New FAA program: Vintage Aircraft Replacement and Modification Article (VARMA)

[0TreeLemur]

EAA reports that the FAA has approved off-the-shelf replacement parts for non flight-critical systems under the new Vintage Aircraft Replacement and Modification Article (VARMA) process.  They define "vintage" as aircraft manufactured before 1980.   Article here.

From the article:

Notably, VARMA uses several existing FAA policies to create a program that requires no new regulations, orders, or advisory circulars. It applies to small (less than 12,500 pounds) type-certificated aircraft built before 1980. The program allows ordinary maintenance personnel to validate that certain low-risk replacement parts are suitable for installation on aircraft, without the need for extensive engineering analysis or complex and time-consuming design and production approvals from the FAA.

This is good news for vintage aircraft owners.

[N201MKTurbo]

This was explained to me by the FAA inspector at the IA seminar last month. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

He said I could use a Gates belt instead of the Lycoming belt and I could use Timken bearings from the Auto Zone. I thought I was dreaming!

[jetdriven]

You already can do that under the aging aircraft program. 

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

This was explained to me by the FAA inspector at the IA seminar last month. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

He said I could use a Gates belt instead of the Lycoming belt and I could use Timken bearings from the Auto Zone. I thought I was dreaming!

It's actually not new, you just don't often hear them say it out loud like that.   I found it refreshing to hear it said in public.

[carusoam]

Kind of like learning how to use Owner produced parts… OPPs…

May take a while to get everyone up to speed with specific examples…

Make a list, put it in the FAQs….  

I hope they put a variable in the rule so it includes my plane as she ages…

Best regards,

-a-

[jamesm]

correct me if I am wrong ... I thought there was an AC(advisory circular) for electrical components that did this. 

but the AC number escapes me.

[hammdo]

Link:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/aging_aircraft/media/roadmapGAAgingAirplane.pdf

-Don

[aviatoreb]

That’s fantastic!

my only regret is my airplane is 1981… hopefully it becomes a rolling window program.

e

[ArtVandelay]

So, when making the log entry how do you document this?

“Replaced alternator belt with automotive belt xx-## under VARMA regulation “ ?

[Shadrach]

I hate to be a spoilsport but this simply moves liability for a parts airworthiness to the installing A&P/IA.

[hammdo]

Interesting article:

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/3/

-Don

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I hate to be a spoilsport but this simply moves liability for a parts airworthiness to the installing A&P/IA.

AFAIK it's always been there.

[EricJ]

9 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

So, when making the log entry how do you document this?

“Replaced alternator belt with automotive belt xx-## under VARMA regulation “ ?

You still have to make certain that the part meets the requirements for installation.   If you've determined that it does, the logbook entry is no different than any other.

For cases like the Gates belt, if you determine that a part is a substitute for (e.g., via a manufacturer's cross reference) or meets the same standards (e.g., SAE, whatever), the original part, then imho a normal entry with a part no is sufficient.   This is not a new thing, but I'm glad it's getting more press.

My fave example, the instrument air filter Piper p/n  460-990 or 754-817 is a tampon:

https://shop.boeing.com/aviation-supply/p/754-817=PI

[EricJ]

12 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

That’s fantastic!

my only regret is my airplane is 1981… hopefully it becomes a rolling window program.

e

It goes by certification date.    I think you're good. 

[jetdriven]

Strange but If you Google FAA varma it doesn't exist. 

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Strange but If you Google FAA varma it doesn't exist. 

WOW! You mean the government is less than transparent??  I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked!

[Shadrach]

51 minutes ago, EricJ said:

AFAIK it's always been there.

Right… the liability for QC and conformity is the same as with a documented PMA/TSOd part.

[EricJ]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Right… the liability for QC and conformity is the same as with a documented PMA/TSOd part.

Same with OPP, too.    The installer has to determine that the part is suitable for installation.   Even if it's a PMA/TSO/whatever, you still gotta make sure it's the right thing and isn't pre-failed or damaged or whatever.   Same for used parts.  It's pretty much always the case.   

Reading a little more on this VARMA stuff it sounds like it's more of a way for a supplier/vendor/manufacturer to get otherwise non-PMA/TSO parts "approved" for vintage aircraft.    The hurdle seems to be to show compliance via the same ACs (23-27 and 20-62E) that have been cited for many years.   The difference seems to be that this allows a supplier to indicate that the part has been pre-blessed through this VARMA process rather than an individual installater having to do it.    At least that's how I'm reading it at the moment, which may not be quite correct or complete yet.   Sounds useful, in any case.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

It goes by certification date.    I think you're good. 

Wohoo!

But wait - what do you mean?  my 1981 Mooney M20K was certified in?  1979?

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by aviatoreb

[Shadrach]

58 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Same with OPP, too.    The installer has to determine that the part is suitable for installation.   Even if it's a PMA/TSO/whatever, you still gotta make sure it's the right thing and isn't pre-failed or damaged or whatever.   Same for used parts.  It's pretty much always the case.   

Reading a little more on this VARMA stuff it sounds like it's more of a way for a supplier/vendor/manufacturer to get otherwise non-PMA/TSO parts "approved" for vintage aircraft.    The hurdle seems to be to show compliance via the same ACs (23-27 and 20-62E) that have been cited for many years.   The difference seems to be that this allows a supplier to indicate that the part has been pre-blessed through this VARMA process rather than an individual installater having to do it.    At least that's how I'm reading it at the moment, which may not be quite correct or complete yet.   Sounds useful, in any case.

Yeh, it’s just like OPP, except in that case the process and fabricators are known quantities. The global parts market is a mess in terms of quality. You can pay good money for crap and sometime find a diamond for less than expected. 

[EricJ]

17 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Wohoo!

But wait - what do you mean?  my 1981 Mooney M20K was certified in?  1979?

 

The M20 series was certificated in 1955.   The M20K was added to the TCDS in 1978.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

The M20 series was certificated in 1955.   The M20K was added to the TCDS in 1978.

Bingo, original cert date for the M20 is what’s relevant, so for an example a brand new C-182 is good too.

a. This AC applies to small aircraft type certificated before January 1, 1980, that have a maximum certificated weight of 12,500 pounds or less, fixed wing, un-pressurized, reciprocating engine or sailplanes. Follow-on type certificate (TC) models of the same aircraft, or a derivative thereof, which may be assigned a later TC date, also meet this criteria.

The AC that specifies this was written in 09 I believe and I’ve posted it many times.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23-27.pdf

I’ve used it every now and again, and I have in the logbook entry written IAW AC 23-27.

Now from a purely legal perspective an AC is not an approved document, but the FAA has acted as if they have been forever, I don’t think you would get any issue from sourcing switches and relays etc., even wheel bearings, belts etc, but I wouldn’t want to try it to put VW rods or whatever in my engine, so it does leave a lot of responsibility to the installer.

So use some common sense.

Oh, and I swear there must be some kind of magic in a Lycoming belt, because they last a lot longer than a Gates, even a green stripe Gates.

But if your going that route, go for the green stripe

http://www.gatesunitta.com/en/green-stripe®-v-belt

[hammdo]

Can of worms alert:

from the AC:

 

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, hammdo said:

Can of worms alert:

Why is that a can of worms?

[hammdo]

Owner Produced Parts - was a hot topic for a while on here…

-Don