robw56 wrote:

bigrenna wrote:Seems like an awful lot of time and trouble to do something that's already been done. Why re-invent the wheel???

Not for nuthin... but the kit I installed from Hitchcock was the cats meow. At only 4ish lbs, it was not only light as hell, but the carbon fiber is super strong. No muss no fuss. Fit perfect out of the box and was worth every penny.

It would be nice if that kit was approved for the 170/172. I would have choose it over the Selkirk for the weight savings alone, not to mention the fit/finish. It's about 6lbs lighter than the Selkirk.

Plus one on that. I have the selkirk tunnel cover and was no
that impressed with the fit.

I certainly agree as to why reinvent the wheel, but when the wheel is not perfectly round you have to take matters in hand and do what's best. In my case my 170 has a Del-Air STC to move the battery back in that area and no available STC'd extended baggage offered that so we made our own.

hotrod150 wrote:

whee wrote: Being that you are an IA you must have some relationship with an inspector at the FSDO. It is worth a call to see what they say. ......

I agree, talk to your PMI about it. I think a lot of those guys are pretty reasonable, esp those with a GA mechanic background.
Grrass Strip Pilot, what's a PNC category?

Here's the thread.

https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/could-your-airplane-be-a-primary-non-commercial-pnc-14932?p=200029#p200029

Can you buy the STC only, and make your own parts which comply? Just throwing ideas out there...

The certified system is broken, for private aviation. Flying shouldn't be that expensive. Commercial is a different story.

Digging up an old thread, after some research. I'm looking to 337 a fishing/ski pole holder incorporated with an extended baggage. If any of you 180/182/185 guys have an approval for an aluminum floor/bulkhead extended baggage, with with or without a tube, I would love a copy of it.

How many people are already flying with homemade ski or fishing pole tubes off the books? Home made extended baggage areas?

I've seen several really nice ones, some of which pop in and out with little effort. Quite a bit more useful and better engineered than what is available from the limited and frankly primitive STC options.

Getting an STC is a bit of a hill for sure, and the FAA has zero time or interest in small endeavors in general. Ask people who have pursued them, successfully and otherwise, and that is clear. Alternatives arise in its wake for better or for worse.

pilot wrote:Digging up an old thread, after some research. I'm looking to 337 a fishing/ski pole holder incorporated with an extended baggage. If any of you 180/182/185 guys have an approval for an aluminum floor/bulkhead extended baggage, with with or without a tube, I would love a copy of it.

Not sure why you would want an aluminum floor when a fiberglass/carbon fiber floor is already STC'd?

FWIW, the rear bulkhead on my Selkirk extended baggage kit (C-170) does nothing but prevent baggage from sliding further aft. It's NOT structural, in any, way, shape or form. I'd be pretty comfortable cutting some holes in the top of it to accommodate fishing pole tubes...whether that's technically legal or not I couldn't say...and maybe couldn't care?

But if I wanted extended baggage and fishing/ski pole tubes, that's what I would do. Hell of a lot simpler than trying to get paperwork through a government that apparently will only be open half-time for the foreseeable future.

Nothing against the Selkirk, Air Metal Fab or other available kits, they just are not exactly what I need for my mission. This leaves me with a few options - 1. Buy one and modify it out of the scope of the STC, 2. As suggested, whip up a DIY kit that fits my mission and is easily removable prior to sale or annual (we all love a little time in the tunnel), or 3. Go for a 337 with (hopefully) some prior evidence of an extended baggage being approved in this way. I would like a 337 on it, but I suppose option two has its merits as well.

pilot wrote:Nothing against the Selkirk, Air Metal Fab or other available kits, they just are not exactly what I need for my mission. This leaves me with a few options - 1. Buy one and modify it out of the scope of the STC, 2. As suggested, whip up a DIY kit that fits my mission and is easily removable prior to sale or annual (we all love a little time in the tunnel), or 3. Go for a 337 with (hopefully) some prior evidence of an extended baggage being approved in this way. I would like a 337 on it, but I suppose option two has its merits as well.

1st option could be to get a field approval to modify the STD'd extended baggage. If its a fishing pole tube, it might be easier than getting a whole new shebang approved as the tube itself would be rather minor.

Frankly even the STC process is not as bad `you all make out. I have done two STC's myself for the Twin Otter. It didn't cost thousands of dollars and only took two months in the Atlanta MIDO office. This is on an aircraft over 8,000 lbs for commercial work. So some of you are blowing the process out of proportion. Simple mod to make yours different from an existing STC, add a ski/fishing pole tube, which is actually a useful rear baggage addition. You can then speed along your field approval by citing the other STC's as previously approved data for the other parts of the mod (gets the inspectors off the hook, since somebody else approved it). Of course, time is worth something and there is a bit of paperwork and a few visits to the FISDO office, going through the metal detectors and strip search now. Also, the government shutdown will be used as an excuse for not getting anything done for about the next year or so.

As others suggested, a call to your PMI or a visit bearing doughnuts, would let you know if the approval is going to be a PIA or a breeze.

dogpilot wrote:Frankly even the STC process is not as bad `you all make out. I have done two STC's myself for the Twin Otter. It didn't cost thousands of dollars and only took two months in the Atlanta MIDO office. This is on an aircraft over 8,000 lbs for commercial work. So some of you are blowing the process out of proportion. Simple mod to make yours different from an existing STC, add a ski/fishing pole tube, which is actually a useful rear baggage addition. You can then speed along your field approval by citing the other STC's as previously approved data for the other parts of the mod (gets the inspectors off the hook, since somebody else approved it). Of course, time is worth something and there is a bit of paperwork and a few visits to the FISDO office, going through the metal detectors and strip search now. Also, the government shutdown will be used as an excuse for not getting anything done for about the next year or so.

As others suggested, a call to your PMI or a visit bearing doughnuts, would let you know if the approval is going to be a PIA or a breeze.

This is another case where it completely depends on who you are dealing with as my experience is quite the opposite. I’m trying get a cowling mod approved which does not affect cooling nor change the aerodynamics in anyway. It’s quite literally relocating hinges, replacing latches and splitting the nosebowl like later models. It’s probably a minor alteration but I was talked into ‘doing it right’... I’m eight months and thousands of dollars in so far and still don’t have approved data. When I began this project, I was told similar. This will be simple and straightforward, should take two months and a few hundred bucks...

It’s all in who you know.

Here are two Field Approvals (one pdf) for fishing rod / ski tubes for two separate c180s.

Another possibility: Buy a kit with STC, then modify it, non structurally, to suit you. On 337 note installed STC blah blah, with following deviation....call it a minor.

MTV

Bagarre, if the FSDO inspector believes it is a minor alteration he is not allowed to approve the field approval. He is probably also not allowed to say that it is minor as that is legally left up to the mechanic doing the alteration. Kind of a catch 22.

MTV, in my opinion the installation of a fishing pole tube would be a major alteration as it would require a manual revision stating the arm of the area to be used with the weight of the fishing pole when computing a loaded weight and balance. Just the opinion of one mechanic and not the one doing the installation so my opinion really does not matter.

Tim

dogpilot wrote:Frankly even the STC process is not as bad `you all make out. I have done two STC's myself for the Twin Otter. It didn't cost thousands of dollars and only took two months in the Atlanta MIDO office. ......As others suggested, a call to your PMI or a visit bearing doughnuts, would let you know if the approval is going to be a PIA or a breeze.

For every success story like yours, I've heard multiple horror stories of it taking months & months to get a field approval. A friend of mine has done several with our PMI, told me it went well: "the last one only took 7 months". Guess I'll find out, -- we just turned in a 337 to put a set of 26" Goodyears on my 180, accompanied by a copy of a previously approved 337 for the same mod.. We tried to ease into it, about 6 weeks ago my IA sent his PMI an email asking about it. Never got a response...no doubt at least partially due to the govt shutdown. So we decided to just send in the 337 & see what happens.
As far as a meeting with donuts....i had to visit the fsdo to get a revised a/w certificate last spring. Had to make an appointment, drive an hour 45 minutes each way, then get past an armed guard at the parking lot gate, and more armed guards & a metal detector in the building lobby. Then do my business in the lobby because they didnt want me to go upstairs. It was a real PITA, nothing id care to do again if i can a void it.

Maybe wait till you get a windy day and land that 180 on the roof?

mtv wrote:The FAA. Has policy which prohibits them from field approving anything that is already STCd.

So, you planning on getting your own STC?

MTV

Policy not a rule. Several 310 forks have been installed on strait tail 182s and air glass has an stc for it. But they were done as a follow on field approval. I have done two myself and the plane i have now was done 25 years ago.

qmdv wrote:

mtv wrote:The FAA. Has policy which prohibits them from field approving anything that is already STCd.

So, you planning on getting your own STC?

MTV

Policy not a rule. Several 310 forks have been installed on strait tail 182s and air glass has an stc for it. But they were done as a follow on field approval. I have done two myself and the plane i have now was done 25 years ago.

Well, not exactly the same thing in that case. The Landes fork is a proprietary piece, and not even similar to a 310 fork. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a close knock off of a Cherokee nose fork.

And, the Landes fork will fit an 8.50 tire, which the 310 fork won't.

So, I suspect there are enough differences there, that it's pretty obvious that nobody's trying to "copy" the Landes STC.

Maybe....

MTV

mtv wrote:The FAA. Has policy which prohibits them from field approving anything that is already STCd. ...

Funny then how there are several different STCs for essentially the same mod:
Cessna 150 taildragger
Cessna 172 180hp engine
Cessna 180 850x6 tires
C85 with O-200 crank
etc etc etc