Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What are the obligations of an EASA TC owner, when it comes to supporting the type (Socata parts especially)?

The word from Tarbes is that Socata no longer make any TB parts.

So items like

  • airframe parts
  • composite parts
  • landing gear components

will cease to be available when stocks run out. These can be fabricated but you need drawings, or at least be able to make a template. That’s how most Spitfires come to existence these days, but the full drawings and design data for those do exist.

Socata seem to continue the supply the parts they buy in (e.g. switches, landing gear pumps, etc). But not always; for example I recently bought the very last antenna assembly which lives on top of the vertical stabiliser.

They said they are buying in crashed and otherwise scrapped TB airframes and dismantle them for parts.

Does anyone know the rules on this TC stuff?

I have just been told that Robin have been doing similar stuff, but they never actually said they will stop making airframe parts (because of fear of losing the TC). They have just been taking a long time between batches of airframe parts, which have grounded some aircraft for extended periods. And the situation has been present with Cessna and Piper too, reportedly… are there really no Cessna or Piper wings anymore?

On an N-reg this “need the TC supported” issue doesn’t arise so they can go on for ever – so long as one can fabricate items IAW the FAA requirements. It just gets difficult to fabricate items with ribs (messy to bend-up) or spars (more difficult still, need machining and need design data). So aircraft with damaged stabilisers (H or V) or wings will get scrapped unless a used part can be found.

I think it would be really handy to start collecting the OEM part numbers, by examining the packaging from anything one buys from Socata. I have some here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There can’t be any parts availability requirement for TC holders. If I go through the parts manual of my Cessna and check random parts, I would say that at least 75% are not available anymore. The common replacement parts are available, everything else is rarely available. This also holds true for modification kits from service bulletins, making it impossible to comply with the SIDs because they call for a complete SB application.

Peter wrote:

They said they are buying in crashed and otherwise scrapped TB airframes and dismantle them for parts.

Socata themselves do not do this but they maintain a database of who has what in stock and work with their service centers. If you call Tarbes in need of a wing, they will find out where you can find one. Unfortunately I was not allowed to look inside the warehouse but from the conversations with the support staff, I got the impression they have a rather generous inventory, probably from a final batch of TBs that was never assembled.

The TBs are treated the same as the Morane-Saulnier aircraft for them — old models that they try to support on a best effort basis. When I asked about the early TBM 700, the answer was that this is a current production aircraft because a TBM 900 is actually a TBM 700 — the same aircraft really. That was what a service guy said, not the sales guy

PS: Socata (Daher now) do 30% TBMs and 70% component manufacturing for Airbus, Gulfstream, Falcon, Eurocopter.

Achimha is correct here, no need to supply parts. They do need to monitor the design, and inform CAA on known issues, and issue SB’s etc on these. This is also true for modifications. Therefore you should always inform the modification owner if you’r using their design, even if it is available freely. The change owner should inform the users of the modifications on known issues etc.

Peter wrote:

On an N-reg this “need the TC supported” issue doesn’t arise so they can go on for ever – so long as one can fabricate items IAW the FAA requirements

I don’t see why this would be much different under EASA? I think your view on EASA is more negative then it should be.

Peter wrote:

And the situation has been present with Cessna and Piper too, reportedly… are there really no Cessna or Piper wings anymore?

Piper Commanche comes to mind. Quite some reproduced parts and modifications available from other source, for parts no longer available from Piper.

Peter wrote:

These can be fabricated but you need drawings, or at least be able to make a template. That’s how most Spitfires come to existence these days, but the full drawings and design data for those do exist.

The spitfire is a different league. This is annex II and national rules apply, these are different from country to country, yet in most countries quite some modifications are available, think if newly designed and manufactured parts, and modifications to change unavailable parts by parts which are better available.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

I don’t see why this would be much different under EASA?

Isn’t there a requirement for a TC holder to exist, in Europe?

I went to a presentation where this principle was described over an hour or two

Without the TC holder, the aircraft are all grounded.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Without the TC holder, the aircraft are all grounded.

So called Orphan aircraft excist, this can be under annex II (national regulations) or under EASA. EASA Specific Airworthiness Specifications

For example, UK-CAA Guideance on orphan aircraft

Last Edited by Jesse at 21 Sep 19:21
JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Jesse,

I wonder how Airbus went about grounding both Caravelle and Concorde by revoking the Type Certificate. And that is something I´d really like to know, not because of the renewed interest in Concorde, but generally. I was totally taken aback that something like that is possible, that one manufacturer can withdraw the permission to use their product permanently and without a possibility for someone to take it over if that manufacturer doesn´t want.

In particular the Socata series is a possible problem here. What if they say one day that they don´t want to support the TB series anymore and revoke the type certificate? The goings on around Concorde and the Caravelle (I was involved in the latter type) actually put a full stop to my own consideration ever to consider a French airplane, particularly one which is owned by Airbus, as I wonder about this problem.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I wonder how Airbus went about grounding both Caravelle and Concorde by revoking the Type Certificate.

I am sorry I can’t answer this questions, I don’t know any details of this. I don’t think you can compare the TB series with Caravelle and Concorde. On general aviation aircraft one could either take over the TC and responsibility. In which the TC holder would have to agree in selling this I would assum.

With the TB series being under EASA control these SAS see link in previous post would be applicable. Any owner could apply for SAS and operate a restricted type certificate. This could mean you are not allowed to fly above cities / large groups of people, no commercial only etc.
You could also apply for modifications. For example, a third party could design and certify a different magneto instead of the 540 dual magneto. This could be done without Socata / Lycoming. Typically these modifications are quite expensive, so they way to go is to have an owners group. This owners group could have a design made and parts produced.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

I know the Annex 2 bit (the presentation I went to was largely about that) but can a fully certified aircraft exist and fly all over Europe VFR and IFR, even commercially, if the TC is not supported (whatever “supported” means, I don’t know) by anybody?

Maybe there have been recent changes but TC support has always been essential for full capabilities. And that is not the case in FAA-land.

Maybe I am missing something but anybody could get an STC to install a different mag, electronic ignition, a means of carrying a motorcycle, whatever, for say a TB20, and do it without any co-operation from Socata. The TC holder has no power to stop 3rd party STCs. There are situations where an STC can be blocked indirectly e.g. the Jetprop STC cannot be applied to G1000-equipped PA46 airframes because the G1000 needs to be modified for a TP engine and Garmin won’t do it, but that’s a different issue and could be solved by replacing the G1000 with a G500 (etc).

From the link you posted, Jesse:

But this seems worthless. You lose a lot of privileges.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I know the Annex 2 bit (the presentation I went to was largely about that) but can a fully certified aircraft exist and fly all over Europe VFR and IFR, even commercially, if the TC is not supported (whatever “supported” means, I don’t know) by anybody?

Quite unlikely as you will receive a restricted certificate. Most often these certificates don’t allow commerical operations, sometimes no IFR. There are quite some orphaned aircraft which fly around all over Europe VFR. For the average VFR private pilote little will change.
You might be able to find an alternative means of compliance to show that your aircraft keeps in good condition for IFR. While the usage is restricted, it is far more practical than grounding which you seem to suggest.

Peter wrote:

Maybe I am missing something but anybody could get an STC to install a different mag, electronic ignition, a means of carrying a motorcycle, whatever, for say a TB20, and do it without any co-operation from Socata.

Exactly! So if Socata would stop producing these VOR/LOC/GS antenna’s as you indicated, you (or better a group of owners) make sure they get a design for an alternative antenna installation, or have a shop make such antenna under PMA regulations.
To make this interesting for manufacturers or design organisations you should be with a large owners group.

For example, wings of Chieftain are flight time limited (not sure if this one is still active). An Australian company designed and STC-ed an modification to remove this limitation. A Dutch company designed an alternative means of compliance procedure, where additional inspections conform their design could extend the lifespan of this part.

The same would be possible for Socata TB parts.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Peter, there is no EASA requirement for ‘support’ to include parts sales, as others have posted. Airbus inherited a number light aircraft types and that is today a good example: Airbus has a guy in an office in Manching, Germany (Ulrich Hagmann) who sends out out service bulletins etc. If you ask him about parts he says its been years since they had any on hand. He will try to point you in the right direction, depending on what’s available commercially and your type certificate issues. I think this is perhaps the bigger issue with maintaining an out of production type on EASA Annex 1 register, with all rights (IFR etc) even when ‘supported’ by the TC holder: you may have paperwork trouble using used parts, FAA PMA parts or undocumented parts when new parts from the manufacturer aren’t available.

If your type was produced by the thousands in the 1940s, as one of mine was, used parts are plentiful even decades after they went out of production. On FAA register that means you have no problem maintaining it within standard category for any Part 91 use, VFR, IFR if equipped, private or commercial. What parts the used market doesn’t supply Univair does, on a PMA.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Sep 02:44
26 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top