Interior Upgrade Question

[Brian Sponcil]

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. FAR 43.100 states pilots can:

(11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or
operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary
structure of the aircraft.

Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
just wondering how "legal" it is.


-Brian
N33431

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:50:39 -0600, "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. FAR 43.100 states pilots can:
>
> (11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
>when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or
>operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary
>structure of the aircraft.
>
>Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
>for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
>primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
>just wondering how "legal" it is.

The pilot can replace the interior of the plane. There are burn
requirements for the materials used, I think they are spelled out
somewhere in the FARs.

-Nathan

[NW_PILOT]

"Brian Sponcil" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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. FAR 43.100 states pilots
can:
>
> (11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
> when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure
or
> operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the
primary
> structure of the aircraft.
>
> Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
> for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
> primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
> just wondering how "legal" it is.
>
>
> -Brian
> N33431
>
>

I replaced my 150's decorative furnishings "mike holder" with a custom one
that's a cup holder and a GPS

[Almarz]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:35:41 -0800, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:

>
>"Brian Sponcil" > wrote in message
...
>>

>I replaced my 150's decorative furnishings "mike holder" with a custom one
>that's a cup holder and a GPS
>
Best one I've seen yet! As far as the burn certs, remember that came
off of anything once living is approved, but I would have the pleather
looked at. HAHAHA cupholder/GPS. Good one!

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:50:39 -0600, "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. FAR 43.100 states pilots can:
>
> (11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
>when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or
>operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary
>structure of the aircraft.
>
>Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
>for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
>primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
>just wondering how "legal" it is.

If you ask 5 different people, you will get 5 different answers.

If your aircraft was originally type certificated under CAR3, there is
no current defined standard for burn resistance.

Upholstery fabric for institutional use (hospitals, nursing homes,
etc) typically has official "burn" certification. If you can find a
local upholstery shop familiar with these materials/requirements, you
would be easily meeting/exceeding CAR3 material requirements.

Seat removal/reinstallation is seldom considered to be outside of the
list of acceptable preventative maintenance tasks.

A straight seat cover replacement/reupholstery would likely also be
acceptable. Modifying/repairing the seat structure itself would be a
no-no.

Talk to the guy/gal that has been signing off your inspections, get
their opinion. After it gets through a couple of years in service, no
one will know the difference anyway.

TC

[Blanche]

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. FAR 43.100 states pilots can:
>
> (11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
>when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or
>operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary
>structure of the aircraft.
>
>Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
>for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
>primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
>just wondering how "legal" it is.

How convenient....I was on the phone with the Denver FSDO/Airworthy
Specialist this morning for this exact same topic.

Key words -- "replace v repair" as you've already noted. If it's
just a repair then there's no issue IF (please note the emphasis)
you use the EXACT same hardware(screws or attaching hardware) to
re-install into the EXACT same location. This means you may NOT
drill new holes to attach the interior panels, you may NOT change
the materials (plastic -> leather). If any of this is a replacement
then it becomes an A&P signoff to remain airworthy AND the materials
(fabric, leather, etc) must satisfy the burn requirements.

You may remove anything and everything. But there's a limit on
what you can re-install yourself without the A&P signoff.

If the automotive shop uses materials that satisfy the burn rqmt
and can provide documentation, that's one issue out of the way.
Only thing that's left is for an A&P to bless it. Then you can
put the seats back in.

Call your local FSDO and get their official position and/or the
AOPA legal office for peace of mind.

[Daniel Gram]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:50:39 -0600, "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. FAR 43.100 states pilots
>>can:
>>
>> (11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
>>when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure
>>or
>>operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the
>>primary
>>structure of the aircraft.
>>
>>Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
>>for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
>>primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
>>just wondering how "legal" it is.
>
> The pilot can replace the interior of the plane. There are burn
> requirements for the materials used, I think they are spelled out
> somewhere in the FARs.
>
> -Nathan

Most good upholstery shops can get FAA approved materials and for not too
much more cost. It's much about weight and toxic fumes when burned. CYA
Dan

[[email protected]]

Nathan Young > wrote:
: The pilot can replace the interior of the plane. There are burn
: requirements for the materials used, I think they are spelled out
: somewhere in the FARs.

I thought the burn requirements were only necessary if you were part 135. For
part 91 I didn't think there were any requirements.

True?
-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

Almarz wrote:

>
> Best one I've seen yet! As far as the burn certs, remember that came
> off of anything once living is approved,

No, you still need to have the cert. The shop will have the paperwork.

[Newps]

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.

[Newps]

Nathan Young wrote:


>
> The pilot can replace the interior of the plane. There are burn
> requirements for the materials used, I think they are spelled out
> somewhere in the FARs.

FAR 23.853

[Ron Natalie]

Daniel Gram wrote:

>>The pilot can replace the interior of the plane. There are burn
>>requirements for the materials used, I think they are spelled out
>>somewhere in the FARs.
>>
>>-Nathan
>
>
> Most good upholstery shops can get FAA approved materials and for not too
> much more cost. It's much about weight and toxic fumes when burned. CYA
> Dan
>
>

The requirement in general is that the materials be fire retardent. If you
have a CAR 3 certificated aircraft, then there is NO requirement to use FAA
approved or tested materials.

If you have a FAR23 certificated machine, then you will have to use approved
materials. There are lots of approved materials out there and even if not, if
you have a resistant material, having it burn tested isn't too involved (other
than the charge).

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:


>
> The requirement in general is that the materials be fire retardent. If
> you
> have a CAR 3 certificated aircraft, then there is NO requirement to use FAA
> approved or tested materials.

You may be lucky enough to have a FSDO that will allow that. I have
talked to 5 different FSDO's about new upholstery, because originally I
was told that too and they all say the same thing. Any new upholstery
in any aircraft must meet FAR 23.853.


>
> If you have a FAR23 certificated machine, then you will have to use
> approved
> materials. There are lots of approved materials out there and even if
> not, if
> you have a resistant material, having it burn tested isn't too involved
> (other
> than the charge).

It's actually difficult to find material that doesn't meet the spec from
pretty much any upholstery shop. So in the end the point is moot.

[Chuck]

>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. FAR 43.100 states pilots can:
>
> (11) Repair upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit
>when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or
>operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary
>structure of the aircraft.
>
>Hmmmm. Does "repair upholstery" cover "replace with leather" (or pleather
>for that matter)? Does taking out a seat constitute "disassembly of a
>primary structure"? I'm pretty sure other people have done this but I was
>just wondering how "legal" it is.
>
>
>-Brian
>N33431


I had just been considering the same thing recently. Thanks for
posting the question Brian. And thanks to all who answered.

But I have a couple more that maybe someone out there knows the answer
to. My recently purchased Cherokee 180 is an older model with the
original furniture inside.

Instead of just recovering the seats, I'm considering replacing the
original Cherokee seats with newer models. I'm wondering what the FAA
would say if I wanted to take seats from a newer model Piper (with
height adjustment and nice extras) and put them in my Cherokee. If
the floor rails are the same, it should be a plug'n'play change. Of
course, the weights would have to be calculated to reflect weight
changes. But does anyone know if the FAA would allow this if they
came from another certified plane to my Cherokee???

Come to think of it, I'd love to change the yokes in my Cherokee while
I'm at it. Get some newer models instead of these original bow-tie
yokes. And I guess same question would apply -- would they let me
take from one certified model to another???

Thanks guys.


Chuck
N7398W

[zatatime]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:04:42 GMT, Chuck > wrote:

>I had just been considering the same thing recently. Thanks for
>posting the question Brian. And thanks to all who answered.
>
>But I have a couple more that maybe someone out there knows the answer
>to. My recently purchased Cherokee 180 is an older model with the
>original furniture inside.
>
>Instead of just recovering the seats, I'm considering replacing the
>original Cherokee seats with newer models. I'm wondering what the FAA
>would say if I wanted to take seats from a newer model Piper (with
>height adjustment and nice extras) and put them in my Cherokee. If
>the floor rails are the same, it should be a plug'n'play change. Of
>course, the weights would have to be calculated to reflect weight
>changes. But does anyone know if the FAA would allow this if they
>came from another certified plane to my Cherokee???
>
Don't know about the legalities, but as someone else has stated, get
it through a couple annual cycles and I'm sure it wouldn't be a
problem.

>Come to think of it, I'd love to change the yokes in my Cherokee while
>I'm at it. Get some newer models instead of these original bow-tie
>yokes. And I guess same question would apply -- would they let me
>take from one certified model to another???
There is actually an AD on the "bowtie" yokes you have. Every 100
hours they need to be inspected. If you convert to the Ram Horn type
yoke the AD goes away. It's a pricey venture though. There shouldn't
be a problem putting yokes in from another (Piper) aircraft as long as
they are the correct type, but I personally like the bow ties, and
since the AD isn't that labor intensive, would live with it until one
cracked (which may be a really long time). I'd rather spend that
money on gas.

HTH.
z

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Chuck > wrote:

> Come to think of it, I'd love to change the yokes in my Cherokee while
> I'm at it. Get some newer models instead of these original bow-tie
> yokes. And I guess same question would apply -- would they let me
> take from one certified model to another???

I don't know about the seats. But the old bowtie yokes can indeed
be replaced by the new rams horn yokes. Look at the control wheel
AD that applies to the bow-tie yokes. Notice that a terminating action
is to replace them with the rams horn yokes. (I recently did that to
my cherokee 140).

--
Bob Noel

[Don Hammer]

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.

[Almarz]

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!

[Brian Sponcil]

"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

[Don Hammer]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Chuck]

If you don't mind my asking Bob, what did you have to pay for those
yokes???

Chuck




On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:43:36 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Chuck > wrote:
>
>> Come to think of it, I'd love to change the yokes in my Cherokee while
>> I'm at it. Get some newer models instead of these original bow-tie
>> yokes. And I guess same question would apply -- would they let me
>> take from one certified model to another???
>
>I don't know about the seats. But the old bowtie yokes can indeed
>be replaced by the new rams horn yokes. Look at the control wheel
>AD that applies to the bow-tie yokes. Notice that a terminating action
>is to replace them with the rams horn yokes. (I recently did that to
>my cherokee 140).

[Almarz]

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.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Chuck > wrote:

> If you don't mind my asking Bob, what did you have to pay for those
> yokes???

I can't find my record of that - it was about two years ago.
I'm pretty sure I got them from Wentworth. I think I paid $135
to powdercoat them. The parts required (bolts, joints, etc) were
a chunk of money, and then the A&P needed about 19 hours of
labor to replace the yokes.

In other words, it wasn't cheap - but one of my yokes failed
the AD for cracks.

--
Bob Noel

[zatatime]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:18:52 GMT, Chuck > wrote:

>If you don't mind my asking Bob, what did you have to pay for those
>yokes???
>
>Chuck

Hopefully you can find them cheaper than this. If you really want to
change them, you might want to call some salvage companies for prices.

http://www.avion.com/Products/AvionControlWheels/PiperControlWheels/PiperControlWheel.html

HTH.
z

[[email protected]]

: a chunk of money, and then the A&P needed about 19 hours of
: labor to replace the yokes.

I don't know if necessary for that job, but my mechanic has replaced the
universal joint in the yoke of an older Arrow he had. Aside from the ridiculous
liability of the stupid little 1/2" thing, it's a bitch to install too from what he
said. Something about special tapered bolts and needing some custom machining on the
new one to put it in. Nineteen hours might seem excessive, but with operations like
that it wouldn't surprise me.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Michael]

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

[Chuck]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:16:39 GMT, zatatime > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:18:52 GMT, Chuck > wrote:
>
>>If you don't mind my asking Bob, what did you have to pay for those
>>yokes???
>>
>>Chuck
>
>Hopefully you can find them cheaper than this. If you really want to
>change them, you might want to call some salvage companies for prices.
>
>http://www.avion.com/Products/AvionControlWheels/PiperControlWheels/PiperControlWheel.html
>
>HTH.
>z


OUCH !!!

Nice looking set and very practical with the dual PTTs on each 'horn'
of the ram's head yoke. But a bit pricy too! How in the world do
they get off asking almost $1,000 for a pair of yokes? I could
probably have yokes custom made for that price. And since they
advertise STC "pending" -- it would be exactly the same. I'd have to
go thru the same 337 nonsense with the FAA whether I use theirs or
build my own...

Thanks for the link though. At least I know there are companies
making them.


Chuck

[zatatime]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:05:13 GMT, Chuck > wrote:

>Thanks for the link though. At least I know there are companies
>making them.


You're welcome. Now you know why I said to stick with the bowties!
<G>

z

[Ray Andraka]

The seats need to be changed on a field approval. Talk to the FSDO before you
start, or for that matter before you even buy the new seats.

Changing the bowtie yokes to Ram's horns can be done with a log book entry
citing the service bulletin cited in the Airworthiness Directive as a means
of terminating compliance. You have to make sure the part number of the
yokes you install matches that in the service bulletin.

Chuck wrote:

> >Instead of just recovering the seats, I'm considering replacing the
> original Cherokee seats with newer models. I'm wondering what the FAA
> would say if I wanted to take seats from a newer model Piper (with
> height adjustment and nice extras) and put them in my Cherokee. If
> the floor rails are the same, it should be a plug'n'play change. Of
> course, the weights would have to be calculated to reflect weight
> changes. But does anyone know if the FAA would allow this if they
> came from another certified plane to my Cherokee???
>
> Come to think of it, I'd love to change the yokes in my Cherokee while
> I'm at it. Get some newer models instead of these original bow-tie
> yokes. And I guess same question would apply -- would they let me
> take from one certified model to another???
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Chuck
> N7398W

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
zatatime > wrote:

> >Thanks for the link though. At least I know there are companies
> >making them.
>
> You're welcome. Now you know why I said to stick with the bowties!

The salvage ramhorn yokes I bought were, iirc, about $300.
(the only reason I replaced mine was because of cracks).

--
Bob Noel

[Don Hammer]

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

[Don Hammer]

>apply. The easy way to tell is to look at your Airworthiness
>Certificate and see how it was certified.

Slight correction here. I looked on a G-IV today and the Part the
aircraft was certified to was on the data plate and not the C of A.
Of course, it will also be on the FAA Type Certificate for any model.

For my own curiosity, I did check Type Certificates for Pipers and
Cessna's. The PA-28 series are CAR 3 and the first Part 23 Piper is
the PA-36. With Cessna the 150, 152 172, 177 and 207 series are part
23 as well as the 400 twins and 500 jets. The 180, 182, 210, 206, and
310 series are CAR 3. And some Cessna's are CAR 4.

I guess the best thing to do would be to check the TC for your
aircraft prior to doing any upholstery work to make sure you stay
legal.

Don

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