Fun police strike again

J

JVerb

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2020
Messages
216
Display Name
What's in a name anyways?
avweb.com

FAA Flags 3D Printed Cockpit Accessories As Unapproved Parts

The FAA issued an Unapproved Parts Notification Tuesday covering several 3D printed aircraft accessories sold online.
avweb.com avweb.com

Notice out on a 3d printing person selling simple accessories like headphone holders and ANR control box mounts on Etsy. Sure glad the FAA is here to protect us from the non-certified, suction cup mountable accessories.
 
I'm guessing the issue is because his stuff is "installed" in the aircraft.
 
M20K said:
I'm guessing the issue is because his stuff is "installed" in the aircraft.
Click to expand...
More like he violated several regulations. Now you know why Garmin, Lycoming, and other vendors label their unapproved parts as "experiemental" so they dont violate those same rules. And its more likely it was caught during an inspection and the mechanic filed a SUP form to the FAA, which must respond to it. Just another example how illiterate some people are over such basic rules given the owner who installed the parts probably accepted Mike's advertising claims... which is the purpose of those rules to protect the owner from fraudulent vendor claims.
 
I will say this because I have seen this happen. It is very possible installing such aftermarket parts in the cockpit can cause intereference with critical flight controls under certain conditions that you may not realize until its too late. I knew one person that added an armrest to side panel of there airplane, and it worked 99% of the time. But at certain extreme angles of the yoke, about what it might be during stall practice, it was possibly for the horn of the yoke to get caught on the armrest bracket and get stuck.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I will say this because I have seen this happen. It is very possible installing such aftermarket parts in the cockpit can cause intereference with critical flight controls under certain conditions that you may not realize until its too late. I knew one person that added an armrest to side panel of there airplane, and it worked 99% of the time. But at certain extreme angles of the yoke, about what it might be during stall practice, it was possibly for the horn of the yoke to get caught on the armrest bracket and get stuck.
Click to expand...
A standard preflight check should be the box check of the yoke movement, which would identify this as a problem.
 
Rick A said:
One word answer: VELCRO
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, velcro wouldn't have stopped the SUP Notice, but it may give the owner some relief on his end if there was an issue with the install.
 
Bell206 said:
Unfortunately, velcro wouldn't have stopped the SUP Notice, but it may give the owner some relief on his end if there was an issue with the install.
Click to expand...

The FAA would have a field day seeing what stuff is temporarily stuck to my headliner and window posts around the cockpit...
 
MountainDude said:
This is one of many examples where AOPA should jump in and PR the crap out of this, revealing how FAA has the time to do this but does not have time to approve medicals more efficiently.
Click to expand...
Or provide oversight to aircraft manufacturers. Or essentially anything we want/need them to do as a tax payer.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Or provide oversight to aircraft manufacturers. Or essentially anything we want/need them to do as a tax payer.
Click to expand...
Except that would require congress to fund the FAA better and ensure all the monies from those special aviation use taxes are directed to where they should go. If you look back 35 years ago and calculate the dollar's value difference from then to now, you'll find the FAA is funded at a rate less than 60% of what it was funded back then, yet the aviation industry has grown tenfold since then. This is also why the designee program as exploded in size/oversight plus many other similar changes over the years to offset the lack of congressional funding to do the things you want done as a taxpayer.
 
It sounds like these were things that were "installed" on the aircraft, which are in fact illegal.

Now, let's talk about how the process of getting FAA approval for something like a headset holder would be utterly stupid and complex... I did at one point look into what it would take to obtain an STC for a custom mount for an already-FAA-approved part and was told that for any STC, it would be a minimum of $10K.

The consequences of something like a headset holder or cup holder failing do not warrant $10K worth of engineering verification.
 
In discussions on camera mounting I've heard it said that anything requiring tools to mount or remove is considered "installed".
 
Yeah, speaking of which, how do all the backcountry aviation influencer bozos get away with strapping cameras to the outside of their aircraft... can the FAA go after them??
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The consequences of something like a headset holder or cup holder failing do not warrant $10K worth of engineering verification.
Click to expand...
Or Mike3D could have labeled his stuff experimental and any owner could have then had their mechanic install it as a minor alteration for the labor time. No engineering needed.

ateamer said:
Couldn’t “installed” be something as simple as attaching a headset battery holder to the panel with double-sided tape?
Click to expand...
Technically no, but there is no defined FAA guidance on the matter. Even the "tool requirement" is not a 100% qualifier in determining if an item is installed or not. For example, look at any older TSO-C91 ELT that was factory installed with velcro but is still FAA acceptable in meeting 91.207 requirements. Or throw terms in like "portable" and "temporary" into the mix you can come across guidance like this: "airworthiness regulations do not apply to portable EFB components other than for specifications associated with the installed components" or "the use of suction cups or other temporary methods of a attachment would not be considered a modification to the aircraft. These temporary attachments would not be subject to the regulatory purview of 14 CFR Part43." So, if I loosen an existing screw and slide a temporary mount under it then tighten it, is that considered "installed" in that I altered the aircraft from one state to another state? Regardless, common sense keeps you sane in these cases, but in almost all cases there is a path to install whatever you want on a TC'd legally.
 
Last edited:
JVerb said:
avweb.com

FAA Flags 3D Printed Cockpit Accessories As Unapproved Parts

The FAA issued an Unapproved Parts Notification Tuesday covering several 3D printed aircraft accessories sold online.
avweb.com avweb.com

Notice out on a 3d printing person selling simple accessories like headphone holders and ANR control box mounts on Etsy. Sure glad the FAA is here to protect us from the non-certified, suction cup mountable accessories.
Click to expand...
wasn't there an incident recently where a guy killed himself because a printed part failed? unfortunately pendulum has swung
 
MackMooney said:
wasn't there an incident recently where a guy killed himself because a printed part failed? unfortunately pendulum has swung
Click to expand...
Let's be careful about giving everything a single label. Yes, that happened. But it wasn't someone mounting a headphone hook. He had bought an air induction elbow and it melted. And it was experimental.
 
172andyou said:
Let's be careful about giving everything a single label. Yes, that happened. But it wasn't someone mounting a headphone hook. He had bought an air induction elbow and it melted. And it was experimental.
Click to expand...
i'm the FAA i'm not playing with your parts, no testing, no certs, no research wth, i'm not investing the time to figure it out. Personally, my plane, let them tell me it's wrong, well, if i see them anytime in the next 50 years
 
MackMooney said:
wasn't there an incident recently where a guy killed himself
Click to expand...
Only one correction, the pilot survived.

The part was supposed to be ABS, but somehow the manufacturer sold him a PLA part (lower melting temp), and they both looked identical on the outside.

Having had to deal with the Friendly Aviation Administration in the process of certifying 3D printed parts, I do understand their position. There are so many ways you can mess things up, it's no wonder they elect to retain a higher level of involvement for such projects.

Material selection, 3D printing method, consistency/repeatability of the process, and so on. As the tech, materials and processes get covered by some good aviation standards, I expect things to get relaxed a bit for what will be considered non-critical parts.
 
JVerb said:
https://avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-flags-3d-printed-cockpit-accessories/

Notice out on a 3d printing person selling simple accessories like headphone holders and ANR control box mounts on Etsy. Sure glad the FAA is here to protect us from the non-certified, suction cup mountable accessories.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Maybe not so simple. Take a look at the picture in the upper left of this collage and you be the judge.
514246591_24102311799431589_6402318545316434129_n.jpg

Source:
www.facebook.com

Grumman Owners and Pilots Association (GOPA) | This flight brought to you by Michael Graham madebymike3d | Facebook

This flight brought to you by Michael Graham madebymike3d. Mike 3D prints so many useful items for the Grumman. Can’t wait to install my yoke handles. Pictures here are the N number customer wheel...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
asicer said:
I dunno. Maybe not so simple. Take a look at the picture in the upper left of this collage and you be the judge.
514246591_24102311799431589_6402318545316434129_n.jpg

Source:
www.facebook.com

Grumman Owners and Pilots Association (GOPA) | This flight brought to you by Michael Graham madebymike3d | Facebook

This flight brought to you by Michael Graham madebymike3d. Mike 3D prints so many useful items for the Grumman. Can’t wait to install my yoke handles. Pictures here are the N number customer wheel...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
Click to expand...
Those are all very simple items.
 
Looks like it’s not behind the pilot. More blunt force trauma (or not-so blunt).
 
AA5Bman said:
Yeah, speaking of which, how do all the backcountry aviation influencer bozos get away with strapping cameras to the outside of their aircraft... can the FAA go after them??
Click to expand...
I'll let you know if they come after me!

In 2014 the FAA put out a memo saying, "the use of suction cups or other temporary means of attachment not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft would not be considered a modification of the aircraft." However, most of us who use external cameras mount them with screws. Mine are mounted simply my using existing holes on inspection panels and using longer screws. I would never trust a suction cup or peel-and-stick plastic mount.
 
I'm just surprised that Avweb had something somewhat useful in an article - I thought they were going 100% AI slop writing, so I stopped looking at their website.
 
Lowflynjack said:
However, most of us who use external cameras mount them with screws. Mine are mounted simply my using existing holes on inspection panels and using longer screws.
Click to expand...
That usage is supported by the preceding sentence in that 2014 memo on the definition of a modification: from one sound state to another sound state. Using existing hardware to secure something is not “another sound state.” And it’s the reason so many mount cameras in that manner with no or limited FAA intervention.
 
Bell206 said:
That usage is supported by the preceding sentence in that 2014 memo on the definition of a modification: from one sound state to another sound state. Using existing hardware to secure something is not “another sound state.” And it’s the reason so many mount cameras in that manner with no or limited FAA intervention.
Click to expand...
Until someone influences themselves into a crater because they thought the plane could handle 100 GoPros on the wings and tail :D
 
AA5Bman said:
Yeah, speaking of which, how do all the backcountry aviation influencer bozos get away with strapping cameras to the outside of their aircraft... can the FAA go after them??
Click to expand...
The FAA released a letter years ago that effectively said "Yeah, we don't really care about cameras as long as you don't attach them to balanced flight controls or anything dumb like that."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The FAA released a letter years ago that effectively said "Yeah, we don't really care about cameras as long as you don't attach them to balanced flight controls or anything dumb like that."
Click to expand...
Which begs the question about why they care about this stuff? Granted, I don't know what all he sells and how it is mounted. But I actually think attaching a GoPro to a tiedown could potentially be more dangerous if it came loose flying over populated areas. So what harm is a headset hanger where (I assume) you do the same thing and remove one screw and replace it with a slightly longer one.

Also of note, when living in NYC you'd occasionally hear of the person walking down the street that got hit from a brick or some other heavy object that fell from the facade of a building. Well there were also a lot of stories about small pieced breaking off and also causing some substantial injuries. A GoPro from altitude would do the same thing.
 
This is probably a shot across the bow at the rapidly proliferating 3D printed parts market.
 
M20K said:
Which begs the question about why they care about this stuff?
Click to expand...
The illegal production of parts for a TC'd product violates several rules but more importantly violates a number of bilateral agreements the US is party with to include with ICAO. And about 80% of the FARs are to comply with those agreements. So it simply goes back to if you don't like the TC rules fly E/AB.

M20K said:
But I actually think attaching a GoPro to a tiedown could potentially be more dangerous
Click to expand...
It is and in the same 2014 FAA letter being addressed above, it states if something does suffer an "in-flight detachment" from one of these types of "installs," a 91.13 or 91.15 violation may be in someone's future. And has.

Ed Haywood said:
This is probably a shot across the bow at the rapidly proliferating 3D printed parts market.
Click to expand...
3D printing, or additive manufacturing or machining as it is referred to, has been on the FAA's watch list for a number of years and is even used on a number of new generation turbofans. What's changed recently is either through ignorance or a lack of fear of being caught, more people have decided to push things at the Part 91 level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top