337 for gear repair?

[Glenn Farrant]

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone have an example 337 for a gear repair on the tie struts?

The final hurdle to getting 43887 back in the air is getting the gear repair approved.

The annual is otherwise complete and my A&P/IA has been thorough and great to work with. The aircraft is in good shape and is ready to go.

The tie struts in the gear have been repaired by replacing them with the appropriate streamline tubing. The gear was braced, the cracked tie struts were cut out and the new tubing was welded in.

My A&P/IA is currently working with a contact at the Denver FSDO and is apparently getting a little resistance. He thinks it will get sorted, but he feels it would go more quickly if he could cite another 337.

I’ve done searches and looked in the documents section, but I’ve come up short (apart from the gear reinforcement 337)

Does anyone have an example they could share?

Cheers

Glenn

[3Dreaming]

When I have done them I spliced into the existing tie strut near the top. I then did a 337 saying I made the repair using 1/2 the splice shown in AC43, and send it to OKC. This is what I was instructed to do when I approached my PMI about a field approval.

[Glenn Farrant]

Awesome. Thanks!

[skip]

Here is the one i did a few years ago. No problem getting it through.
airworthiness.pdf
Skip Egdorf
N34237

[Ragwing nut]

should be no reason to run thru fsdo. make repair per ac43 and send to okc

[skip]

should be no reason to run thru fsdo. make repair per ac43 and send to okc

Yeah, This went direct to OKC. Major repair according to published data. No need to go through the FSDO. The trick is to make sure you quote the "approved data". If you went off the rails and tried to do something not in the rules then FSDO would (probably rightly) get involved.
Skip Egdorf
N34237

[N96337]

should be no reason to run thru fsdo. make repair per ac43 and send to okc

Exactly!!!
John

[Glenn Farrant]

Brilliant! Thanks guys.

[3Dreaming]

Now the bracing modification needs to be run through the FSDO, but you have a 337 to copy for that. Make them two separate 337's. One sent to OKC for the repair, and one to the FSDO for the modification. Hopefully the preverbal can of worms has not already been opened by the previous conversations with the FSDO.

[Glenn Farrant]

Thanks. Yeah, I only have second-hand information about the interaction with the FSDO, but I think it was a direct consultation with a "friendly contact" rather than a formal engagement....at least I hope that's the case.

[N96337]

Either way, the FSDO should reference AC43 for the repair portion. It shouldn't be any big deal at all. If it was me, I'd throw them both on the same one.
John

[Mike S]

When we did my tie strut replacement the A/P wrote up two 337s, one for the tie strut and one for the "ski" bracing (bracing was probably overkill with new strut steel but I like it that way).
If you haven't received any examples yet, I could dig them out later for you. Let me know if you still need 'em.

[Glenn Farrant]

Hi Mike,

I think I have what I need at the moment from Skip above. But I guess for the purposes of sharing information, if you do come across them, I'm sure others would benefit from them too if you shared them here.

Thanks

Glenn

[Glenn Farrant]

EDIT: Please disregard the following for now. I've managed to educate myself a little on when a field approval is required and when it isn't and I've presented the argument to my A&P/IA that a field approval isn't required as the repair has been done IAW approved data,

====================

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for your help in this thread so far. Things are still not resolved and I'm looking for some further guidance.

I've had the following feedback from my IA

1. My IA has confirmed that the repairs have been done in accordance with AC-43

2. However, the following feedback was received from my IA:
I just talked <person> at the Denver FSDO. He gave me a host of resources to put together a data package to go along with the 337. He was almost certain we'll need to get a DER. I'll do some reading tonight and probably send you a few links as well.

There was some question as to whether or not OEM parts were/are available. I'll call Univair and get some info. Here are links to the two pubs that I'm looking at.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...mentID/1029837

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r_8300.16A.pdf

I don't have the experience to question the process with any level of authority. From my inexperienced perspective it seems to be getting out of hand. Based on the information from everyone here, the process could/should be much simpler.

I would like to provide some feedback along these lines as I think some of the complication is as a result of some inexperience with my IA.

• These repairs are routine. There are many examples of a simple 337 process being followed (and some have been provided)
• The Taylorcraft factory/company is no longer in operation and no OEM parts are available. Yes, replacement gear is available from Univair, but it is just as valid to have the gear repaired.
• The recommended course of action is to submit a 337 direct to OKC due to the routine nature of this repair due to the compliance with AC-43. Getting a DER involved and providing further documentation is generally not required.

Is this reasonable feedback? Could anyone advise an alternative set of feedback/process that might help here?…..I would like to avoid dropping $5k on some univair gear or some other drawn out process especially when it seems like it is unnecessary....plus I'm itching to fly it

Cheers

Glenn

[astjp2]

If this goes to Fsdo, get a new I/A, it’s a repair, no engineering or field approval required. About 1 picture and 4 sentences. Mail to okc. Tim