Form 337's for Skymasters

[Dave Underwood]

Members, would it be an idea to create a section on the board where people could list mods they have done by way of 337 field approvals and or any 8110-3 paperwork they have for Skymasters.

I am particularly interested in radio mods done on 337's by way of 337's (how is that for a bit of confusion), as I have to update my RT428's Nav/Com's because of the FM Immunity rules here in Europe.

The FAA seems to want more and more approved data to sign off any mods. I agree that some data should be provided, but they appear to have tightened up and want a lot more. That said, if someone has already done a mod or installed new equipment, providing a copy of that existing 337 approval seems to provide the required approved data. That is certainly the case for my local FAA Office. You can also see the June AOPA page 133.

A couple of examples:
1) If anyone needs to put holes on either firewall, through the pressure vessel, as I had to for the installation of my JPI, I have 337 paperwork supported by a DER signed 8110-3.
2) I also installed M20 Air/Oil separators and have that approved 337 paperwork as well.

If anyone needed a copy of these, I would be glad to provide it, as it would save others both time and money.

Regards Dave

[kevin]

Dave,

I think that is a good idea, and I will put together a section for it.

I want to make everyone aware of why you might not get as much activity in such a section as you would think. Many owners are reluctant to post their 337s (the form, not the airplane) on an international forum such as this one. There are two reasons:

1.) It makes the mod visible to every FAA inspector and manager in the world (if they visit our site). If there is something wrong with the paperwork, you could end up with a problem you did not have before.

2.) Mechanics treasure their relationships with the local inspectors. If you post a 337 signed off by inspector X, and inspector X gets his butt chewed by his boss for signing it off, then the NEXT approval your mechanic undertakes will be that much harder to get done...

I would like to hear other's opinions on this, perhaps the mechanics that I have worked with are overly sensitive on this subject, and I have a skewed view of it..

But in any case, I will put it on my list to make a section for these field approvals. Until this, if everyone will please post the approvals they want to offer as a reply to this thread, it will make it easy for me to find them.

Thanks,

Kevin
webmaster@337skymaster.com

[Mitch Taylor]

Kevin:

May I suggest that the forms be posted with just the description of work done and aircraft type, leaving off identification, etc. This would provide sample wording, and if someone wants to get more info they can contact the person who had the word done. This minimizes the risks you pointed out, while still providing a starting point for people who wish to duplicate the work.

Mitch

[kevin]

That sounds like a reasonable idea too. Let's see what other folks who respond to this thread think...

Kevin

[RRossner]

I agree Kevin. This could actually be more of a determent then a benefit in more ways then one. I think there is a lot that can be gained by this information being readily available but we need to be careful how it is presented to the eyes of the world. Besides the above not all form 337's are correctly filed with the FAA and therefore illegal because they are not officially on record with the FAA.

Rick

[WebMaster]

I thought that each 337 was unique to the A/C for which it was done. It would help if you wanted to do something to be able to establish that it has been done before. If you were interested in what others have done, it would be especially usefull.
I would be interested in the 337 that put a retracting HF antenna in the tail..

[Dave Underwood]

I would think the sensitivity might be over rated as the FAA signs the form anyway and I can tell you they do know what is going on. The owner also has the legal obligation to make sure a copy is then filed as well. BTW when I mentioned a certain avionics upgrade to the FAA locally, it was the inspector who jumped in with the fact it was only STC’d on only two types and every other install would require a Field Approval.

On paperwork, I figure that getting the paperwork straight up front is better than getting caught on something later. My experience has been that the FAA inspectors are doing a tough job with limited resources, but they are always pretty reasonable unless you are "being bad". If the paperwork is not right, should you not get it fixed?

There are only three ways to get mod’s done legally and we all want to be legal I would assume: 1) add to the original TC 2) by way of an STC or 3) Field Approval. As the AOPA article suggested, Field Approvals will become more the way of the future, which is why I figure, if we pooled our experience we could all win.

I’m pretty relaxed as to how we start to record this on the board, but with a DER costing say $700 to $1000 for the paperwork and approval of a Garmin installation, there is much “beer budget” to be otherwise allocated. And don’t expect the supplier to necessarily go the STC route as that has become more expensive and difficult.

Kevin, I could see perhaps you moderating that section of the board making the postings one way and removing incriminating details, but I am not sure you need the extra work load. On the other hand, if there is the suggested sensitivity, maybe that or a similar approach is required.

Regards - Dave