• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Field Approvals Again

S

StewartB

Today I was told that I will not get a removable rear seat lower crossbar approved in my 12 without engineering. This mod has been signed off a hundred times around here, and no 12 I know of has suffered structural failure or been compromised in any way because of the mod. The field inspector said his every move is scrutinized by his manager, the district office, and then Washington D.C.'s office. The burden of proof is clearly on us to show the structural merit of a mod, and apparently 60 years of people doing it isn't good enough. The FA process was terminated, then reinstated, and now it's just castrated. Write your senators, boys and girls. Remember, the government works for US. It's time they were reminded.
SB
 
The FA approval process isn't quite dead yet I just got three of the done on one airplane and was pretty straight forward without much hassle.

Matt
 
There's hope yet. Between PA12Tray, and Charly Center, I think I can produce enough paper to convince the FAA to sign my removable tube off. Another benefit of a great website, and fellow pilots. Thank you.
SB
 
They like paperwork. I got a spinner aproved today. I don't know what it came off of or who put it on. It has a nice spun backing plate etc. My FAA guy said it doesn't say he can't field approve it so. I just hope he doesn't retire for a while.
 
Update.
My FAA inspector just informed my mechanic that my removeable tube will NOT be approved without engineering. I provided copies of 337's signed-off previously by him for the same mod. No matter, he won't do it. He said to hire a DER. I've also heard that the FAA bigwigs will be here within a month to unveil their new policies. It just gets better all the time.
SB
 
Complain vigorously to your Representative and Senators. You might also encourage the various local aviation groups to complain as this affects their members. Alaska is small enough, populationwise that your voice may be heard. There is nothing a bureaucrat likes less than a congressionl inquiry. They can't throw those letters into file 13 and usually the agency requires an expedited response to the elected official.
 
Shoot

Sorry to hear that, its a shame its getting so hard to pass things off, if I ever do another 12 again it will be all experimental so I don't have to hassle with the feds. Would they except a field test? You could build a similar seat separate from the plane and load test it with cement bags to prove its stout enough. You can find the requirements in CAR 3, don't follow the regulations that they have today, the plane only has to comply with those valid at the time it was type certificated.
 
CAR 03

When I was working on making my own STC, the FAA engineering department told me that it only had to comply with the regs valid at the time the plane was type certificated. If these old planes had to comply with the latest regs, I don't believe many of them would "fly". That it exactly what their engineer said. Hopefully they aren't changing thier minds. I've been trying to figure out what the guys name is, but it passes me, he worked for Cal Center for years before he went to work for the feds.

I know Norms plane, assume its back up the air now after the moose attack?
 
TJ, what fed claimed that FAR23 supercedes CAR3???

I agree with PA12Tray and his statement that none of the CAR3 approved planes would fly if held to 23 standards.

My most recent field approval experiences have been good. All I've had to do different from the old method is document a bit more precisely. Give specific part numbers and exact number of washers, rivet part numbers, etc., etc., etc.

I guess I've been blessed with realistic, practical-minded G-men.

Dave Calkins
 
Back
Top