WSplit Cowl

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

You just provide more data than they know what to do with....and a good justification. It also helps to drop a few names from ACO to get the PMI's on board with the alteration.

Very good info Tim and why I suggest eliciting the support of the capable and experienced such as yourself, or a DER, prior to FAA contact when requesting an ASI Field Approval for a Major Repair or Alteration.

Please accept apologies for my ignorance. I'm evolving here and now see the critical need to define the project as "Major vs Minor".

I went through a recent request to use a non-STC'd or TC'd float on my former PA-11 (They are on the PA-18 TCDS). I filled out the required forms and justification with the help of my tech that went as far as a coordinated approval between the designated ASI and the Alaskan engineering group. It ended in a request by them for an STC from us. However I changed planes before that process was started.

Gary

[astjp2]

Re: WSplit Cowl

You just provide more data than they know what to do with....and a good justification. It also helps to drop a few names from ACO to get the PMI's on board with the alteration.

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8300_16.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...on_Job-Aid.pdf Major Repairs and Alterations.

The first discusses FAA Order 8300.16 and the second is Rev 4.0 3/21/2016. How do folks that earn a living doing this ever get over the jumps and through the hoops? Most pilots have no idea what's involved.

Gary

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I think once we come to a consensus (MAN! Do real scientists hate that term!) on what paperwork is needed we need to evaluate each of the different ways to split the nose bowl. Maybe even make a few prototypes to determine which kind of split has the least problems.

Hank

[astjp2]

Re: WSplit Cowl

If someone wants a field approval/stc, I will apply for one but I still think its a minor and not many people would not even realize the airplane was changed. But I do see your point where I sound confusing. Tim

I love open and roundtable conversations too...but it sounded to me like your posts were contradicting eachother...... ohwell....my bad.
John

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

A personal story about alterations:

Back in the early 1980's I had a 1978 Bellanca 7GCBC. I wanted longer landing gear as it had an 80" constant speed prop and was operating in deep snow trapping fur bearers. I asked the FSDO about starting a Field Approval for installing the longer spring steel gear installed on the similar 180 hp Scout but with no increase in gross weight. No luck and I wasn't an A&P so lacked the training and experience to go further.

I found a talented local A&P that was interested in helping, and I found an earlier Champion 7GCB that had the longer gear legally installed. Good! That plane had the longer gear re-drilled to fit the supporting truss attachment, and had been drop tested by the FAA for strength assessment and was issued a one-time STC. I obtained verification of all the associated paperwork.

Upon reapplying I was tasked to determine that my fuselage and the earlier plane's were the same, and to provide copies of factory design prints for both fuselages and both the standard and longer landing gear installations. Because Bellanca was still in production we were able to do all of that and supply the required supporting data. I found a set of little used landing gear from a floatplane only operator and had it modified and installed on my plane. A 337 and Field Approval were issued after several months.

After that many 7GCBC's were similarly modified but as far as I know no one pursued an STC. The FAA may have discontinued the modification as a consequence.

So when reading about what it takes to conduct an alteration and what level of paperwork is required, I reflect on my journey and would today let someone with experience and skills in those matters deal with it and pay them whatever they needed if I felt it was worthwhile. The FAA has also changed and back then they apparently had experienced folks on staff willing to make a decision...today that may not always be the case from what I hear locally.

Gary

[N96337]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I love open and roundtable conversations too...but it sounded to me like your posts were contradicting eachother...... ohwell....my bad.
John

[astjp2]

Re: WSplit Cowl

For $75 I would type up a 337 and send it to FSDO...and try for a field approval

[PA1195]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Over 42 years of both ownership and flying for others I've observed a variety of maintenance techniques and skills. There's generally no universal tech method and experience, and if you look closely enough you'll discover preferences. Some prefer general maintenance, repairs and inspections, while others specialize in alterations or restorations. Same for airframe versus powerplant work...they develop a liking and reputation for their skills. I've had the best results if I can find someone who has the experience and prefers doing what I'd like done.

In the case of an alteration like the OP's request for a cowling change that's not currently supported I'd try to find someone who may have done similar modifications and has a solid working relationship with an experienced AMI or PMI. Some folks are better at effectively generating a work plan, writing up a proposal, and following through with the change including the required paperwork, Field Approval, or even STC. It's a gift to be able to do that and I have been fortunate to find a few that have a successful record.

Gary

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: WSplit Cowl

NOT at all. I really like the open discussions and if ANYONE ever thinks I may be doing something questionable please let me know! I have been around long enough I doubt anyone could hurt my feelings anyway.

As I said, FIRST priority is SAFETY. If anyone sees something speak up. The discussion is for what happen UNDER the safety requirement. How do we make it legal.....AFTER we make it safe.

Hank

Re: WSplit Cowl

Hank,

I have heard that saying many times.

You may have been one of them that said it but you are not the target of my comment.

If you said such a thing recently and think that I am responding to it, I am not. I have no knowledge of you saying such a thing in recent history.

I apologize if I made you uncomfortable or offended or feel targeted.

Dave

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I am one of those who wants SAFETY emphasized first, but I would hope no one thinks that means I let ANY of the "book, service letter, reg. and manual stuff" slide. Anyone who looked at my cost per flight hour numbers would NEVER think I was looking for a quick and cheap job. There may be cheap, but that is NOT inexpensive. It will cost you in the end if you cut corners, maybe even your life.

I DO want a safe and well done repair FIRST. If that means it EXCEEDS the book, that is fine by me. The only time there is a problem is when you see something that is LESS safe if done "by the book". Doesn't happen often, but it HAS happened. When it does, sometimes you just have to down the plane and replace rather than fix. I will NEVER take the book method if I don't think it is safe. The FAA is full of people who have never flown or maintained a real airplane in their lives. Just because they come from the FAA does NOT mean they are automatically right. You MUST obey the rules, but you DO NOT have to fly anything you think is unsafe.

Hank

NOT saying anyone has or is saying that about me, but I DO demand safety over and above regulations.

Re: WSplit Cowl

Well while we are on the subject: As a newbie pilot I found rags and wrenches left on top of C150 engines after inspection. Once the flasher unit was hanging out the side of a 150 by it's wires.
First Taylorcraft I bought was signed off by the sellers IA friend. I didn't know doodly about airplanes yet. The rib stitching was rotten cotton. A bolt on one of the control arms (behind the seat?) didn't have a nut on it. Some of the ribs had chunks of plywood as leading edge parts. Oh yeah, sealer on the carb gasket put me in a pickle weed field one day with a unresponsive engine.

Second Taylorcraft was in great shape but needed a cleanup on moisture damage to a cylinder so the inspector/mechanic took it off by bending all the nice new baffles, practically ruining them.

Next my straight-tailed 172, just recently signed off, had so much corrosion on the overlapped sheet metal over the horizontal stabilizer spar that the area was pretty much brown powder. Pulled up on the stabilizer one day--pop, clunk--OH, OH!

Next Taylorcraft (present one): Owned by Father, Son, both Inspectors before sold to me. Ailerons would not fair in flight completely because cables were too tight. Lower elevator cable hanging down way too low. Trim tab cable so tight that it caused elevator binding. Electrical switch inside battery case (hydrogen). The real biggie: the gascolator was hooked up backwards so any garbage that came into it would be deposited on top of the screen eventually obstructing fuel flow.There was more, but you get the idea.
Sooo--perhaps you can understand what my attitude is about aircraft maintenance and safety. I work with the guys that sign off the airplane so they know everything I have done, but I do it myself.
Darryl

Hi Darryl,

argh.

An all too familiar and sad history.

I shudder (sp?) each time I hear about some IA/A&P who is revered as one of those special folks that knows what is really important and concentrates on what makes things safe rather than all that book, service letter, reg. and manual stuff.

I figure that is "code" for he does a quick and cheap job that makes owners happy.

Giving attention to book, service letter, reg. and manual stuff doesn't necessarily make one a good mechanic but it is and indication of diligence and vigor and one hopes that translates into good work practices as well. Of course everyone makes mistakes.

That figuring on my part is based on experience (personal and of others) that is similar to yours.

When I experienced similar results as your's I turned the guys in to the regional FAA office with written documentation and the regional office asked the FSDO team to come out and inspect. They did, they basically criticized me for not seeing the things wrong before buying. They also tried to minimize the effect of the violations however I was aggressive with them and reduced each case to a "does this situation match the book or reg?". I am sure they hated me, I didn't care. They were forced to do their job and the region took the licenses of two inept asses for 6 months or a year.

Ironically many years later I got my A&P and was in the region of that FSDO, lol. After a few years the FSDO asked me to get my IA so I guess it worked out.

Dave

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: WSplit Cowl

I want AS MANY eyes as possible on my plane. MINE are the most important to me, and they are constantly missing things that I learn from. After my MANY year rebuild my IA and I were setting up for the first flight and I was doing the pre-flight. She had been inspected with a fine tooth comb by a BUNCH of T owners and A&Ps, three IAs and many friends with tube and rag tail draggers.
On the walk around I found an aileron attach bolt with no cotter key! My IA said that was OK, I was looking at her as a PILOT, not a mechanic for the first time in years. NEW EYES see things the old ones go past over and over.


USE NEW EYES! Yours or others. Amazing how many things can be wrong on our planes and they still bring us home.

Hank

[flyguy]

Re: WSplit Cowl

Delete duplicate.