• 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 - is there an appeals process?

bob turner

Registered User
I am about to have two field approval requests turned down. One of them is dirt-simple; I found a Piper PA-18 kit for Clevelands on a J-5 (they have been there for over a third of a century, with a 337 approved by an IA).
The inspector is saying I have not fully described the installation. He has indicated that I may have to get an STC.

The other request is more complicated, so I can understand his reticence - it is a hydraulic disc brake conversion for a CAR4a aircraft. It is almost identical to two other field approvals I hold for Aeronca conversions, and I used pretty much the same wording, only with a lot more drawings and TSO wheels and brakes. As far as I can tell, CAR4a aircraft only need brakes if they are transports!

I believe this is the same ASI who was going to violate me for installing non-TSO Com radios. I got the distinct feeling that he still wants my IA, and is looking for an excuse.

I am going to ask him for a formal rejection letter. Once he does that, am I dead in the water, or is there a process to get a second opinion?

These are not my aircraft - I shouldn't care whether the owners ever get approved. I just thought it best that their aircraft be legal and safe. All of my Cubs have field-approved discs and reservoir masters, so I am personally ok.

I should note that I hold well over a dozen field approvals, including disc brake conversions as well as engine and fuel systems alterations. I am stumped with this really easy attempt.
 
I was told if you get the denial letter you can go to any fsdo you want. My fsdo refused to give me a denial letter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
They are pretty much required to give you a very specific denial letter. They often just delay forever.
Some of my field approvals have taken a very long time to do, and others were instantaneous. There is no correlation with difficulty. It has more to do with the ASI.
 
AC43-210A is the guide for Field Approvals. The hardest thing is developing a Compliance Checklist. You need to research the applicable regulations, then describe how your project will comply with those regulations. The other document to know inside out is the AFS-300 job aid. That is what helps identify what needs to go STC and what can be a Field Approval.

The big issue is that many FSDOs don’t have Inspectors that are qualified to issue Field Approvals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pretty well spelled out here. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_23-27.pdf Google AC 23-27 if my link doesn't work. The existing STC on the PA18 is pretty well spelled out and the drawing that Cleveland provides should make it a slam dunk.

I got aggravated with a PMI who told me he would approve a deviation to an STC and then after the work was done he said he couldn't approve it. I went to the head of the FSDO and tried reasoning with him. After getting no where I told him it was pretty chickenshit cause all the data was there. Basically I was installing a C85 in place of an A65 via an STC except I didn't want the gross weight increase to keep the aircraft LSA. Was told the FSDO couldn't approve it cause it needed a flight manual supplement. Called the ACO and they said no problem, sent me an AC on making out a flight manual supplement but told me I had to submit it through the FSDO. They were pissed that I went to the ACO and didn't like when I told them I tried going through them but they didn't volunteer the information. Got it done but took quite a bit of time and getting a little aggressive with those in charge. Therefore when someone asks me if I have a good relationship with my FSDO I tell them they know my name.
 
Bob,

All I can say is good luck. There seems to be nobody in the FAA, right up to the Administrator, who will overturn ANYthing another FAA employee has disapproved. Witness the Biplanes Inc decision. Been there with a field approval, inspector screwed up, but it still took all kinds of crap to get it done, including ANOTHER field approval.

MTV
 
I am familiar with 23-27. I just discovered that my offer to bring drawings in was not forwarded to the ASI. That may be part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that I drew an ASI who has about zero respect for me (or maybe anybody else). His boss thinks I am a good guy, so all is not lost yet. Maybe I will post an excerpt.
 
What is this?

Part of the warbirds decision, that required flight instructors to be “qualified” to instruct in Experimental aircraft.

my approval came as a response to an email to an FAA person in Florida (poor bugger). No qualifications, no experience, just send an email. And the Administrator at OSH last year said, this pisses him off worse than it did us. Really? I’d have sent the FAA lawyer who came out with that to Attu.

MTV
 
DERs cannot do field approvals. They can only approve engineering data within their delegated functions. The data can be used to support a field approval.
DARs with the proper delegation can, ASI can, DERs cannot.
 
DERs cannot do field approvals. They can only approve engineering data within their delegated functions. The data can be used to support a field approval.
DARs with the proper delegation can, ASI can, DERs cannot.

A DER with Major Repair and Major Alteration authorization can approve data within their specialty for use in Major Repairs and Major Alterations. You need to read the 8110-3 carefully as there will be a statement on the form indicating that the approval is for everything required or is NOT for everything. If the firm indicates it covers everything, no further approval is required and cite the 8110-3 and reports or drawings on block 8 of the 337 and you are good to go.

If the 8110-3 indicates it doesn’t provide all the necessary data, then you need to find another DER with the required specialty, or go to the FSDO inspector or a DAR for a block 3 field approval for the missing data.

The hardest part of any approval is building your compliance checklist, figuring all the applicable regulations you need to show compliance to determines the type of DER or DERs that you need. In any case, DERs and DARs are restricted to approving only the things in the AFS-300 job aid. The job aid helps to keep you from broaching the Major Change in Type Design” threshold of 21.93 that forces you to go STC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A DER with Major Repair and Major Alteration authorization can approve data within their specialty for use in Major Repairs and Major Alterations. You need to read the 8110-3 carefully as there will be a statement on the form indicating that the approval is for everything required or is NOT for everything. If the firm indicates it covers everything, no further approval is required and cite the 8110-3 and reports or drawings on block 8 of the 337 and you are good to go.

If the 8110-3 indicates it doesn’t provide all the necessary data, then you need to find another DER with the required specialty, or go to the FSDO inspector or a DAR for a block 3 field approval for the missing data.

The hardest part of any approval is building your compliance checklist, figuring all the applicable regulations you need to show compliance to determines the type of DER or DERs that you need. In any case, DERs and DARs are restricted to approving only the things in the AFS-300 job aid. The job aid helps to keep you from broaching the Major Change in Type Design” threshold of 21.93 that forces you to go STC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct, but the DER cannot sign the 337 "approving" the field approval. That is clearly defined in Order 8110.37F. You may have ALL the approved data you need, but a DER cannot sign an FAA Form 337. You are correct...the AFS-300 job aid is very helpful for an applicant if they choose to follow it.
 
Remember when there were 2 skinny handwritten logbooks in a manila envelope? And AD's were one page long? :banghead:
We're fortunate to have a very accommodating FSDO.........one that stayed open, or accessible, the past couple years.
Before the maintenance chief in RAP retired he did 7 cub FA's for me......the last one I submitted involved mounting JATO bottles on my cub struts ( and yeah, that one didn't fly)
 
Correct, but the DER cannot sign the 337 "approving" the field approval. That is clearly defined in Order 8110.37F. You may have ALL the approved data you need, but a DER cannot sign an FAA Form 337. You are correct...the AFS-300 job aid is very helpful for an applicant if they choose to follow it.

No, a DER can not sign a 337, but if the 337 cites all the required approved data (the DER 8110-3 that says it covers ALL the requirements) then the IA can sign block 7 with no additional approval required.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Recently a DER with the proper authorization and FAA agreement issued a deviation to a STC I have already installed and he owns. Gross weight was increased 40# on conventional gear. I received paperwork confirming and updating the TCDS, required placards, and an authorization for my S/N Taylorcraft. My IA will submit a 337 citing that deviation paperwork and give me a copy for my records.

Gary
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, "thou shalt not deviate." So you install the approved whatever exactly as shown on the 337, sign the logbook, and then after that you follow the rules - minor alterations are still legal, and if you have approved data you can do a major alteration, just like with the original type certificate.

I think my ASI is softening a bit. He explained what he wanted for the Cleveland wheels, and I provided it. We shall see. I may have to print out all 38 pages of the Parker manual in duplicate. I can do that.
 
The way I see it, "thou shalt not deviate." So you install the approved whatever exactly as shown on the 337, sign the logbook, and then after that you follow the rules - minor alterations are still legal, and if you have approved data you can do a major alteration, just like with the original type certificate.

I think my ASI is softening a bit. He explained what he wanted for the Cleveland wheels, and I provided it. We shall see. I may have to print out all 38 pages of the Parker manual in duplicate. I can do that.

Bob, I’ve done a number of approvals for Cleveland wheels and brakes on lots of airplanes, Cubs, multiple Wacos and several others. So long as you can show the wheels and brakes were certified on an airplane equal or greater weight and landing speed and the wheel tire combination provides the required prop clearance that satisfies about 90% of what’s needed. If you need to fabricate something for the torque plate, that may prove a little more challenging. Now the other item necessary is the ICAs. For that Cleveland provides a Technicians Guide and that satisfies the ICA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I have done only one Cleveland field approval - 310 wheels and brakes on the UPF-7. I have done two Aeroncas with Grove parts, three Grove master cylinder alterations, three fuel tank installations, one door latch (had to modify the rib) a C-90-12 on a Cub, two approvals for PA-11 wing components on a J3. Oh, and I am embarrassed to say, one field approval for pop rivets in a PA-18 wing. Yuk!

I thought, with that track record, I sort of knew what I was doing. Nope. Let me find an excerpt.

Yeah, here:

Do you realize that I do not have to do any field approvals that don’t have data that I’m satisfied with? I’m not about to waste any more time with you on this if all you want to do is argue and try to sell the virtues of the alteration
.

maybe I am too argumentative, but I try to be polite about it. He may have softened up after this post -we'll see.
 
Last edited:
It’s the new faa world order. They don’t do anything except try and violate people.
I had previously approved friend approvals and got the run around for over a year. Back and forth with more and more and more data and my pmi told me I don’t understand why you need a ski field approval, it’s spring time. I said great give me a formal denial letter and we will go on our ways. Oh I don’t have to do that, said your technical orders say otherwise. He wouldn’t give me the denial.
I was doing a pre buy for a guy when I got that news, I called the faa every sorry name in the book, turns out he works for another fsdo. He asked to see my paperwork and I showed him. He said holy cow I’ve never seen this much supporting data. Why didn’t it get approved? Who is your pmi? Ohhhhhh that guy, he’s still a giant a hole huh? He was a prick 20 years ago. Turns out he field approved a cargo hook on a heli that had an inadvertent release and hurt some people, which it was an install error, didn’t follow the field approval. This guy said I get to my desk on Tuesday will that be soon enough to sign them off? Turns out shortly after the local FSDO’s orders got changed, he called me pissed off saying they took away there field approval authority and ferry permit authority.

It sure would be nice if the faa doesn’t want to do there job, for liability or whatever, if they would put it on the IA’s. Give us the ability to decide if we have enough data to feel comfortable field approving something. I mean we are the guys working everyday in the field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It’s the new faa world order. They don’t do anything except try and violate people.
I had previously approved friend approvals and got the run around for over a year. Back and forth with more and more and more data and my pmi told me I don’t understand why you need a ski field approval, it’s spring time. I said great give me a formal denial letter and we will go on our ways. Oh I don’t have to do that, said your technical orders say otherwise. He wouldn’t give me the denial.
I was doing a pre buy for a guy when I got that news, I called the faa every sorry name in the book, turns out he works for another fsdo. He asked to see my paperwork and I showed him. He said holy cow I’ve never seen this much supporting data. Why didn’t it get approved? Who is your pmi? Ohhhhhh that guy, he’s still a giant a hole huh? He was a prick 20 years ago. Turns out he field approved a cargo hook on a heli that had an inadvertent release and hurt some people, which it was an install error, didn’t follow the field approval. This guy said I get to my desk on Tuesday will that be soon enough to sign them off? Turns out shortly after the local FSDO’s orders got changed, he called me pissed off saying they took away there field approval authority and ferry permit authority.

It sure would be nice if the faa doesn’t want to do there job, for liability or whatever, if they would put it on the IA’s. Give us the ability to decide if we have enough data to feel comfortable field approving something. I mean we are the guys working everyday in the field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In some ways I agree with you, but in recent years I’ve seen IAs that can’t even make a log book entry much less determine if they have sufficient data. You would be surprised at the blank stares I get if I ask if they have a compliance check list! Sometimes I get “what’s that” other times I get “it’s too much work”. In any case, that should ALWAYS be your starting point for any alteration. Unless you know what regulations you need to show compliance to, you have no idea how to design the alteration and what data may be required.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I got the “Declination” letter yesterday. I always thought declination was something used in celestial navigation. Main reason - cannot simultaneously submit two requests. Secondary reason - wheels and brakes require an STC.
Letter encouraged me to seek an STC.

They almost immediately backed off the STC part, but stated that even with the 37 page Parker installation manual they were unable to determine that Clevelands would work on a J 5.
I will apparently need to submit drawings for the J5 gear leg,along with the PA-18 leg. If anybody has a scannable version of either it would be appreciated. I think both are identical to the J3 leg, but not sure for the J5.
 
Who ever you were talking to at FAA doesn’t even know their own policy. Item E1 in the AFS-300 job aid clearly says it would be EVL or evaluation. I’ve done lots of DER approvals for different wheels and brakes and gotten lots of field approvals as well. If you want to send me your 337, it is likely I can do a FA for you since I no longer have geographic restrictions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Exactly what I need!

Thanks Dave - they were looking at transports (STC) and then helicopters (ENG). I suggested item E1 and they said ok. Still not happy with my data - but they won't be able to argue that form/fit has not been supplied when I show them the J3/J5 gear leg. They were really unhappy when I stated installation is identical without proving it with Piper data.
 
AC23-27 has a whole section on wheels and brakes. I would have fun getting this one approved. All the data is there and they can't say no.
 
.....I am going to ask him for a formal rejection letter. Once he does that, am I dead in the water, or is there a process to get a second opinion?
....

If this inspector just keeps putting you off, but puts nothing on paper,
I think you would be free to seek approval from another inspector or another FSDO.
I would think you don't want a letter in your airplane's file that documents that you were turned down.
 
Back
Top