I think leather always needs paperwork.
Wasn’t it on this forum where a Beech Travelair owner from Norway offered his immaculate aircraft as a “project” because the paint job didn’t have the right paperwork?
My reading of his post (he didn’t say a lot) was that the leather didn’t have the paperwork (and the company doing the Annual discovered it and would not sign the release to service) and the paint was coming off (but that would not stop you getting a release to service unless there was structurally relevant corrosion).
It is very easy to do a bad paint job. All you need is the wrong temperature, wrong humidity, or just mix up the wrong ratio of hardener. Or wait too long between coats. There were TBMs ($3M+) made on which the wing paint would peel off in 20mm wide strips, leaving the primer behind. Only in places however. I had that on my plane too, around the filler caps. Now, they have a huge climate controlled room for painting.
The paint will look great when new and in fact that pilot posted one of the very first posts on EuroGA, whose glowing praise read like an advertisement by the paint shop (a lot of that goes on on pilot forums – it’s OK here so long as the poster actually writes something genuinely informative) and after a bit of discussion we deleted it. Eventually we were convinced he was a genuine customer so we reinstated it.
Leather/fabrics certificates are very important and so easy to get. One day they will bite you and you end up redoing everything.
Wasn’t it on this forum where a Beech Travelair owner from Norway offered his immaculate aircraft as a “project” because the paint job didn’t have the right paperwork?
PS: It is very difficult to prove that a given certificate is not for the actual leather/fabric in the airplane. Just saying… 
I don’t think the rules are different but the willingness to ignore the rules varies.
Unless the leather covers had a Cirrus Part Number, surely even the FAA requires fire certificates for the leather.
The interior fabrics seems to be an area where many organisations turn a blind eye to the requirements. OK, so we are not talking airliners so some of the national authority requirements might be totally excessive for light GA but I sat in a PA-28 with a brand new interior refit and the pilot seats were so poorly padded that I was sitting on the frame of the seat. The seats offered me zero protection to injury from turbulence never mind a heavy landing or a crash.
Many people are working on sensible implementation of some more reasonable regulations.
Well, that can be a hot topic sometimes…. A German 145 Service Center refused to install new armrests in my SR22. The parts were original but with new leather covers and the manager said that he needs documents for the leather … bla… bla … bla
It seems that those regulations are not the same over all EASA countries. In the Netherlands this would also require additional paperwork for the leather.
I guess it is the same, as with avionics testing, 2nd altimeter, low voltage warning, issues that are different in different EASA member states
Well, that can be a hot topic sometimes…. A German 145 Service Center refused to install new armrests in my SR22. The parts were original but with new leather covers and the manager said that he needs documents for the leather … bla… bla … bla
I let my UK CAMO (RGV) call them and tell them it’s okay, or they would not have installed it … (they’re still not installes, but thatÄs adifferent and longer story)
Components supplied by the airframe manufacturer of an FAA-certified aircraft do not necessarily have to be TSO’d or PMA’d, and are sometimes sourced by them from unexpected subcontract suppliers: a tractor-sourced gascolator and a car windscreen wiper motor driving flaps come to mind. In these cases, I think the official “fait accompli” answer for the owner is indeed to buy it from the airframe manufacturer by their part number, or buy used, or overhaul using approved parts and methods.
The grey area would be when a part comes along from parts unknown, an FAA A&P inspects it and finds it airworthy and totally compliant with the TC, but unbeknownst to him the part has never been anywhere near the aircraft parts ‘system’. The A&P does not need an 8130 so that is a very possible scenario. I expect the FAA likes things just as they are, because in reality it has not caused accidents and the mechanic is responsible for determining airworthiness.
Re wings – people do build replacement wings and other major airframe components for FAA certified aircraft, in particular when all the engineering data is available and the tooling required is not too complicated. A good example might be the Boeing Stearman biplane (as shown on Peter’s website). All the Stearman drawings are US public property and they were done to a very high standard. I understand the Stearman is actually still ‘supported’ by Boeing in some fashion, but some other still-certified types have been field manufactured from an original data plate up long after the original airframe manufacturer was defunct, using original drawings.
I had a look through those (not done the video yet) but have not found anything which says if/when any parts must be supplied by the airframe manufacturer.
I guess there are going to be cases when the only part that’s available and which is either TSOd or PMAd happens to be offered by the airframe manufacturer (example: a wing) but that is just a “fait accompli” answer
Here are some resources to look at: http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1105297993001
Google and download these FAA AC’s: AC 20-62E and AC 43-18 Chg 2. The first deals with parts, the second deals with maintenance produced parts.
Socata don’t have any overt presence on the Socata owners’ group. The views(s) about using Socata parts come from some people on there.
OK but that is an issue for whoever claims to be the copyright holder, not the aircraft owner.
I mentioned it because I took it from your OP that you meant that Socata were against the use of non-OEM parts….not the regulator
