Cherokee 140 - LASAR vs. Powerflow vs. Laminar Speed Kit

writes:


So tell me, just how would said AI determine that A) the work was
"illegal", and B) what would this alleged "illegality" be based on?


He looks for the USDA CHOICE brand on the inside of the Naugahyde;
if it's missing.....call the cops.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

wrote:


Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf

Yup. Real straightforward as far as I'm concerned:

A manufacturer's statement
is acceptable due to neither the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (CAA) nor the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) having
published an FAA fire standard for either flash
or flame resistance for interior materials for
CAR-3 aircraft.

I believe that in my original post I mentioned that if you were truly
concerned about the legality of the institutional materials
(flash/flame resistant) used, save a piece of the material with the
stamp on the back.

It would be a totally different ball game if you were trying to buy
interior "parts" instead of performing a re-rag, or if you were talking
about a non-CAR3 aircraft.

TC


Newps wrote:
wrote:


Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf

Right, part 23 aircraft are different. For CAR3, expecially if
placarded "No Smoking", any material that meets any federal spec qualifies.

wrote:
Yup. Real straightforward as far as I'm concerned:

A manufacturer's statement
is acceptable due to neither the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (CAA) nor the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) having
published an FAA fire standard for either flash
or flame resistance for interior materials for
CAR-3 aircraft.

I believe that in my original post I mentioned that if you were truly
concerned about the legality of the institutional materials
(flash/flame resistant) used, save a piece of the material with the
stamp on the back.

It would be a totally different ball game if you were trying to buy
interior "parts" instead of performing a re-rag, or if you were talking
about a non-CAR3 aircraft.

TC


Newps wrote:

wrote:


Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf