• 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!

STC’s and 337’s

Show me the FAR that requires that.

Web

That is my comment every time some inspector asks for something I know isn’t required. Years ago, one didn’t want to give me a banner waiver because he thought that dump label tape for model and serial number on the back of the airplane didn’t meet the part 45 requirement. I told him I was going to get in the airplane and fly around the patch, and when I got back I either wanted my waiver, or a violation, for which I told him I would see him in court! I had my waiver when I landed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Show me the FAR that requires that. Web

Yeah, I thought it was BS too,
esp considering that this inspector was really good to work with on field approvals & everything else..
He used to do my annuals when he was working as an IA, before he took the PMI job with the FAA.
But in this case, it was just easier to spend the extra c-note for the TSO'd radio than argue about it.
 
Like everything else, if you don’t argue, they will keep making up their own rules. It’s interesting, since “arguing” with FSDOs, Oklahoma City, and DC headquarters, I get calls from them asking me to explain their own regulations and policy!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Like everything else, if you don’t argue, they will keep making up their own rules. It’s interesting, since “arguing” with FSDOs, Oklahoma City, and DC headquarters, I get calls from them asking me to explain their own regulations and policy!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're exactly correct in my opinion. I had numerous interactions throughout my career where I would say “I will be happy to do/provide/comply with that if you could just show me the specific regulation or guidance that requires it.” On the very rare occasion when I would provide something that was not required, I would always send a letter stating that in the interest of cooperation, I will provide this even though there is no basis in regulation or guidance that requires it. Most of this was on the operations side, but MEL issues were prevelant on the maintenance side. I considered respectfully Pushing back against FAA over reach as part of my job.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago I was eating my breakfast at a picnic table at Sun n Fun. A man dressed in FAA garb and covered in FAA pins said “Would you mind sharing your table with a Fed?” I said not at all. Please do.

At that time the NY FSDO required a 337 and all that goes with it for intercom installations and the Boston office did not, so all the Long Island guys would go to Westerly RI for that kind of work. I asked my new friend how that could be, after all it was supposed to one agency. He said that’s nothing. He said he worked in OK City and they had different rules on every floor of the building. :)

Explains a lot.
Rich
 
Last edited:
Back
Top