PDA

View Full Version : J-3 with wood spars and 0200 engine



juliecat13
09-19-2019, 10:07 AM
Does anyone have field approval for a J-3 with wood spars and an 0200 engine? Thank you, Julie

bob turner
09-19-2019, 10:42 AM
The field approval would be for a J3C65. There is no difference between wood and metal spars. Problem is, you cannot simply use a field approval; you need the original installer or a new field approval.

39-J3
09-19-2019, 11:25 AM
Does F. Atlee Dodge have field approval Drawings for this conversion?

I am asking, not saying they do.

Larry.

juliecat13
09-20-2019, 11:18 AM
My Dad has a J-3 with original wood spars. He had the engine replaced with an 0200, 100 HP engine. When the current owner of the airport where the work was done placed an ad on Barnstormers, he found out that this combination is "illegal" or not approved by the FAA. The previous owner who did the work, passed away, sadly. So, if we understand it correctly, the plane isn't "legal" with wood spars and this 0200 engine. If anyone on this thread believes otherwise, please let me know. Our Ag Pilot suggested that I post a question on this Forum to see if there is possibly anyone else who has this same setup and has been able to obtain field approval from the FAA. If so, he believes that we could use that precedence for our plane. At least it may help. Like you say, we would probably have to get a field approval on our plane. Thanks so much for any advice we can get.

supercub
09-20-2019, 05:06 PM
I believe Univair is the only STC for an O-200 in a J-3. I believe it calls for the addition of a wing tank also. I know a lot of O-200 installations are field approved by limiting the RPM (red line on the tach) to 90hp........still takes a field approval.

cubdriver2
09-20-2019, 06:16 PM
Check over here also

www.j3-cub.com

Glenn

bob turner
09-20-2019, 07:04 PM
Julie - look for a 337 filed for that engine. If you don't have all the paperwork, you can get it from the FAA records branch.

If no 337 has been filed then you indeed do have an illegal installation, and it has nothing to do with the spars.

I run into this stuff fairly often, considering that I do not make a living being a mechanic. The latest was a C-90-12, and the 337 listed neither an STC nor did it have a field approval stamp in block 3. One of those two things is required.

So for a quarter century that bird went through annual after annual, and nobody caught it. Last month I got it field approved.

As I understand it, I might have gotten the last five field approvals of my career that day - but now that aircraft is legal!

Best of luck.

BC12D-4-85
09-20-2019, 08:02 PM
Aircraft records: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/copies_aircraft_records/

The CD takes a week to a bit more by USPS and included Airworthiness (Form 337 and others) and Registered Owner records. No logbook data. If you can find another plane with the mods you want approved then obtain the records for that as a help.

Edit: Search for "JimC" here as I recall him mentioning a J-3 and O-200: https://www.supercub.org/forum/search.php?searchid=4755382

Gary

cruiser
09-21-2019, 06:39 AM
I do not have the face side of the 337 and N42527 is now a Bell helicopter, however N23375 is still around. Perhaps purchasing a CD of the OK City file on the airplane would be helpful. I owned 3590K for awhile, it had an 0200 although some of the paperwork might be sketchy. Or try to gain some traction with the FSDO letter, should be fun, Jim

BC12D-4-85
09-22-2019, 11:33 PM
Maybe contact JimC here if he has e-mail listed (click on his name in the searches I linked above) and ask about the combo. He's very good about helping and knows what it's all about.

Gary

Steve Pierce
09-24-2019, 07:01 AM
The problem is that the 100 hp STC calls out aluminum spars only. Worked on a Clipped wing Cub with the O-200 STC and wood spars. There was a field approval to derate the engine to 90 hp via RPM because the C90 is on the type certificate. I guess someone thought the O-200 was to much horse power for the wood spar. I have never seen anyone get 100 hp out of an O-200 on a Cub because they prop won't get that high an rpm. Only way I can see to do it would be via a field approval using these other 337s as acceptable data.

dgapilot
09-24-2019, 10:02 AM
The bigger issue is under CAR 4, if you only have the 12 gallon tank, maximum continuous HP is limited to 80 HP by CAR 4.620. 0.15 gallons per maximum HP except take off. .15X 80= 12

Has nothing to do with structure, only available fuel. Thatís why if you look at items 9 & 10, for the C85 and C90, they are limited to 80HP ďfor all other operationsĒ

Now, if you add additional fuel tanks and want to go beyond the 80HP continuous limit, structure could enter into it, and you would need to verify that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cruiser
09-24-2019, 01:09 PM
Citing the authority spelled out by the Manager, Systems and Flight Test Branch letter dated March 20, 1997 install the 0200, remark the red line on the tach to derate the engine to 90 hp, amend the W&B as required and consider it a minor alteration. He certainly has.

dgapilot
09-24-2019, 02:43 PM
Citing the authority spelled out by the Manager, Systems and Flight Test Branch letter dated March 20, 1997 install the 0200, remark the red line on the tach to derate the engine to 90 hp, amend the W&B as required and consider it a minor alteration. He certainly has.

Canít argue with what you have from NY ACO, but from experience, Iíve had to educate the same engineer in that office that CAR 4 is a predecessor regulation to CAR 3. They simply have no idea when it comes to old airplanes!

Iíd be in agreement with 90 hp for TO, and 80 HP continuous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dnh98221
01-16-2020, 10:24 PM
Does the Univair O-200 STC apply to the PA-11 as well? It wasn't explicit, I know they share the same TCDS, but not all things are the same between them. Anyway I'm looking at a PA-11 project, but sure would like to have a starter; don't need the rest of the electrical system though (generator, lights, etc.)

hotrod180
01-17-2020, 10:41 AM
The field approval would be for a J3C65. There is no difference between wood and metal spars. Problem is, you cannot simply use a field approval; you need the original installer or a new field approval.

An existing field-approved 337 can be used to document "accepted data",
whether or not that helps you actually get a new field approval depends on your inspector and/or FSDO.
FWIW I've heard that a field approval dating from before 1956(?) is considered approved data,
and that this can be cited on a 337 which can then be signed off by an IA--
just like an STC.

dgapilot
01-17-2020, 10:58 AM
An existing field-approved 337 can be used to document "accepted data",
whether or not that helps you actually get a new field approval depends on your inspector and/or FSDO.
FWIW I've heard that a field approval dating from before 1956(?) is considered approved data,
and that this can be cited on a 337 which can then be signed off by an IA--
just like an STC.

You are correct in that pre Octoberí56 orí57 (I need to double check the date) is approved data and can be used to modify additional aircraft of the same make and model providing you do it the same way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dan Gervae
01-17-2020, 11:03 AM
Does the Univair O-200 STC apply to the PA-11 as well? It wasn't explicit, I know they share the same TCDS, but not all things are the same between them. Anyway I'm looking at a PA-11 project, but sure would like to have a starter; don't need the rest of the electrical system though (generator, lights, etc.)

I think a PA 11 would fit into the 10% HP increase rule since that plane is approved for 85 and 90 HP on the TC. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong

AKjurnees
01-17-2020, 12:30 PM
Who would want to put an o-200 engine on a J-3 anyways, save the hassle, sell the 0-200 and slap on a C-85 stroker with just a logbook entry, lighter weight and puts out almost as much power.

BC12D-4-85
01-17-2020, 12:36 PM
You are correct in that pre October’56 or’57 (I need to double check the date) is approved data and can be used to modify additional aircraft of the same make and model providing you do it the same way.

I have a note here that it's a 337 prior to 10/1/55. I found several Taylorcrafts that had engine and gross weight changes post WWII that were later covered by STC's.

Edit: See page 8 item 6: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_guides/media/faa-g-8082-19.pdf

Gary

dgapilot
01-17-2020, 02:25 PM
I have a note here that it's a 337 prior to 10/1/55. I found several Taylorcrafts that had engine and gross weight changes post WWII that were later covered by STC's.

Edit: See page 8 item 6: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_guides/media/faa-g-8082-19.pdf

Gary

You are correct, 10/1/1955.it is in Order 8300.16A.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

supercrow
01-17-2020, 06:58 PM
Who would want to put an o-200 engine on a J-3 anyways, save the hassle, sell the 0-200 and slap on a C-85 stroker with just a logbook entry, lighter weight and puts out almost as much power.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this statement. I have never seen an 0200 that puts out what a correctly done 85 stroker does. The stroker puts out 10% to 15% more power. I have seen very few 0200s that will run with a good C90!

BC12D-4-85
01-17-2020, 07:10 PM
I have a C-85 Stroker w/Cessna exhaust and would not trade for a higher rpm O-200. Finding the right prop for an O-200 helps, but...

Gary

cubdriver2
01-17-2020, 07:18 PM
I have owned and run all of them, C85 stroker, C90 and 0200. A prop that turns rated hp rpm taking off is where the magic is.

Glenn

CenterHillAg
01-17-2020, 09:08 PM
A McCauley 7438 pulling a C85 stroker on a non-electric Cub is an outstanding combination.

So I’ve been told, I’d never run that since it’s not a legal prop on a C85 :-)

Steve Pierce
01-17-2020, 09:42 PM
Does the Univair O-200 STC apply to the PA-11 as well? It wasn't explicit, I know they share the same TCDS, but not all things are the same between them. Anyway I'm looking at a PA-11 project, but sure would like to have a starter; don't need the rest of the electrical system though (generator, lights, etc.)

The starter is approved for the engine, C85-12, C90-12 or an O-200 etc. You can install a battery in a J3 or PA11 via logbook entry and AC43.13. no need for an STC or a field approval.

Smonroe
10-29-2020, 12:16 PM
The Univair STC is the only way to get an O-200 installed on the J3. I currently own the only certificated and legal clip wing cub with metal spars and an O-200 continental. Its a Reed clip wing per the type certificate and then the Univair O-200 STC was utilized. A requirement of the STC is metal spars. Also an 18 gallon wing tank an a PA-18 rear deck / birdcage. Iím reinstalling the battery, alternator, starter along with a Becker com radio this week so no more hand prop. This aircraft was built up by Univair for Jane Dyer, the owners wife in 1977 and has all documentation and logs. It qualifies as light sport as well. Itís currently for sale here: https://www.barnstormers.com/classif...Cub-O-200.html

dgapilot
10-29-2020, 03:13 PM
If you have metal spars, you donít have a Reed Clip Wing as that approval is only for wood spars. That said, I suspect someone provided an approval for a ďReed likeĒ clip wing. Another point is that the Reed Clip wing is limited to only an A-75 engine. Installing another engine takes you away from the Reed Clip Wing approval as well. Remember, it is the installer that has to determine if the installation of multiple STCs might cause an unairworthy condition. Since the O-200 STC conflicts with the Reed (actually part of the TC), Iíd be interested to see the analysis to make that determination.

Iíve done DER approvals to install an O-200 on wood spar J3 as well, so the Univair STC is not the only way to put an O-200 on a J3.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Smonroe
10-29-2020, 03:43 PM
The Reed clip wing was done first then the O-200 STC. ie not concurrently. Apparently the FAA went with the logic that the Reed clip wing was per the TC as stated, then the O-200 STC required metal spars. The two donít conflict because they are consecutive in nature. Univair has it all in the logs approved. I think this one is a real ď one off ď for sure.

bob turner
10-29-2020, 05:40 PM
dga may be correct - if an STC requires metal spars, you cannot later decide to install wood, without a field approval. Univair cannot do field approvals. If there is an FAA stamp in block 3 of the O-200 337, then you are home free. If not, then get Dave to do his magic.

oops - sorry - you do have metal spars. You need the stamp in block 3 of the clip wing 337. Either that, or a metal spar clip wing STC.

dgapilot
10-29-2020, 06:33 PM
dga may be correct - if an STC requires metal spars, you cannot later decide to install wood, without a field approval. Univair cannot do field approvals. If there is an FAA stamp in block 3 of the O-200 337, then you are home free. If not, then get Dave to do his magic.

oops - sorry - you do have metal spars. You need the stamp in block 3 of the clip wing 337. Either that, or a metal spar clip wing STC.

Bob, the funny thing is, doing a Reed Clip wing (per the drawings, wood spars and A75) is a minor alteration since it is on the TC. Can be done with just log book entry. All that said, I would do a 337, but by the letter of the law it is a minor!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Steve Pierce
10-29-2020, 08:04 PM
I recovered a Clipped Wing J3 with O-200 and aluminum spars with all the approvals. Previously owned by Patty Wagstaf now owned by Todd Peterson of King Katmi 182 fame.

bob turner
10-29-2020, 08:56 PM
Used to be easy to get approvals. I have no doubt that this one has been approved, but I would not license it without at least looking at the 337. As Dave said before, a metal spar clipwing is not in the type certificate, and would need a field approval.

bob turner
10-29-2020, 09:02 PM
Saw your ad. If the Dyers got a field approval, that sounds like a good deal. Put a copy of the 337 in your ad?

Smonroe
10-29-2020, 09:32 PM
There is no 337, one is not required. The Reed modification was done IAW the TC as dgapilot stated can be done. Then after that, the Univair STC was used to install the 0-200 which specifies metal spars. Two separate modifications, two different but acceptable authorizations. Again, one IAW the original type certificate (Reed clip wing) the other IAW the supplemental type certificate ( 0-200 )

bob turner
10-29-2020, 11:38 PM
I don't think it works that way. What do I know - check with dga.

DENNY
10-29-2020, 11:48 PM
If by letter of the law it is a minor, WE SHOUD FOLLOW THE LAW!! Just saying!!
DENNY

Smonroe
10-30-2020, 12:01 AM
You know, I had these same questions when I was buying the airplane so I called the folks at Univair and I had no trouble understanding their explanation of how they did it. And when I called my FSDO to make sure, the inspector had no trouble understanding it. So Iím not sure what the problem with you guys is. Look, I donít know who or what DGA is, all that know is the FAA says itís legal, and so has every IA thatís signed the annual for the last 43 years, so if you guys want to poke holes in everything and try to say my airplane isnít legal then go ahead, I donít care, Iíll sell it to someone who isnít so obtuse. Have a nice life.

skywagon8a
10-30-2020, 05:54 AM
You know, I had these same questions when I was buying the airplane so I called the folks at Univair and I had no trouble understanding their explanation of how they did it. And when I called my FSDO to make sure, the inspector had no trouble understanding it. So I’m not sure what the problem with you guys is. Look, I don’t know who or what DGA is, all that know is the FAA says it’s legal, and so has every IA that’s signed the annual for the last 43 years, so if you guys want to poke holes in everything and try to say my airplane isn’t legal then go ahead, I don’t care, I’ll sell it to someone who isn’t so obtuse. Have a nice life.
Smonroe, I see you are a new member here, welcome aboard. It takes a while to understand where the other members are coming from, who is serious about what he is addressing and who is the BSer. We have folks here from all walks of life with experience levels from the very green behind the ears newby to some of the most qualified in their respective industry. We as a group have a tendency to dig deep in "the weeds" on most any discussion at hand. It so happens DGA is a DER (Designated Engineering Representative). He is our resident authority on the FAR's and possesses the FAA's blessings to approve aircraft alterations such as yours.

The discussion with which you have taken offense, has only been to ensure your airplane has been legally modified. It has been intended to help you in preventing some sort of problems in the selling of your Cub and to educate the rest of us. Sometimes the words get twisted in an unintentional manner which gets misunderstood. I can assure you that all of the "talk" about your situation has been with an effort to help you.

Univair has a long time good reputation. I'm sure they have done the right thing with your Cub. It's just in the explanation which has been presented here, there were some detail questions raised which needed to be understood. We get deep into details, all with good intentions.

I hope you have now had a good night's sleep and a tasty refreshing morning cup of coffee. Stick around, this is a fun place. You will find many new true friends.

willyb
10-30-2020, 06:01 AM
75-35 on an 0-200 will outperform a 90 with a 76 ak40-2 but the 90 with 75-35 outperforms everything just not approved.

Steve Pierce
10-30-2020, 06:44 AM
I find your statement that you have the only legal Clipped Wing Cub with O-200 and metal spars a bit arrogant.

RaisedByWolves
10-30-2020, 07:16 AM
You know, I had these same questions when I was buying the airplane so I called the folks at Univair and I had no trouble understanding their explanation of how they did it. And when I called my FSDO to make sure, the inspector had no trouble understanding it. So Iím not sure what the problem with you guys is. Look, I donít know who or what DGA is, all that know is the FAA says itís legal, and so has every IA thatís signed the annual for the last 43 years, so if you guys want to poke holes in everything and try to say my airplane isnít legal then go ahead, I donít care, Iíll sell it to someone who isnít so obtuse. Have a nice life.

Just because itís been done that way for 43 years doesnít make it right.

Heck, if you ask 3 different FSDOís a question youíll get 5 different answers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

S2D
10-30-2020, 08:12 AM
Just because it’s been done that way for 43 years doesn’t make it right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And conversely, what the FAA suddenly says isn't legal even tho it's been done ( with the FAA's blessing) for 60 years doesn't make them right !!

The J3F conversion to J3C is a perfect example of that !!

dgapilot
10-30-2020, 08:51 AM
Thatís why having access to a DER or a DAR with field approval authority is so important in todayís world. Yeah, FAA used to do it for free, but that ship has sailed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RaisedByWolves
10-30-2020, 09:31 AM
That’s why having access to a DER or a DAR with field approval authority is so important in today’s world. Yeah, FAA used to do it for free, but that ship has sailed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Side note, I tried to become a DAR after paying one to convert to E-LSA. I mentioned I'd like to become one and he begged me to talk to my fsdo, they need dar's bad. My FSDO said "You don't have the experience and even if i did I don't have the time to baby sit you".

dgapilot
10-30-2020, 09:38 AM
It took something like 4 years for me to get DART finally in 2004 and another 10 years to get DARF. Been an A&P since 1977, IA since 1980. Assisted in aircraft certification on about 15 airplanes (both import and export) and hundreds of Field Approvals before getting the DART. Had to apply to FAA Headquarters to get a deviation for home builds. The process is not easy. It is all dependent on need and FAA ability to manage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

hotrod180
10-30-2020, 10:56 AM
...a minor alteration since it is on the TC. Can be done with just log book entry. All that said, I would do a 337, but by the letter of the law it is a minor!


I'm curious as to why you take this position?
I've seen a lot of discussions where someone gets chewed put for filing a 337
for a mod that (others claim) is a "minor alteration" needing a logbook entry only.
Odyssey battery is a good example.

bob turner
10-30-2020, 11:02 AM
Yes, but don't you find this interesting? Univair and the FAA have decided that their O-200 STC is approved data to convert a Reed conversion to metal spars, and all you need to do is cite the Univair STC.

Funny how folks get upset when they try to use a forum to sell stuff and get comments. Forums are designed for comments and opinions. You get good opinions, bad opinions, facts, nonsense . . . That's what forums are.

bob turner
10-30-2020, 11:06 AM
Nobody gets chewed out anymore for filing a 337. Nobody looks at them until an event happens. That's why we are starting to see so many major alterations without approved data.

All of my recent field approvals are to fix 40 year old 337s that cite nothing other than an IA signature - two of them for fuel systems! Four were on an Oshkosh winner! Nobody caught them.

But I agree. The FAA is supposed to reject 337s for minor work, including stuff authorized by the type certificate, like the Reed conversion for wood spar Cubs.

Steve Pierce
10-30-2020, 11:11 AM
This was 40 plus years ago. Today you would need data to prove that the modifications to the Reed Clipped wing modification would cross over to metal spars. This guy is trying to sell an airplane. I am sure there is more data than a logbook entry and an STC. If so it wouldn't hold mustard today.

dgapilot
10-30-2020, 11:46 AM
I'm curious as to why you take this position?
I've seen a lot of discussions where someone gets chewed put for filing a 337
for a mod that (others claim) is a "minor alteration" needing a logbook entry only.
Odyssey battery is a good example.

Using 14 CFR 1.1, the definition of Major Alteration includes ďnot listed on the aircraft specification ( the specification was the precursor to the current TCDS). The definition of minor alteration is anything that isnít major. So if something is listed on the TCDS, the installation of that is a minor alteration. The Reed Clip Wing is listed on TCDS 691, item 625, so that makes it a minor alteration for a J3C series airplane.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

dgapilot
10-30-2020, 11:55 AM
Yes, but don't you find this interesting? Univair and the FAA have decided that their O-200 STC is approved data to convert a Reed conversion to metal spars, and all you need to do is cite the Univair STC.

Funny how folks get upset when they try to use a forum to sell stuff and get comments. Forums are designed for comments and opinions. You get good opinions, bad opinions, facts, nonsense . . . That's what forums are.

Iíve never considered that. If you read the limitations on STC SA107RM, it gives the typical donít extend this modification bless itís determined no adverse effects . . . Nowhere in that a STC does it say how to shorten a metal spar wing, and the Reed drawing donít include metal spar wings. I donít see how anyone can make the jump that STCSA 107RM would allow installing metal spar wings on a Reed Clip Wing. The couple Iíve seen use the Reed drawings as acceptable data, create their own drawings for shortening metal spar wings, and got Field Approvals for the installation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

wireweinie
10-30-2020, 11:56 AM
DGA
If the clip wing install specifically calls out wood spars and the O-200 STC specifically calls out metal spars, wouldn't that make the two incompatible? It seems to me that to make the O-200 STC legal, the wings would have to be built up without the clip wing kit and have the metal spar installed at the same time. Am I missing something? If I wanted to get a field approval for the clip wing AND the O-200, how would I generate 'approved data'?

Teach me!

Web

dgapilot
10-30-2020, 12:30 PM
DGA
If the clip wing install specifically calls out wood spars and the O-200 STC specifically calls out metal spars, wouldn't that make the two incompatible? It seems to me that to make the O-200 STC legal, the wings would have to be built up without the clip wing kit and have the metal spar installed at the same time. Am I missing something? If I wanted to get a field approval for the clip wing AND the O-200, how would I generate 'approved data'?

Teach me!

Web

Web, you are correct, without additional ďapproved dataĒ the two alterations arenít compatible. Iíve seen Field Approvals for metal spar clip wing Cubs, but they would not be Reed Clip Wings. Iíve done a couple DER approvals for O-200 installations in wood spar airplanes. I use the Univair STC as acceptable data, and an old memo from NY ACO recommending the O-200 as a reasonable replacement for A-65 and other engines with an RPM limitation to 80 HP if no additional fuel, or 90 HP if there is additional fuel tanks installed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

bob turner
10-30-2020, 12:33 PM
Teach you? Either an ASI or a DER with proper authorization can "generate" approved data. In the case of an ASI, all that is needed is a signature and stamp in block 3.

In this case, the back - block 8 - could simply state "Metal spar wings clipped in accordance with Reed drawings, with allowance for slight differences in compression strut and drag wire attach."

Then, to be sure, add: "O-200 engine installation accomplished using original mount and accessories, and instrument markings derating to 90 hp."

Of course, some might say that engineering calculations or test flights should back all this up - but once you get that stamp in block 3, you are home free. There is a small matter of ICA, but my ASIs have been letting that slide.

God, I hate acronyms and abbreviations - ICA = Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. ASI = that FAA guy who comes to your hangar with a stamp. Be sure to have coffee and donuts ready.

dgapilot
10-30-2020, 12:41 PM
Teach you? Either an ASI or a DER with proper authorization can "generate" approved data. In the case of an ASI, all that is needed is a signature and stamp in block 3.

In this case, the back - block 8 - could simply state "Metal spar wings clipped in accordance with Reed drawings, with allowance for slight differences in compression strut and drag wire attach."

Then, to be sure, add: "O-200 engine installation accomplished using original mount and accessories, and instrument markings derating to 90 hp."

Of course, some might say that engineering calculations or test flights should back all this up - but once you get that stamp in block 3, you are home free. There is a small matter of ICA, but my ASIs have been letting that slide.

God, I hate acronyms and abbreviations - ICA = Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. ASI = that FAA guy who comes to your hangar with a stamp. Be sure to have coffee and donuts ready.

Bob, you are correct, once an FAA Inspector or a DAR signs block 3 with a statement to the effect that the data in block 8 is considered ďapprovedĒ for this airplane (and this airplane ONLY), no further approval is necessary. Everything in Block 8 becomes Approved Data. If done by a DER, you will get either a report, or drawings or both along with an 8110-3. You cite the 8110-3 and report or drawings as your approved data. In this case only those things specified on the 8110-3 are approved! If there are other things listed in block 8 then they need their own approved data. If everything in block 8 has approved data there is no need for a field approval.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

bob turner
10-30-2020, 01:21 PM
Watching the guy with metal spars stomp off because of our discussion, I found this by a poster called "pinkeye" on the "emptywheel" site, referring to GlennGreenwald:

This is a golden age for watching grown-ass men throw tantrums and pick up their toys and stomp away, and the reason is the same as always: It’s entertaining.

hotrod180
10-31-2020, 10:55 AM
.... once an FAA Inspector or a DAR signs block 3 with a statement to the effect that the data in block 8 is considered “approved” for this airplane (and this airplane ONLY), no further approval is necessary. Everything in Block 8 becomes Approved Data. If done by a DER, you will get either a report, or drawings or both along with an 8110-3. You cite the 8110-3 and report or drawings as your approved data. In this case only those things specified on the 8110-3 are approved! If there are other things listed in block 8 then they need their own approved data. If everything in block 8 has approved data there is no need for a field approval.

So an 8110-3 is only "approved data" for that particular airplane?
I have seen mods documented by a 337 that cited an 8110-3 (signed by a DER) for another (same make/model) airplane, signed off by an IA.
But nothing in block 3-- in other words, not a field approval.
Is that 8110-3 of no use for anything on another airplane?

bob turner
10-31-2020, 12:15 PM
No use at all. As far as I can tell, not even acceptable data. They are more like "work product" and belong to the originator and the owner who paid.

Being an IA is a bit like being a highly specialized lawyer. We get recurrent; we should probably have malpractice insurance.

dgapilot
10-31-2020, 01:17 PM
Each 8110-3 is good ONLY for the one aircraft identified on the form. Now, I have used the same report or drawings for multiple aircraft, but each has a separate 8110-3. Most times, I also state that the report is only applicable to the aircraft identified in the 8110-3. Block 8 of the form is the Purpose of the form. In that block it should state ďto support major alteration on N#, make, model, serial number. That statement means it only applies to the aircraft identified.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk