Fun police strike again

M20K said:
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.
Click to expand...
A GoPro is a lot lighter than a brick fragment of the same size.
 
M20K said:
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.
Click to expand...
As @Bell206 said, the letter specifically says that something coming undone is likely to result in a 91.13 "careless and reckless" violation. I suspect that the reason for the letter was that they didn't want people attaching cameras with suction cups instead of screws to get around the rules, so they kinda just said "don't be dumb and we'll look the other way."

M20K said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's a good question...
 
So who is certifying the latest generation of cockpit chemtrail automatic flow spray controls then? I just upgraded dangit...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That's a good question...
Click to expand...
I did a quick search and find that Aircraft Spruce and others sell headset hangers, cup holders, etc.

It wouldn't shock me if the "larger" guys went to the FAA and complained about what they had to do and how this guy is just selling them on Etsy.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That's a good question...
Click to expand...
Except the issue in the OP is not a Part 43 install problem, its a Part 21 part production problem. So in the owners case no harm no foul in this specific cases.

M20K said:
It wouldn't shock me if the "larger" guys went to the FAA and complained about what they had to do and how this guy is just selling them on Etsy.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. And if the Etsy guy had marketed his parts like Spruce with no specific aircraft model applicability, nobody would have cared and no UPN notice published. Simple.
 
Shawn said:
So who is certifying the latest generation of cockpit chemtrail automatic flow spray controls then? I just upgraded dangit...
Click to expand...
I hold the STC... where is my royalty check?
 
First off, why didn't the mechanic just say 'Hey, this is not legal, you need to remove it' and call it a day? Why run to Mommy and tell on this owner and bring all the heat and eyes of the FAA on them??? Seems like a simple, open conversation between owner and mechanic is in order and would have taught the owner something about non-acceptable parts, build trust between owner and mechanic, and give the mechanic a chance to possibly recommend a correct or acceptable alternative.

Second, there needs to be some sort of middle ground with this. I run a center console in my Skylane. It's got a great elbow rest, holds my stuff handy, and overall improves the flight experience as it gives me something to lay my leg against and somewhere to stick my water. However, its merely velcro'ed to the carpet and if I were to ever hit a huge bump or something, that thing becomes a missile. Now, I would think, finding a simple fastening system to secure it to the floorboard would be in order with this particular item. I even floated the idea by my mechanic who said 'yeah, we could come up with something real simple, that wouldn't affect the airframe, and really secure it to keep it safe. However, I just don't know how the FAA would feel about it if they saw.' That tells me that a route to safely secure this with very minimal impact does exist, that it would definitely improve the security of my cockpit, and make me feel a little better about having it between my seats. But when I read the above regarding these headset holders, and other low risk items, it makes me think I'm wasting my time.

What gets me the most about my situation and how ridiculous it is, is that the carpet is literally held down by screws. Up under my feet and behind under the rear bench, the carpet it screwed down into the floorboard! The heel plate has 6 screws, over the carpet right into the floor, and the rear seat center bolt goes ONTOP of the carpet, and physically holds the carpet down with screws. So, we can hold the carpet down with screws, but I cant put a few screws through my console, through the carpet and into the floorboard to hold down my console??? Makes no sense.

Ugghh...I know I'm wasting my time with this but just had to toss it into the ring.
 
Last edited:
BigghHauss78 said:
But when I read the above regarding these headset holders, and other low risk items, it makes me think I'm wasting my time.
Click to expand...
Not at all especially since your mechanic is involved. The initial problem is a Part 21 issue and not a Part 43 issue, which is what your modification falls under. But to clarify, it's not known who initiated the FAA UPN. I only mentioned possibly a mechanic as that is a common route, but equally as common is from an owner who buys these parts thinking their okay to install based on the website, but finds out later those parts are not what they were advertised as. And to add, even if you bought those OP parts today, you could still have them installed by your mechanic as an alteration. So yes there is plenty of middle ground on this and as I've said before, you can install whatever you want on your aircraft provided you follow the proper route. Simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top