…and there are no heater exhaust extension replacement parts currently available, the agency said.
…apart from that, Mrs Lincoln…
So that means they are consulting on the potential permanent grounding of all Aztecs, Apaches and Twin Comms in the world.
I wonder how the turkeys will respond to that consulation 
Timothy wrote:
So that means they are consulting on the potential permanent grounding of all Aztecs, Apaches and Twin Comms in the world.
From what I read, disabling the heater was also an option. Whether that’s realistic depends on how the aircraft is used. For MEP training, I guess it would be.
For MEP training, I guess it would be.
Well, if you pay only €80k for your ATPL course then you can’t expect to get a heater! If you go to a proper FTO, say €100k, then this is one of the benefits
But, seriously, how can one fly in the winter without a heater? You also get no window demisting.
Would the aircraft be airworthy with the heater INOP?
I did the North Pole crossing in my Aztec with a broken heater, so it’s clearly not absolutely necessary, even when it’s very cold.
Peter wrote:
But, seriously, how can one fly in the winter without a heater?
My Auster has cabin heat. The lukewarm jet of air (calling it a jet of air is pushing the definition) that issues forth will just about raise my right knee’s temperature by half a degree…
Wearing a coat and gloves is an inexpensive solution to this, especially since it’s my motorbike gear and has the dual purpose of stopping me freezing on the bike, too.
Timothy wrote:
…and there are no heater exhaust extension replacement parts currently available, the agency said.
…apart from that, Mrs Lincoln…So that means they are consulting on the potential permanent grounding of all Aztecs, Apaches and Twin Comms in the world.
Under the FAA system an owner can fabricate replacement parts.
Wearing a coat and gloves is an inexpensive solution to this, especially since it’s my motorbike gear and has the dual purpose of stopping me freezing on the bike, too.
I think you are kidding, at FL200, -30C, at night 
Under the FAA system an owner can fabricate replacement parts.
I suspect that with this volume, some exhaust repair company (the sort which needs 0.1% of the old exhaust to supply a “repaired” part ) will step in.
That’s without getting into the owner manufactured parts option, which is another route but would require way more owner involvement.
It seems to me that if the approved parts are not thought to be fit for purpose, allowing anyone to run up anything they like in their workshop is a bit counterproductive, but hey ho!
The intent of the AD is to replace a carbon steel pipe with a stainless steel pipe, unless the owner wants to accept a 25 hour inspection period or disabled heater. Stainless steel as the name implies is more corrosion resistant and better for the job. What will likely happen as the AD moves through the consultation process is that somebody will see a business opportunity to obtain FAA PMA to make the stainless pipes, and in due course they will sell them thereby relieving the owners from the hassle of gathering obtaining approved data for individual manufacture. Companies like Univair can do this stuff. Some owners will prefer to have a similar stainless steel part made by a different company. If that part is constructed according to FAA approved data it can be produced minus PMA because the manufacture is arranged by the owner. That possibility prevents a monopoly situation from developing, something FAA does not want to appear to create. This isn’t a particularly challenging situation under well established and effective FAA Practice.
