Delegating Owner Operator Authority To Manufacture Parts

[kontiki]

All,

I'm looking at purchasing a replacement part for an old STC. A reputable vendor who does hold a PMA for some parts, told me that he could not get PMA for these parts, but they are in fact manufactured per the required DWG. Apparently, the PMA was just out of reach for these parts though.

As a PMA holder they cannot sell me the part unless I sign a form that essentially requests they make the part for me under my own owner operator authority to manufacture repair parts.

Anybody done this in GA? If so how was it handled?

I've actually run into this before at a part 121 airline where a manufacturer that held a PMA could not sell us a non-PMA part originally installed under an old company STC. They felt the regulations prohibited them from selling a non-PMA part, no exceptions. The airline did have an FAA approved process for that situation, but the airline also had an approved QA process for qualifying vendors to make parts on their behalf.

 

[JHW]

No problem. You can make an owner-produced part for your own plane. You dont have to make it all by yourself, you just need to participate in the process. You can participate by giving someone instructions, drawings, materials specs, an original part to duplicate, etc.

 

[Kristin]

All,

I'm looking at purchasing a replacement part for an old STC. A reputable vendor who does hold a PMA for some parts, told me that he could not get PMA for these parts, but they are in fact manufactured per the required DWG. Apparently, the PMA was just out of reach for these parts though.

As a PMA holder they cannot sell me the part unless I sign a form that essentially requests they make the part for me under my own owner operator authority to manufacture repair parts.

Anybody done this in GA? If so how was it handled?

I've actually run into this before at a part 121 airline where a manufacturer that held a PMA could not sell us a non-PMA part originally installed under an old company STC. They felt the regulations prohibited them from selling a non-PMA part, no exceptions. The airline did have an FAA approved process for that situation, but the airline also had an approved QA process for qualifying vendors to make parts on their behalf.

Check out FAR 23.9. What this vendor is asking for is proper. I would sign the paper and get my part, as long as the price was fair and I believe that the vendor would make a good part.

 

[weirdjim]

Check out FAR 23.9. What this vendor is asking for is proper. I would sign the paper and get my part, as long as the price was fair and I believe that the vendor would make a good part.

Kristin ...

This seems sort of stupid, but the FAR requires that you give them some sort of drawing or instructions on how to make the part for your own "product". That sort of implies that the vendor give YOU the drawings, you look them over, sign them, and return the same drawing with the signed paper instructing them to build this part for you.

Do you agree with this approach?

Jim

 

[flyingron]

The American Navion Society (and probably some of the other type societies) makes certain parts for the members under the owner-built part rule. Our parts are all done based on the original manufacturers drawings typically. We did have an AMOC for the fuel selector AD and the "factory" made such a stink about it that we actually went and got a PMA for that valve (it's just an Andair valve made to our specifications) even though such was not strictly required (we just decided to not cause any more grief to the poor guy in the Chicago ADO who is getting reamed by the alleged "factory."

 

[Stewartb]

Here's a good read. http://dc65stc.blogspot.com/2010/10/owner-produced-parts.html

 

[bnt83]

Replacement parts made specifically for you without PMA isn't any different than a CRS making parts such as gussets, angles, shims, doublers, bushings or even repair bolts, etc (sometimes requiring heat treat, grinding, plating) that are consumed in structural repairs. None of these parts are PMA. They are not produced for resale. They are simply made from an engineering drawing approved by an FAA form 8100-9 or 8110-3, approving the design data. Its up to the installer to supervise, determine airworthiness, install and RTS these parts.

 

[Vaflier]

Along with thier form send them a letter requesting they produce the parts based on the original specs and drawings. That should constitute directions enough as to how to make the part and along with you aproving the final part should meet the requirement that you be involved in the process.

 

[SkyDog58]

Here is a good read on the subject:

https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2001/media/julyAug2001.pdf

 

[kontiki]

All,

To clarify; my actual concerns went something like this:

FAA grants me authority to make the part, what lets me delegate that authority to another?

I looked up every single policy, circular and FAR reference I could find (including references for the FAA approved part 121 policy at work).

My conclusions:

1 - No regulation prohibits it
2 - Probably OK, owner/operator just needs to recognize they are solely responsible for the parts fitness for service.

I did confirm that I can get a full refund if I determine the part is not fit for service.

Thanks all.

 

[Kristin]

Kristin ...

This seems sort of stupid, but the FAR requires that you give them some sort of drawing or instructions on how to make the part for your own "product". That sort of implies that the vendor give YOU the drawings, you look them over, sign them, and return the same drawing with the signed paper instructing them to build this part for you.

Do you agree with this approach?

Jim

There are many different ways to meet the requirements for an owner produced part. Attached is FAA legal's view of the matter.

 

[weirdjim]

There are many different ways to meet the requirements for an owner produced part. Attached is FAA legal's view of the matter.

Uhhh...yes ma'am. I am intimately familiar with 21.303 (b)(2) as I built my company in 1974 completely on that one exemption and have been using it to stay in business for the last 40 years. You see, RST Engineering sold KITS to people who wanted to build their own avionics. Marker receivers, 760 channel NavComs, audio panels ... and based it all on the owner of the aircraft actually building the piece in question. Call it Heathkit for airplanes if you will.

As a matter of fact, on page 8 the FAA signatory is M. C. Beard, Director of Airworthiness. Brother Beard came to RST in San Diego with half a dozen of his minions from the LA in 1977 with the intent of shutting us down. From that meeting came a lot of handwringing and discussions about what that part of the regs really meant. I take exceptional pleasure in knowing that I was a small part of putting this regulation into practice.

What I don't see in this handout you referenced was the seminal opinion of the Chief Counsel that laid down chapter and verse of the legal effect of 21.303b2 that is the genesis and foundation of all the orders and such that this handout is based on. That opinion is the guts on which RST operates to this day.

Anyway, Kristin, my question still stands. Is signing a document telling a company to produce parts without so much as a glance at the drawings and specifications sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the regulations that you quoted?

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Kristin]

Uhhh...yes ma'am. I am intimately familiar with 21.303 (b)(2) as I built my company in 1974 completely on that one exemption and have been using it to stay in business for the last 40 years. You see, RST Engineering sold KITS to people who wanted to build their own avionics. Marker receivers, 760 channel NavComs, audio panels ... and based it all on the owner of the aircraft actually building the piece in question. Call it Heathkit for airplanes if you will.

As a matter of fact, on page 8 the FAA signatory is M. C. Beard, Director of Airworthiness. Brother Beard came to RST in San Diego with half a dozen of his minions from the LA in 1977 with the intent of shutting us down. From that meeting came a lot of handwringing and discussions about what that part of the regs really meant. I take exceptional pleasure in knowing that I was a small part of putting this regulation into practice.

What I don't see in this handout you referenced was the seminal opinion of the Chief Counsel that laid down chapter and verse of the legal effect of 21.303b2 that is the genesis and foundation of all the orders and such that this handout is based on. That opinion is the guts on which RST operates to this day.

Anyway, Kristin, my question still stands. Is signing a document telling a company to produce parts without so much as a glance at the drawings and specifications sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the regulations that you quoted?

Thanks,

Jim

I am aware of RST. I put together one of your portable intercoms back in the 80's.

I am not sure what you are asking for here? You seem more interesting in picking a fight, though I can't really imagine why. A formal legal opinion is very much a fact based analysis applying the law as best as it has been fleshed out. I gave you the latest legal guidance from the FAA. What you present is an incomplete hypothetical which prevents a meaningful answer to your question. It also assumes that you have to have a drawing and specifications to have a part made and be considered an owner-produced part. I did not find that requirement spelled in in the FAA's interpretation.

Hypothetically, it might be possible to send a part to a vendor and ask them to duplicate it. Whether that constitutes a "glance at the drawings and specifications" I will leave to you to decide.

BTW, 21.303 has been renumbered and now is FAR 21.9.

 

[weirdjim]

I am aware of RST. I put together one of your portable intercoms back in the 80's.

And I'll bet the darned thing is still working. THats one of our problems. If they don't break then we can't sell you another one. Bummer.

I am not sure what you are asking for here? You seem more interesting in picking a fight, though I can't really imagine why.

Of all the things I'm NOT trying to do, pick a fight is high on the list. I'm just trying to justify in my mind whether or not sending a letter to a vendor with the specifications sight unseen meets the spirit and letter of the law. That was the comment of the OP, not just a hypothetical question. Just a question because I don't know the answer.


BTW, 21.303 has been renumbered and now is FAR 21.9.

Yup. Seems that they can't leave well enough alone.

.....

 

[Kristin]

.....

There is no clear legal answer. Part of the reason that the rule exists is because most of the airlines produce their own parts. The practice is so ubiquitous that the FAA is probably afraid of giving too much guidance for fear of making some airline's practice suddenly illegal.

I know of some vendors who have obtained factory drawings or have reverse engineered a particular part and will sell a part as an owner-produced part. If the buyer places an order, and then verifies the specifications once the part is received, does that count? Well, the FAA opinion says that handling QC is one of the qualifying activities. So one has an argument that such is legal. To my knowledge, it hasn't been tested in court, so no clear answer is possible.

 

[weirdjim]

There is no clear legal answer. Part of the reason that the rule exists is because most of the airlines produce their own parts.

Actually if you trace the genesis of the rule back to the 1930s (which is where it first surfaced in another part of "the rules" that weren't codified back then), you will find that it was REALLY written for cropdusters that were busting wings and other parts that they had to manufacture in the field (literally) to keep their cropdusting business going.

It has only recently (in the last 50 years) been bent and twisted to accomodate airlines and part 91 aircraft in a manner never meant in the original, but I'm certainly not going to kvetch about the current interpretation.


Jim

 

[Kristin]

Actually if you trace the genesis of the rule back to the 1930s (which is where it first surfaced in another part of "the rules" that weren't codified back then), you will find that it was REALLY written for cropdusters that were busting wings and other parts that they had to manufacture in the field (literally) to keep their cropdusting business going.

It has only recently (in the last 50 years) been bent and twisted to accomodate airlines and part 91 aircraft in a manner never meant in the original, but I'm certainly not going to kvetch about the current interpretation.


Jim

I don't go back to the CAR's. The FAR's and I are about the same age.

The advantage of the loose interpretation is that the FAA will think twice about busting someone for a violation without the actual failure of an owner produced part to point to or a violation in documentation not involving an interpretation of what counts as an owner produced part.

 

[Tom-D]

I don't go back to the CAR's. The FAR's and I are about the same age.

The advantage of the loose interpretation is that the FAA will think twice about busting someone for a violation without the actual failure of an owner produced part to point to or a violation in documentation not involving an interpretation of what counts as an owner produced part.

The Franklin 165 horse uses the rods and bearing inserts from a Alis-Chalmers tractor.
Can we use them as owner produced parts during an overhaul?

 

[Kristin]

The Franklin 165 horse uses the rods and bearing inserts from a Alis-Chalmers tractor.
Can we use them as owner produced parts during an overhaul?

Maybe yes! Maybe no! If you had the specifications for the Franklin ones and documented that the Allis-Chalmers ones were identical, then you have a argument that you complied. Now if there is an interpretation that owner/operator must initiate the manufacture of the part, then you will not be in compliance, but I haven't clearly seen that stated as a requirement.

 

[weirdjim]

I don't go back to the CAR's. The FAR's and I are about the same age.

Kiddie twerp.



Jim

 

[kgruber]

I don't go back to the CAR's. The FAR's and I are about the same age.

Even so, the very latest straight tail Beechcraft King Air, right off the assembly line, is still a CAR3 airplane.

 

[Kristin]

Are you taking my attempt at humor seriously? BTW, is there any other sort of a King Air other than a straight tail one?

 

[kgruber]

Are you taking my attempt at humor seriously? BTW, is there any other sort of a King Air other than a straight tail one?

Oh yes! F-90, 200, 300, 350......

All certified under Part23 or Part25 Commuter.

 

[Kristin]

Oh yes! F-90, 200, 300, 350......

All certified under Part23 or Part25 Commuter.

I have never heard anyone call the 90's series "straight tails". Conventional tails, but not straight tails.

As you are probably aware, there are lots of other aircraft in production that are CAR 3 aircraft.

The more interesting question is what is going wrong in your life that you are trying to take a humorous comment and try to pick a fight over it.

 

[N801BH]

I have never heard anyone call the 90's series "straight tails". Conventional tails, but not straight tails.

As you are probably aware, there are lots of other aircraft in production that are CAR 3 aircraft.

The more interesting question is what is going wrong in your life that you are trying to take a humorous comment and try to pick a fight over it.

I divorced my one and only wife of 33 years when she said almost the exact same thing....

Must be advanced age hormones kicking in..........

 

[Kristin]

I divorced my one and only wife of 33 years when she said almost the exact same thing....

Must be advanced age hormones kicking in..........

I know! I coached her.