people will be
real ****ed!


Really? Yawn.....