Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:33 am
As far as I know, there are no requirements for parts in themselves. They can even be sold as damaged and worthless. However, new made parts have strict rules.
You may want to modify how you react to people correcting the erroneous info that you pass off.
Did you read the disclaimer "as far as I know" Again go ahead and tell people they are wrong w/o reading what they really say.
I'm wondering if it's possible to have a constructive discussion w/o constantly telling people they are wrong.
Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:09 pm
I think everybody needs to spend more time reading the content of a post rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusions. I would suggest when it comes to FAA regulations that people double check thier info before posting and before saying someones wrong. Arguments over who was wrong first doesn't answer the original posters question very well. Just think about what you've written before you hit the submit button.
And please, if you find an error in someones post then please try to exercise a little tact and diplomacy when pointing it out. We will all get along better that way.
And please, if you find an error in someones post then please try to exercise a little tact and diplomacy when pointing it out. We will all get along better that way.
On to the next question....
Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:53 pm
Thanks for all the informative replies to my original question. Here's another one: Are most newly manufactured warbird parts built by businesses that hold PMA authority issued by the FAA? Is PMA authority the exception or the rule for warbird parts manufacturers?
thanks again,
Ray
thanks again,
Ray
Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:48 am
Evening!
Is it here I point out that the US and US certification isn't the world's?
While aero engineering is a remarkably standard system globally (I know, I know, but bear with me!
) each country can and will certify and regulate to its own criteria, and will also choose to validate or endorse other nation's validations.
While I'm not a 'hands on aircraft' guy in the warbirds biz, a couple of interesting examples come to mind.
There have been examples of aircraft built in the original factory in country 'R' and shipped to country 'E' where the paperwork isn't acceptable. As there is no means of validating the quality of the metals used, the aircraft and owners are in a bit of a bind.
The weld on the wing strut of the replica 'Spirit of St Louis' Ryan replica gave way in the air during a display in the UK, in 2003 and the pilot owner was killed. The aircraft was based in Sweeden, Estonian registered and built and the British accident report (AAIB) highlighted the concerns over the build quality and issues over the lack of a handbook and lack of a walkaround procedure. As a result of this sad accident, there have been questions over accepting aircraft for display from overseas coutries (again) as issues of what is acceptable in Estonia, Sweden and the UK (as well as, say. the USA, Canada, Australia and NZ) is different. And no, it's not an EC question in this case.
The accident report makes very interesting reading:
(http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resource ... 026654.pdf)
To try and get back to the original question, not being an engineer, I can't give a definitive answer, but is it worth saying that in warbird rebuilds, the UK model is that parts need paperwork, the work needs to be 'signed off' by a qualified engineer and you go form there?
Hope this helps.
Is it here I point out that the US and US certification isn't the world's?
While aero engineering is a remarkably standard system globally (I know, I know, but bear with me!
) each country can and will certify and regulate to its own criteria, and will also choose to validate or endorse other nation's validations.
While I'm not a 'hands on aircraft' guy in the warbirds biz, a couple of interesting examples come to mind.
There have been examples of aircraft built in the original factory in country 'R' and shipped to country 'E' where the paperwork isn't acceptable. As there is no means of validating the quality of the metals used, the aircraft and owners are in a bit of a bind.
The weld on the wing strut of the replica 'Spirit of St Louis' Ryan replica gave way in the air during a display in the UK, in 2003 and the pilot owner was killed. The aircraft was based in Sweeden, Estonian registered and built and the British accident report (AAIB) highlighted the concerns over the build quality and issues over the lack of a handbook and lack of a walkaround procedure. As a result of this sad accident, there have been questions over accepting aircraft for display from overseas coutries (again) as issues of what is acceptable in Estonia, Sweden and the UK (as well as, say. the USA, Canada, Australia and NZ) is different. And no, it's not an EC question in this case.
The accident report makes very interesting reading:
(http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resource ... 026654.pdf)
To try and get back to the original question, not being an engineer, I can't give a definitive answer, but is it worth saying that in warbird rebuilds, the UK model is that parts need paperwork, the work needs to be 'signed off' by a qualified engineer and you go form there?
Hope this helps.
Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:29 am
Hi James:
Good points.
Good points.
The world is not just the USA...
Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:08 pm
JDK, your point is a good one. From a global perspective, what is considered to be the "gold standard" of aircraft parts certification? The CAA's, the FAA's, France, or Canada? (I seem to remember reading that Flugwerk's Fw190s might have difficulty obtaining permission to fly in the U.K. because the CAA's requirements were too difficult to meet. I assume this was because of deficiencies related to manufacturing documentation, not due to questionable maintenance.) Or are parts standards from a number of countries considered to be equally valid? What country has the most stringent aircraft parts requirements? If you wanted to manufacture parts to a standard that any country's Aviation Authority would accept (if that's possible) what standard would that be to? Input from people of any nationality is most welcome !
Ray Crawford
!
Ray Crawford
Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:23 pm
Canada is pretty tough.
We had loads of troubles getting our Pilatus P-3s certified, and we only managed to put them on limited.
For the Fw 149D, it was easier, there was a new regulation that allows you to fly vintage aircrafts as long as you respect the builder's maintenance procedure, etc.
We had loads of troubles getting our Pilatus P-3s certified, and we only managed to put them on limited.
For the Fw 149D, it was easier, there was a new regulation that allows you to fly vintage aircrafts as long as you respect the builder's maintenance procedure, etc.
Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:42 am
Thanks for the positive feedback!
I'm reluctent to be too categorical, as my experience, though global, is at one remove from the hands on stuff, but In informal chats with lots of engineers and owners that it's a challanging game getting it right.
I believe the 190 saga is about correct. There have also been problems with New Zealand rebuilt warbirds in the UK - I don't think it's a 'fair' descrimination, and is paperwork related rather than qualatative, so you'll excuse the lack of details, but you would expect NZ to be on the same 'standard' as the UK - not so. Bear in mind too, that each case is dependant on the care the owners and engineers have put in on getting it right for future foreign ownership / registration; so one case doesn't prove the issue is for all.
Gold Standard? Clearly the country you are standing in...
A better question would be to classify differences in paperwork / operational requirements, with exception systems like the 'Experimental' category is the USA. Hard, Easy, and Very Easy would be my headings (Australia was worse, with a 'not possible' in the 60s until Wirraway VH-BFF broke the barrier) with the UK under 'hard' and the USA under 'easy', but I'd defer to those more knowlegeable than me, bearing in mind if you are doing the work it's ALWAYS hard!
Cheers!
I'm reluctent to be too categorical, as my experience, though global, is at one remove from the hands on stuff, but In informal chats with lots of engineers and owners that it's a challanging game getting it right.
I believe the 190 saga is about correct. There have also been problems with New Zealand rebuilt warbirds in the UK - I don't think it's a 'fair' descrimination, and is paperwork related rather than qualatative, so you'll excuse the lack of details, but you would expect NZ to be on the same 'standard' as the UK - not so. Bear in mind too, that each case is dependant on the care the owners and engineers have put in on getting it right for future foreign ownership / registration; so one case doesn't prove the issue is for all.
Gold Standard? Clearly the country you are standing in...
A better question would be to classify differences in paperwork / operational requirements, with exception systems like the 'Experimental' category is the USA. Hard, Easy, and Very Easy would be my headings (Australia was worse, with a 'not possible' in the 60s until Wirraway VH-BFF broke the barrier) with the UK under 'hard' and the USA under 'easy', but I'd defer to those more knowlegeable than me, bearing in mind if you are doing the work it's ALWAYS hard!
Cheers!
Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:46 am
JDK:
Compared to UK and Australia, it sounds like the USA is easier. I think having groups like the EAA and AOPA keeps things sort of fair, but only sort of. We can do a lot better.
Compared to UK and Australia, it sounds like the USA is easier. I think having groups like the EAA and AOPA keeps things sort of fair, but only sort of. We can do a lot better.
Equivalency of certification
Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:25 am
If a part is manufactured in, say, the UK according to CAA standards for airworthiness, does the American FAA view the part imported to the US on the same terms as an identical part manufactured in the US to FAA airworthiness standards? Or vice versa? Please keep in mind that I'm refering to parts made for a P-51 or Spitfire, or similar type. I assume these types are classed as experimental in the US and the equivalent(?) in England as well.
cheers!
Ray
cheers!
Ray