Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Paperwork question...ARROW

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like

    Paperwork question...ARROW

    I am finishing up my cub rebuild, sort of. I have a question on the required paperwork and was not able to find/search a conclusive answer.

    The P.O.H. or list of operating limits sheet for a 1955 airplane is what exactly? I know it is not the book Univiar sells, or somesuch thing. Prior to 1974 there is not a required book but rather a sheet of paper listing operating limits. What is this called, and how do I get another maybe?

    Radio Lic. How do get on of theses now? F.C.C. still?

    Thanks,

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tustin, CA
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like

    Paperwork

    You no longer need a radio station license except for travel outside the US. Even then I have never had Canada ask to see a radio station license. I would not bother with it unless you are planning to fly somewhere other than the US or Canada.

    ARROW now only has one R: Airworthiness certificate, Registration, Operating Limitations (or POH), and Weight & Balance.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some operations still require the radio lic.

  4. #4
    irishfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Penetanguishene, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,920
    Post Thanks / Like
    No radio licence, for the airplane, required in Canada... but you do need an operators licence.

  5. #5
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    The AROW stands for Airworthiness Certificate, Registration, Operating Limitations, and Weight and Balance.

    THe Operating Limitations includes the approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), required placards and instrument markings.

    Here's the regulation spelling that out:
    § 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
    (b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—
    (1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in §121.141(b); and
    (2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

    To determine if your airplane requires an Airplane Flight Manual (and ALL Super Cubs do), you have to look at the Type Certificate Data Sheet, found here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...6?OpenDocument

    Here's the part you're looking for:


    Interior Equipment
    401. (a) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved April 1, 1949, revised
    December 21, 1949, for landplanes and skiplanes equipped with Continental C-90-12
    engine.
    (b) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved August 15, 1949, revised
    December 21, 1949, for landplanes and skiplanes equipped with Lycoming O-235-C1
    engine.
    (c) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved May 9, 1950, for seaplanes equipped
    with Lycoming O-235-C1 engine.
    (d) CAA Approved Supplement to Airplane Flight Manual for Crop Sprayers.
    (e) CAA Approved Supplement to Airplane Flight Manual for Crop Dusters.
    (f) CAA Approved Flight Manual approved October 20, 1950, for landplanes equipped with
    Lycoming O-290-D engine.
    (g) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved October 12, 1950, for seaplanes
    equipped with Lycoming O-290-D engine and Edo Model 92-1400 floats.
    (h) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved December 9, 1950, for seaplanes
    equipped with Continental C90 engine.
    (i) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved March 15, 1951, for seaplanes equipped
    with Lycoming O-235-C engine.
    (j) CAA Approved Supplement, dated March 15, 1951, to Airplane Flight Manual 401(a) for
    landplanes and skiplanes equipped with Lycoming O-235-C engine.
    (k) CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Skiplane Supplement dated August 20, 1951.
    (l) DMCR Approved Airplane Flight Manual dated April 25, 1952, for landplanes or skiplane
    equipped with Lycoming O-290-D2 engine. 1A2 14 of 16
    401. (m) DMCR Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved May 15, 1952, for seaplanes equipped
    with Lycoming O-290-D2 engine and Edo Model 92-1400 floats.
    (n) DMCR Approved Flight Manual approved November 24, 1952, for landplanes equipped
    with Lycoming O-235-C1 engine. Required with Model PA-18 "105" (Special).
    (o) DMCR Approved Airplane Flight Manual approved April 1, 1953, for seaplanes equipped
    with Lycoming O-290-D2 engine and Edo Model 89-2000 floats.
    (p) DMCR Approved Flight Manual approved July 1, 1953, for seaplanes equipped with
    Lycoming O-290-D engine and Edo Model 89-2000 floats.
    (q) DMCR Approved Flight Manual approved October 1, 1954, revised July 15, 1982, for
    landplanes or skiplanes equipped with Lycoming O-320 engine.
    (r) DMCR Approved Flight Manual approved October 1, 1954, for seaplanes equipped with
    Lycoming O-320 engine and Edo Model 89-2000 floats.
    (s) FAA Approved Flight Manual VB-1382 dated March 24, 1989.

    So, find your serial number and this will tell you WHICH AFM you need. You're right, it's NOT the book sold by Univair. There is a copy of one in the Members section of this site for reference.

    Good luck.

    MTV

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    Most Super Cubs I look at do not have this on board. It is no wonder; it is an unimpressive typed set of sheets with some very confusing weight and balance info. I can sort of fix it for 150 Cubs. As I understand it, the legal fix is only available from the factory. Funny how they all look identical except for serial and N - number.

    Opinion.

  7. #7
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob,

    I pretty much agree, though in some cases, I've actually found the thing, wadded up in the bottom of the seat pocket, and totally ignored. In one case, a member on here actually had a new airworthiness certificate issued without one of these. That was fixed after the fact, but it was interesting that the FAA Maintenance Inspector didn't realize an AFM was required for the SC.

    MTV

  8. #8
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,015
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unless you are flying Part 137, then you need none of the above.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    Unless you are flying Part 137, then you need none of the above.
    Onboard the airplane.

  10. #10
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,015
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dougc905 View Post
    Onboard the airplane.
    Oh, right !! Now what regulation states that again ??? Memory is slipping.!!

    And while we are on the subject of Regs and faulty memory, what regulation says an aircraft has to meet its type cert (or approved mods) to be considered airworthy ????
    Last edited by S2D; 03-14-2012 at 09:28 PM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,859
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's one mighty big stick you're stirring with there, S2D

    John Scott

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't forget any Flight Manual "SUPPLEMENTS" that may pertain to any aprroved installation our mods you may have.
    Steve C

  13. #13
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,015
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Longwinglover View Post
    That's one mighty big stick you're stirring with there, S2D

    John Scott

    Yea, this sight "SITE" just ain't much fun anymore, can't even get anyone to bite !!!
    Last edited by S2D; 03-16-2012 at 11:48 AM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  14. #14
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here ya go, Brian:

    The true definition of the word "Airworthy" was never included in the Code of Federal Regulations until the 14 CFR Part 3, General Requirements, was established. The definition was included in the guidance, such as Advisory Circulars and Orders, but never in the Rule. Part 3 defines the definition of Airworthy as, the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe flight.

    § 3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials


    (a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:
    Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.


    Part 21, §21.183(d) has a procedural definition of airworthy:
    "other aircraft An applicant for a standard airworthiness certificate for aircraft not covered by paragraphs (a) through (c) (a:"New aircraft manufactured under a production certificate." b:"New aircraft manufactured under type certificate only." c:"Import aircraft.") of this section is entitled to a standard airworthiness certificate if -- (1) He presents evidence to the Administrator that the aircraft conforms to a type design approved under a type certificate or a supplemental type certificate and to applicable Airworthiness Directives; (2) The aircraft (except an experimentally certificated aircraft that previously had been issued a different airworthiness certificate under this section) has been inspected in accordance with the performance rules for 100-hour inspections set forth in part 43.15 of this chapter and found airworthy by-- (i)The manufacturer; (ii)The holder of a repair station certificate as provided in part 145 of this chapter; (iii)The holder of a mechanic certificate as authorized in part 65 of this chapter; (v)The holder of a certificate issued under part 121 of this chapter, and having a maintenance and inspection organization appropriate to the aircraft type; and (3)The Administrator finds after inspection, that the aircraft conforms to the type design, and is in condition for safe operation."

    Oh, yeah....and it's a web SITE, sight is an eyeball thing, remember......

    MTV

  15. #15
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,015
    Post Thanks / Like
    there is only one problem with your analysis Mike.


    Sec. 3.5

    Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials


    (a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:

    (Section 3.5 )



    Now why would they specifically say that.

    that section is about advertising of product and parts, not the whole
    FAR's







    Site (its a typing thing, kinda like most people spell lose "loose" when typing)
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  16. #16
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, yeah, and they spell hanger when in fact they're talking about a place to store an airplane, which is actually a hangar......Excuses, excuses.

    Let's review 14 CFR part 3.5 ONE MORE TIME:

    § 3.5 Statements about PRODUCTS, parts, appliances and materials.

    (a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:
    Airworthy means the AIRCRAFT conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.
    Product means an AIRCRAFT, aircraft engine, or aircraft propeller.

    So, they are specifically talking about aircraft, NOT just aircraft parts.

    And, 14 CFR part 3.1 states:

    § 3.1 Applicability

    (a) This part applies to any person who makes a record regarding:
    (1) A type-certificated product, or

    (2) A product, part, appliance or material that may be used on a type-certificated product.

    I would argue that an airplane is indeed a "type certificated product". If this section were intended ONLY to apply to PARTS of an airplane, why would they make the distinction in 3.1 between "type-certifcated products" and "A product, part, appliance or material that may be used on a type-certificated product"??

    BUT, this definition of "airworthy" comes directly from FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management Systems Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 1, which reads:

    7-223 GENERAL.

    A. Definitions.

    1) Administrative Action. The action taken when compliance is not present but is attainable, providing the case meets the requirements listed in FAA Order 2150.3.

    2) Airworthiness. Since “airworthiness” is not defined in Part A of Subtitle VII of the revised Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.), or in the regulations, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential in conducting a violation investigation. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” These conditions are:

    a) The aircraft must conform to its type design (certificate). Conformity to type design is considered attained when the required and proper components are installed and they are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the type certificate (TC). Conformity would include applicable Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) and field-approved alterations.

    b) The aircraft must be in condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft in relation to wear and deterioration. Such conditions could be skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, tire wear, etc.

    And, THAT is the document which provides guidance for Inspectors conducting investigations which may lead to a violation.

    That interpretation is taken directly (I am told) from an Assistant Chief Counsel opinion (Legal Interpretation #1988-16, dated June 17, 198 issued in 1988. Unfortunately, the FAA has only converted Chief Counsel opinions to digital as far back as 1990, so I have not actually SEEN the verbiage from that opinion.

    Many pilots fail to realize that there are many FAA Chief Counsel opinions out there, which constitute case law, and those opinions frequently contain "interpretations" of the regulations. That appears to be the case here.

    Nevertheless, if it is the opinion of the Chief Counsel that to be in an airworthy condition an aircraft must comply with its type certificate, I'm betting that will and has on numerous occasion stood up to the scrutiny of the kangaroo court called the NTSB Board.

    MTV
    Last edited by mvivion; 03-16-2012 at 03:55 PM.

  17. #17
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,015
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mike my intent was not to parse word concerning what constitutes a product, but what Part 3 is about.

    Sec. 3.1

    Applicability
    (a) This part applies to any person who makes a record regarding:
    (1) A type-certificated product, or
    (2) A product, part, appliance or material that may be used on a type-certificated product. (b) Section 3.5(b) does not apply to records made under part 43 of this chapter


    interestingly part 3.5(b) does not pertain to apart 43.

    My only point is Part 3 is not relevant to the conversation.

    Interesting that case law concludes something not in the Regs.


    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  18. #18
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Brian,

    Indeed, but if you want literal translations of everything in the FARs, good luck. There is quite a body of information to be found in the Chief Counsel's opinions, and whether we like it not, that office's INTERPRETATION of the regulations is what we live with in the end.

    Bear in mind that NONE of the FARs were subjected to a vote.....

    The wording in the FSIMS is the guidance the guys with the badges have. That's good enough for me.

    MTV

  19. #19
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,583
    Post Thanks / Like
    I attended a talk this week at which the FAA regional counsel spoke. He started out by saying that he was going to be asking us, all IAs, questions and that the answers to all of the questions would be "That Depends".
    N1PA

  20. #20
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pete, That's cause he's a REGIONAL counsel.....

    MTV

  21. #21
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,583
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mike,
    I have listened to many talks by this man and his associates over the years. Each time, I become more reluctant to be involved as much as I am in this aviation disease which we posses. The main topic was, what is the definition of "actively engaged". An IA now needs to prove that he is "actively engaged". But just how is not fully determined yet. The process of finding the definition is quite intensive. There are way too many bureaucrats in the loop.
    N1PA

  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southwest New Mexico
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve Prentice has a very nice article in the current (Feb/Mar) issue of the AMT Magazine in which he analyzes the most recentl info from the Feds. It would appear that the most difficult activity in the future will be trying to find someone who is NOT "Actively Engaged".
    Worth reading. For those unfamiliar, Steve is an A&P/IA, ATP and an attorney who specializes in avition stuff. And a really nice guy.

Similar Threads

  1. Paperwork
    By willirw in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 03:13 PM
  2. PA 12 Paperwork
    By Redbaron180 in forum The Art and Science of Flying
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2006, 01:58 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •