Aircraft and parts prices out of control

pfarber said:
but the FAA then creates the PMA to put up a legal roadblock to cheap high quality parts.
Click to expand...
How so? As an A&P there nothing that stops you from installing those cheap high quality parts on a TC aircraft as an alteration. Regardless the PMA, TSO, or STC systems are not just a domestic FAA policy either, but are how the US meets the requirements of various aviation international agreements/treaties they are signatories on. It the same system that prevents the TCCA owner-maintained aircraft from leaving Canada as they no longer meet several of the aviation bilateral agreements they’ve signed and do not meet international airworthiness standards.
pfarber said:
Look at a 337 for a Major repair. You can get the FAA's blessing to repair a wing, but not sell a wing repair kit. Piper owners are feeling this now with the spar AD. There is nothing special about the repair, but Piper uses the FAA to for an overpriced kit that's basically copy/pasted from the 43.13-1B
Click to expand...
Curious. If the repair scheme is “copy/pasted from the 43.13-1B” why can’t an APIA use the same AC43.13 repair vs buy the kit and comply with the AD via an AMOC?
 
Bell206 said:
How so? As an A&P there nothing that stops you from installing those cheap high quality parts on a TC aircraft as an alteration. Regardless the PMA, TSO, or STC systems are not just a domestic FAA policy either, but are how the US meets the requirements of various aviation international agreements/treaties they are signatories on. It the same system that prevents the TCCA owner-maintained aircraft from leaving Canada as they no longer meet several of the aviation bilateral agreements they’ve signed and do not meet international airworthiness standards.

Curious. If the repair scheme is “copy/pasted from the 43.13-1B” why can’t an APIA use the same AC43.13 repair vs buy the kit and comply with the AD via an AMOC?
Click to expand...

Seriously? You actually believe what you just wrote?

Why even have A&Ps or airworthiness standards?

That's about as all I can say about such an uneducated reply.
 
pfarber said:
Seriously? You actually believe what you just wrote?

Why even have A&Ps or airworthiness standards?

That's about as all I can say about such an uneducated reply.
Click to expand...
APs can fabricate parts/assist in owner produced parts as well. Not everything has to be TSO or PMA. If my Cessna door hinges break and they cost $1000, I will certainly be owner producing equally good or better versions for my AP to install.
 
Skyknight320 said:
I don't blame Cessna for not wanting to support 50+ year old aircraft, but if they want to get people into new aircraft they need to make it affordable.
Click to expand...
My 1964 Cessna 210D sold new for about $25k. Adjusted for the Feds deliberate money debasement this plane should sell for about $170,000. This is not a typo!
 
Matthew Rogers said:
APs can fabricate parts/assist in owner produced parts as well. Not everything has to be TSO or PMA. If my Cessna door hinges break and they cost $1000, I will certainly be owner producing equally good or better versions for my AP to install.
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to know these mythical A&Ps that seem to want to throw away their certificate for anyone that asks.

Granted there is an AC for old replacement substitutes, but we're not talking simple bushings.
 
pfarber said:
Seriously? You actually believe what you just wrote? Why even have A&Ps or airworthiness standards? That's about as all I can say about such an uneducated reply.
Click to expand...
Ha. So let me see if I got this straight.

You complained the PMA process prevents you or “gets in the way” from allowing you to install “cheap high quality parts” on an aircraft and I provided you with one legal method to get round the PMA process via a Part 43 alteration that is used by owners and mechanics every day.

Then you complained that the FAA forces you to use an “overpriced kit that's basically copy/pasted from the 43.13-1B” to comply with an AD which I questioned why not simply use the AC 43.13-1B repair with an AMOC which is another possible legal option that is used on occasion by owners and mechanics.

Yet you believe my answers are not serious and uneducated? Okay, edumacate me where I went wrong with my replies. Specifics please. And you won’t hurt my feelings either.;)
 
Snowmass said:
My 1964 Cessna 210D sold new for about $25k. Adjusted for the Feds deliberate money debasement this plane should sell for about $170,000. This is not a typo!
Click to expand...
This is the point I was making about the Baron price. I guess they are producing less than they were in the 60's and 70's, but that is because they cost so much, lower the price and they will sell more. If the FAA's main purpose is safety, then why are we relegated to flying around in old junk.
 
Skyknight320 said:
This is the point I was making about the Baron price. I guess they are producing less than they were in the 60's and 70's, but that is because they cost so much, lower the price and they will sell more. If the FAA's main purpose is safety, then why are we relegated to flying around in old junk.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the purpose of the FAA is to control market prices on new aircraft.
 
pfarber said:
Everyone seems to know these mythical A&Ps that seem to want to throw away their certificate for anyone that asks.
Click to expand...
What's so mythical about them? I know of many APs who fabricate parts (Part 21), install/assist with owner produced parts (Part 21), install non-TSO parts (Part43), and so on. All legal with no issues against their certificates. So what is the issue?
 
Skyknight320 said:
guess they are producing less than they were in the 60's and 70's, but that is because they cost so much, lower the price and they will sell more.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there are only so many people buying new Barons that Beech only makes so many? Why not call them and ask? As to cost if you are implying the FAA is causing the high cost its doubtful as all the certification costs have been paid several times over given how long Barons have been around. So all you really have left is labor, materials, and market demand.
Skyknight320 said:
If the FAA's main purpose is safety, then why are we relegated to flying around in old junk.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, the FAA doesn't have any regulation preventing you from buying a new Cessna or Piper. So that's more a personal decision to fly around in old junk. And people do buy new aircraft. Just saw a real nice new 182 several weeks ago.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Thankfully, both in Canada O-M and US EAB, mx/repair allowances are extended to ALL owners regardless of bUiLdEr status.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this? The FAA does NOT grant a repairman certificate to anybody that buys an EAB registered aircraft. In fact, they specifically will not issue you a repairman certificate unless you are listed as a primary builder on the registration documentation AND, to the satisfaction of the administrator, demonstrate that you are knowledgeable enough to be capable of determining whether the aircraft is airworthy during a conditional inspection.
 
Der Fliegermeister said:
Where are you getting this? The FAA does NOT grant a repairman certificate to anybody that buys an EAB registered aircraft. In fact, they specifically will not issue you a repairman certificate unless you are listed as a primary builder on the registration documentation AND, to the satisfaction of the administrator, demonstrate that you are knowledgeable enough to be capable of determining whether the aircraft is airworthy during a conditional inspection.
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote again. I said mx/repair allowance, not inspection authority allowance. I'm aware the repairman cert is only for the builder.
 
My
pfarber said:
Everyone seems to know these mythical A&Ps that seem to want to throw away their certificate for anyone that asks.

Granted there is an AC for old replacement substitutes, but we're not talking simple bushings.
Click to expand...
AP/IA is fine producing most simple parts and signing off on my “experimental” GTR-200.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Read what I wrote again. I said mx/repair allowance, not inspection authority allowance. I'm aware the repairman cert is only for the builder.
Click to expand...
Given that your preceding and proceeding sentences dealt with builders, what you meant to say didn't come across clearly.

It would've been helpful to point to AC 43-12 as revised if that's what you're referring to. Not sure where the term "allowance" came from. Perhaps we're operating in two different regulatory environments(?)

Either way, I think we're saying the same thing and one of us didn't know it. :oops:
 
Der Fliegermeister said:
The FAA does NOT grant a repairman certificate to anybody that buys an EAB registered aircraft.
Click to expand...

Most here know this, but to reiterate because there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there…

No repairman certificate, nor a certificate of any kind, is required to perform maintenance and modifications to any Experimental aircraft, whether they or someone else built it. The repairman certificate is only needed to perform the Annual Condition Inspection.
 
FastEddieB said:
Most here know this, but to reiterate because there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there…

No repairman certificate, nor a certificate of any kind, is required to perform maintenance and modifications to any Experimental aircraft, whether they or someone else built it. The repairman certificate is only needed to perform the Annual Condition Inspection.
Click to expand...
Unless you aren't the builder and they're major alterations, in which case you might get bounced back to phase 1 testing... Wish I was kidding
 
pfarber said:
Seriously? You actually believe what you just wrote?

Why even have A&Ps or airworthiness standards?

That's about as all I can say about such an uneducated reply.
Click to expand...
Uneducated. Right. Bell206 has more experience in his little finger than most of the rest of us mechanics have in our whole bodies.

Once again: please cite your maintenance credentials and experience.
 
Der Fliegermeister said:
Unless you aren't the builder and they're major alterations, in which case you might get bounced back to phase 1 testing... Wish I was kidding
Click to expand...

I’ll take your word for it. My E-LSA Operating Limitations reference various phases of flight testing, but I was exempt from any testing, since I was moving from S-LSA. And since all my alterations have been quite minor, no phased flight testing has been required, though I do a “Return to Service” test flight after any alteration or maintenance.

I know “Major Alteration” is defined as “…an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications -

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

But it seems the qualifier “appreciably” is largely subjective. Different engine seems obviously major. But different prop? Re-pitching an existing ground-adjustable prop? Adding wheel fairings? Lots of room for interpretation, it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top