Unapproved Parts Notification- Dan's Aircraft?

The feds used a statement that they were using 'covering materials', that were 'inconsistent' with the STC. If they had been caught with rolls of un approved fabric, they would have just said 'unapproved parts'. The vague wording of their statement sounds like it could have been patches or reinforcing tapes that did not have visible stamps to prove the 'approval'.

I've seen the work that comes out of this shop and my money is on Dan. Sounds more like a pissed off fed than unsafe airplanes.

Web

wireweinie said:

The feds used a statement that they were using 'covering materials', that were 'inconsistent' with the STC. If they had been caught with rolls of un approved fabric, they would have just said 'unapproved parts'. The vague wording of their statement sounds like it could have been patches or reinforcing tapes that did not have visible stamps to prove the 'approval'.

I've seen the work that comes out of this shop and my money is on Dan. Sounds more like a pissed off fed than unsafe airplanes.

Web

Click to expand...

I get the same impression.

I agree that Dan runs a first rate operation, also a guy that is very involved with the aviation community in Alaska. I don't believe Dan would ever do anything unsafe or illegal , I second the grudge as hard as that is to believe.

Interesting analogy - sheet aluminum and fabric. If we follow that logic, we can maybe use uncertified fabric on ACA products? Recovering them in Dacron with dope and an automotive top coat is part of the type certificate, and not a major alteration.

Or does having the aluminum labeled 5606 or 6061 give it the imprimatur of the FAA?

I never considered that before.

One thing that does sort of bother me is the idea that an STC lives forever. It is like an infinite patent. It should become available after a couple decades, for the same reason that patents enter the market after 17 years. Never happen, right?

wireweinie said:

What FAR tells me I have to 'tell the feds'?

Web

Click to expand...

Sec 45.13
Identification data.
(a) The identification required by § 45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:
(1) Builder's name.
(2) Model designation.
(3) Builder's serial number.
(4) Type certificate number, if any.
(5) Production certificate number, if any.
(6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.
(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines specified in part 34 of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in § 34.1 of this chapter, and a designation, approved by the FAA, that indicates compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34 of this chapter and 40 CFR part 87. Approved designations include COMPLY, EXEMPT, and NON-US, as appropriate. After December 31, 2012, approved designations also include EXEMPT NEW, and EXCEPTED SPARE, as appropriate.
(i) The designation COMPLY indicates that the engine is in compliance with all of the applicable exhaust emissions provisions of part 34. For any engine with a rated thrust in excess of 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 pounds) which is not used or intended for use in commercial operations and which is in compliance with the applicable provisions of part 34, but does not comply with the hydrocarbon emissions standard of § 34.21(d), the statement "May not be used as a commercial aircraft engine" must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine at the time of manufacture of the engine.
(ii) The designation EXEMPT indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7 (a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c), or (d), and an indication of the type of exemption and the reason for the grant must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of manufacture of the engine.
(iii) The designation NON-US indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to § 34.7(a)(1), and the notation "This aircraft may not be operated within the United States", or an equivalent notation approved by the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft logbook, or alternate equivalent document, at the time of installation of the engine.
(iv) The designation EXEMPT NEW indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7(h) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.
(v) The designation EXCEPTED SPARE indicates that the engine has been excepted pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.9(b) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.
(8) Any other information the FAA finds appropriate.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section, on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub, without the approval of the FAA.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may remove or install any identification plate required by § 45.11, without the approval of the FAA.
(d) Persons performing work under the provisions of Part 43 of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA—
(1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub; or
(2) Remove an identification plate required by § 45.11 when necessary during maintenance operations.
(e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.
-
-
I think (b), (c), and (e) pretty clear. Maybe it's how you interpret it. What I know is my ASI would expect to hear about a fuselage change whether new or used and he would want to know where I got the replacement and where was my original going. It has been a while ago but we discussed building an airplane from a dataplate and parts and it was not impossible if he knew about the project from the getgo but I was cautioned not to do that without contacting him. jrh

But it not a DIFFRENT AIRCRAFT. it's the same one. Just new parts.

mike mcs repair said:

But it not a DIFFRENT AIRCRAFT. it's the same one. Just new parts.

Click to expand...

I guess it's different FSDOs, different people. One of my ASIs does seem a little obsessed with stolen parts and parts from insurance write off wrecks. You feel you have approval to remove a dataplate and install it on a new or used part. I've had it said to me I better not do that unless they know about it first and 45.13 was put before me. He then said it was fine if the dataplate was removed and then put back right where it came from but if it was not going back on the same part in he same place he wanted to know about it. Maybe it's just me and I look like a crook. After all my maternal Grandma was an Okie and she was nutz, too. jrh

N86250 said:

I guess it's different FSDOs, different people. One of my ASIs does seem a little obsessed with stolen parts and parts from insurance write off wrecks. You feel you have approval to remove a dataplate and install it on a new or used part. I've had it said to me I better not do that unless they know about it first and 45.13 was put before me. He then said it was fine if the dataplate was removed and then put back right where it came from but if it was not going back on the same part in he same place he wanted to know about it. Maybe it's just me and I look like a crook. After all my maternal Grandma was an Okie and she was nutz, too. jrh

Click to expand...

EVERY SINGLE PLANE I(and everyone else) Build(s) has the data plate removed and put on a BRAND NEW DIFFERENT new floor board, and probably not in exact same location...

N86250 said:

...parts from insurance write off wrecks....
jrh

Click to expand...

whats that have to do with anything?? insurance writes off stuff they don't think they can return to the pre-accident condition for less than ?70% insured value....

but the owner can buy back the salvage and rebuilds it themselves because of "sentimental value"... multiple times kinda like a ruff marriage ....

N86250 said:

Sec 45.13
Identification data.
(a) The identification required by § 45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:
(1) Builder's name.
(2) Model designation.
(3) Builder's serial number.
(4) Type certificate number, if any.
(5) Production certificate number, if any.
(6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.
(7) On or after January 1, 1984, for aircraft engines specified in part 34 of this chapter, the date of manufacture as defined in § 34.1 of this chapter, and a designation, approved by the FAA, that indicates compliance with the applicable exhaust emission provisions of part 34 of this chapter and 40 CFR part 87. Approved designations include COMPLY, EXEMPT, and NON-US, as appropriate. After December 31, 2012, approved designations also include EXEMPT NEW, and EXCEPTED SPARE, as appropriate.
(i) The designation COMPLY indicates that the engine is in compliance with all of the applicable exhaust emissions provisions of part 34. For any engine with a rated thrust in excess of 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 pounds) which is not used or intended for use in commercial operations and which is in compliance with the applicable provisions of part 34, but does not comply with the hydrocarbon emissions standard of § 34.21(d), the statement "May not be used as a commercial aircraft engine" must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine at the time of manufacture of the engine.
(ii) The designation EXEMPT indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7 (a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c), or (d), and an indication of the type of exemption and the reason for the grant must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of manufacture of the engine.
(iii) The designation NON-US indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to § 34.7(a)(1), and the notation "This aircraft may not be operated within the United States", or an equivalent notation approved by the FAA, must be inserted in the aircraft logbook, or alternate equivalent document, at the time of installation of the engine.
(iv) The designation EXEMPT NEW indicates that the engine has been granted an exemption pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.7(h) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.
(v) The designation EXCEPTED SPARE indicates that the engine has been excepted pursuant to the applicable provision of § 34.9(b) of this chapter; the designation must be noted in the permanent powerplant record that accompanies the engine from the time of its manufacture.
(8) Any other information the FAA finds appropriate.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section, on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub, without the approval of the FAA.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may remove or install any identification plate required by § 45.11, without the approval of the FAA.
(d) Persons performing work under the provisions of Part 43 of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA—
(1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub; or
(2) Remove an identification plate required by § 45.11 when necessary during maintenance operations.
(e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.
-
-
I think (b), (c), and (e) pretty clear. Maybe it's how you interpret it. What I know is my ASI would expect to hear about a fuselage change whether new or used and he would want to know where I got the replacement and where was my original going. It has been a while ago but we discussed building an airplane from a dataplate and parts and it was not impossible if he knew about the project from the getgo but I was cautioned not to do that without contacting him. jrh

Click to expand...

(d)(1) and (d)(2) Specifically allow me to do the maintenance I am licensed to do as an A&P. As per part 43 this includes part replacement. You need a different fed.

Web

I think he used Ceconite fabric with Polyfiber chemicals. I had this happen and the FAA guy said it was OK after the Stits guys said it was the same fabric.

The airplane that started this round with the FAA suffered an engine loss, landed in a field and flipped over. During the repairs it was discovered that there were no stamps on the fabric at all. It is also my understanding that some of the STCs were bootlegged. The airplane was rebuilt with proper documentation. The shop gave the owner the discrepancy list. Having paid big bucks for the rebuild by Dan's and having to redo things because it wasn't done correctly he contacted Dan. Evidently that did not pacify the owner so he got the FAA involved. I learned all this from the shop that repaired the airplane after the accident and the owner. I was initially contacted to make the repairs but couldn't do it in the owner's time frame.

Wouldn't your 337 be enough "notification" to the FAA? If you're replacing the fuselage, you're darned sure going to be filing a 337. Like was said above..the data plate is on a floorboard, not only on a cub, but most of the older stuff....
In light of Steve's post, it makes sense.... a disgruntled owner who wants his money back, probably a fed that would like to "shine"....and some stuff that wasn't quite paper legal...a recipe for disaster. Kind of like when a data plate was switched on a Super Cub that was going to be confiscated a few years ago....
John

Did the owner think the unstamped fabric caused his engine failure? Sounds like posturing to get repairs made using somebody else's money.

stewartb said:

...Sounds like posturing to get repairs made using somebody else's money.

Click to expand...

karma....

Steve Pierce said:

It is also my understanding that some of the STCs were bootlegged. ...and having to redo things because it wasn't done correctly...

Click to expand...

At some point the shop is responsible if they 'bootlegged' stcs. I did this round with another of the 'good ole boys' up there- given my experience where I paid for the full STC but was given bogus paperwork, so paid a mechanic AGAIN to solve the issue, I would say that bootlegging is an issue.

mike mcs repair said:

karma....

Click to expand...

that is funny, but I know some of the things you do I bet

bob turner said:

..............One thing that does sort of bother me is the idea that an STC lives forever. It is like an infinite patent. It should become available after a couple decades, for the same reason that patents enter the market after 17 years. Never happen, right?

Click to expand...

If you want to prevent a certain mod ever being done, get an STC for it then refuse to sell or otherwise let anyone use that STC (or just die). As I understand it, the feds don't like to approve something there's already an STC for unless you use that STC.

hotrod180 said:

If you want to prevent a certain mod ever being done, get an STC for it then refuse to sell or otherwise let anyone use that STC (or just die). As I understand it, the feds don't like to approve something there's already an STC for unless you use that STC.

Click to expand...

you can get "orphaned" STC approved with a field approval

The insurance paid for the repairs. I think he was pissed off that he paid to have things done right and they were not. Pretty reputable shop did the work so I don't doubt their word.

Hardtailjohn said:

Wouldn't your 337 be enough "notification" to the FAA? If you're replacing the fuselage, you're darned sure going to be filing a 337. Like was said above..the data plate is on a floorboard, not only on a cub, but most of the older stuff....

John

Click to expand...

Why John? what part of the replacement was a major repair or alteration. a Bare Fuselage assy is just that, a part. Same as replacing a wing, an engine, or a tailfeather.

S2D said:

Why John? what part of the replacement was a major repair or alteration. a Bare Fuselage assy is just that, a part. Same as replacing a wing, an engine, or a tailfeather.

Click to expand...

STC replacement fuselage = 337

OK
thought we were talking about the Cessna. Or replacing with an original. My bad !!!!

I think that this transferring of a data plate from one airplane to another not being allowed came from an incident of which I learned second hand (from an FAA type) in the northeast corner of the country. It seems that a 185 was wrecked in the northeast. Somehow it was acquired and rebuilt by an individual who did not also acquire the title and paperwork. Then it seems that this same individual legally purchased the paperwork, title and data plate from a 185 which had crashed and burned out west somewhere. Then it seems that this individual transferred this legally acquired data plate to a questionably acquired rebuilt airplane after removing the rebuilt airplane's data plate. Presto a totally rebuilt "burned up" airplane with legal paperwork. I was also told that this individual spent some time after this "incident" at a grey bar motel.

The above 170 fuselage replacement was accomplished long before this regulation came into existence and was legal at that time. I'm not making any suggestions relative to the 170.

ps. Also it seems that Cessna paints the serial number on the firewall and that some alert person noticed the difference between this serial number and the serial number on the data plate.

S2D said:

Why John? what part of the replacement was a major repair or alteration. a Bare Fuselage assy is just that, a part. Same as replacing a wing, an engine, or a tailfeather.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of a person buying a fuselage from "Airframes" or someone like that... like Mike said, an STC'd fueslage.
That being said, even a Cessna fuselage swap would fall under a major repair in my mind, per the FAR 1....
Major repair means a repair:
(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.
I'd say if it was done improperly, it could affect all the above....I could be wrong there, but I'd damned sure file a 337 myself... I did every time I replaced a wing...but I didn't when replacing an engine.....I dunno...
John

Hardtailjohn said:

I was thinking of a person buying a fuselage from "Airframes" or someone like that... like Mike said, an STC'd fueslage.
That being said, even a Cessna fuselage swap would fall under a major repair in my mind, per the FAR 1....
Major repair means a repair:
(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.
I'd say if it was done improperly, it could affect all the above....I could be wrong there, but I'd damned sure file a 337 myself... I did every time I replaced a wing...but I didn't when replacing an engine.....I dunno...
John

Click to expand...

STC = 337
PMA = Log entry.

With your thinking, any part can be installed incorrectly which can affect any number of aircraft systems.

My take away:

1. Do things right.
2. Ask your PMI before you start the project so you can get their "buy in".

behindpropellers said:

With your thinking, any part can be installed incorrectly which can affect any number of aircraft systems.

Click to expand...

I agree....but they don't play by MY rules....I have to play by theirs.....
I was told by my PMI once, that he never had seen anyone get violated FOR submitting a 337. I have to tend to agree with him.

John

Hardtailjohn said:

I agree....but they don't play by MY rules....I have to play by theirs.....
I was told by my PMI once, that he never had seen anyone get violated FOR submitting a 337. I have to tend to agree with him.

John

Click to expand...

'Their rules'. EXACTLY!! This is why I always say to make the fed show you, in writing, the rule that makes you follow a procedure. Make them play by their own rules. You don't submit a 337 'just to be sure'. Read the regs. Does part 43 say that a specific action constitutes a major repair or alteration? If so, follow the rules and submit your 337. If not, fill out your log book and move on. Never take a feds word without him backing it up with the specific regulation.

And remember; a 'reg' that begins with AC, is not a reg. The AC stands for Advisory Circular.

Web

I get your point....but I have no problem with submitting a 337 for something if I think it's maybe in a grey area. I'm going to put my name in the logbook anyway.... if it's not something I'm comfortable with, I'm not going to do it in the first place. I agree with you about getting them to show me a reg that says I need to...but having done this for 30+ years, I've found that you need to pick your battles, and remember that their regs are written to cover their butts too. I"m not sure where the AC statement came in? In reality, all they'd have to do is go to the reg I quoted above and they've got "their" justification, right wrong or indifferent. If I can find something that says I'm going to be in the hot seat for submitting it, then I'm gonna battle.... just MY opinion. I'm not bashful around the FAA at all, but I do try to get along....you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I am also quite accustomed to getting their opinion on a project before I get too far in...it's made it possible to get quite a few things approved for me that other mechanics had problems getting accomplished. I just bailed a friend out a few years ago on a deal like that, because the "mechanic" involved had no relationship with the FAA inspectors, and didn't want anything to do with having them out to do an oversight on what was going on.
I'm sorry this derailed this thread. Sounds to me like a disgruntled customer that wants to make some money on someone else to me. Chances are, he was right there and thinking it was great if he saved a dollar.....but that still doesn't make it right. Didn't Dan's get their license yanked a few years ago, for switching a data plate on a plane that was going to get confiscated? I've seen some of their work and it sure always looked good to me, but that still doesn't elevate them above the law (or reg).
John

Hardtailjohn said:

....but I have no problem with submitting a 337 for something if I think it's maybe in a grey area. I'm going to put my name in the logbook anyway.... if it's not something I'm comfortable with, I'm not going to do it in the first place. I agree with you about getting them to show me a reg that says I need to...but having done this for 30+ years, I've found that you need to pick your battles.......I'm not bashful around the FAA at all, but I do try to get along....you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I am also quite accustomed to getting their opinion on a project before I get too far in...it's made it possible to get quite a few things approved for me that other mechanics had problems getting accomplished....

Click to expand...

The "major repair" definition in FAR 1.1 seems (purposely) pretty vague. My take on form 337 gray areas is "when in doubt, fill it out". Never heard of anyone getting in trouble for covering his butt that way. I agree with John about picking your battles, and catching more flies with honey-- having an adversarial relationship with your FAA inspector(s) is not condusive to trouble-free operations. I know an IA who got into it with an FAA DPE and the airplane owner when it came to logging annual inspections in the engine logbook. He said it wasn't required and flat-ass refused to do it, and managed to piss off the DPE, the airplane owner, and the student pilot trying to get his checkride done. Along with some other hard-headed choices he made, it eventually helped lead to him being kicked off the privately-owned airport where he was based.