Hey Zane,

I see all the time people looking for a copy of a 337 for Field approval on whatever.

What would be the chances of making a database divided by aircraft make/model where we can post PDF's of 337's and drawings of various mods that we would like to share with others?

https://www.backcountrypilot.org/knowle ... uel-system

For the Skywagon, I've added a new table for field approval 337s under the "landing gear / tires / brakes" section, below the STCs table.

If you have something to submit, find the aircraft page if it exists, and make a comment. Attach the file to the comment, then I will add an entry in the modifications section. Please be very descriptive as to what it is-- don't make me do too much work.

Excellent ideas, both of you!

Zzz wrote:https://www.backcountrypilot.org/knowledge-base/aircraft/165-cessna-180-185-skywagon#h5-fuel-system

For the Skywagon, I've added a new table for field approval 337s under the "landing gear / tires / brakes" section, below the STCs table.

If you have something to submit, find the aircraft page if it exists, and make a comment. Attach the file to the comment, then I will add an entry in the modifications section. Please be very descriptive as to what it is-- don't make me do too much work.

Zane, I noticed the second field approval PDF comes up as a blank 337. The first PDF worked fine.

robw56 wrote:

Zzz wrote:https://www.backcountrypilot.org/knowledge-base/aircraft/165-cessna-180-185-skywagon#h5-fuel-system

For the Skywagon, I've added a new table for field approval 337s under the "landing gear / tires / brakes" section, below the STCs table.

If you have something to submit, find the aircraft page if it exists, and make a comment. Attach the file to the comment, then I will add an entry in the modifications section. Please be very descriptive as to what it is-- don't make me do too much work.

Zane, I noticed the second field approval PDF comes up as a blank 337. The first PDF worked fine.

For whatever reason, that PDF is setup as editable. It showed fine for me in the Chrome PDF viewer. Are you on mobile or desktop?

Mobile, iPhone 7.

robw56 wrote:Mobile, iPhone 7.

Try again. I cooked the PDF down into a flattened version.

It works for me now.

I actually have 2 binders of 337s from a fairly hopped up and complete 170B given to me by @Wannabe. It would be a lot of scanning so I would need to go by request or suggestion.

I have a dual exhaust that Knisley made for my 54 180 Cessna with K engine(not A or J). It is based on a modified K 35 Beechcraft system and was installed in 1996 by 337. Knisley sent paperwork from another 180 337 for me to use. Is it worth me trying to make photos of the paperwork that isn't super clear to begin with since Knisley already knows what to do?

It would sure be nice if the FAA used a 337 database to rubber stamp planes that are trying to something that's already been approved. My FSDO denied me putting the Odyssey battery in the factory battery box on my 180 even though I provided him with other 337's that did this.

Ace

180Marty wrote:I have a dual exhaust that Knisley made for my 54 180 Cessna with K engine(not A or J). It is based on a modified K 35 Beechcraft system and was installed in 1996 by 337. Knisley sent paperwork from another 180 337 for me to use. Is it worth me trying to make photos of the paperwork that isn't super clear to begin with since Knisley already knows what to do?

I wouldn't bother. A small company like Knisley will assist their customers, whereas Goodyear will not. Should probably make the effort where it's most needed.

Great idea! I'll make sure to include those that I have for the 205 when I write up the page for it.

Ace007 wrote: It would sure be nice if the FAA used a 337 database to rubber stamp planes that are trying to something that's already been approved. My FSDO denied me putting the Odyssey battery in the factory battery box on my 180 even though I provided him with other 337's that did this.

That's just ridiculous! I got an FA no problem for doing just that in my C150/150TD.

I agree about the FAA rubber stamp -- as many C180's that have installed 26" GY's in the past,
& they still need a field approval and (I assume) all the tundra tire worksheet BS.

I have had the same recent experience as Ace...

Submitting a 337 for your aircraft (with copies of previously approved 337s as basis for approval) is not as easy as it was a few years ago...

If you want to preview the bureaucracy that is now involved in getting a Field Approval, you can reference:
AC 43-210A. Standardized Procedures for Obtaining Approval of Data in the Performance of Major Repairs and Major Alterations

I've already been asked to remove one of the 337s that was posted today. This brings up a sticky situation: Often these 337s contain home addresses and/or other personal information about owners and IAs that those parties may not want posted.

Of course, anyone can order the CD for any aircraft in the FAA database and then review all these documents as they are public data apparently, but the sticky part is exactly the benefit I'm proposing to provide: Connecting the mod with a specific aircraft by cross-reference.

I respect the wishes of others, as I'd have them do for me, but this throws a wrench in the works. We either just post what we have and wait for complaints, or seek permission/blessing from the people whose addresses are on those 337s. Both are a pain in the ass and shoot this project in the foot. Your information on a filed 337 is public data already. Seeking permission adds another layer to a project that's already like pulling teeth for people it seems. If it's a business address, probably not such a big deal. And for any other reason like "I don't want anyone to know I was the IA on that 337 for that airplane"...well that seems like bullshit. Don't sign the form then.

Thoughts?

Where it's a matter of public record, and they knew that when they filled out the form, I don't think that anyone complaining has a leg to stand on or a legitimate complaint. So too bad. Post them. Worse case, before scanning them to send to you, just redact your address. If the Feds need it, they already have it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another option is to just post the N number of the plane and its various mods. Anyone that wants a copy of that planes 337s can pay the small fee and order it. It's not nearly as convenient but at least the information would be obtainable.

Grassstrippilot, though it is true that the FAA already has the address their attitude is that it is not their job to provide information, any information. If it is needed the submitter is required to provide it. I often get the feeling that they are taught that they do not work for us, maybe its me who is wrong.

I have bought FAA record CD just to see how some mods are accomplished, so even a 337 with the names redacted is useful if the N number is still showing allow you to order the records.

Well, ya'll can go on ordering aircraft records CDs for $10 a pop on the hot tip of your confidential informant I guess. Slip it right into the slot on your iPad...

Make sure you ask permission before you query an N# too.

The reasoning that's been PM'd to me is something along the lines that the work done for a 337 was, to paraphrase, many hours of work and delicate navigation of the FSDO bureaucracy, which most people aren't willing to do themselves. It appears that the people behind these field approvals feel that they've accomplished some level of intellectual property that they'd like to protect from public consumption. There was a hint of protectionism too, since when an IA is effective at getting the approval, it means $$$ in services. It seems like an attitude that will perpetuate the stagnation and mystery of field approvals we currently enjoy.

Good luck. I'm out. I'm not going to deal with shit like this on a frequent basis. I'm not interested in being the Julian Assange of field approvals.