The FAA has unveiled a new program for the use of off-the-shelf parts in type-certificated aircraft.
The new Vintage Aircraft Replacement and Modification Article (VARMA) program is the “next big step in keeping vintage aircraft flying,” according to officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).
“Anyone who owns and operates vintage aircraft knows that finding parts can be a major challenge. This situation is especially frustrating when perfectly safe and functional alternatives are readily available, but can’t be used because there’s been no legal way to install them in a type-certificated aircraft,” association officials said. “With VARMA in place, some aspects of vintage aircraft ownership and operation are about to get a lot simpler.”
VARMA uses several existing FAA policies to create a program that requires no new regulations, orders, or advisory circulars, EAA officials continued.
VARMA applies to small (less than 12,500 pounds) type-certificated aircraft built before 1980. It 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, EAA officials explained.
“This is great news for those of us who own and fly vintage aircraft,” said Jack Pelton, EAA’s CEO and chairman of the board. “There could easily come a time when a classic airplane that would otherwise be grounded for want of a part that’s no longer available will fly again thanks to the parts substitution enabled by VARMA.”
The program applies to parts whose failure would not “prevent continued safe flight and landing.” While this means that safety-critical components are not subject to this program, there are plenty of hard-to-find parts that meet VARMA’s criteria, EAA officials said.
For the first approval under VARMA, EAA used the same Cessna 150 it used as a testbed for its auto fuel STC. For VARMA it applied for an off-the-shelf starter solenoid as the failure of the starter system is generally irrelevant to flight safety. The FAA granted the first Form 337 approval under the program several weeks later. Since that time, the association also been granted approval for alternators and voltage regulators in VFR aircraft.
“There are many more parts that are eligible under VARMA,” EAA officials said.
Initially, the FAA will be managing the program through its Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, which can be reached at 847-294-7357.
For now, approvals will be considered on an individual basis, although type clubs and ownership groups are encouraged to keep track of substitute parts that have gained approval, EAA officials advised.
“EAA has had a longstanding commitment to maintainability and modernization in the legacy aircraft community,” said Tom Charpentier, EAA’s government relations director. “Our EFIS and autopilot STCs broke new ground in affordable avionics, and it is our hope that VARMA opens many new doors for easily found replacement parts. As with the STC programs, we blazed the trail with the first application. Now we’re excited to see the program grow in the GA community.”
Our 1943 Stinson L-5 has been AOG for three months while we search for certified cylinder assembly parts that are essentially impossible to find, inordinately expensive if they are to be found. The Lycoming O-290 and O-435 engines have been “orphaned” by Lycoming and the L-5 has no approved STC to replace the engine with a certified unit.
Both engines use identical cylinder components that are quite readily available as used in experimental aircraft. Would this VARMA program allow petition for application of parts that are available and used on experimental aircraft to be used on our certified L-5. We are faced with grounding a perfectly good classic aircraft for lack of relatively small parts.
Hartzell Engines has acquired many STCs for vintage aircraft. The alternators and starters that were $500 prior to Hartzell Engine’s acquisition are now $1,000. Can we use automotive starters and alternators on our 12 volt aircraft?
Over twenty years ago I was working on a Piper aircraft that had an electrical problem and I wanted to check the master solenoid. I borrowed one which had a Piper part number, and Aviall (now called Boeing) quoted $750 for replacement. But the manufacturer’s name and part number was also on the part and I called them and was quoted $250 for one and $200 each if I bought ten. This is an example of markup in the system. This new FAA system might alleviate some of the greed in parts pricing?
one big question is how long will it take to get the LOA. Do you have to submit a 337 every time. IF the part has already been previously approved does the individual have to get a LOA. With the FAA it’s all about bureaucracy
Does this mean that the “1980” date increases every year. So next year in 2024 the date will be “1981”? I can’t find any FAA document that explains this. I suspect 1980 is written into it rather than 43 years old. I hope I am wrong, this should map forward as time moves on.
I’m an A&P / IA and I worry about liability. I’ve been fortunate to have never had a complaint or a claim but the lawyers “shotgun” after a crash or incident and sue every mechanic that ever signed a log book.
Solenoids and regulators/overvoltage relays are prone to failure and could be sourced cheaply from the automotive world. Hoe about auto batteries instead of Gill?
How far can we go with this, and where is the regulation that allows substitute?
I was common for FAA to violate Airmen when unauthorized parts were found on an aircraft. Mostly they were alternator belts, light bulbs, wheel bearings and auto alternators. So as I under stand it, these items are now allowed and will be approved by IAs at annual time.
What latitude is VARMA granting that doesn’t already exist under the AC23-27 Parts and Materials Substitution for Vintage Aircraft, or under 14CFR21.9 for Owner Produced Parts?
It seems to me all of the authority needed to provide a substitute part already exists via 23-27 or 21.9.
I suppose this gives an owner a path to get a Federal signature in those cases where an A&P won’t install an owner supplied part. Is that the real new value?
The consequences of this program are EPIC for owners who can and will avail themselves of this long needed relief! Thank you EAA and FAA for lifting another financial burden to affordable legacy aircraft ownership.
Finally I can put a Toyota engine in my bonanza! Haha
Excellent news as this helps keep cost down in order to afford flying! We need more pilots and the older legacy aircraft still serve as a great platform to gain one’s pilots license.
This is a huge win for flying clubs. A must-have LOA was mentioned here, while other articles pointed to ‘existing means’ (i.e. 337 or log book entry for minor changes). I am looking forward to official FAA guidance.
I purchased two bearings and two races yesterday for $399 then canceled when I found them cheaper at another aviation parts supplier. Meanwhile knowing these parts are available at the local automotive parts store. My airplane was manufactured in 1947. This is great news for people like me.
I am against this program. These lead belching planes should be banned from the skies. Enough already
Wow…. You’re clearly uniformed. The Tetraethyl Lead content is 0.27min / 0.53 max, mL/L. This is clearly far below the limits published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and does not present any quantifiable level of risk regarding utilization in General Aviation aircraft.
You have no idea what you are yammering about. Most of these airplanes can and often do run on *UNLEADED* auto fuel and consequently “belch” zero lead into the atmosphere. Further, most of them are operated an average of fifty hours a year (FAA figures), which is about an hour or so a week. I’ll bet you drive your car more than an hour a day. Instead of parroting ignorant nonsense, go after coal burning power plants, container ships which burn 65,000 gallons of diesel a DAY, and other real sources of pollution. Your ignorance of aviation is galactic in scope.
Leave the coal plants alone unless you are willing to live with brown outs all the time. Can you imaging what it would be like if there were no container ships. Think of all the money you would save by not being able to buy anything.
Lead belching? That is inaccurate yet it is a plea that is commonly voiced by the anti-airport community, all of whom moved to near an airport after it was built.
If you are serious about lead studies I suggest that you go to the Santa Clara County website and find the study that was done for Reid-Hillview Airport. The consultant took soil samples in a three mile radius of the airport and the only ‘kick’ was a monitor directly downwind from the runup area. However, lead soil content in the three mile radius was consistent , the conclusion being that this is resulting from leaded fuel auto use over the past century.
The lead output from aircraft is minuscule and dispersed and your “belching” term is inappropriate. However, surveys show that we all agree that unleaded fuel is preferred.
This is good news. There are a LOT of bits and pieces on older airplanes that not only can but probably should be replaced with modern parts. The newer parts are much improved, easier to find and often far less expensive.
Two examples – the AD note regarding the light dimmer rheostat for Cessna 150s – the approved aircraft part is just south of $1,000 (and usually not available), the *identical* item is in stock at any number of electronics supply houses for $20 or less. The always stiff and often leaky brass conical-seat fuel shutoff valve is another extremely pricey item, the *identical* part, non-certificated, is $20 to $30, and sometimes even less, depending on where you look. I’ve seen this exact part on old gas powered tractors.
Remember that on most older airplanes, the manufacturers didn’t make these parts themselves, they bought them off the shelf, often using commonly available and inexpensive auto parts. Some of these parts have been unchanged for 50, 60 or 70 years, and there are much better alternatives available nowadays.
What is the part number of the dimmer switch? the one in my 58 172 is shot I would love to replace it.
In repairing generators and starters, i.e. Delco Remy it has been popular to use automotive brushes, bearings and seals. In fact the aviation shops steer a customer away due to the parts shortages. This should help out the owners of antique and classic aircraft.
Those intending to use this program must submit a request for Letter of Acceptance (LOA) from the FAA before installing the alternative parts (VARMA Work Instruction #WI-51822, Section 8). Compliance with AC 23-27 and AC 20-62E remains relevant.
Red tape aside, this is an excellent example of FAA oversight moving aside for reasons that need no elaboration.
Where did you find any FAA policy on “VARMA”? I am quite familiar with both AC’s but can find no policy on “VARMA” nor the referenced work instruction.
https://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/showthread.php?14928-Vintage-Aircraft-Replacement-amp-Modification-Article
VARMA is an EAA initiative that has been embraced by the FAA through its acceptance of this process. The ACs still apply, but the floor-level acceptance of the intent of WI-51822 is in place, and submitted 337s (by way of example) are being approved under its priviledges and limitations.