Fabric attach methods that are legal

[Scott]

I sure appreciate all of your help! Still not sure what to do though. I can't find the 337 in the tech section but I haven't gone through all 15 pages. Thanks again!
Bruce

Here's a link Bruce

https://www.taylorcraft.org/docs/Taylorcraft%20Wire-replace%20with%20rib%20stitching.pdf

[Scott]

I'm deep into a major hangar cleanup and came across an envelope containing a couple of pages concerning Martin fabric clips and a template for drilling a series of new holes:

Interesting. Is this the Martin wire that is a different pitch to the Taylorcraft Wire?

I notice they specify if the holes are larger than 5/32 or damaged, drill new 1/8" holes. These sizes seem small to me. I don't have a rib handy but I'd say the Taylorcraft holes started life at at least 5/32".

It does beg the question of whether or not one could use the currently available Martin wire by drilling new holes at the new pitch.

[Scott]

AC43-210A

Here are three files;
the first is figure 43 3-1 which contains the first step i.e. determine if the alteration requires a change in Type design. Hopefully we can agree that alternate fabric attachment does not. You then jump to 3-2

The second file is Fig 43 3-2 which is the decision tree to determine if its a major or minor alteration.

Important to note that your AI/AP is supposed to make this determination. So potentially you never have to ask the question of the regulator (who is bound to err on the side of caution, especially if he/she knows very little about fabric aircraft).

Anyway, interested to hear what others think. In my view you need to try quite hard not to conclude lacing is a minor alteration but perhaps I'm missing something.

The third file is the complete document "Standardized Procedures for Obtaining Approval of Data Used in the Performance of Major Repairs and Major Alterations" Which contains all of the above, but might be useful if you decide you need to pursue a field approval.

[astjp2]

Re: Fabric attach methods that are legal

For me part 21 is helping decide is a type certificate holder or an interested party is making a change that is significant enough to require change to the type certificate or perhaps a supplement to it.

The "major-ness" of that is important as you point out. One could decide that the change has sufficient "major-ness" under part 21 and determine that it is a major alteration. But... by sticking to part 43 and part 1 you get to do anything listed in the TCDS specification list items (I think I said the right) as an alteration (a.k.a minor).

Seems like a dopey explanation but can save you uneeded paperwork.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/?year=all&q=rude&bSubmit=Search

Dave R

Part 23 means nothing for a taylorcraft, use CAR4a

[astjp2]

I just worry about what they may want to try and violate me for. I will not be faulted for submitting the 337, but you will if I didnt. So a piece of paper is easy and it removes the liability to the FAA as long as your data is used and installed correctly. Tim

[PA1195]

For my rib stitching the installer's IA basically noted Stits' STC and associated procedures manual. There's more words but that's the meat.

Gary

[Guest]

Scott,

Thanks!

I learned from this discussion and the AC.

Dave R

[Guest]

Scott,

Thanks!

I learned from this discussion and the AC.

Dave R

[3Dreaming]

I see the forum upgrade didn't fix the double posting issue.

[Guest]

might be my fault I had editing issues with fumbling fingers

[Robert Lees]

I'll do a double posting check after I've written this:

The way round it on the old software was to "Go Advanced" and write the message there. The old "Post Quick Reply" seemed to be the problem with double-posting. This new software just has a "Write here" and then a "Post Reply" button.

Lets see what happens (I'm learning it too!). Here goes

[Robert Lees]

Well it appears cured! (still need to sort the smilies)

[Scott]

I just worry about what they may want to try and violate me for. I will not be faulted for submitting the 337, but you will if I didn't. So a piece of paper is easy and it removes the liability to the FAA as long as your data is used and installed correctly. Tim

I understand completely. I'm trying to look forward and perhaps save Bruce and future restorers some time, energy and hand rubbing. It was stated field approvals are getting more difficult.

This Forum, in the absence of a Taylorcraft manufacturer, is arguably the current collective expertise on Taylorcraft Aircraft.

If we, after healthy debate and following the decision guidance provided by the Regulator, were to reach consensus that, for example; "we find no compelling reason not to conclude that lacing in lieu of wire can be considered a minor alteration" I think that means something. Maybe not acceptable data but certainly relevant data supported by acceptable practices.

Post the conclusion and a supporting summary as a sticky and it can become acceptable practice in and of itself.

My guess is the FAA would be appreciative of the reduction is potential work!

I could be wrong but I don't think you'll ever get a regulator to overtly endorse or even acknowledge it, but they may tell us to take t down if they think its wrong!

Wishful thinking?

[Edwin Otha]

I wouldn't involve the FAA in any of this. They read these forums and can add anything they want. You, the mechanic, are the subject matter expert. There is no one in your local FSDO that has ever covered an aircraft, with few exceptions.

If you think it's a major, submit the forms for it. If you think it's minor make the log entry.

Don't go to the FAA for guidance, they can't offer any facts only opinions. If you ask them to regulate they will, keep that in mind.

EO

[Bruce Caldwell]

Thanks for all of your input friends! I found the STC's in the tech section for stitching and screws/rivets. Now I need to run it by my IA and see what he says. You guys are such a wealth of info. THANKS!!!