The International Cessna 170 Association

By now many of you may have seen this in the aviation news. Of course the article tells you little about how to actually go about using VARMA. Most of the talk on a few other forums I belong, most notably from a very friendly Cub (vintage) DAR/DER is that there is nothing new here. We could have been doing this all along. In fact that is about the only thing the EAA article says. VARMA is nothing more than old ACs and current regulations bundled together. Fact it seems is that we could have always done this but few mechanics and FAA would believe it. Now that the EAA says they have 'miraculously" negotiated the pathway and of course its all been assigned a cool acronym the FAA is on board. Maybe two of three mechanics will believe it and half that many will understand it.

Years ago George Horn with the assistance of a FAA type presented what is now VARMA to attendees at our annual convention maintenance forum. The heart of VARMA is an AC 23-27 that had recently been released. The popular example at the time was how one could go to NAPA and buy a Gates belt to replace that Official PMA stamped GATES belt you were running that cost 4 times as much as that available at NAPA.

I'm trying to find out what yellow brick road the EAA traveled to get their parts approved under VARMA. As I stated, they didn't really say. Nor did they point us in a direction for more information. Searching FAA.GOV for VARMA is a dead end (surprise surprise). I'd really like to know how I can legally install a (slightly modified) off the shelf Weather Head valve in my Cessna to replace the early version (170 thru early 170B) fuel shut off valve? (Tom Gehman, I haven't forgotten what you did)

Here is a copy of the work instruction that was linked in the EAA article. If I'm reading it right, it is different than what we have done in the past with the AC's. It looks like you have to send a letter to the ACO for FAA approval.

EAA article
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-public ... tage-fleet

I’m amused that FAA in their AC and other literature have decided to change the nomenclature of “Standard Parts”… which should indicate a standardized, non-changing definition. The FAA has recently defined the Standard Part definition of “AN” …as “Air Force/Navy”.

However, ever since the days of their predecessor, the CAA,…. “AN” has been identified as “ARMY/NAVY”.

“ Standard Part. A part manufactured in complete compliance with an established industry or U.S. Government or international specification that includes design, manufacturing, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements. It also includes a type of part that the Administrator has found demonstrates conformity based solely on meeting performance criteria, and is in complete compliance with an established industry or U.S. Government specification, which contains performance criteria, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements. The specification must include all information necessary to produce and conform to the part, and be published so that any party may manufacture the part. Examples include, but are not limited to, National Aerospace Standards (NAS), Army/Navy (AN) Aerospace Standards (AS), Military Standard (MS), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), SAE Sematec, Joint Electron Device Engineering Council, Joint Electron Tube Engineering Council, and American National Standards“

dstates wrote:Here is a copy of the work instruction that was linked in the EAA article. If I'm reading it right, it is different than what we have done in the past with the AC's. It looks like you have to send a letter to the ACO for FAA approval.

EAA article
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-public ... tage-fleet

How'd I miss that link.

Thanks Doug

The way I read it.. VARMA clarifies the method towards gaining approval of the processes of AC23-27. The AC does not of itself provide approval for installation of substitute parts…it only describes how one might gain approval for such. VARMA appears to simplify and clarify how one can quickly achieve the same result.

Only took the Feds 13 years to come up with it. I can't get too excited about it.

In my part of the world [Australia]when I questioned our authorities about VARMA , the answer I received was [very open ended] , [Their words]. If it looks like a duck , waddles like a duck ,has a duck bill , it’s must be a duck BUT you [approved engineer]must sign off on it as being fit for purpose ,not a structural feature , and comply with all regulations and be traceable . Which regulations? was my answer. I am still waiting for an answer. I gained the impression the person whom I was dealing with didn’t have a depth of knowledge in this area.