Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
Should they be labeled "Spare", "Inop", or something else?
Why not remove them and plug the hole(s)?
Mark one of them "Ejector Seat", the other "Missiles".
The plane (a light sport) came from the manufacturer with breakers installed and marked for uninstalled equipment. Technically, I'd need a letter of authorization and an inspection to remove them.
Is it just me? Or, do other people find stuff like this to be beyond stupid?
I can't imagine having to own a "certificated" airplane...
Is it just me? Or, do other people find stuff like this to be beyond stupid?
I can't imagine having to own a "certificated" airplane...
Permission from Cessna isn't the issue, but ensuring that your work and your paperwork is in order, is.
I have an unused toggle switch. It's functions are labeled as:
Switch Down - Magic
Switch Up - More Magic
I always leave it set to More Magic.
In regards to the OP it is an issue as the OP is in an LSA. The point I think he was making was a difference in the rules there. With a certificated FAA plane, your modification permission comes from the FAA, no manufacturer approval required. With an LSA only the manufacturer can authorize a modification.
Mark one of them "Ejector Seat", the other "Missiles".
In regards to the OP it is an issue as the OP is in an LSA. The point I think he was making was a difference in the rules there. With a certificated FAA plane, your modification permission comes from the FAA, no manufacturer approval required. With an LSA only the manufacturer can authorize a modification.
It's not, it's an LSA.
LSA is a FAA "certificated" airplane.
Certificated, certified, a semantical difference here. Regardless they (FAA) do nothing except accept the manufacturers word that it meets some standard I can't find without spending a few grand. The FAA makes no claims regarding the quality of an LSA aircraft, nor how you may service it. Everything you do to an S/LSA aircraft has to be done to manufacturers spec, no changes allowed without manufacturer permission (kinda wondering how that's gonna work on orphaned planes), there is no "or other methods acceptable to the Administrator" wording there. There is no process to STC, there is no process for a field authorization, there are no methods spelled out in an AC that one can use.
You're a little bit out of your territory here...
S/LSA aircraft have to conform to at least eleven ASTM standards covering everything from the airplane itself to the structure of the maintenance manual. The FAA absolutely audits manufacturers for ASTM compliance. The process to STC an aircraft is a bit more time consuming than a 337, but still not that hard. You fill out a form supplied by the manufacturer, send it back, they approve it and send back a stamped copy, you get the work done and inspected. I've personally done this three times with my airplane, Twice for major avionics changes and once for a set of landing lights I designed myself.
As to orphaned planes, you can always take it to E/LSA and do whatever you want.
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?
I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents. The one that concerns me is the Sport Cruiser that has hollow core rivets on a stressed skin structure, that scares the crap out of me cost wise when they all get worked.
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?
I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents.
That's good to know that you can take them to E/LSA, can you do that even if they aren't orphaned?
I know there ARE standards, now can you tell me what they are? I can't look them up because they aren't published on public documents.
The one that concerns me is the Sport Cruiser that has hollow core rivets on a stressed skin structure, that scares the crap out of me cost wise when they all get worked.
Yep, don't believe you can change them back, though. Which means you'd take the hit on resale value.
True hollow-core, or captured-mandrel rivets like Avex pulled rivets?
Ron Wanttaja
Hollow, like look down the hole in the middle that reaches further than the thickness of the metal being bound.
Hollow, like look down the hole in the middle that reaches further than the thickness of the metal being bound.
How did you determine that they were hollow core rivets?
I know next to nothing about sheet metal and rivets. If I'm looking at the outside of an airplane, let' say the wing, all I see are rivet heads. How can I tell if the rivets are hollow or solid?Looking down the hole, pushing in a pine needle to gauge depth, does it for me.
I know next to nothing about sheet metal and rivets. If I'm looking at the outside of an airplane, let' say the wing, all I see are rivet heads. How can I tell if the rivets are hollow or solid?
Looking down the hole, pushing in a pine needle to gauge depth, does it for me.
The reason for paperwork isn't always obvious. Sometimes, there is something that really needs to be approved.
Sometimes it's a simple matter of documenting the configuration, so that if something really bad happens, somebody knows what configuration the plane was in to perform an analysis and issue an AD if needed.
Less obvious in GA, but aviation is all about the evolutionary deployment of complex systems. When you handle things that way, it causes a lot of paperwork to really not do much more than document configuration. That helps with forensic investigations, if needed.
I guess Experimental isn't tracked (I haven't been involved with it at all). But, I'm guessing it's less likely for an AD to be issued against an Experimental airplane, because nobody knows what's in them.
One of my buddies was an EAA technical advisor. He told me that one area that concerned him, was that you never knew what standards a builder will use for small electrical piece parts like relays and switches.
It makes me curious how bad things are, but I don't really have time to go see for myself. Most finished EAA airplanes I've seen really looked good too. Some of the unfinished projects really give me pause though.
I guess, it a good idea to be naturally suspicious of an unfinished first time project airplane.
FWIW I'm swapping radios in a beech ATM.
Going to end up with an unused breaker and switch...
Thinking either missiles arm or guns arm...