Referencing the FAA Registry by serial number it looks like it was possibly N56180 which matches the serial number referenced. If I was trying to get this approved I would buy the CD from the FAA for $10 and print a copy from there.

This tread makes it clear why mechanics are often times reluctant to go down the field approval path. The FAA does not make it easy.

Tim

bat443 wrote:...If I was trying to get this approved I would buy the CD from the FAA for $10 and print a copy from there. ...

Very good guidance.

Anytime an aircraft is referenced, best to have the FAA records search in hand. Excellent reminder. Showing competence gets points.

bat443 wrote:Referencing the FAA Registry by serial number it looks like it was possibly N56180 which matches the serial number referenced. If I was trying to get this approved I would buy the CD from the FAA for $10 and print a copy from there.

This tread makes it clear why mechanics are often times reluctant to go down the field approval path. The FAA does not make it easy.

Tim

But the point of all this is, there's no database that I know of for people to cross-reference field approvals for the mod they want. What I want to have here is for someone who is into off-roading their Skywagon (or any type) to be able to:

1) Find their airplane in our database
2) See all the suggested backcountry mods, both STC and field-approved
3) For field-approved mods, be able to download the exact document that's on the CD from the FAA to reference in their own 337 submission.

Data is data. You get the CD with a scan as a PDF (if they are high resolution scans, that's fine too), or you download it from here once the modification path/paper trail has been established for a given mod. Some generous individual will have to do the legwork get that printable 337 of the approved N# and allow me to post it. There's nothing special about the CD from the FAA other than you know those 337s have been filed.

So, if you're a stalwart soul who went through the process with your IA, pay it forward and send me the copy of the relevant 337s you got from the FAA CD. How else is this data reconciled? Wives' tales? IAs with old notebooks?

ZZZ-

Spot on, actual 337's are the 'Approved Data' that needs to be referenced. The one you have for the 180 on your site is not signed and therefore, not approved data. I have ordered the CD from the FAA for the referenced tail number. When I get it I'll forward it along to you.

gunny

bat443 wrote:Referencing the FAA Registry by serial number it looks like it was possibly N56180 which matches the serial number referenced. If I was trying to get this approved I would buy the CD from the FAA for $10 and print a copy from there.

This tread makes it clear why mechanics are often times reluctant to go down the field approval path. The FAA does not make it easy.

Tim

FWIW... I had called the owner and left a message asking him if he would be willing to share the FA. I will keep you posted.

Gunny wrote:ZZZ-

Spot on, actual 337's are the 'Approved Data' that needs to be referenced. The one you have for the 180 on your site is not signed and therefore, not approved data. I have ordered the CD from the FAA for the referenced tail number. When I get it I'll forward it along to you.

gunny

Make sure you order the right N# and not the Stearman [emoji41]

Are 337s actually the approved data? I thought it was just a record of modification filed with the FAA, and the approval basis cited per modification is a 1) STC or 2) one time approval that may provide its own data or reference existing data from another approval

Zane, I agree that it would be nice to know which airplanes have which approved mods and do appreciate your efforts to provide the information. I do agree that a copy from this site's data base is equivalent to a scan from the FAA CD and only brought it up because the 337 for N55180/N56180 is not included on this site. My point is that this particular 337 for N4679U will not meet the criteria for "accepted" data per the FAA definition of "accepted" data. I brought it up so that someone wanting this modification would not attempt to use this 337 as "accepted" data and hit a snag with the FAA. The FAA take is concept of "accepted" and "approved" data very seriously.

The "accepted" data on a 337 for a "one time approval" becomes "approved" data when an FAA inspector stamps block #3 with the approval statement and signs it. This 337 with a signature in block #3 can be used as "accepted" data on another 337 but is not "approved" data until block #3 is signed on the "follow on" 337. By definition STC's are "approved" data and a block #3 signature is not required. FAA AC43.13-1B and -2B are considered "approved" data if the data meets requirements listed on the cover page of each and again no block #3 signature is required. The same applies to data found in manufactures approved structural repair manuals and in some cases the structural repair chapter of maintenance manuals, .

Tim

Thanks. Let's get some good crisp copies of a stamped version up there.

Zzz wrote:Thanks. Let's get some good crisp copies of a stamped version up there.

I made some mildly acceptable PDFs of the photos and have sent them to Zzz to post. They will be good enough.

New 337s added: https://www.backcountrypilot.org/knowle ... akes-tires

Thanks Bigrenna.

ZZZ-

BTW I've got the records on order for the 337 C-180 aircraft you had listed previously. FYI it referred to an N-number that was incorrect, serial number was good. (Actual N-number N56180, N55180 is a Stearman in the UK).

When I gert it Ill forward it along to you.

gunny

Very good, Gunny. Thank you.

Thanks for submitting the recent 337, Greg.
I wonder if the Boston FSDO would approve the GY 26's on McCauley 3-bolts, since 850-6's are approved on my 180's 3-bolt McCauleys via Kenmore's STC.

Timbuk2 wrote:Thanks for submitting the recent 337, Greg.
I wonder if the Boston FSDO would approve the GY 26's on McCauley 3-bolts, since 850-6's are approved on my 180's 3-bolt McCauleys via Kenmore's STC.

I doubt it... I met w/ my PMI the other day to talk about a FA for the tires along with some other mods and he basically told me that field approvals were on the bottom of his list.

Im about to send my paperwork in for approval on my bird with 3 previously approved FA's so we will see. That should be enough, but you never know. Hit me back mid summer.

Bigrenna wrote:

Timbuk2 wrote:Thanks for submitting the recent 337, Greg.
I wonder if the Boston FSDO would approve the GY 26's on McCauley 3-bolts, since 850-6's are approved on my 180's 3-bolt McCauleys via Kenmore's STC.

I doubt it... I met w/ my PMI the other day to talk about a FA for the tires along with some other mods and he basically told me that field approvals were on the bottom of his list.

Im about to send my paperwork in for approval on my bird with 3 previously approved FA's so we will see. That should be enough, but you never know. Hit me back mid summer.

We need to move to Anchorage...

bat443 wrote:…. The 337 for N4679U is of limited value as it lacks the FAA statement and inspector signature in block #3 and the return to service signature in block #7. As it stands it is not approved and would not be considered accepted data....

Reviving an old thread.....
I am trying to do a field approval now for the 26" GY's.
The inspector is being fussy about wording, not on my 337 but on the one which I submitted as documentation / "accepted data".
The one I'm using references "tundra tires", which apparently is a no no for some reason.
The other ones I have also say "tundra tire" or "bush tire" (which is probably a no-no also),
or document the installation on 6-bolt wheels (I have 3 bolt).

I think I might be the one who sent in the scan of the 337 for 79U, as referenced in the quoted post,
but if so, I can't figure out who I got it from.
I really like the wording on the back-- basically "installed 26" GY tires, reference previous 337, revised W&B data, END".
If I can get away with that, using a previously approved 337, it'd be awesome.
Less detail is usually better, as I'm finding out when I look at these other 337's.
I'm assuming the 337 got approved- if someone on this site owns this airplane,
can you PM me re scanning the approved copy of the 337?
Or if someone has a copy of the approved 337 as referenced (N56180), same thing.
Thanks.

My buddy owns 79U, if you want to pm me I can give you his info. I believe the previous owner is the one who got the 337 for that plane, I have his info too.