Piper Arrow (PA-28r 201) Type Certificate

[Roger Roger]

I personally know someone who was denied a checkride and had a maintenance follow up by the FAA because he had unapproved sun visors installed without an STC/approval.

So why would a sun visor need an STC? Installing one is not a major alteration. Unless you drill holes in the windshield post to mount it.

 

[rframe]

So why would a sun visor need an STC? Installing one is not a major alteration. Unless you drill holes in the windshield post to mount it.

Not an original manufacturer part, nor a PMA'd part, and I guess they didn't claim it was owner manufactured. I think they were basically Rosen style - smoked acrylic sheet, but the Rosen ones are PMA'd and STC'd.

 

[trafficinsight]

I'll admit that this is one of the more confusing things out there in the world of aviation, and I may not have it 100% right, and you could probably write volumes on the subject of approved and unapproved parts, but:

If a part is Not TSO or PMA I will need to provide all testing data in order to install it under a field approval, good luck. (May already be an STC out there, which means all the work has been done.)

if a part is TSO but not PMA for my aircraft type I will need to determine if it can be installed, If there's an STC then great! someone's done all the work already. I can install this part under a field approval and it will be easier than a non-TSO or PMA part because the TSO means that it meets minimum standards for parts of that nature, but I will still need to show that it meets the requirements for installation in that particular aircraft. (Replaced some old Cessna wind up clocks with Mitchell electric ones recently, TSO but not PMA, no STC, but still quick and painless)

If a part is TSO and PMA I may need an STC to install it if it's a major alteration, or it's a direct replacement part and all I need is a log entry. A PMA part will have a list of aircraft that it's eligible for, I can't install a part that's a PMA for a PA-28 on a C-172. But say I'm installing McFarlane Aviation's elevator bushings for a C-172 on my C-172, they're PMA for it so nothing more than a log entry needed.

I will say that a couple years ago we began replacing our incandescent landing light bulbs (25hr life expectancy and 6 amp draw) with LED Landing light bulbs (10,000hr life expectancy 1.5. amp draw!). The bulbs met the TSO at the time but weren't PMA and if I remember right the first couple we did under a field approval which was relatively painless, then someone secured an STC for it so we used that. This allowed us to unscrew the old bulb and screw the new one on... I've heard that those same bulbs are PMA now but I haven't done one lately.

I hope that this is one of those things that gets streamlined along with the upcoming Part 23 revamp. Mostly I hope that the Part 23 revamp is NOT going to end up like LSA.

 

[trafficinsight]

As far as the question in the original post:

Airworthy means "Meets original type design or is in a properly altered condition." 91.213 outlines how to properly alter an airplane. To determine whether or not the airplane can be operated (properly altered) there are several places you'd need to look, but don't worry too much, it's not as difficult as you think.

Place number one you should always look is the POH or AFM for that specific aircraft. In it is an equipment list. If the equipment list lists that equipment as optional then right there you are good to go.

After that would be any AD's. It's common for an AD to require a placard and after that the airplane is not airworthy if the placard isn't present. I don't know that I've ever seen one that requires a specific piece of a equipment, at least not on a GA airplane.

After that would be the type certificate, but if you looked in the POH/AFM then you can skip this step because the equipment would be listed as required in that.

After that would be "other FAR's" an example of this would be an ELT.

Last and definitely least is 91.205. 91.205 really only applies if the equipment you're wondering about isn't covered anywhere else. If anything in AFM contradicts 91.205 then the AFM trumps because it is approved by the FAA for that specific aircraft/type. AD's and Other FAR's contradict 91.205 by requiring things that 91.205 doesnt. Some airplanes don't require things that 91.205 does. (Example: The AFM says we don't need fuel gauges if we visually determine that adequate fuel is carried, this would be contradictory to 91.205, but would be totally legal.)

After all that if you've determined that the equipment is not required then proceed to 91.213 to determine what to do.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Last and definitely least is 91.205. 91.205 really only applies if the equipment you're wondering about isn't covered anywhere else. If anything in AFM contradicts 91.205 then the AFM trumps because it is approved by the FAA for that specific aircraft/type. AD's and Other FAR's contradict 91.205 by requiring things that 91.205 doesnt. Some airplanes don't require things that 91.205 does. (Example: The AFM says we don't need fuel gauges if we visually determine that adequate fuel is carried, this would be contradictory to 91.205, but would be totally legal.)

I agree that 91.205 is last and least.

But a question: can you point to anything from the FAA to support the view that the AFM trumps 91.205? I think the concept makes sense but I've never found support for it - could be a research error on my part. I'm familiar with the concept that a more restrictive AFM trumps the reg, but not with the concept that a more liberal one does also. The closest example to this that I'm aware of is that position lights are required at night even if the airplane was certified without them.

 

[trafficinsight]

I agree that 91.205 is last and least.

But a question: can you point to anything from the FAA to support the view that the AFM trumps 91.205? I think the concept makes sense but I've never found support for it - could be a research error on my part. I'm familiar with the concept that a more restrictive AFM trumps the reg, but not with the concept that a more liberal one does also. The closest example to this that I'm aware of is that position lights are required at night even if the airplane was certified without them.

The words "FAA Approved" on the front cover.

Lighted position lights are required by 91.209 ("required by other FAR") at night.



Sent from 1865 by telegraph....

 

[mshunter]

So why would a sun visor need an STC? Installing one is not a major alteration. Unless you drill holes in the windshield post to mount it.

Because one guy in a FSDO in Timbuktu with something to prove decided to make a stink about it and issue a violation to a guy, so now everyone must have an STC to even mount a GoPro with a suction cup to a side window so they to don't get violated (wholly run on sentence Batman!).

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The words "FAA Approved" on the front cover.

I was looking for more than that. Ah well.

 

[trafficinsight]

I was looking for more than that. Ah well.

I was on my phone, sorry. I don't have an actual reference for you off hand, but I'm sure it's out there.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I was on my phone, sorry. I don't have an actual reference for you off hand, but I'm sure it's out there.

That's okay. I was just hoping to find a verifiable example. Sometimes you just can't.

 

[n57flyguy]

Interesting point if the AFM does trump 91.205. Likewise, I thought the same but never thought to look for a reference on that. The quest begins.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Interesting point if the AFM does trump 91.205. Likewise, I thought the same but never thought to look for a reference on that. The quest begins.

These are just stray thoughts:

• The "trump" would need to involve an affirmative statement, not an absence of something. @trafficinsight's example is a good one. "Fuel gauges not required if the pilot in command visually determines that adequate fuel is carried," is an affirmative statement that fuel gauges are not required. OTOH, simply not having an anticollision light system would not exempt an aircraft from the later requirement to have one unless grandfathered (which is probably why 91.205(b)(11) has a grandfathering clause for older aircraft).
• The AFM (or more precisely, certain portions of the AFM) is approved at the point of certification. I don't think there's any obligation for the manufacturer to update it in light of increased regulatory requirements and, even if there were, manufacturers go out of business, so there is still no update. So what about the "fuel gauges not required language" AFM (or alternate material) approved before the 91.205 requirement existed? I'm not too comfortable saying that no fuel gauges are required in 2013.
• Are there any real world examples? @trafficinsight, is the fuel gauge example a real one or just an example you came up with?

 

[trafficinsight]

These are just stray thoughts:

• The "trump" would need to involve an affirmative statement, not an absence of something. @trafficinsight's example is a good one. "Fuel gauges not required if the pilot in command visually determines that adequate fuel is carried," is an affirmative statement that fuel gauges are not required. OTOH, simply not having an anticollision light system would not exempt an aircraft from the later requirement to have one unless grandfathered (which is probably why 91.205(b)(11) has a grandfathering clause for older aircraft).
• The AFM (or more precisely, certain portions of the AFM) is approved at the point of certification. I don't think there's any obligation for the manufacturer to update it in light of increased regulatory requirements and, even if there were, manufacturers go out of business, so there is still no update. So what about the "fuel gauges not required language" AFM (or alternate material) approved before the 91.205 requirement existed? I'm not too comfortable saying that no fuel gauges are required in 2013.
• Are there any real world examples? @trafficinsight, is the fuel gauge example a real one or just an example you came up with?

Beech duchess.

"One may be inoperative provided the other is operating and fuel quantity can be visually verified to be enough for the intended flight" or something along those lines.



Sent from 1865 by telegraph....

 

[n57flyguy]

These are just stray thoughts:

• The "trump" would need to involve an affirmative statement, not an absence of something. @trafficinsight's example is a good one. "Fuel gauges not required if the pilot in command visually determines that adequate fuel is carried," is an affirmative statement that fuel gauges are not required. OTOH, simply not having an anticollision light system would not exempt an aircraft from the later requirement to have one unless grandfathered (which is probably why 91.205(b)(11) has a grandfathering clause for older aircraft).
• The AFM (or more precisely, certain portions of the AFM) is approved at the point of certification. I don't think there's any obligation for the manufacturer to update it in light of increased regulatory requirements and, even if there were, manufacturers go out of business, so there is still no update. So what about the "fuel gauges not required language" AFM (or alternate material) approved before the 91.205 requirement existed? I'm not too comfortable saying that no fuel gauges are required in 2013.
• Are there any real world examples? @trafficinsight, is the fuel gauge example a real one or just an example you came up with?

Good point, that language is key and I used it in haste. @trafficinsight example cleared that up a bit, but like you said there has got to be something that gives legal authority to the AFM/POH over 91.205. The only thing I can think of would be 91.9 (a):

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

I did find this AC:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 25.1581-1.pdf

It points to a lot of 21, 25, and 36 regulations which I have not torn into yet, but it is clearly specified that this is not regulation.

 

[trafficinsight]

Apparently what you seek is in 14 CFR 1.1 haha:

Approved , unless used with reference to another person, means approved by the FAA or any person to whom the FAA has delegated its authority in the matter concerned, or approved under the provisions of a bilateral agreement between the United States and a foreign country or jurisdiction.