Question on Owner Produced Interior parts

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!

In article ,
"NW_PILOT" wrote:

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!



The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!

Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:29:35 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
"NW_PILOT" wrote:

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!



The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!

Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.

The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.

Having said that, the FAR police are not about to come out and see that you've
fabricated a bracket or panel out of aluminum to replace a cracked plastic
panel. Me? I'd stay away from titanium and make it all out of aluminum just to
keep the odd inspector out of the picture. They understand aluminum. They
don't have a freakin' CLUE about titanium.

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances allow yourself to be drawn into the
337-FSDO-Engineering paperwork nightmare. Do it, be safe, and be happy.

Jim




Bill Zaleski
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
-must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
-You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
-obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
-a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Bill Zaleski wrote in
:

The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.

True for a wheel strut, but you would be amazed at how much "decorative
trim" there is in the interior. G

But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.

It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.


"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
Having said that, the FAR police are not about to come out and see that
you've
fabricated a bracket or panel out of aluminum to replace a cracked plastic
panel. Me? I'd stay away from titanium and make it all out of aluminum
just to
keep the odd inspector out of the picture. They understand aluminum.
They
don't have a freakin' CLUE about titanium.

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances allow yourself to be drawn into the
337-FSDO-Engineering paperwork nightmare. Do it, be safe, and be happy.

Jim




Bill Zaleski
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
-must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
-You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
-obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
-a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

In rec.aviation.owning Bill Denton wrote:
But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.

I'd be surprised to see any insurance policy with that exact wording,
because that would effectively prevent you from getting modern avionics
installed. Ususally there's language to the effect of the airwortiness
certificate must be in full effect. There are provisions in the FARs for
owner produced parts, so that wouldn't "neccessarily" effect the
airworthiness.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Ya got to start thinking like an insurance company lawyer...

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but here's how it works:

The armrest bracket would be considered part of the airframe, just like the
wings, the seats, whatever. But the radios would be considered to be
accessories. You could have King, Garmin, or whatever.

So, if the bracket was not a factory-supplied part or approved replacement,
you could well be screwed if you go to your insurance company with your hand
out!



"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Bill Denton wrote:
But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls
for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in
no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.

I'd be surprised to see any insurance policy with that exact wording,
because that would effectively prevent you from getting modern avionics
installed. Ususally there's language to the effect of the airwortiness
certificate must be in full effect. There are provisions in the FARs for
owner produced parts, so that wouldn't "neccessarily" effect the
airworthiness.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Bill...

Please.

If you can put JD behind your name and tell us how many aviation lawsuits you've
handled in this matter, please give an opinion.

or

If you've been through an accident and been sued and have direct experience with
the process, please give an opinion.

Until then, what you say is poppycock.

Jim (been there, done that)



"Bill Denton"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


-So, if the bracket was not a factory-supplied part or approved replacement,
-you could well be screwed if you go to your insurance company with your hand
-out!


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Jim Weir" wrote in message

Until then, what you say is poppycock.

I can't address the aviation side of this, but people have, and do, redefine
reality in bizarre ways to effect an advantage. About 15 years ago I needed
a carburetor replacement on a Chrysler minivan at about 50K miles. The
dealer and higher Chrysler people told me with a straight face that it was
not covered by the 7/70 powertrain warranty because the carburetor was not
part of the powertrain, but merely an accessory attached to the engine. I
eventually won the argument, but they really did try.