FAA VARMA program started, a win for keeping our Vintage birds flying

[Mark Bowden]

Please note this press release, Mark

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/new-parts-program-big-win-for-vintage-fleet?utm_source=ehotline_230407&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vintage_2023&mkt_tok=OTEwLVNFVS0wNzMAAAGK93PatbAfpJoIldF2juxrT3QKAqLjvuM5PXJzB6T4_gF2veoQUuEX--iNc7h2K6ltCuqCD4EI-sDEmoUkYEzFIjAS8OjGLMwOmS3oz-GoXgvn

[Bigdog]

I hate to look a gift horse and all but it really doesn't allow for anything not already permitted. It might provide another acronym to convince a reluctant inspector to approve something he already had authority to bless. Maybe add some consistency between FSDO's. Just recognizing the problem (again) is a good thing.

[3Dreaming]

We had a speaker from the Chicago MIDO at our IA renewal this year. He told us VARMA was just announced the day before to the FAA. He did a presentation on it. Like you have said all of this was possible before, this just provides a clearer road map, and makes defending your choices on what you approve easier. He did say they could have come up with a better acronym.

He also told us that if you are having a problem with a field approval to contact them. A couple years ago they approved over 400 in one year at his level, and only denied 5. Of those 5, IIRC, 3 were for lithium batteries.

[Bigdog]

I attended a briefing last week from EAA & FAA for some type club folks. I was there for the Navion Society. All the approvals are being channeled through one inspector who is working it part-time. He'll look at a proposal using primarily AC43-18 to categorize the risk and AC23-27 which addresses substitute parts. Everything is a one-time, one-airplane substitution - no blanket approvals. If he concurs he'll issue a letter. The letter is the difference from what is allowed now. You can do the same thing but it's just your judgement going into the logbook entry. I view this as a means to both standardize the review and shut off any second guessing by other mechanics or FAA. I am planning to use field approval to change my Rearwin brakes from mechanical to hydraulic and asked whether that fit into VARMA. That's really outside the bounds because it's a whole system change and not just one or two parts. He did offer to put me in touch with a good inspector in my FSDO for the field approval. The good news is it's bought off up thru the Administrator. My belief is the soft start is for better control so it doesn't get torpedoed by any naysayers in the ranks. They want it to work and want to expand it.

It may not be everything we want but it's moving in the right direction. I'd think it could help with some nagging T-craft issues like the fuel valve. Even though they are single instance approvals, once one person gets it, everyone else can just copy and submit.

[Ragwing nut]

I attended a briefing last week from EAA & FAA for some type club folks. I was there for the Navion Society. All the approvals are being channeled through one inspector who is working it part-time. He'll look at a proposal using primarily AC43-18 to categorize the risk and AC23-27 which addresses substitute parts. Everything is a one-time, one-airplane substitution - no blanket approvals. If he concurs he'll issue a letter. The letter is the difference from what is allowed now. You can do the same thing but it's just your judgement going into the logbook entry. I view this as a means to both standardize the review and shut off any second guessing by other mechanics or FAA. I am planning to use field approval to change my Rearwin brakes from mechanical to hydraulic and asked whether that fit into VARMA. That's really outside the bounds because it's a whole system change and not just one or two parts. He did offer to put me in touch with a good inspector in my FSDO for the field approval. The good news is it's bought off up thru the Administrator. My belief is the soft start is for better control so it doesn't get torpedoed by any naysayers in the ranks. They want it to work and want to expand it.

It may not be everything we want but it's moving in the right direction. I'd think it could help with some nagging T-craft issues like the fuel valve. Even though they are single instance approvals, once one person gets it, everyone else can just copy and submit.

brakes will be outside the scope of this. especially converting from drum to hydraullics. been there done, got a few field approvals for it on various planes.