VARMA: Throwing the dog a bone

10/13/2023

UPDATE: VARMA - No Bone... just us old dogs.  Looking for younger pups!

 

When I first heard about the VARMA plan, I was skeptical.  Anything with FAA involved tends to have flaws.  So I blogged my opinions here.

http://dc65stc.blogspot.com/2023/04/varma-throwing-dog-bone.html

 

Within days, I got a call from Scott Fohrman (FAA) and Tom Charpentier (EAA).  They wanted to explain the process.  So I listened.  I have known Scott for several years.  He is one of the few at FAA who have historically been a champion for vintage certified aircraft.  So he took the ball (at the urging of EAA) on this to come up with a way he can use his position in the FAA, following existing rules and policy, to do his part to help owners navigate the FAA quagmire. They call it VARMA.  Good on Scott.  But I don't think many at FAA are on his side.  I gather that this VARMA thing is a one-man (Scott) show with FAA. But, it turns out I am now less skeptical now and can see that this is good.  I still worry somewhat about dealing with the FAA, who often open up worm cans that can really make life tough.  But I don't believe Scott is that kind of fellow.  Let's just hope he doesn't retire soon.

 

So take a look into it.  VARMA may just be the help you need.  As a DER myself, I am doing everything I can to help out with approvals of technology upgrades for Vintage airplanes.  I have a huge back-log of work in this area.  I love my job but it is sometimes overwhelming.  It is good to have at least someone (Scott) at the FAA who are also working in this area.  Honestly there are not enough people doing what me and Scott are trying to do.

 

SO... for a longer term plan, I am looking for an apprentice or two to mentor into this field.  If you know a passionate young antiquer... send them my way!!

******** My original post below...*********************

In their usual dramatic headline fashion, the EAA has announced VARMA, a “New Parts Program Big Win for Vintage Fleet” touting this as a great accomplishment achieved ‘after years of EAA Advocacy efforts’.  The acronym they’ve created stands for Vintage Aircraft Replacement and Modification Articles  

http://discover.eaa.org/fRV250NCN2r

Don’t get your hopes up too high. Really, there’s nothing to see here.  At least nothing new anyway.  In fact, be sure to pay attention to the definition for the kinds of parts they quote as allowed under the new VARMA program, which they declare “The program applies to parts whose failure would not “prevent continued safe flight and landing.”  

Wait.. if this sounds familiar, it is because it is the same definition that has existed for years for minor alterations and Category 3 (no safety affect) parts.  And if you know your regulations, these parts do not require anything more than a logbook entry because they are minor alterations. Check out these FAA Advisory Circular excerpts.

AC 23-27 Talks about safety benefits in substituting original parts that fall under the same definition.

AC 43-18 chg 2 uses the same definition to define Category 3 parts and goes on to say these parts only require “acceptable” data (not approved data). 

Vintage aircraft owners and aircraft mechanics who understand these guidance documents have been applying this concept legally for years.  Take note that the EAA announcement also states… “VARMA uses several existing FAA policies to create a program that requires no new regulations, orders, or advisory circulars.”

While admitting this is nothing new, what the article fails to point out is the fact that the FAA has snubbed the EAA in the real effort they’ve tried for years to achieve regarding relief for Vintage Airplane part substitutions, namely their MOSAIC proposal.  This was originally conceived as a sort of “owner approval” type of program where replacement parts could be left to the discretion of airplane owners. It was a push to go beyond the existing “Owner Produced Parts” provision, which has also been around for decades.

It seems the FAA has thrown the EAA advocacy warriors a VARMA bone in lieu of the full course MOSAIC meal they were after.  Nonetheless, we have a “Big Win” for old airplanes.  

Take our advice.  Get yourself educated if this subject matters to you. Seriously, the kind of substitutions that fall under the VARMA definition are Minor Alterations and should not require a 337 as a Major Alteration. Follow VARMA and you’re likely to bog down in an FAA quagmire of deciding the fate of your project.  

CAP Taylorcraft Buyer's Guide for Summer 2020 is Here

March 2020 marks our TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY of being the care-taker of the Taylorcraft Engine Upgrade STC # SA1-210.  Better known as the "Gilberti STC", this set of documents have stood the test of time and are still useful as FAA approved data, now 52 years later (as of May 26th 2020).  While we are talking statistics, we went back and counted to find that Certified Aeronautical Products, LLC (CAP) has provided service in one way or another to almost 300 Taylorcrafts since we began business in 2003. Specifically, we have served 209 B-series, 75 D-series, and 10 F-series.  We've enjoyed every plane and getting to know every Taylorcraft owner, every Taylorcraft restorer, and every Taylorcraft pilot that we've met.

Click to View Buyers Guide

In honor of Mr. C.G. Taylor and Mr. Jack Gilberti, we are now issuing our Taylorcraft's Buyer's Guide for Summer 2020.  This guide contains most of what we have learned over the past 10+ years, about upgrading and maintaining Taylorcraft B-series airplanes.  As a few of these great airplanes have now reached the age of 80 years, many will be hitting that milestone over the next few years.  There's not a better time than now to clean up that lovely plane and make the effort to do some upgrades.  We are here to help you take good care of your sweet flying Taylorcraft, just like it has taken care of you for all these years.Just like the venerable Taylorcraft airplanes we support, the Gilberti STC and CAP are still here for continued flight for many more years into the future.

Another post that helps provide some explanation was provided back in 2018.  Click Here. Then after you review the buyers guide and the 2018 post, get your questions together and give us a call or email.

254-715-4773

barnstmr@aol.com

Thanks to all of our great friends and Taylorcraft customers!

- - - - 

p.s. Stay tuned for some sweet new announcements in the next few weeks!.. 

STC Permission - Why Bother?

It is the LAW. 

The regulations are clear on the subject of STC permission. Below are some excerpts out of the FAA regulations and other FAA regulatory policy letters, etc..  Also I am providing a link to an interesting article on the topic of intellectual property as related to STCs and the court case example happens to be an engine change on a Cessna 185, similar to CAP STCs for Taylorcraft engine upgrades.

As a Mechanic/STC Installer - Should you participate in installing an STC when there is no permission letter?

As an Owner/Operator - Are you ensuring your paperwork is free of Pirated/Bootleg STC data?

As a Buyer - Do you look for the permission statement that should be retained in the Airplane Records?

Be informed.   Strive to stay legal.

Regards,
Terry Bowden - Consultant DER



******************************************
The following is an excerpted quote out of

49 U.S. Code § 44704 - Type certificates, production certificates, airworthiness certificates,

(b) Supplemental Type Certificates.—

(1) Issuance.— The Administrator may issue a type certificate designated as a supplemental type certificate for a change to an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance.

(2) Contents.— A supplemental type certificate issued under paragraph (1) shall consist of the change to the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance with respect to the previously issued type certificate for the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance.

(3) Requirement.— If the holder of a supplemental type certificate agrees to permit another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder shall provide the other person with written evidence, in a form acceptable to the Administrator, of that agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance based on a supplemental type certificate only if the person requesting the change is the holder of the supplemental type certificate or has permission from the holder to make the change.

******************************************
Interesting article related to topic.
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10388581/intellectual-property

******************************************

The following is an excerpted quote out of

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Policy Statement Number ACE-00-23.561.01]

Proposed Issuance of Policy Memorandum, Methods of Approval of 
Retrofit Shoulder Harness Installations in Small Airplanes

An STC cannot be used to modify an aircraft without the permission of the STC holder. Federal Aviation Administration Notice 8110.69 dated June 30, 1997, requires the STC holder to provide the customer (installer or airplane owner) with a signed permission statement that includes the following: (a) Product (aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance) to be altered, inducing serial number of the product; (b) The STC number; and (c) The person(s) who is being given consent to use the STC. The permission statement needs to be maintained as part of the aircraft records. The requirement for this permission statement originated in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264). This provision was put into law to try to stop the ``pirating'' of STC's.

******************************************
The following is an excerpted quote from
Advisory Circular AC 43-210 - STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING FIELD APPROVAL OF DATA, MAJOR ALTERATIONS, AND REPAIRS

Approved data can be used to substantiate major alterations/repairs and can be derived from:

(2) STC data, if it specifically applies to the item being repaired/altered. NOTE: The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264), specifically section 403, STC, contains specific requirements concerning the use of STCs. It requires that the installer obtain permission from the STC holder to use the STC.

******************************************

BEWARE: Water in Fuel Tank Systems

The following information is considered by CAP as basic restoration and maintenance fundamentals for fuel system safety.
The FAA has published a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) today, to notify airplane owners of the safety hazards associated with water contamination of fuel tank systems on Cessna 150, 170, and 172 airplanes. In this document there are several other documents referenced and inspection suggestions listed that provide essential guidance that is applicable for maintenance and inspection of fuel systems on any small airplane. Note: Although this is a non-mandatory document, the FAA uses the SAIB as a means to notify airplane owners of safety hazards.

We at Certified Aeronautical Products recognize that there are numerous small airplanes including Taylorcrafts and other Antique Airplanes with fuel tank systems of similar design to the Cessna models affected. Therefore, we are recommending that all of the operators of Taylorcraft and other antique airplanes should be aware of these hazards and should review this SAIB document here.

Be Safe!

FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

Failure of Main Landing Gear Tie Strut, p/n B-A51
Taylorcraft, all models equipped with landing gear

As noted today on the Taylorcraft Forum, the FAA has issued the attached Airworthiness Concern Sheet regarding a reported failure of the main landing gear tie strut on a Taylorcraft model BC12D. To review this document, click here: copy of FAA-ACS July 26, 2010.

This information is non-mandatory, but is identified by the FAA as a potential safety concern. For more information on the nature and purpose of the ACS process see the following commentary on the AOPA website.

As noted by AOPA this is your chance as an interested party to participate in the safety process for your airplane. You may have relevant information that could influence the FAA in deciding whether or not this should warrant further safety inspection requirements or perhaps result in an airworthiness directive. Be sure to send in your opinions or comments by email to andrew.mcanaul@faa.gov.