FAA Adoption of ASTM Standards

[kontiki]

I heard about this at an FAA seminar last week. The speaker didn't know who ASTM was, but he mentioned the the FAA had adopted a number of commercial ASTM standards to support the Experimental community.

I also heard something about this on the Grumman Gang list server too. I saw where folks had entered Electrical Load Analysis compliance statements on 337s that added equipment to my airplane. I suspected the analysis performed, itself absent, was probably non existent. The 43.13 Advisory Circulars don't really describe how they should be done. I see them at work and there maintenance of the ELA is mandatory (for airliners).

I bought ASTM_F2490 - ELECTRICAL_LOAD_ANALYSIS and it is a vast improvement over the, almost non-existent, AC 43.13 guidance.

There are other ASTM standards adopted by the FAA that do not seem to specifically target the Experimental community. They are announced in the Federal Register as a means of Part 23 Certification Compliance.

I haven't bought any more yet. I really stick to a budget for this sort of trade education.

ASTM F2696-14, STANDARD PRACTICES FOR INSPECTION OF AIRCRAFT WIRING SYSTEMS
ASTM F2799–14, STANDARD PRACTICE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AIRCRAFT WIRING SYSTEMS
ASTM F2483-12, IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDING OF MAJOR REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS
ASTM F2483-12, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES

The subject interests me because I was toying with the idea of becoming an FAA Consulting DER.
Anybody have any insight on what FAA's intentions are on all of this? Are these topics going to be dropped from the 43.13?

 

[GlennAB1]

We had some employees take part in some aircraft inspection research at Sandia National Laboratory, about ten years ago, or so. I'm pretty sure ASTM was involved. The individual's said it was pretty interesting. It was a week long battery of inspections, where inspectors were monitored while they were tasked with finding known defects using different inspection techniques. The findings were kind of shocking but somewhat expected because there is little inspection standard. Everyone had flashlights of differing intensity and everyone used different scan techniques when inspecting. That was the last I heard of it.

 

[denverpilot]

I've always found that idea that "standards" stuck behind a pay wall makes for an interesting barrier to knowledge transfer.

I can't count how many times I had to break out ITU standards my company had paid for and read them or copy pages of them for professionals working for larger telecommunications companies.

Especially when their equipment was doing it "wrong".

The titles of these certainly look useful. Something to file away for the homebuilder with bucks to spare who likes basing their work on a standard.

 

[GlennAB1]

You're not the engineer that tried to get me to accept the stabilizer fitting blend out that was mathematically determined out of limits, by saying our math was wrong, yet Boeing agreed with us? Or, the one that had us reinspecting a weld repair on the wrong side of the engine? That's just a few engineering flubs I've dealt with recently. But, you did hit the nail with: "A&P's have to sign it off". It is on them. And although it may seem like no-brainer decisions to you, it's also pre-defined in said policy manual.

 

[GlennAB1]

fyi, the company I work for (121 operator ) follows ASTM for fluorescent penetrant and mag particle inspection.

 

[GlennAB1]

Sounds like a great place to be. By chance, you didn't happen to know a guy named Don Moore? He was in aircraft engineering and I knew him from another website, years ago.