molding plexiglas websites?

[[email protected]]

Hi all,

I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.

I've got an oven, piece of plexiglas and the old window.

Are there any good websites with information on how to do this without
killing myself?

Thanks

Dave

[--]

> wrote in message ...
> Hi all,
>
> I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.
>
> I've got an oven, piece of plexiglas and the old window.

It's NOT Plexiglass- It's Lexan.

Lot's of info here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+form+lexan

Edwin

[DaveSproul]

>I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.
>
You would have to be, um, certifiably crazy, right? I have a plexiglas heat
strip and enjoy making curved custom pieces of all kinds. But to expect to be
able to pass muster in an airplane for structural strength and visual
distortion and air seal and fire resistance, and, and...have I taken the joke
bait or something?

DS, Bethesda, MD

[[email protected]]

Nope,
This is the very small third window in an old bonanza. Lots of older
bonanza's didn't have a window here and it was an option.
i have a clear one to put in, but i want to tint it. There there doesn't
need to be one there in the first place, the tinted one won't pass as
much heat/uv.
I as an owner can make a window if I want as an owner produced part and
I as an A&P can install it as such.
Adding tint to a clear plastic window isn't suggested as the tint can
craze the plastic.

It's not a compound curve just a bend along a single axis.

Hope this helps

Dave


DaveSproul wrote:
>>I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.
>>
>
> You would have to be, um, certifiably crazy, right? I have a plexiglas heat
> strip and enjoy making curved custom pieces of all kinds. But to expect to be
> able to pass muster in an airplane for structural strength and visual
> distortion and air seal and fire resistance, and, and...have I taken the joke
> bait or something?
>
> DS, Bethesda, MD
>

[[email protected]]

It IS plexiglas- It's not lexan.
I've googled and haven't seen what I want yet.

Thanks

dave


-- wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.
>>
>>I've got an oven, piece of plexiglas and the old window.
>
>
> It's NOT Plexiglass- It's Lexan.
>
> Lot's of info here:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+form+lexan
>
> Edwin
>
>

[Denny]

The home builders do this all the time... Check into the
rec.aviation.<various hombuilders groups> for detailed instructions on
how to to do this... Also, the COZY MK-4 forum will have archives on
this (I specifically remember reading this topic in the past, with
pictures), as will various websites involving Vans RV builders (I'm
only fmailiar with the RV-7 group, so do some googling)... And, Dan
Checkoway's site (rvproject.com) might have some info (not sure if he
did any heat forming)
Usually the guys are making wing tip strobe light covers, etc., things
with severe compound curves, so a simple bend should be doable without
too much agony...

But, the basic drill is to make a smooth form (wood or plaster), cover
it with felt, heat the plexi in the oven till just softened, quickly
lay it on the form and draw a mandrel/collar down around the perimeter
to stretch/drape it to the form, cool, trim to size, and voila...

Denny

[Rich]

Are you SURE you want to do this?
I think the piece is available from Great Lakes Aero for $44 per side.
Seems like an awful lot of work (scrap?) for something you can buy. Not
many Bonanza parts available for $44.

Rich

wrote:
> Nope,
> This is the very small third window in an old bonanza. Lots of older
> bonanza's didn't have a window here and it was an option.
> i have a clear one to put in, but i want to tint it. There there doesn't
> need to be one there in the first place, the tinted one won't pass as
> much heat/uv.
> I as an owner can make a window if I want as an owner produced part and
> I as an A&P can install it as such.
> Adding tint to a clear plastic window isn't suggested as the tint can
> craze the plastic.
>
> It's not a compound curve just a bend along a single axis.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Dave
>
>
> DaveSproul wrote:
>
>>> I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.
>>>
>>
>> You would have to be, um, certifiably crazy, right? I have a plexiglas
>> heat
>> strip and enjoy making curved custom pieces of all kinds. But to
>> expect to be
>> able to pass muster in an airplane for structural strength and visual
>> distortion and air seal and fire resistance, and, and...have I taken
>> the joke
>> bait or something?
>>
>> DS, Bethesda, MD

[Robert Bates]

When I was in A&P school, we heated it ( can't remember what to ) then
formed it over a mold by hand using clean white cotton gloves being careful
not to stay in one spot too long.


> wrote in message ...
> It IS plexiglas- It's not lexan.
> I've googled and haven't seen what I want yet.
>
> Thanks
>
> dave
>
>
> -- wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I'm want to replace the windows in my airplane and want to make my own.
> >>
> >>I've got an oven, piece of plexiglas and the old window.
> >
> >
> > It's NOT Plexiglass- It's Lexan.
> >
> > Lot's of info here:
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+form+lexan
> >
> > Edwin
> >
> >

[COUGARNFW]

Dave...

I was worried that no one mentioned the inhalation hazard when using the
kitchen oven and then I searched and found the saved portion of AC 43.13-1B and
it had other good things to know.

It suggests temperatures and mentions that if you try to warm too fast or with
too high a heat, it will bubble and you will have to try again. They also tell
you why you need a new pair of cotton gloves, and why you make the piece larger
that it will be trimmed and how to apply weights at the edges to cause the
plastic to form and stay formed.

Good ideas all. AC 43.13-1B.

And...don't hurry the heating.

The hazard I recall? Heating at too high a temperature and causing gases to be
expelled by the plastic breaking down...and then there is the item of using gas
or electric ovens...not stated anywhere....never use a gas oven.

Try some scraps to find the right temperature.

Follow the guidelines and it is easy.

The tinted glasses might be a bit different than clear because of radiation
absorption, so...scraps first.

Neal

[Jon A.]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:49:47 -0600, wrote:

>Nope,
>This is the very small third window in an old bonanza. Lots of older
>bonanza's didn't have a window here and it was an option.

Never an option. The a/c came with it or it didn't. many owners of
the oldies put a 3rd window kit in themselves. Great for visibility
when backing the plane up, but destroyed the classic look.

>i have a clear one to put in, but i want to tint it. There there doesn't
>need to be one there in the first place, the tinted one won't pass as
>much heat/uv.
>I as an owner can make a window if I want as an owner produced part and
>I as an A&P can install it as such.
>Adding tint to a clear plastic window isn't suggested as the tint can
>craze the plastic.

Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
it to be true? Besides, if you count your time you've already spent
too much screwing with this. They're about $30.00 each from GLAP.
And since they're not that "bent" it shouldn't be too much of a
problem to make your own.

>
>It's not a compound curve just a bend along a single axis.
>
>Hope this helps
>
>Dave

[George A. Graham]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 wrote:

> It IS plexiglas-

I made mine (windows and website)

1. make a structure the shape of the window. Mine was wood scraps,
holding thin aluminum sheet bent to shape.

2. Cover the form with felt.

3. Place plexiglass on top of form into an oven (I made that also).

4. Heat slowly until the plastic softens and drapes over the form.
The temp will be about 300 deg F.

5. Cool slowly, sudden temp changes warp it.

6. Finish cut to size when happy with the shape.

I found the instructions in a book titled "Making Props", which
I thought was about propellers, but was instead about theater props.


George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[Blueskies]

"George A. Graham" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 wrote:
>
>> It IS plexiglas-
>
> I made mine (windows and website)
>
> 1. make a structure the shape of the window. Mine was wood scraps,
> holding thin aluminum sheet bent to shape.
>
> 2. Cover the form with felt.
>
> 3. Place plexiglass on top of form into an oven (I made that also).
>
> 4. Heat slowly until the plastic softens and drapes over the form.
> The temp will be about 300 deg F.
>
> 5. Cool slowly, sudden temp changes warp it.
>
> 6. Finish cut to size when happy with the shape.
>
> I found the instructions in a book titled "Making Props", which
> I thought was about propellers, but was instead about theater props.
>
>
> George Graham
> RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
> Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>
>


Details about the oven? Way back when I formed plexi after heating in a box with about 4 light bulbs...

[Dick]

George or Richard,
A little off the subject. A fellow at my airport had heard of a method to
remove scratches. It involved plastic, I think acrylic, figurines and a
propane torch heating slightly the scratches to "erase" them. I was
wondering if anyone had any such knowledge.

My yet-to-be installed, 20year old canopy
was lightly sanded with the wrong grit and scratched up both inside and
outside. After researching the methods available to sand/polish them out
and considering greatly differing opinions, I'd like to find another method
short of buying/making a new canopy.


Thanks, Dick

[George A. Graham]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005, Dick wrote:

> propane torch heating slightly the scratches to "erase" them. I was

Well, You must know that you can sand out the scratches, and save the
canopy. However, it may be more work than it's worth.

So long as you are prepared to purchase another, and they are available,
why not experiment.

I've seen scratch remover sold for eyeglasses that I'd try first.
I cannot imagine the torch idea leaving a clear view through the
canopy, and removing the waves is as much work as removing the scratches.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[George A. Graham]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005, Blueskies wrote:

> Details about the oven?

That would depend on the size of the windows.

I made mine out of foil faced rigid insulation board, held into box shape
with duct tape, the handyman's secret weapon. The tape went soft and let
go when heated, so I had to use nails into wood corner strips.

It was four by three by two feet overall. A baseboard heater three feet
long was modified to eliminate the tip-over switch, so that it could
lay flat on it's back on the floor of the oven. I had a thermometer stuck
through the wall, and controlled the heater by unplugging it.

The lid was hinged so that I could peek inside to watch the window.

Certainly disposable.

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>

[Blueskies]

"George A. Graham" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005, Blueskies wrote:
>
>> Details about the oven?
>
> That would depend on the size of the windows.
>
> I made mine out of foil faced rigid insulation board, held into box shape
> with duct tape, the handyman's secret weapon. The tape went soft and let
> go when heated, so I had to use nails into wood corner strips.
>
> It was four by three by two feet overall. A baseboard heater three feet
> long was modified to eliminate the tip-over switch, so that it could
> lay flat on it's back on the floor of the oven. I had a thermometer stuck
> through the wall, and controlled the heater by unplugging it.
>
> The lid was hinged so that I could peek inside to watch the window.
>
> Certainly disposable.
>
> George Graham
> RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
> Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>
>

Thanks! I've been thinking about a 'curved' windshield for the BD-4...

[Ron Natalie]

richard riley wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:35:47 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
> ::
> :Details about the oven? Way back when I formed plexi after heating in a box with about 4 light bulbs...
>
> I've been doing some vacuforming with 1/8" acrylic, using a machine
> much like this one...
>
Years ago I was hanging out with Jackie Yoder and he was explaining how he bent the
lens for his "in the wing" landing lights. Just a plywood box with an old heating
element (I think he said he scrounged it out of a dryer). Takes a few practice
attempts to get it right, but acrylic is cheap.

For those who were arguing the materials: Most aircraft "glass" is acrylic (plexiglas
is a brandname for acrylic). It's not quite as strong, but is easier to work and can
be reheated (theroforming). Some people do use polycarbonate (lexan is a trade name
for that). It's much stronger (bulletproof even), but can scratch badly. It's harder
to work (thermosetting).

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Dick" > wrote:

> George or Richard,
> A little off the subject. A fellow at my airport had heard of a method to
> remove scratches. It involved plastic, I think acrylic, figurines and a
> propane torch heating slightly the scratches to "erase" them. I was
> wondering if anyone had any such knowledge.
>
> My yet-to-be installed, 20year old canopy
> was lightly sanded with the wrong grit and scratched up both inside and
> outside. After researching the methods available to sand/polish them out
> and considering greatly differing opinions, I'd like to find another method
> short of buying/making a new canopy.
>
>
> Thanks, Dick


I have an experiment:

1. Take a piece of Plexiglass scrap and cut it qith a bandsaw.

2. File the big scratches and gouges out of the sawed end.

3. Start wet sanding with #320, then #400, then #600, then #1200, then
#2000 grit, stepping up the grit as smoothness is reached. Wash between
sandings.

4. Take automotive rubbing compound to the edges worked and look for
polished areas.

5. When the whole desired area appears polished, apply automotive
polishing compound. (You can also use tooth powder.)

Use lots of water in all processes.

You can also start with a piece of scratched-up Plexiglass and work
through the same steps.

The end result is a piece of polished Plexiglass with no visible
scratches.

[Javier Henderson]

Jon A. > writes:

> Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
> parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
> it to be true?

What myth is this?

-jav

[RST Engineering]

The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.

Jim



"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> Jon A. > writes:
>
>> Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>> parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>> it to be true?
>
> What myth is this?
>
> -jav

[Jon A.]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>> Jon A. > writes:
>>
>>> Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>> parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>> it to be true?
>>
>> What myth is this?
>>
>> -jav
>
No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
his own.

[Dan Thompson]

An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.

Or a 337 with and STC is used.

Or a field approval is obtained.

"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>> Jon A. > writes:
>>>
>>>> Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>> parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>>> it to be true?
>>>
>>> What myth is this?
>>>
>>> -jav
>>
> No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
> his own.
>

[RST Engineering]

That doesn't HAPPEN to be true, but I'll let you deal with your FSDO any way
you want.

Nobody ever said that "willy nilly" (whatever the hell that means) was an
option. You spend a deuce of a lot of time as an apprentice learning what
looks like airplane and what doesn't.

Jim



"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints
> the manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>
> Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>
> Or a field approval is obtained.



>> No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>> his own.
>>
>
>

[Carl Ellis]

Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/Jul_Aug2002/Parts.htm

[Matt Whiting]

Carl Ellis wrote:

> Draw your own conclusions.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/Jul_Aug2002/Parts.htm

You can draw lots of conclusions from this, but you can't draw a
conclusion that allowing owner produced parts is bad ... which is
clearly the intent of your post. An improperly made part is bad, but a
properly made part would have been just fine.


Matt

[Carl Ellis]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:25:21 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote:

> You can draw lots of conclusions from this, but you can't draw a
> conclusion that allowing owner produced parts is bad ... which is
> clearly the intent of your post. An improperly made part is bad, but a
> properly made part would have been just fine.
>
>
> Matt

No, that is not the intent of my post. I just provided the article for
other to see what the FAA has to say about this.

In fact, I am in the process of making an owner manufactured part of my own
following the guidelines in the article.

Owner produced parts are a good thing for those of us with orphaned
aircraft. You just need to be aware of the requirements for it to be
legal.

- Carl -

[Matt Whiting]

Carl Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:25:21 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>You can draw lots of conclusions from this, but you can't draw a
>>conclusion that allowing owner produced parts is bad ... which is
>>clearly the intent of your post. An improperly made part is bad, but a
>>properly made part would have been just fine.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> No, that is not the intent of my post. I just provided the article for
> other to see what the FAA has to say about this.

Ok, good.


> In fact, I am in the process of making an owner manufactured part of my own
> following the guidelines in the article.
>
> Owner produced parts are a good thing for those of us with orphaned
> aircraft. You just need to be aware of the requirements for it to be
> legal.

Yes, and even more important, for it to be safe.


Matt

[Jon A.]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
wrote:

>An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
>manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>
>Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>
>Or a field approval is obtained.
>
Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
are going to get you!


>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Jon A. > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>>> parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>>>> it to be true?
>>>>
>>>> What myth is this?
>>>>
>>>> -jav
>>>
>> No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>> his own.
>>
>

[Jon A.]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:58:15 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>That doesn't HAPPEN to be true, but I'll let you deal with your FSDO any way
>you want.
>
>Nobody ever said that "willy nilly" (whatever the hell that means) was an
>option. You spend a deuce of a lot of time as an apprentice learning what
>looks like airplane and what doesn't.
>
>Jim

And you spend more time justifying doing something that isn't right.
Gotta go, I'm curing some rubber for my airplane tires and it'll go
bad if I don't get right on it!

>
>
>
>"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
>> An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints
>> the manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>>
>> Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>>
>> Or a field approval is obtained.
>
>
>
>>> No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>> his own.
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Jon A.]

Geezus! What's this group coming to? Pretty soon it;ll turn out to
be a good and accurate source of info!



On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:13:40 -0800, Carl Ellis
> wrote:

>Draw your own conclusions.
>
>http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/Jul_Aug2002/Parts.htm

[Javier Henderson]

Jon A. > writes:

> No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
> his own.

I don't expect you can make a prop out of adobe and use it, but other
than silly extremes like that, yes, you can make your own parts.

See:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5511/

towards the bottom of the page.

-jav

[[email protected]]

Jon A. wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
>>manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>>
>>Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>>
>>Or a field approval is obtained.
>>
>
> Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
> they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
> are going to get you!
>
>
What your indicating is that owner produced parts need to have a 337 to
install. SHOW ME THE REGS!!

The fabricated part does not have to match the origial blueprints. If it
does, SHOW ME THE REGS!!

Lets have anytime someone makes a statement or somebody questions a
statement about what you can do and what you can't do, provide the
regulations to back up that statement.


SHOW ME THE REGS!!

Dave


>
>>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Jon A. > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>>>>parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>>>>>it to be true?
>>>>>
>>>>>What myth is this?
>>>>>
>>>>>-jav
>>>>
>>>No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>>his own.
>>>
>>
>

[Newps]

Javier Henderson wrote:
> Jon A. > writes:
>
>
>>No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>his own.
>
>
> I don't expect you can make a prop out of adobe and use it, but other
> than silly extremes like that, yes, you can make your own parts.

You can make your own parts but you don't simply hold the part up to the
light, rap it on the table a couple of times and install it. You will
spend many times more on the paperwork than on making the part.

[Dan Thompson]

Let's find out, first, where your confusion lies.

Any part installed on a certificated airplane has to be manufactured
according to FAA "approved data." Otherwise the airplane ceases to have a
valid airworthiness certificate.

Approved data can come from the manufacturer's drawings, an STC, a PMA, a
TSO, or, repeat, or, the Adminstrator can approve the data by way of a 337.

Do you agree with these two statements?



> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jon A. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints
>>>the manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>>>
>>>Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>>>
>>>Or a field approval is obtained.
>>>
>>
>> Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
>> they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
>> are going to get you!
>>
>>
> What your indicating is that owner produced parts need to have a 337 to
> install. SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>
> The fabricated part does not have to match the origial blueprints. If it
> does, SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>
> Lets have anytime someone makes a statement or somebody questions a
> statement about what you can do and what you can't do, provide the
> regulations to back up that statement.
>
>
> SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jon A. > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>>>>>parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are
>>>>>>>proving
>>>>>>>it to be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What myth is this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-jav
>>>>>
>>>>No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>>>his own.
>>>>
>>>
>>

[RST Engineering]

A. No confusion on this end.

B. No.

Jim


"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> Let's find out, first, where your confusion lies.
>
> Any part installed on a certificated airplane has to be manufactured
> according to FAA "approved data." Otherwise the airplane ceases to have a
> valid airworthiness certificate.
>
> Approved data can come from the manufacturer's drawings, an STC, a PMA, a
> TSO, or, repeat, or, the Adminstrator can approve the data by way of a
> 337.
>
> Do you agree with these two statements?

[Dan Thompson]

Are you still here? Maybe you can answer this question I posed to you back
on March 16, 2004:

"Your App. Note 1 references an AC that was superseded back in 1996, AC
20-62C, which is now AC 20-62D. The current version says in the definition
of "Acceptable Parts": "(2) Parts produced by an owner or operator for
maintaining or altering their own product and which are shown to conform to
FAA-approved data." So how can an owner's home-made dimmer circuit can be
installed without any approved data?"



"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> A. No confusion on this end.
>
> B. No.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Let's find out, first, where your confusion lies.
>>
>> Any part installed on a certificated airplane has to be manufactured
>> according to FAA "approved data." Otherwise the airplane ceases to have
>> a valid airworthiness certificate.
>>
>> Approved data can come from the manufacturer's drawings, an STC, a PMA, a
>> TSO, or, repeat, or, the Adminstrator can approve the data by way of a
>> 337.
>>
>> Do you agree with these two statements?
>
>

[Jon A.]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:58:51 -0600, wrote:
I would, but you obviously reject what you can't believe. Why not
read the regs again, and if you missed it, read it again and so on
until it sinks in.

Tell you what. YOU show ME the "reg" and all of it, where it says
that an owner can just slap something together and call it an owner
produced part for his airplane. Don't just list it, text it all ( and
that means all of it) so that I can show you the error of your ways.

>
>
>Jon A. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
>>>manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>>>
>>>Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>>>
>>>Or a field approval is obtained.
>>>
>>
>> Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
>> they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
>> are going to get you!
>>
>>
>What your indicating is that owner produced parts need to have a 337 to
>install. SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>
>The fabricated part does not have to match the origial blueprints. If it
>does, SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>
>Lets have anytime someone makes a statement or somebody questions a
>statement about what you can do and what you can't do, provide the
>regulations to back up that statement.
>
>
>SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>
>Dave
>
>
>>
>>>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jon A. > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>>>>>parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>>>>>>it to be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What myth is this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-jav
>>>>>
>>>>No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>>>his own.
>>>>
>>>
>>

[[email protected]]

Jon,

please read and think about what your writing about.

Please read every word.

"
Question 6: Is there anything else a mechanic must do?

Answer 6: The mechanic must ensure that the owner produced part meets
form, fit, and function, and within reasonable limits, ensure that the
part does meet its approved type design (e.g. like looking at the
approved data used to make the part). Then the mechanic installs the
part on the aircraft, makes an operational check if applicable and signs
off the required section 43.9 maintenance entry.
"


This is an article from the FAA about owner produced parts.

================================================== =======================
02/21/01

AMT Magazine

FAA Feedback column

“I” verses “We"

Bill O’Brien, NRS

Along with the pilot shortage and mechanic shortage there is also a
parts shortage that plagues the general aviation industry. Because
supply and demand are out of balance the cost of new and used parts seem
to increase every day. Let’s examine the reasons why this is so.

First, we have an old fleet. The average general aviation single engine
airplane is approximately 32 years old. The average age of GA
multi-engine reciprocating aircraft is close to 27 years old. The
average age for the turbine powered multi-engine propeller driven
aircraft average out around 19 years of age. So do to long term wear and
tear the demand for replacement parts and large sub-assemblies is much
greater today than it was even 10 years ago.

The second reason is our General Aviation fleet has been well maintained
over the years. So well maintained in fact, the average GA aircraft with
a mid time engine and decent avionics has appreciated to two or three
times it’s original purchase price and is still climbing. Yet even in
that land of many zeros the older aircraft are still substantially lower
in price than the cost of brand new aircraft with similar performance
numbers and equipment. So the value of older aircraft in good shape are
proven investments that over time has beat the DOW JONES average. So we
have an economic imperative on the part of the owners to keep
maintaining older aircraft in flying condition which increases the
demand for replacement parts.

The third reason is the increasing production costs to make a part.
Today aircraft manufacturers are not making makes and models of aircraft
in the same quantity they made them back in the seventies. So the
production runs for parts are not as frequent and not as many parts are
produced. In addition it is not cost effective for a manufacturer to
make a lot of parts even if the unit price for each part is out of this
world because taxes on maintaining a large inventory of parts would eat
all of the profits. This low parts production keeps the supply of
replacement parts low.

The fourth reason is that some manufacturers would prefer that their
older makes and model aircraft that they made a million years ago would
quietly disappear from the aircraft registry. This retroactive birth
control on the part of the manufacturers may seem not to make any sense
until you look at aircraft market dynamics of creating demand and
reducing costs. First , each older aircraft that is no longer in service
creates a demand for a new, more expensive aircraft to take its place.
Second, despite some tort claim relief granted to GA manufacturers in
the early nineties, the fewer older aircraft there are in service, the
manufacturers of those aircraft enjoy reduced overall liability claims
and ever decreasing continuing airworthiness responsibilities.

So how are we going to maintain these older aircraft with an ever
dwindling parts supply when Part 21, section 21.303 Replacement and
modification of parts requires us to use the Parts Manufactured Approval
(PMA) parts on a type certificated product? Well, the same rule grants
four exemptions to the PMA requirement.

1. You can use parts produced under a type or production
certificate such as a Piper Cessna, or Mooney produced part;


2. A owner or operator produced part to maintain or alter their
own product;

3. Parts produced under a Technical Standard Order (TSO) such
as radios, life vest and rafts, and GPS; or,

4. A standard aviation part such as fasteners, washers, or
safety wire.

Before I segue into the subject of “owner produced parts” as called out
in section 21.303 which is the purpose of this article. I would like to
create a small uproar with this statement: “ FAA Airframe and Powerplant
rated mechanics can maintain, repair, and modify parts, but they cannot
make a brand new part and call it a repair.” Before you accuse me of
losing dendrites by the minute, check out section 65.81 General
privileges and limitations. The section talks to maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations but not to manufacturing of parts. Nor is
it implied privilege in Part 65, because Part 21 section 21.303 says “NO
PERSON” may make a REPLACEMENT part for a TC product unless that person
has a PMA, etc.

While I write this I can remember 25 pounds ago and when I had hair, I
worked in the real world and I specialized in making engine baffles for
Lycoming engines. Before someone accuses me of bureaucratic
ventriloquism which is roughly translated as “talking out of both sides
of my mouth.” My weak defense is, I made the parts because I thought I
could.” It never dawned on me that I could not legally make a part. Some
of you may be astounded that I make this confession freely. Its no big
thing because I know the statue of limitations has run out years ago and
a jury of my peers would never look me in the eye and convict me.

So here is our problem that we must solve. Since mechanics cannot
legally make parts for aircraft and aircraft need replacement parts, how
are we going to keep the fleet flying?

If we cannot find PMA, TSO, standard, or production holder replacement
parts, we are left to make the part under the owner produced option
under section 21.303(b)(2). However, we must remember that the part is
for the owner/operator’s aircraft only and is not manufacturered for
sale to other TC aircraft.

To get through confusing regulatory policy with our pride intact, lets
try the question and answer routine. (Note: This policy is taken from
FAA ‘s AGC-200 policy memorandum to AFS-300 on the definition of “Owner
Produced Parts” dated August 5, 1993)

Question 1: Does the owner have to manufacturer the part himself in
order to meet the intent of the rule?

Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However
to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in
controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as:

1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance
data from which to make the part, or

2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the
part or,

3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or
assembly methods to make the part or,

4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’

5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part.

Question 2: Can the owner contract out for the manufacturer of the part
and still have a part that is considered, “owner produced?”

Answer 2: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of the five
functions listed in

answer 1.

Question 3: Can the owner contract out the manufacturer of the part to a
non-certificated person and still have a part that is considered “owner
produced.”

Answer 3: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of the five
functions listed in

answer 1.

Question 4: If a mechanic manufactuered parts for an owner is he
considered in violation of section 21.303(b)(2)?

Answer 4: The answer would be no if it was found that the owner
participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the
part. The mechanic would be considered the producer and would not be in
violation of section 21.303(a). On the other hand if the owner did not
play a part in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the
part the mechanic runs a good chance of being in violation of section
21.303 (b)(2).

Question 5: What kind of advice you can give on how a mechanic can avoid
even the appearance of violating section 21.303(b)(2)?

Answer: First, a mechanic should never make a logbook or maintenance
entry saying that he made a part under his certificate number. This
foopah will send up a flare and get you undue attention from your local
FAA inspector which you could do without. However, the mechanic can say
on the work order that he helped manufacturer an owner produced part
under 21.303 (b)(2).

Second, the owner or operator should be encouraged to make a log book
entry that is similar to section 43.9 maintenance entry that states: The
part is identified as an owner produced part under section 21.303
(b)(2). The part was manufacturered in accordance with approved data.
The owner/operator’s participation in the manufacturer of the part is
identified such as quality control. The owner must declare that the part
is airworthy and sign and date the entry.

Question 6: Is there anything else a mechanic must do?

Answer 6: The mechanic must ensure that the owner produced part meets
form, fit, and function, and within reasonable limits, ensure that the
part does meet its approved type design (e.g. like looking at the
approved data used to make the part). Then the mechanic installs the
part on the aircraft, makes an operational check if applicable and signs
off the required section 43.9 maintenance entry.

Question 7: What is the owner responsible for, and what is the mechanic
responsible for, concerning owner produced parts?

Answer 7: The owner is responsible that the part meets type design and
is in a condition for safe operation. The mechanic is responsible for
the installation of the owner-produced part is correct, the installation
is airworthy, and a maintenance record for installing the part is made.



Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the approved data to make
a part if the manufacturer and other sources are no longer in business?

Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer supporting the
continuing airworthiness of then the owner or operator can petition the
FAA Aircraft Certification Directorate under the Freedom of Information
Act for the data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator can
reverse engineer the part and have the data approved under a FAA field
approval or if it is a real complicated part, have the data approved by
a FAA engineer or FAA Designated Engineering Representative.

Question 9: What happens to the owner produced part on the aircraft if
the original owner sells the aircraft?

Answer 9: Unless the part is no longer airworthy, the original owner
produced part stays on the aircraft.

I hope that I spread some light on the murky subject of owner produced
parts so the next time instead of saying to the owner of an broke
aircraft: “Sure, “I” can make that part”, you will now say “Sure, “WE”
can make that part.”





Jon A. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:58:51 -0600, wrote:
> I would, but you obviously reject what you can't believe. Why not
> read the regs again, and if you missed it, read it again and so on
> until it sinks in.
>
> Tell you what. YOU show ME the "reg" and all of it, where it says
> that an owner can just slap something together and call it an owner
> produced part for his airplane. Don't just list it, text it all ( and
> that means all of it) so that I can show you the error of your ways.
>
>
>>
>>Jon A. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
>>>>manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>>>>
>>>>Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>>>>
>>>>Or a field approval is obtained.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
>>>they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
>>>are going to get you!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What your indicating is that owner produced parts need to have a 337 to
>>install. SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>>
>>The fabricated part does not have to match the origial blueprints. If it
>>does, SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>>
>>Lets have anytime someone makes a statement or somebody questions a
>>statement about what you can do and what you can't do, provide the
>>regulations to back up that statement.
>>
>>
>>SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>>>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jon A. > writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>>>>>>parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>>>>>>>it to be true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What myth is this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-jav
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>>>>his own.
>>>>>
>>>>
>

[RST Engineering]

Suggest you get a copy of Western Region's "Aircraft Alterations" and read
the section on "minor modifications" and the definition thereof.

Also suggest you get a copy of Bill O'Brien's treatise on owner produced
parts.

Also suggest you understand the difference between manufacturing a part that
will cause the aircraft to disassemble in flight if it fails versus one that
will pop a circuit breaker if it fails.

All of which I **thought** I suggested to you back in March of last year,
but can't put a specific remembrance to it.

Jim


"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
m...
> Are you still here? Maybe you can answer this question I posed to you
> back on March 16, 2004:
>
> "Your App. Note 1 references an AC that was superseded back in 1996, AC
> 20-62C, which is now AC 20-62D. The current version says in the
> definition
> of "Acceptable Parts": "(2) Parts produced by an owner or operator for
> maintaining or altering their own product and which are shown to conform
> to
> FAA-approved data." So how can an owner's home-made dimmer circuit can be
> installed without any approved data?"

[Jon A.]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:50:47 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Suggest you get a copy of Western Region's "Aircraft Alterations" and read
>the section on "minor modifications" and the definition thereof.
>
>Also suggest you get a copy of Bill O'Brien's treatise on owner produced
>parts.
>
>Also suggest you understand the difference between manufacturing a part that
>will cause the aircraft to disassemble in flight if it fails versus one that
>will pop a circuit breaker if it fails.
>
>All of which I **thought** I suggested to you back in March of last year,
>but can't put a specific remembrance to it.
>
>Jim

Hey Jim. Do you have an STC (or even a PMA) for any of your products?
Just want to know if you've ever done the real drill. If not, I can
see your point of spreading your justification of this, the incorrect
opinion.
>
>
>"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
m...
>> Are you still here? Maybe you can answer this question I posed to you
>> back on March 16, 2004:
>>
>> "Your App. Note 1 references an AC that was superseded back in 1996, AC
>> 20-62C, which is now AC 20-62D. The current version says in the
>> definition
>> of "Acceptable Parts": "(2) Parts produced by an owner or operator for
>> maintaining or altering their own product and which are shown to conform
>> to
>> FAA-approved data." So how can an owner's home-made dimmer circuit can be
>> installed without any approved data?"
>

[Jon A.]

You just won't get it, will you. The "FAA" wrote that? Interesting!
Sorry, but although I agree and make as many parts as I can get away
with (I'm going to try the adobe prop next weekend) it's not correct.
I'll also say that I very seldom travel at or under the speed limit,
but I won't even justify that as being acceptable, even though it is.
What we're speaking about here is legalities, not Old Wives Tales and
pressures put on lone FAA employees to pen a document.

Just too bad that the people who really know why this reg was put into
effect are not wasting time on the news groups. You folks would
probably be pretty interested, as it's a logical explanation.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:56:07 -0600, wrote:

>Jon,
>
>please read and think about what your writing about.
>
>Please read every word.
>
>"
>Question 6: Is there anything else a mechanic must do?
>
>Answer 6: The mechanic must ensure that the owner produced part meets
>form, fit, and function, and within reasonable limits, ensure that the
>part does meet its approved type design (e.g. like looking at the
>approved data used to make the part). Then the mechanic installs the
>part on the aircraft, makes an operational check if applicable and signs
>off the required section 43.9 maintenance entry.
>"
>
>
>This is an article from the FAA about owner produced parts.
>
>================================================== =======================
>02/21/01
>
>AMT Magazine
>
>FAA Feedback column
>
>“I” verses “We"
>
>Bill O’Brien, NRS
>
>Along with the pilot shortage and mechanic shortage there is also a
>parts shortage that plagues the general aviation industry. Because
>supply and demand are out of balance the cost of new and used parts seem
>to increase every day. Let’s examine the reasons why this is so.
>
>First, we have an old fleet. The average general aviation single engine
>airplane is approximately 32 years old. The average age of GA
>multi-engine reciprocating aircraft is close to 27 years old. The
>average age for the turbine powered multi-engine propeller driven
>aircraft average out around 19 years of age. So do to long term wear and
>tear the demand for replacement parts and large sub-assemblies is much
>greater today than it was even 10 years ago.
>
>The second reason is our General Aviation fleet has been well maintained
>over the years. So well maintained in fact, the average GA aircraft with
>a mid time engine and decent avionics has appreciated to two or three
>times it’s original purchase price and is still climbing. Yet even in
>that land of many zeros the older aircraft are still substantially lower
>in price than the cost of brand new aircraft with similar performance
>numbers and equipment. So the value of older aircraft in good shape are
>proven investments that over time has beat the DOW JONES average. So we
>have an economic imperative on the part of the owners to keep
>maintaining older aircraft in flying condition which increases the
>demand for replacement parts.
>
>The third reason is the increasing production costs to make a part.
>Today aircraft manufacturers are not making makes and models of aircraft
>in the same quantity they made them back in the seventies. So the
>production runs for parts are not as frequent and not as many parts are
>produced. In addition it is not cost effective for a manufacturer to
>make a lot of parts even if the unit price for each part is out of this
>world because taxes on maintaining a large inventory of parts would eat
>all of the profits. This low parts production keeps the supply of
>replacement parts low.
>
>The fourth reason is that some manufacturers would prefer that their
>older makes and model aircraft that they made a million years ago would
>quietly disappear from the aircraft registry. This retroactive birth
>control on the part of the manufacturers may seem not to make any sense
>until you look at aircraft market dynamics of creating demand and
>reducing costs. First , each older aircraft that is no longer in service
>creates a demand for a new, more expensive aircraft to take its place.
>Second, despite some tort claim relief granted to GA manufacturers in
>the early nineties, the fewer older aircraft there are in service, the
>manufacturers of those aircraft enjoy reduced overall liability claims
>and ever decreasing continuing airworthiness responsibilities.
>
>So how are we going to maintain these older aircraft with an ever
>dwindling parts supply when Part 21, section 21.303 Replacement and
>modification of parts requires us to use the Parts Manufactured Approval
>(PMA) parts on a type certificated product? Well, the same rule grants
>four exemptions to the PMA requirement.
>
> 1. You can use parts produced under a type or production
>certificate such as a Piper Cessna, or Mooney produced part;
>
>
> 2. A owner or operator produced part to maintain or alter their
>own product;
>
> 3. Parts produced under a Technical Standard Order (TSO) such
>as radios, life vest and rafts, and GPS; or,
>
> 4. A standard aviation part such as fasteners, washers, or
>safety wire.
>
>Before I segue into the subject of “owner produced parts” as called out
>in section 21.303 which is the purpose of this article. I would like to
>create a small uproar with this statement: “ FAA Airframe and Powerplant
>rated mechanics can maintain, repair, and modify parts, but they cannot
>make a brand new part and call it a repair.” Before you accuse me of
>losing dendrites by the minute, check out section 65.81 General
>privileges and limitations. The section talks to maintenance, preventive
>maintenance, and alterations but not to manufacturing of parts. Nor is
>it implied privilege in Part 65, because Part 21 section 21.303 says “NO
>PERSON” may make a REPLACEMENT part for a TC product unless that person
>has a PMA, etc.
>
>While I write this I can remember 25 pounds ago and when I had hair, I
>worked in the real world and I specialized in making engine baffles for
>Lycoming engines. Before someone accuses me of bureaucratic
>ventriloquism which is roughly translated as “talking out of both sides
>of my mouth.” My weak defense is, I made the parts because I thought I
>could.” It never dawned on me that I could not legally make a part. Some
>of you may be astounded that I make this confession freely. Its no big
>thing because I know the statue of limitations has run out years ago and
>a jury of my peers would never look me in the eye and convict me.
>
>So here is our problem that we must solve. Since mechanics cannot
>legally make parts for aircraft and aircraft need replacement parts, how
>are we going to keep the fleet flying?
>
>If we cannot find PMA, TSO, standard, or production holder replacement
>parts, we are left to make the part under the owner produced option
>under section 21.303(b)(2). However, we must remember that the part is
>for the owner/operator’s aircraft only and is not manufacturered for
>sale to other TC aircraft.
>
>To get through confusing regulatory policy with our pride intact, lets
>try the question and answer routine. (Note: This policy is taken from
>FAA ‘s AGC-200 policy memorandum to AFS-300 on the definition of “Owner
>Produced Parts” dated August 5, 1993)
>
>Question 1: Does the owner have to manufacturer the part himself in
>order to meet the intent of the rule?
>
>Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However
>to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in
>controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as:
>
> 1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance
>data from which to make the part, or
>
> 2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the
>part or,
>
> 3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or
>assembly methods to make the part or,
>
> 4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’
>
> 5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part.
>
>Question 2: Can the owner contract out for the manufacturer of the part
>and still have a part that is considered, “owner produced?”
>
>Answer 2: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of the five
>functions listed in
>
>answer 1.
>
>Question 3: Can the owner contract out the manufacturer of the part to a
>non-certificated person and still have a part that is considered “owner
>produced.”
>
>Answer 3: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of the five
>functions listed in
>
>answer 1.
>
>Question 4: If a mechanic manufactuered parts for an owner is he
>considered in violation of section 21.303(b)(2)?
>
>Answer 4: The answer would be no if it was found that the owner
>participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the
>part. The mechanic would be considered the producer and would not be in
>violation of section 21.303(a). On the other hand if the owner did not
>play a part in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the
>part the mechanic runs a good chance of being in violation of section
>21.303 (b)(2).
>
>Question 5: What kind of advice you can give on how a mechanic can avoid
>even the appearance of violating section 21.303(b)(2)?
>
>Answer: First, a mechanic should never make a logbook or maintenance
>entry saying that he made a part under his certificate number. This
>foopah will send up a flare and get you undue attention from your local
>FAA inspector which you could do without. However, the mechanic can say
>on the work order that he helped manufacturer an owner produced part
>under 21.303 (b)(2).
>
>Second, the owner or operator should be encouraged to make a log book
>entry that is similar to section 43.9 maintenance entry that states: The
>part is identified as an owner produced part under section 21.303
>(b)(2). The part was manufacturered in accordance with approved data.
>The owner/operator’s participation in the manufacturer of the part is
>identified such as quality control. The owner must declare that the part
>is airworthy and sign and date the entry.
>
>Question 6: Is there anything else a mechanic must do?
>
>Answer 6: The mechanic must ensure that the owner produced part meets
>form, fit, and function, and within reasonable limits, ensure that the
>part does meet its approved type design (e.g. like looking at the
>approved data used to make the part). Then the mechanic installs the
>part on the aircraft, makes an operational check if applicable and signs
>off the required section 43.9 maintenance entry.
>
>Question 7: What is the owner responsible for, and what is the mechanic
>responsible for, concerning owner produced parts?
>
>Answer 7: The owner is responsible that the part meets type design and
>is in a condition for safe operation. The mechanic is responsible for
>the installation of the owner-produced part is correct, the installation
>is airworthy, and a maintenance record for installing the part is made.
>
>
>
>Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the approved data to make
>a part if the manufacturer and other sources are no longer in business?
>
>Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer supporting the
>continuing airworthiness of then the owner or operator can petition the
>FAA Aircraft Certification Directorate under the Freedom of Information
>Act for the data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator can
>reverse engineer the part and have the data approved under a FAA field
>approval or if it is a real complicated part, have the data approved by
>a FAA engineer or FAA Designated Engineering Representative.
>
>Question 9: What happens to the owner produced part on the aircraft if
>the original owner sells the aircraft?
>
>Answer 9: Unless the part is no longer airworthy, the original owner
>produced part stays on the aircraft.
>
>I hope that I spread some light on the murky subject of owner produced
>parts so the next time instead of saying to the owner of an broke
>aircraft: “Sure, “I” can make that part”, you will now say “Sure, “WE”
>can make that part.”
>
>
>
>
>
>Jon A. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:58:51 -0600, wrote:
>> I would, but you obviously reject what you can't believe. Why not
>> read the regs again, and if you missed it, read it again and so on
>> until it sinks in.
>>
>> Tell you what. YOU show ME the "reg" and all of it, where it says
>> that an owner can just slap something together and call it an owner
>> produced part for his airplane. Don't just list it, text it all ( and
>> that means all of it) so that I can show you the error of your ways.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Jon A. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:10:47 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>An owner produced part is not airworthy unless it matches the blueprints the
>>>>>manufacturer supplied to the FAA when the aircraft was certificated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or a 337 with and STC is used.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or a field approval is obtained.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Holy Crap! Someone else that reads the entire passage, not just what
>>>>they want to see! Hope you have your armor on. The pseudo lawyers
>>>>are going to get you!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>What your indicating is that owner produced parts need to have a 337 to
>>>install. SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>>>
>>>The fabricated part does not have to match the origial blueprints. If it
>>>does, SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>>>
>>>Lets have anytime someone makes a statement or somebody questions a
>>>statement about what you can do and what you can't do, provide the
>>>regulations to back up that statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>SHOW ME THE REGS!!
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:39:30 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The myth that 21.302 (b)(2) has been rescinded, which it ain't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jon A. > writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Who said that? Are you speaking of the legendary owner manufactured
>>>>>>>>>parts myth that has been repeated so many times that folks are proving
>>>>>>>>>it to be true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What myth is this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-jav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, the myth that an owner could just willy nilly make up a part on
>>>>>>his own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

[Matt Whiting]

Jon A. wrote:

> You just won't get it, will you. The "FAA" wrote that? Interesting!
> Sorry, but although I agree and make as many parts as I can get away
> with (I'm going to try the adobe prop next weekend) it's not correct.
> I'll also say that I very seldom travel at or under the speed limit,
> but I won't even justify that as being acceptable, even though it is.
> What we're speaking about here is legalities, not Old Wives Tales and
> pressures put on lone FAA employees to pen a document.
>
> Just too bad that the people who really know why this reg was put into
> effect are not wasting time on the news groups. You folks would
> probably be pretty interested, as it's a logical explanation.

Which if you really knew, you'd share here. But since you don't know
what you are talking about, it is easier to just throw criticisms.


Matt

[Jon A.]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:46 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Jon A. wrote:
>
>> You just won't get it, will you. The "FAA" wrote that? Interesting!
>> Sorry, but although I agree and make as many parts as I can get away
>> with (I'm going to try the adobe prop next weekend) it's not correct.
>> I'll also say that I very seldom travel at or under the speed limit,
>> but I won't even justify that as being acceptable, even though it is.
>> What we're speaking about here is legalities, not Old Wives Tales and
>> pressures put on lone FAA employees to pen a document.
>>
>> Just too bad that the people who really know why this reg was put into
>> effect are not wasting time on the news groups. You folks would
>> probably be pretty interested, as it's a logical explanation.
>
>Which if you really knew, you'd share here. But since you don't know
>what you are talking about, it is easier to just throw criticisms.
>
Nice try. But how about doing your own homework for a change. Since
you're obviously a bit handicapped, a hint must be in order. If you
have the ability, speak to someone who retired with a good position
from the airlines maintenance department about 20 years ago. Anything
else you need me to do for you?

[Matt Whiting]

Jon A. wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:46 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jon A. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You just won't get it, will you. The "FAA" wrote that? Interesting!
>>>Sorry, but although I agree and make as many parts as I can get away
>>>with (I'm going to try the adobe prop next weekend) it's not correct.
>>>I'll also say that I very seldom travel at or under the speed limit,
>>>but I won't even justify that as being acceptable, even though it is.
>>>What we're speaking about here is legalities, not Old Wives Tales and
>>>pressures put on lone FAA employees to pen a document.
>>>
>>>Just too bad that the people who really know why this reg was put into
>>>effect are not wasting time on the news groups. You folks would
>>>probably be pretty interested, as it's a logical explanation.
>>
>>Which if you really knew, you'd share here. But since you don't know
>>what you are talking about, it is easier to just throw criticisms.
>>
>
> Nice try. But how about doing your own homework for a change. Since
> you're obviously a bit handicapped, a hint must be in order. If you
> have the ability, speak to someone who retired with a good position
> from the airlines maintenance department about 20 years ago. Anything
> else you need me to do for you?

You haven't done anything yet, so doing more of nothing isn't an
advantage. I don't need to produce any parts so it makes no difference
to me, but you are obviously not in a position to provide any useful
advice to those who do have this need.


Matt

[Jon A.]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:11:00 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Jon A. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:46 -0500, Matt Whiting
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jon A. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You just won't get it, will you. The "FAA" wrote that? Interesting!
>>>>Sorry, but although I agree and make as many parts as I can get away
>>>>with (I'm going to try the adobe prop next weekend) it's not correct.
>>>>I'll also say that I very seldom travel at or under the speed limit,
>>>>but I won't even justify that as being acceptable, even though it is.
>>>>What we're speaking about here is legalities, not Old Wives Tales and
>>>>pressures put on lone FAA employees to pen a document.
>>>>
>>>>Just too bad that the people who really know why this reg was put into
>>>>effect are not wasting time on the news groups. You folks would
>>>>probably be pretty interested, as it's a logical explanation.
>>>
>>>Which if you really knew, you'd share here. But since you don't know
>>>what you are talking about, it is easier to just throw criticisms.
>>>
>>
>> Nice try. But how about doing your own homework for a change. Since
>> you're obviously a bit handicapped, a hint must be in order. If you
>> have the ability, speak to someone who retired with a good position
>> from the airlines maintenance department about 20 years ago. Anything
>> else you need me to do for you?
>
>You haven't done anything yet, so doing more of nothing isn't an
>advantage. I don't need to produce any parts so it makes no difference
>to me, but you are obviously not in a position to provide any useful
>advice to those who do have this need.

Especially not to you, who doesn't need it.