FAA revised Field Approval AC43-210A - New Major/Minor Interpretation?

Much of it is really what the regs just say. However there are some annoying things here that are stupid.

First off, the rules for MAJOR MODIFICATION don't say that any w&b change is major (just about anything will change the empty weight). It says anything that changes the limits of the envelope.

Another stupidity is "if the repair is improperly done, will it affect airworthiness?" Well, duh, almost any repair improperly done can affect airworthiness.
 
I'm not sure about the airworthiness, ref. ->

§3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials.
(a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:

Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.
 
If improperly repaired, it doesn't conform to type design.
Yeah, so? The problem is that the way the flowchart is written any repair that can be done wrong makes the repair a major modification. It's silly.
 
I was wondering if there are instances where incorrect process didn't result in changed configuration, but I cant really think of a case. For example, incorrect heat treatment would possibly leave you with a flawed part, but usually the documents that define a part will define the process used to manufacture it.
 
This is the first paragraph in the reference contained within in the Major Minor decision block 3.2.2.3 ->

§21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. A “minor change” is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are “major changes” (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section).

I see Ron's point. What's appreciable?
 
Back
Top