mit wrote:Hog wash George The FAA is the same here.
There are too many documented cases otherwise for your comment to be considered helpful.
Here is their phone # to call take it up with them 907-474-0276. I haven't done a field apporval since the 90's. Maybe Alaska doesn't put up with the BS that Texas does I don't know? but when I go to FSDO or ATC they are all looking at the same regs as they do in TEXAS.
That AK FSDO statement was I consider, an uninformed statement. You have a track record outside that does not qualify you to belittle us Alaskans and AK/FAA nor our efforts toward making aviation a better experience.
The Alaska FAA is very well schooled, even handed and given their past track record with STC's and Field approvals relating to me and others I can't agree with your blanket assessment of the Alaska FSDO. Overall they have been very helpful with any issues that I have presented them relating to developement and sign offs. That is the reason I have invited any and all to AK for sign offs not because as you infer they may be "push overs".
We, That includes the FAA, get things done up here, not belittle or throw darts at peoples efforts to make aviation what it should be "A MUTUAL EFFORT" towards fun, safety, learning and getting the job done by concerned professionals.
That is the environment I prefer to operate within. I hope that you outsiders can, someday have the same.
I had a C-180 with wire bracing. It extended from the engine mount bolt at the firewall to the normal attach point at the wing root in a chris-cross fashion. My only cancern was what if I impacted something hard enough to throw me forward into one of the wires it could slice me open. In the days of only seat belts, yes an issue, now that we ALL have shoulder harness restraints maybe not such a large concern. Certainly as strong as or better than the "V" brace way maybe better at bracing against the engine twisting forces. Less effective at bracing the windshield/panel interface area in my mind. Sort of what were they (The engineers) trying to prevent in the first place? And why did they go for the V brace later on. Flown both in very rough water and no issues.
John Renwick
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
Again, John you read something into my words that isn't there. No belittling came from me, the article quoted came from AOPA.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Just came back from my IA who has a very well known shop at Birchwood doing 170's, 180's and 185's. He tells me that Alaskan field approvals are all pretty much dead now and the former reputation we had for getting things approved is gone. For example, he has done over 100 extended baggage installation field approvals in his years of working on Cessnas. With that history and paper trail, now he can't get even one done. The FSDO is so goofed up with these new rules and trainees and guys who think the correct course of action is denial or delay that he pulling his hair out. The "good old days" of Alaskan field approvals appear to be gone.
N3243A wrote:Just came back from my IA who has a very well known shop at Birchwood doing 170's, 180's and 185's. He tells me that Alaskan field approvals are all pretty much dead now and the former reputation we had for getting things approved is gone.... The "good old days" of Alaskan field approvals appear to be gone.
That's pretty much consistent with what my Merrill (Anchorage) based AI says as well. He too is very well established and says things which should be no brainers, like getting approval for installing 8.50 x 6s, is a now a nightmare.
If it doesn't have an STC, be prepared to pay a big chunk of change to a DER for approval.
Not intending this to be overly-critical at all... but this is an excellent example of why FAA has revised Field Approval procedures. Being installed "identical to a Cessna 180" might at first glance seem adequate description of the process. However that statement does not describe exactly how a C-180 installation is performed. Nor does it even refer to/or identify any particular approved process for a C-180 installation.
A reader might believe it must refer to a F. Atlee Dodge-approved method/procedure...however the 337 does not specifically state that. Nor does it identify a particluar C-180 which it copies the installation thereof (which is another way that statement might be taken.)
Without specifically identification of a previously approved process/method, or lacking that, a detailed description of another approved airplanes method, this 337 is inadequate information on exactly how the installation was performed and therefore cannot be used (under new guidelines) to duplicate it upon another aircraft.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Having just met with my PMI here in Anchorage he states that ALL field approvals are on hold indefinately in aK. He suggests using a DER/DAR or locating/developing a STC. In a separate (earlier) conversation he sez if it's the same airframe (Cessna 170/180/185) he sees no reason to not install per IPC's or Cessna installation drawings and log book sign off this also goes for baggage compartments. Now these are his words and opinions conflicting as they are, so take them for what they are and don't go aiming for the messenger.
As for me I'm going with him on his earlier statement and not looking back. A guy has to get something done, Right? At any rate I'm so old by the time they got around to this piss ant issue I'll be long gone.
I can vouch for the other members from Alaska that said we are no longer getting special favors from the FAA. The last several 337's I have done were through the new process. While time consuming it is not out of line and just involves doing some homework. The fuel tanks I installed in my 170 through a co-ordinated field approval decades ago were subsequently approved on other aircraft but, the stipulation was made that I had to be the one to put them in. The inspector at the time did not want someone else saying they did it exactly the way I did it.
Atlee Dodge when he was alive, had a lot of STC's that got copied into field approvals He got real mad at the FAA for allowing that. Rightfully so, when you consider the time and expense it takes to finally see an STC through to completion it makes sense that you get paid for your efforts. That has changed now. He once told me that if you get an STC make sure you make the part and it cannot be duplicated easily by anyone else so you won't see it incorrectly made or installed and you get the liability for it.
Very few owners want to pay for someone to do the homework required or the paperwork to get a field approval. Mechanics cannot waste time doing it for free. Does a lawyer or even a physician give away free time researching? No, and in fact their pricing structure is much higher than an aircraft shop rate. I could start a whole new topic on owner supplied parts. Sort of like going to a restaurant and bringing your own food for them to cook. Aircraft are among the lowest paid shops around with the highest liability. Again that is why if a shop insists on making a repair or alteration correct, they get sometimes a bad rap when all they are trying to do is protect you as a pilot owner and, more importantly, the other seats you can fill. Insurance companies love to find ways to deny a claim so keep that in mind as well with bootleg mods and deferred maintenence that may well constitute an airworthy item in the eyes of the FAA or the insurance company even if you only have an incident.
Special favors? Sounds like a red light district As george pointed to, the FAA had a special policy in place for two years in AK. That expired. No more field approvals for a while. Nobody gets them. You must use the STC process which would cost big bucks and involve DER's thus the recommendation within the confines of "Same basic airframe". Existing kits or options on other models can pass muster, "V" braces, Baggage Doors, Float kits if you use the "Cessna genuine parts" called out in the appropriate IPC. This can be done with a FAA form 337 or maybe logbook sign off's according to my PMI. Not my idea, his.
At any rate I'm so old by the time they got around to this piss ant issue I'll be long gone. 
