Non approved parts on normal category airplanes.

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

59Manche

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
28
Location
KY
I've read something on this, but can't remember where I saw it. Is it true that after January 2015, an owner of a normal category airplane can put non TSO'd or PMA'd parts on legally? Seems like I read it would be legal as long as the aircraft wasn't used commercially, which in the case of a single means part 135 to me. If the aircraft was to return to commercial service, the unapproved parts would have to come off.

My interest in this is for ventilation mods and possible future IFR avionics that are only available for homebuilts now.

Anyone familiar with this, or am I experiencing early signs of dementia?

Steve
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
6,912
Location
Rocky Mountains
What you are probably thinking about is part of the recent ARC ASTM initiative to redo part 23. One of the goals was an owner maintained provision. We were originally expecting the process to be through the full public comment period sometime in 2015. 2017 is probably more realistic:depressed
 

59Manche

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
28
Location
KY
I went out and found the document and the Primary Non Commercial Category is definitely where I saw it. I have a minor modification I'd like to do with parts actually used in higher s/n models than mine except for a couple NACA ducts I want to use to replace fiberglass original parts in the engine cowling. I don't want to get crossways with my FSDO, but pretty much have been told they do no field approvals anymore. Such a pain over just trying to increase cabin ventilation....

So you say it is more likely to happen in 2017? Just curious, do work for Flight Standards?

Thanks for your post,
Steve
 

59Manche

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
28
Location
KY
Thanks for this much accelerated understanding of where the issue is presently. There are so, so many of us out here trying to responsibly maintain and improve factory built vintage airplanes. Many of us were born of the early homebuilt movement and have found our niche in vintage aircraft. I'm sure my frustration is shared by countless thousands of highly technically capable aircraft owners.

Thanks for the information and your efforts......Steve
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,576
Location
Memphis, TN
What airplanes are trying to change? Specifically what are you trying to do? Many times it has been done; you just need to find someone who has done it before.
 

59Manche

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
28
Location
KY
The airplane is a '59 model Comanche. I'm trying to legally install cabin air boxes to the lower firewall, and engine cowl chin scoops (NACA) to feed air to them with scat hoses. Except for the NACA replacement for the original chin scoops this was the stock fresh air addition for the models after 1960 or 61. I've seen it added on a couple '59 models, but the owners didn't document the work. I've posted the request on Comanche type club forums, but can't get a straight answer, or any answers for that matter. Most owners tell me to do it and not log the work..... Ain't feeling it.

Steve
 

59Manche

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
28
Location
KY
I did a web search for ARC ASTM Part 23 and followed a link to the document that had the primary non commercial section in it. Having read it before, I was under the impression it was coming into effect in January 2015, and if so my plan was to do the mod I want to do after that category came into effect. At least that was my logic.

Steve
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,934
Location
Savannah, Georgia
As Hot Wings said, the NPRM process moves glacially slow and it's unlikely the Part 23 rewrite will be implemented in time. I've seen figures from late 2015 to early 2017 for implementation.

As I understand it, someone brought up the "Primary Non-Commercial" proposal (which you are referring to) in the Q&A session at Oshkosh. The FAA adminstrator claims it was "inadvertently" left out of the current draft of the new regulation. Uh-huh. Sure. That's like saying Boeing "inadvertently" left one of the wings off of a 777 :ermm:

The FAA doesn't want it to happen, and the only way it will happen is if they're dragged kicking and screaming.
 
Top