• 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?

I don't think such correspondence goes in the aircraft permanent records. It is just part of a formal process, and apparently they have to give you a "reasonable time" to fix your submission.

So I am submitting, probably in two weeks, duplicate hard copies of the 337, the 37 page installation manual, and drawings for the J5 and PA-18 gear leg.

There is conflicting guidance on what to submit when using STC components on "similar" aircraft. One FAA document (AC23-27) says you have to re-submit all the supporting documentation originally used to get the STC. That, of course, won't happen - it is proprietary stuff.

Another document allows "experience" as sufficient - one would think that, in the case of Cleveland wheels having been on the aircraft for a quarter-century, there was enough "experience" to fulfill that requirement.
 
Bob I’m fast reaching the point of “ if it makes the aircraft safer” just do it and let the FAA inspector that hasn’t ever looked at anything that wasn’t painted gray with jet engines wonder .
 
Bob I’m fast reaching the point of “ if it makes the aircraft safer” just do it and let the FAA inspector that hasn’t ever looked at anything that wasn’t painted gray with jet engines wonder .

Not me cause then they hang me out to dry. Read the regs and make them do their job.
 
These are not my aircraft, and I do not make a living doing this. I am trying to bring one into compliance (I usually get rapid help with that sort of effort) and give the other owner paperwork in case he stops cheaping out and wants decent brakes.

The latest update - the inspector says I don't even mention wheels or brakes in block 8. Of course the first sentence says "Found Cleveland wheels and brakes, parts # . . .).

He also says the 37 page Cleveland installation manual doesn't have enough information in it. It has the PA-18 gear leg, detailed info on how to torque the bolts, where the bolts come from, static and dynamic limits on all components except AN hardware, and even insists that it is a good idea to use new cotter pins.

More next week.
 
Bob, you need to become best friends with that inspector's boss. Things get done then, sometimes not to that inspectors advantage. :evil: I can tell stories about this.
 
Yes, Steve - many times. Word for word after your last post. I am ready with excerpts.

In fact, maybe I will post the excerpts - they come from about four sources. The feds are changing them all the time, and even change the Order number to screw me up, but I study this stuff.
 
Excerpts from 23-27 and related FAA guidance:

AC 23-27

Section 1.a. says “. . . You may use the data in this AC as approved data for substantiating parts . . . substitutions . . .”

Section 4 says “This AC intends to . . . expedite the field approval process . . .”

Section 5: “Examples of substituted parts include . . . wheels and brakes.”

Section 5.e. discusses current industry standards, of which the TSO is surely a candidate.

Section 5.f. discusses the need for data if the part might affect safety if it failed. It would seem that the TSO addresses that data.

Section 7.c.(3) suggests that if one can establish that the part is at least equal in performance and safety to the part it replaces, then substitution is possible.

Section 8.c. defines a standard part as one manufactured in complete compliance with acceptable standards for such parts.

Section 8.e. says that a field approval is the standard way of authorizing installation, and:

Section 9.d.(3) states that a PMA is not required for a TSO part.

---------------------------------
Excerpts from Order 8900.1 Vol 4 Chapter 9

4-1185
[h=4]A. Major Alterations. The list in Figure 4-68, Eligibility Considerations For Field Approval, describes methods of approval for typical major alterations. This list is not all-inclusive; examine each project on a case-by-case basis. If an alteration is not on the list, it may be eligible for a field approval; however, each alteration must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Items not listed should be treated as Evaluation (designated by the letters “EVL”). Alterations on transport category aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats or operating under part 121 should be considered Engineering (designated by the letters “ENG”) and must be coordinated with the RO.[/h]


4-1191 References
· AC 23-27, Parts and Materials Substitution for Vintage Aircraft.
4-1192 Procedures
[h=5]4) Denial of Proposed Alteration/Repair Approval. If the applicant is unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements to obtain the requested field approval, terminate the process by notification in writing to the applicant. This notification should include the reason for denial. The applicant should be given the opportunity to make necessary corrections within a reasonable amount of time from receipt of notification.[/h]
AC 43-210

This is a straightforward AC that first denies that it is regulatory in nature, and then flat out states that if the words “shall” and/or “will” appear in an instruction, they reflect a regulatory requirement. Then, in § 102(b)(2) it says an ASI will provide a written response with reasons for denial, if a field approval request is to be denied. It gives only four reasons for denial (section c).

CAR4a

is the controlling document for all Piper Cubs prior to the PA-18. Requirements are “simply” codified, and currently available on-line.

Notably, landing gear is covered on pp 21, 26, and 27. A detailed structural discussion is held in part 4a.477, where it says wheels have to be “certified” in accordance with part 15. Part 15 is on page 1- a single paragraph covering the certification of an entire aircraft.

Brakes are interesting – they are required on transport aircraft (4a.483-T). Tailwheels are even more interesting – “may be any type or model, and are not certificated.” And yet, folks are still getting field approvals for tailwheels?

Now to Order 8300.16 CH 1

I think this replaces the earlier guidance cited above from 8900.1. Not sure . . .

This is from Chapter 4 – really difficult to follow paragraph numbering, but try
4-2.e(4):

Typically, data that meets a more stringent airworthiness standard when applied to an alteration requiring a less stringent airworthiness standard is normally acceptable

That little excerpt would seem to indicate, for instance, that a Cleveland wheel and brake assembly that meets certification requirements of CAR 3 would be more than sufficient for the less stringent CAR 4a. See Type Certificate 1A2 for approved Cleveland wheels and brakes on a CAR 3 Cub-type aircraft.

8-5.b - Analysis as Part of a Data Package. In many cases, the analysis may have been accomplished as part of a data package for an STC or other approval that is being used as the basis for an alteration. In these cases, it is not necessary that it be done again provided it is appropriate to the alteration in question. Like the entire field approval process, the goal is to ensure operational safety and aircraft airworthiness

From the Appendix:

Substantiating Data. Technical data used to show that an article complies with the applicable airworthiness standards. Compliance may be shown by tests, analysis, experience, and/or computations appropriate to the maintenance, alteration, or continue-in-service condition of the article being evaluated. Substantiating data shown to comply with the applicable airworthiness standards is acceptable to the Administrator. This is because it establishes that the article meets the regulatory requirements and would be returned to its original or properly altered condition by use of this data.

[emphasis mine - bob]
 
They tend to start paying attention when you start quoting stuff like this cause you prove you know more about the subject than they do and they need to do their homework.
 
I always do a comparison of weight and speed of the aircraft they are already approved on and the subject aircraft I sighted weight and slower speed then certification by similarity is possible. Most wheels and brakes are TSO so they already have shown a minimum design standard. Sandy at Parker will often supply drawings that show maximum weight a given wheel is certified to, and provide the heat ability of the brake to convert velocity to heat. The other thing to look at is what the certification requirement for brakes are. Under aero bill 7a there is no requirement for brakes. Early versions of CAR 4 only required brakes with sufficient to hold the airplane still while doing your run up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I could only find a requirement for brakes in CAR 4a under transport.

I now have duplicate hard copy of almost everything imaginable - axial and radial loads, kinetic energy dissipation, torques, min/max assembly dimensions, part numbers, bleeding and conditioning, dimensions of Piper gear leg - and have requested a meeting.

I might print up my excerpts from guidance documents (about triple what I posted above) and take them with me. But I always get lost in a big pile of paper.
 
I'd make a brief one page executive summary of your substantiation. A simple list with numbered links to attached documents. Makes it easy going in for them and starts a dialog.

Gary
 
So, an update. I met with three inspectors. I had data out the gazoo - installation drawings, torques, static and dynamic load data, kinetic energy dissipation, maintenance data, drawings with detailed dimensions, statements signed by the FAA proclaiming TSO on all parts, and more! Hard copy, in duplicate.

I had submitted all of it electronically twice, to two different inspectors.

They had my rejection letter ready, maintained they did not get my electronic submission, and refused to look at my hard copy. "We're done here!" was the exact phrase.

I am going to re-submit, by physically handing the entire package in duplicate to the senior inspector, and addressing all points on the "declination" letter.

But I need help with one item. They are saying (in writing) that I cannot have a field approval for Cleveland wheels and brakes because Robbie Grove holds an STC for his wheels and brakes on this aircraft. I know the FAA has a policy about not doing field approvals for already STCd installations, but do not believe it extends to different parts - I cannot find the FAA policy statement on the effect of STCs on field approvals.

I do have all the 8300.16A Chg1 statements on use of STC data, but none of them address this exact issue. Help?
 
Bob, you are making a different alteration. Grove uses his own brakes. You are using Cleveland brakes. That is sufficiently different from Robbie’s STC. Suggest if that is the tact they want to take ask for a Field Approval to deviate from Robbie’s STC by using Cleveland wheels and brakes and see what their reaction to that is. You are making an installation using different parts so you need approved data to deviate from the existing STC.

Assuming they still stick to their guns, ask what office is the next higher in the chain (used to be region, but they did away with regions a while ago). I would also suggest a letter to your Congressman and both your Senators expressing how the FSDO is denying the use of your aircraft and denying a upgrade that will enhance safety for you and the general public. They hate dealing with Congressional inquiries.

My offer is still open to give you a field approval on it. Once you have a Field Approval, there isn’t much they can do as the paper goes direct to Oklahoma City and they will never see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Thanks! And thanks for the offer! I was looking for the guidance that would discuss "what if" I was trying to put Cleveland wheels on the J3 (Cleveland does have that STC). I am sure they have to turn me down because of the previous STC. And I am just as sure there is no guidance that says if I want to put part Y on there and there is approval for part X, the X approval disallows a field approval for Y.

I do want to see this through as a field approval. That is the correct way to do simple stuff like this, and it is encouraged specifically in AC 23-27.

These guys have done a bunch of far more complicated approvals for me.
 
Cubdrvr - I get a lot of folks drifting through my hangar saying that! Trouble is, when you get to the point where you can do exactly what you want, whenever you want to, there is this big looming time limit.

My plan is three Cub landings per day until I croak! I got the Stearman wing on the rotator, opened and closed nine hangars for display day, and did seven Cub landings. Too tired to go to the Sunday hangar party.
 
.... They are saying (in writing) that I cannot have a field approval for Cleveland wheels and brakes because Robbie Grove holds an STC for his wheels and brakes on this aircraft.....

Have you thought about taking the easy way out & just installing the STC'd Grove brakes?
I dunno where the price point is but I've heard he makes good stuff.
 
Not my airplane, and doing this for free. Should have been trivial. Now it is a challenge.

But yes - we have the Grove kit on a J3 (my partner wanted 26" tires for a rather scary backwoods attempt). We ran 26" for several hundred landings, then I found some 8:00s and mounted them. I run them at 32 psi on pavement,and consider the handling better than the originals, and way better than with the big Goodyears.
 
I can’t even imagine dealing with this sort of nonsense. Life is too short, Bob, I’d take dga up on his offer, and move on.

MTV
 
Mike.........I think Bob is beyond just getting the FA at this point. It's about accountability.
 
Mike.........I think Bob is beyond just getting the FA at this point. It's about accountability.

I hear that, and I’m pretty stubborn, but comes a time when I’d get it done, and let the local fed wonder…..I’m betting if Bob quit “annoying” them with logic, they might get suspicious, which is when the fickle finger would come in handy.

MTV
 
Remember, this aircraft has been flying around with these wheels for a quarter century. It can probably just keep doing that. You should see how much other stuff I found. It makes no difference to my quality of life if this continues to be ignored.

But I have done 17 complicated field approvals in the last decade and a half, with far less hassle. Same FSDO. I need to re-establish my credentials. This one should be trivial.
 
Just when you get a FSDO trained the personnel are changed, so you need to take the new group out behind the woodshed for a talking to. You need to work on the upper level management rather than the ones on the lower rung of the ladder. Good luck Bob.
 
Best of luck, Bob……I hope you’re not inclined toward ulcers. That said, it is kinda fun to poke the pig every once in a while.

MTV
 
Thanks. 23-27 figures prominently in my pile of excerpts. I have so many excerpts printed up even I need a roadmap.

They didn't give me the chance - the denial letter was printed before I got there. It oozes derision, and I found it insulting. Here is a fragment of an included sentence:

"Because the data was not provided . . . it became very clear that getting adequate data from you describing this installation would be difficult, if even possible."

Of course the meeting was to discuss my data, which I brought in printed form because they were complaining about the e-mail attachment format. I had almost 90 pages, in duplicate. They refused to even look. Can you believe 90 pages for a simple Cleveland wheel? It was as if they had never heard that these wheels actually work.
 
Thanks. 23-27 figures prominently in my pile of excerpts. I have so many excerpts printed up even I need a roadmap.

They didn't give me the chance - the denial letter was printed before I got there. It oozes derision, and I found it insulting. Here is a fragment of an included sentence:

"Because the data was not provided . . . it became very clear that getting adequate data from you describing this installation would be difficult, if even possible."

Of course the meeting was to discuss my data, which I brought in printed form because they were complaining about the e-mail attachment format. I had almost 90 pages, in duplicate. They refused to even look. Can you believe 90 pages for a simple Cleveland wheel? It was as if they had never heard that these wheels actually work.


Sounds like my field approval for previously approved fixed penetration wheel skis. He finally told me in the spring its spring time, what do you need skis for? He flat out refused to give a denial letter. I was already aggravated and didn't want to keep going. Funny I heard the same inspector took his posse of 3 to the seaplane fly in to ramp check people. I was talking to the owner of a beautiful turbine beaver and the same inspector has been harassing him about a canoe rack for the beaver, saying he can't use it even though it's on the type certificate.

You'd think they would be here to help with aviation, maybe set up a table at the airport and helpfully go over paperwork, instead of handing out violations. Guess that is why they are everyone's favorite
 
Many of these new F-AYAY folks come from the military aviation side due to the 5-10 point hiring process advantage. Automatic top of the stack over a civilian person with better qualifications and knowledge. Unfortunately many don’t have a clue nor desire to learn and help GA. Not bashing service people as I am one too. But that’s what most Gov jobs come down to, hiring points.
 
Back
Top