!)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

[Dusty]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Its got to happen.

No, it doesn't. They just issue an AD requiring {removal of all owner-produced parts/new cranks in little Continentals/etc.} and stop worrying about old airplanes pluggin' up the sky. It's nice writing, interpreting, and enforcing the rules!

[Ragwing nut]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Its got to happen.

No, it doesn't. They just issue an AD requiring {removal of all owner-produced parts/new cranks in little Continentals/etc.} and stop worrying about old airplanes pluggin' up the sky. It's nice writing, interpreting, and enforcing the rules!

What are you talking about? THere are no owner produced crankshafts. What is the AD number?

Mike

[Sloanlow]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Bill

By now you have probably moved on but have you considered calling your congressman on this issue?

I have found that a congressional aid can call that office and make an inquiry concerning their behavior which tends to set them straight.

I have never used that tactic on the FAA but I have used it in other govt offices and it works.

Basically, the aid (congressman) makes an inquiry concerning your case, rather than BS the congressman they reconsider your case and wala red tape away......Remember you vote the FAA don't.

Jim

[Sloanlow]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Additionally, The government has to give you permission to sue. bureaucrats are safe as long as they follow the book. The book allows them to sign off on our mods and etc as long as they meet certain requirements. this is just typical lazy government employees drinking coffee and hiding out, doing a ramp check every now and then.

[whake]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

The faa does not have the technical know how or the guts to say yes, why should they?, it will not show up in their paycheck. They won't even let a local doctor who is a qualified expert say yes. They should send a few of them over to Iraq, maybe they could create a "nobody dies rule over there." They all complain about being sueed, they do not have enough money to be sued, you only sue people with deep pockets. I made a pretty good living saying yes in a very big corporation when all the cya-s and mug-womps ran for cover.

[VictorBravo]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

I had one DER working with me briefly, but he went silent on me for too damn long and so I am in the process of getting another DER hopefully.

The first DER was leery of one minor technical thing, which I disagree with partially. We'll see what the second DER has to say.

THAT being said, if I did another skylight (official or otherwise), I would do the minor change that the first DER said to do, since it costs pennies and can't hurt. Going back and ripping apart what I did in order to incorporate this change is too much trouble at this point however.

I am proceeding with getting my no-weld skylight approved as a field approval, however I have no idea if or when that will be approved. Anyone wanting the benefits of a skylight should consider the Clayton STC, simply because it is the fastest way between a stock airplane and a skylight.

Flybikefarm just installed one under Clayton's STC in about a day, which is fantastic.

As always, you all are welcome to sit around and wait for my deal to get done, but I can't promise of or when that will be and I don't want to screw anyone else up waiting for me to win this fight.

Bill

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

So I see that, "I'm with the FAA, how can I help," remains their standard operating proceedure. I've noticed that what they say, what they want, what they expect, what they propose, what they write in the regs, and what they need -- never seem to be in agreement. Complaining about it is to scream about the obvious. I wish you better luck this time around. And, luck seems to be a major component. With regards; ED OBRIEN

[LostnSpace]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Well, I guess what Bill B. is going through is a good example of why the FAA guys at the IA seminars are always saying "Don't cut sheetmetal, drill holes or strip wires UNTIL you are holding the field approval/STC in your greasy hands, wish you well with the next DER, what a head-ache, gary

[DanBrown]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Wow! It is such a hassle trying to get approval for what should be easy to approve changes that enhance safety and utility!!

How do you find an good DER and what is the cost for them to work with you?

[Pearson]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Until just a few years ago, the mandate of the FAA was to "Regulate & Promote" aviation. Then a few years ago congress changed the mandate by deleting the "Promote" part. The FAA no longer has to promote aviation. That, to me, means they don't have to help you do anything but abide by the regulations and slap you down if you don't.

We can all rant and rave to and about the FAA. And believe me Bill, I have been just as angry as you are at them. But I think the solution is to BAND TOGETHER and make our collective voice heard in Washington. The FAA isn't going to do anything it doesn't have to. If congress tells them they have to help us they will. Maybe we could try to get legislation passed protecting the guys at the FSSO so they wouldn't be so paranoid about liability.

We as a group will be much more effective in this cause than two or three of us cussing at the local FSDO. So, what do we do? Every one of us probably knows a few dozen other pilots. If we all spread the word, together we can make something happen.

AOPA and EAA come to mind. Can we start a petition? What if we all agreed to a date, and enmass wrote our congressperson all on that exact same date? Maybe we could get AOPA to collect all of our individual letters and dump them on the congressional desks.

If all of the old airplanes continue to errode away faster than our rights, there will be no old airplanes eventually.

[VictorBravo]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

My biggest gripe about how the FAA dealt with me is not that they didn't want to sign it off. That is problem number two, which is a separate but valid issue. The more immediate problem is that the way it turned out, the FAA inspector went so far as to encourage me that I was on the right track, genuinely seemed to be wanting to help (I'll never know) and then halfway through the process HIS boss at the FSDO threw a wet blanket over the whole thing.

As to whether the FAA must promote aviation or hide under a rock covering their butt, that is another matter which the EAA, AOPA and the type clubs should address with one unified voice.

I WILL win this eventually, but I can no longer say whether it will be this week or this year.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

My biggest gripe about how the FAA dealt with me is not that they didn't want to sign it off. That is problem number two, which is a separate but valid issue. The more immediate problem is that the way it turned out, the FAA inspector went so far as to encourage me that I was on the right track, genuinely seemed to be wanting to help (I'll never know) and then halfway through the process HIS boss at the FSDO threw a wet blanket over the whole thing.

As to whether the FAA must promote aviation or hide under a rock covering their butt, that is another matter which the EAA, AOPA and the type clubs should address with one unified voice.

I WILL win this eventually, but I can no longer say whether it will be this week or this year.

Nobody in the FAA wants to stick their neck out anymore legally because the FAA will no longer stand beside them in court. It is their signature and their liablility. If they don't know anything about it, they don't want to sign it.

here is the sadder note. The FAA is trying to push regulation through that the FSDO will no longer look at 337's, you will send them directly Mike Monroney Records Office. It is stupid, and promotes unsafe practices in 337 oversight. They are also trying to make STC's more complicated paperwork wise. Unfortunatley if you are a mechanic or own a FBO, you need a legal department to keep you out of trouble these days which is why I am no longer doing A&P work for anybody but our own projects. Light GA is on a slippery slope that has been regreased by the FAA recently and I see no good outcome in my opinion. Only time will tell.

Mike

[LostnSpace]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

here is the sadder note. The FAA is trying to push regulation through that the FSDO will no longer look at 337's, you will send them directly Mike Monroney Records Office

Hi Mike, I got an email from the FSDO in So. Carolina saying it is a done deal and to send them to OK City, did someone there jump the gun or are you aware of a time frame?, thank you, gary

[Ragwing nut]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

here is the sadder note. The FAA is trying to push regulation through that the FSDO will no longer look at 337's, you will send them directly Mike Monroney Records Office

Hi Mike, I got an email from the FSDO in So. Carolina saying it is a done deal and to send them to OK City, did someone there jump the gun or are you aware of a time frame?, thank you, gary

I am not aware of a time frame. If they are already not reviewing them, I am scared. There implementing policy changes rather than regulations which creates discontinuity between FSDO's across the US.

Mike

[Len Petterson]

Re: !)$(^@ FAA SOB's Trying to Shut My 337 down!

Some one metioned owner Maintinence, Would be idel for simple aircrafts.
Material standards are another thing. Bill's example with 5 miniute epoxy is a good one. Does fine minutet epoxy meet a industrial standrad?
The new Light sport category uses ASTM for material standard.
What it means in practical use of nut and bolts, glues etc I don't know. Anything what meets a standard has to be tested, it is when becomes a known entiety, with known properties.
Therefor I can use it in a design and say if you use this you are ok.
AN standards has been the best for many years, but as I worked in the autoindustry and maintined high tech machinery I seen many things I would use in an aircraft as it is better, (in my judgement,) when AN standard.
We also have to keep in mind what an aircraft is desinged to be flexiable and
in the case of bolts, the AN bolt maybe better at 125 000 psi strengeth when a 160 000 Psi bolt what is not as resistance to chock waves etc becuase it is harder.
I do think someone (EAA AOPA)has to sitt down with FAA / DOT and look at the standards used in the past and compare with the new standards. It would be simlar to what was dune with Auto fuel STC.
Lots of development has happened in the last 40 years, EAA Canada COPA and RAA here in Canada got through the owner maininece, but we can not leave the country, if we are in what category.
FAA s rep shot it down in the negotioations in Ottawa.
In USA you have to have a AI doing the annual on a homebuilt, if you are not the builder.
The repirmans certifact would take care of what.
If you try to make a living in the GA it would be a heavy competion to the aircraft mechanics proffesion.
Taylorcraft owners should maybe concider the light sport category if possible.
Len