What is PMAed, STDed, etc.?

Gene Kearns
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


-
-Are you the credentials police?


No, just been wrenching, inspecting, designing, and engineering on airplanes for
forty-five some years now.



-In any event, the part must be certified as airworthy in the
-maintenance records by the owner/operator

Izzat so? Hm. Didn't know the owner/operator could certify things as
airworthy. I'll have to let the rest of the gang know.


and that assertion should
-not be made unless the part conforms to the original type design.

Nope.


A
-mechanic that installs owner/operator parts not so (accurately)
-certified in just asking for trouble.

Hm. Interesting heresy.

Jim



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

Ron Natalie wrote:

The definitions are here (I'm not going to post them inline as they are a
bit long):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...4cfr43_00.html

Appendix A(a) defines "major alteration". Anything else is "minor"?

Some of it is a gray area. Somethings people read more into it than
others. For example, just because something changes the w&b, it is not a
major
alteration. It is only a major alteration if it changes the permissable
envelope.

Where do you see that? I only see a list of items in A(a); nothing that
refers to the W&B.

- Andrew

Bob Noel wrote:

are we confused yet?

I'm not sure.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com...
Ron Natalie wrote:

The definitions are here (I'm not going to post them inline as they are a
bit long):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/c...4cfr43_00.html

Appendix A(a) defines "major alteration". Anything else is "minor"?

Some of it is a gray area. Somethings people read more into it than
others. For example, just because something changes the w&b, it is not a
major
alteration. It is only a major alteration if it changes the permissable
envelope.

Where do you see that? I only see a list of items in A(a); nothing that
refers to the W&B.

43xA.a (1)(xi).
Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase ...

Ron Natalie wrote:

43xA.a (1)(xi).
Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase
...

Ah. Hidden in plain site.

Thanks...

- Andrew

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:46:34 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:

Gene Kearns
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


-
-Are you the credentials police?


No, just been wrenching, inspecting, designing, and engineering on airplanes for
forty-five some years now.



-In any event, the part must be certified as airworthy in the
-maintenance records by the owner/operator

Izzat so? Hm. Didn't know the owner/operator could certify things as
airworthy. I'll have to let the rest of the gang know.



Maybe you missed http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2A512696 , question &
answer 5.


It is hard to believe that after 45 years you haven't picked up on the
pitfalls of the owner having a part reverse engineered by a local
machine shop and not certifying that the part is airworthy, himself.

Are *you* going to certify the part airworthy? How do *you* know that
the materials, processes, and workmanship meet the applicable type
design? Or are you going to take their word for the type of aluminum,
welding rod, heat treat designation, plating technique, etc.....and
make the entire maintenance entry yourself?

After 45 years you should have an understanding that the path of
liability follows those remunerated for the effort. Put another way,
you are only liable for the work you personally accomplished. Don't
sign off things you didn't do.... especially if you didn't make the
part. Once you sign off the installation of an un-airworthy part
(without due diligence in determining if the part *was* airworthy) you
are just as guilty as the owner/operator trying to save a few dollars.

My guess is the rest of the gang actually read the articles and, thus,
already knew this.....

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:00:26 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:

An IA must sign off the 337, which is required of any major alteration.
An STC
provides authority to make the major alteration. A minor alteration
requires neither a 337 nor an STC.

It sounds from the above like an STC is required before any major alteration
because it "provides authority to make the major alteration". Is that
right?

A lot seems to hinge on the distinction between "major" and "minor"
alterations. What is the difference? Given a particular change (ie.
replacing a panel overlay, or adding instrument lights), how does one know
into which category the change falls?

- Andrew

What is *required* before a major alteration is approved data. How
you obtain that can vary, STC, Field Approval, etc....

Well, technically, you don't really need it until the work is
inspected.......BUT..... Trust me, though, you want the approved data
*before* beginning *any* work.

Gene Kearns
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-Maybe you missed http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2A512696 , question &
-answer 5.

I didn't miss a damn thing. My sources and information comes from the FAA
websites, not from some magazine that carries no official weight.


-
-
-It is hard to believe that after 45 years you haven't picked up on the
-pitfalls of the owner having a part reverse engineered by a local
-machine shop and not certifying that the part is airworthy, himself.
-

I'm not about to argue technique with a person that refuses to tell us how he
comes to what he believes. Kind of like an instructor arguing with a student
now, isn't it?


-My guess is the rest of the gang actually read the articles and, thus,
-already knew this.....

My guess is that the gang read this same list I posted back on the 9th of June
and has already made up their minds as to who knows what they are talking about.

Jim

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