HELP ... Trying to transfer the Bush 180 LYC STC

[BillSchlatterer]

I own a damaged 53 C170B that had the Bush 180 conversion installed with appropriate STCs and 337s on file. I want to transfer that STC to another 170 rather than rebuild what I have. I have left a message and emailed Bob Williams, but it looks like I'm not going to get any response based on feedback I see elsewhere. The only phone number I can find is 620.782.3317 and all you get is a nice message from him saying to contact them at Williams.STC@GMAIL.com which I have done this morning with no response so far.

Does anyone know if or how you can transfer a valid STC from one C170 to another without a letter of permission from the STC owner. I don't mind paying something if I need to but I need to know if that's even possible before I commit on the replacement purchase which I need to close on ASAP?

Any thoughts or help appreciated.

Thanks Bill Schlatterer

[ghostflyer]

Firstly I am not advocating you to break any laws or upset the FAA. I have been in this situation myself having purchased a part [cargo door ] for my aircraft and it having a STC attached and stated my original aircraft rego. While a STC sometimes have the aircraft rego number on it but the occasion happened that the authorities in Australia made me change the rego of my aircraft . I hadn’t fitted the part at that point . The australian authorities didn’t want to know about it and referred me to the FAA as the STC was USA made and the aircraft was built and TDC was USA. I waited 9 months for the FAA to respond . In frustration ,I repurchased the STC in the latest rego number . It was a situation of me going to Porterville to visit the STC owner and paying him cash. He just scratched out the Old rego number on the STC paperwork and wrote my new rego number in. No signature ,nothing and all he said was your good to go, and he will send me a receipt later on. But then the STC owner died and no receipt . Then the FAA got back to me saying that i could change the rego number of the STC on the condition it was the same TDC .
You do have the option of rebirthing your aircraft with the damaged aircrafts serial number and STC while a number of people will say it’s not legal ,i would say consult your FAA office on that . a number of people will say that the fuselarge is the original part of the birth aircraft . The FAA answer may surprise a lot of people . There will be hoops to jump through. Let’s say a number of people have had issues dealing with “Bushs STC. I wouldn’t go there at all. Consult your local FAA office . Moving parts around to different aircraft with a STC of of that part is a nightmare . Eg . A lot of Garmin fitted avionics are under a STC
But if that part has to go back to the factory for repair and they offer you are exchange item ,what happens to the STC then . I even consulted a USA aviation lawyer on this issue of STC,s and the only straight answer was his bill.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bill, I believe if you look at the STC paperwork for the damaged plane you will see a note something to the effect that permission to use the STC was granted for that damaged airplane only. You will need written permission from the current owners of the STC to use it to modify another airplane. No way around it for any amount of money if you can not communicate with the STC owner.

Overwhelming history has it that the Williams are unreachable. There has been some recent reports that that is not the case.

Good luck. And let us know if you ever do get in touch with Williams.

[voorheesh]

If you are unable to contact the STC holder after good faith attempts which you document, I believe it may be possible to transfer that STC based on the fact that you purchased it and it is your property. By good faith attempts, I mean sending certified correspondence to any person or organization associated with the STC and allowing some reasonable timeframe for getting a response. I am also assuming that there are no reasons the STC holder would deny your request other than his ability to sell the certificate a second time. If he cannot be contacted, that is evidence he has (or may have) waived (abandoned) his rights/interests to the document.

What is planned for the damaged airplane? If someone repairs it, the engine conversion remains attached to that airframe unless removed. Is it a hull loss? This may have some bearing on your ability to transfer parts and documentation. If you retire the airworthiness certificate/data plate/etc. this may provide further justification for transferring the STC.

It is my understanding that installation of an STC, in this case a major alteration, can be initiated by an AI and the 337 submitted to a FSDO for approval. (Can an AI approve a major alteration, based on approved data without FSDO sign off? I forget). Since the STC is approved data, no further FAA engineering review is required. The problem is the STC is issued to the damaged airframe and it states that STC holder must approve transfer. So I would recommend attaching documentation to the 337 detailing ownership and failed attempts to obtain holder approval. I believe there is at least a chance an FAA office would buy off on this based on the concept of “good faith”. Certainly not every FAA office. The downside for the FSDO is they are putting the government in jeopardy by approval that may be contrary to a specified condition (ownership and control of a certificate issued by the FAA). The same downside also applies to the repair station or technician who is involved so you may find resistance. My approach would be that the documented reason for the transfer along with good faith attempts to contact the holder represent de facto approval of the holder (legal theory of abandonment of his rights).

A consideration is the documentation of an STC transfer. Is a new one issued with the new airplane identified? Is a letter issued by the STC holder? To what extent does an average FSDO verify the ownership, if at all? These are questions you need answered, if possible. You might also consider asking AOPA who can provide expert advice. Mike Bush comes to mind.

So, if this angle interests you, contact the maintenance organization who would take the engine from the damaged airplane and install it on the new one and have him/her approach their FSDO and lay the scenario out. Find out if an AI can simply file the 337 without FSDO sign off or must they review and approve. But be honest and tell the inspector what happened. Test the waters so to speak. Worth a try.

Let’s say you do this and the STC holder subsequently appears and demands compensation or some other remedy. That’s a risk. You have to weigh that against the value of installing that engine on your new airplane. If your installation has been documented properly, I’m not sure the STC holder has a strong case, but it’s still a loose end you have to consider.

Disclaimer: I am not currently employed by the FAA. I am not suggesting any fraud or misrepresentation of the facts. As Bruce says “consider my opinions and recommendations for what you paid for them!” Good luck. (It’s your engine and STC IMO)

[GAHorn]

Bill… Firstly I would say that since less than 24 hours have passed since you sent an email to the STC-holder… it would be too soon to “panic” for having received no-response. The Williams do not have a good reputation for prompt responses…but that would not likely be sufficient authorization for you to “break any rules”.

As for the ‘rule”…. An STC is a “Supplemental Type Certificate”. It replaces the original Type Certificate on the airframe to which it is assigned.

You may no more transfer that STC to another airplane without the authority of the STC-holder than you would be authorized to transfer an Original Type Certificate from one airplane to another. In other words…”No”.

Many people fall under the misconception that an STC is a modification or an “aftermarket part” that becomes the property of the aircraft owner once purchased….but that is incorrect. An STC is like a “patent” which must be licensed or re-licensed each time it is utilized on a different airplane. The fact that Williams is unresponsive does not change that, nor does it authorize FAA to act on the STC-owners behalf. (This is why it is improper to buy salvaged parts off a modified airplane in the junk-yard, install them, and then claim in the mx records/logbook that the airplane was modified according to an “STC”.
It doesn’t mean the airplane isn’t a good flying machine… it means it is not technically “legal” unless a different “basis of approval” is used. (for example, a Form 337 submitted and Block 3 signed by FAA, or other. …. or support by a “designee” DAR/DER is obtained.)

Another example: One of the issues that can occur is an STC issued to an airplane by Regisgtration Number. (N-number). Registration Numbers may change from time to time. If an STC is issued to N4262 …. and that airframe subsequently is re-registered as N146YS…. the STC validity is questionable.
(The airworthiness of the airframe is not…but the technicalities/legalities are in question. Why? One example might be if the registration number happens to apply to another airframe of the exact same make/model. The second airframe is either flying withOUT the modification assigned to it…OR…it is flying with an inapplicable Type Certificate.
If N4262 is later issued to a different airframe…..(in this case, these numbers apply to my own airframe)….. what if the STC was issued to N4262 when it was a Cessna 170-B….and now N4262 is a Piper Archer…?? Shall this make the Piper legal to operate with an O-300 engine…??
(Answer: of course not….but not because the STC assignment was incorrect. It would be illegal because the STC installation and Instructions for Cont’d Airworthiness were not followed.).
The STC and the Mx records of the airframe should be issued/assigned by Serial Number…. which never changes. (My B.A.S. tailpull handles and paperwork was issued to C170-B, N4262, Serial 25713. When my airplane was restored/re-registered to N146YS, although the STC still applied by SN…I contacted B.A.S. and they offered to re-issue the paperwork…for $11…. which I thanked them and declined since the Serial Number was still correct. B.A.S. then mailed corrected STC paperwork to me anyway. Why would that do that..?? Because it cleans up THEIR records.)

It would be “more legal” to transfer ALL the parts from the “new” airframe to your “old” airframe…which incorporates the STC you wish to retain….than it would be to remove the STC from the old airplane and install it on the new one without Williams authorization. (Beware: This is often viewed as a “data-plate exchange” …and in most “data-plate exchange operations” is a completely different illegal activity. Each and every other previous logged repair is no longer applicable to the “new” airframe and that makes the mx records fraudulent.)

That’s my response to your question. (and BTW, the comment offered previously that … “installation of an STC, in this case a major alteration, can be initiated by an AI and the 337 submitted to a FSDO for approval…”. is a risky venture and for several reasons:
1- Yes an AI can make an installation and then apply for approval…. but that is getting the cart before the horse. FSDO should be consulted prior to any work being performed.
2 - an STC, ANY STC, is a major alteration. There are no STCs which are “minor” alterations.
3- It’s my understanding an AI can not “approve” a major alteration…. he can only confirm it was made using “approved data”. In this case, the problem is that the “approved data” does not apply to the actual airframe being considered….it applies to a different airframe (your old one.)

[c170b53]

Correct me if I’m wrong Bill but I think early STC’s did not specify their usage to s/n’s but that practice came i to use when there was a proliferation of bogus parts or undocumented parts and cloning or coping STC’s by just using covering STC letters. The FAA paperwork process ( like everything else) evolved into providing more oversight control and the requirement for the addition of ICA’s to support the STC. I somewhat agree with Bill if we are talking about vintage STC’s.

[GAHorn]

Check this link:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/d ... tc_install

( If Williams does not answer your email, you may have to send a registered letter of request to them with “receipt signature” required. An “email” likely does not suffice….I.E. how do you know the email actually arrived in their INBox and that they read it?)

Jim, It’s my belief that STCs were commonly issued to registration numbers in the past…back when registration numbers rarely changed. In any case, the registration number was/is/should-have-been recorded historically in the aircraft mx records (logbooks) which support the airframe identification process.
When airplanes in private usage more-commonly changed owners, were re-painted, etc. is when the recordation became problematical and Serial Numbers became the preferred method. (I doubt even Cessna thought a 1950s C-170 would still be flying 70-years later…and if-so…that it would still be operating under its’ original Type Certificate.)
An example (again) is my aircraft… it rec’d the tailpull handle STC when it was N4262 (1972) …and the logs show the new paint job and registration-number change in 1997…. so the fact the STC paperwork shows issuance to N4262 in 1970’s easily demonstrates it’s the same airframe. However, to clean-up the record it is helpful to contact B.A.S. and get new paperwork showing that in 1970s it was issued to SN 25713… and no one has to “dig” or question the legitimacy.

The FAA website link I provided above should clarify this threads’ question.

[voorheesh]

George’s comments and recommendations are correct and should be a good guide to decisions in this case. However, the fact remains that this owner has already acquired the STC, properly, and now has a need to transfer it, which I think everyone would agree is also reasonable. The obstacle is the unavailability of the STC holder who’s permission is required for the transfer. Make sure you follow every available avenue in your attempts to contact him. Try the FAA Aircraft Certification Office responsible for the STC in case they know how to get ahold of him.

Significantly, there are no engineering related issues concerning the transfer. The only consideration would be the STC holder’s rights to assignment of his intellectual property. If the STC holder has made himself completely unavailable, if he is non responsive to good faith communication from the owners of his product, that fact may nullify his right to grant permission regarding that product’s future use. To verify this abandonment, a significant amount of time and effort to contact would have to be demonstrated. I think at least one month of effort would be needed. Make sure he is not on vacation or on a project, etc.

The FAA must follow all the data, instructions, guidance, etc when considering approval of STCs submitted to the agency on 337s. In this case the actual modification is not in question. It applies equally to both airplanes. So, what constitutes evidence of permission by the STC holder? A new STC document with the new airplane S/N identified? Is there a standard? Do FSDOs have any discretion in verifying this permission? Are there any formal procedures to transfer an STC? You need to find out.

I don’t think the guidance specifies the method of documentation of a transfer. I am just asking (maybe suggesting) that abandonment of interest as evidenced by lack of any response and apparent disappearance, may be considered de facto permission.

It’s worth a try. You would need thorough documentation of your efforts to contact the holder. It would really help if you could claim that the damaged airplane is not repairable (economic reasons or other), because that shows your options are limited and supports the need for a transfer. Certainly you need to run this by a FSDO before you decide and I recommend you approach the FAA through a repair station or technician (one who has agreed to perform the work) known to that office in order for your request to be given proper consideration. Incidentally, the technician or facility management you choose must also buy in to your proposal ie.find it proper and justified, which might also help persuade the FSDO personnel.

Again, George is thoroughly knowledgeable on this subject and I have no argument with his advice. However, it is no crime to ask and this is an unusual situation. Good luck.

[c170b53]

I’m also just suggesting that there’s been an evolution in the regulations over the lifetime of our aircraft. If we are talking about what is required today, to apply a current STC, that’s easy but Its difficult to follow the changes in regulations over the lifetime of our aircraft I bet even for Bill. I think that also applies to other areas for vintage aircraft such as maintenance. Have we ever figured out why we have oval attachment holes in some stabs ? We have a good idea but finding documentation supporting our theory’s has been a bit elusive I believe. Not that I think I’m old (but I guess I am) As a x technical instructor I followed the evolution in commercial maintenance regulations (which really are the drivers of todays maintenance practices) just so I could understand why we do what we do in maintenance. What we did (MX) in the past was laughable compared to what we do today.. But I also question the application of todays rules to vintage aircraft where in many cases todays reasoning or practices were not the practices of old. Clearly best practices are desired. The on condition inspection requirements needs to be followed yet most of us change out the tail springs after a number of hours is an example of a better adopted mx practice. The FAA has also had a desire to improve the safety in vintage aircraft with the practice of loosening the regulations on equipment installations deemed to improve safety. So clearly things change. Having documentation of an old STC, verifying that the parts are original, verifying the parts are serviceable and in some cases rebuilt to confirm serviceability ( ie an engine mount in this question) and documenting the process seems to cover all the safety aspects in installing a proven design. Having permission from an entity that is no longer in the game serves no purpose especially when there likely was never any ICA’s needing revision. Imposing usage of the STC only to one s/n or Reg. I’ll suggest was not a limitation in the day but rather evolved over time. None of this helps the original poster especially when such vintage dilemma’s are so far away from the FAA’s peripheral vision. Too bad.

[voorheesh]

Another question occurs to me. Does the FAA require that the holder of an STC remain in some contact in case issues arise? Originally, this STC may not have required Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, but is it possible, an AD or SAFO might come up during its lifetime? Do those fall back on Cessna? I doubt that. What responsibility does the STC holder have in addressing these issues? Some might just say it’s just a pretty standard engine mounted on a pretty standard airplane, but it makes you wonder why this guy makes himself so scarce. Seems to me he has some ongoing responsibility including being available when his customers need support.

[GAHorn]

There are numerous cases in which STC holders have disappeared with the result the STC is no longer supported …and therefore no longer available for new installations. Typically someone else comes along and develops their near-identical process and receives FAA authorization/approval of a “new” STC with a different number, of course.

Basically…when an STC holder dies or disappears…the STC is an orphan. If the same modification is intended for an aircraft…a completely different basis of approval is required. (IE: Acceptable/Approved data developed separately and submitted.)

The exception which could apply is if the STC holder declares it to be “public domain” and submits that declaration to the applicable FSDO to be included in the STC. An example of that would be the early EAA STC for mogas.

Jim, to transfer an STC from one aircraft to another (without STC-holder approval) I believe might be acceptable to a FSDO provided the donor aircraft is taken off the register/destroyed. This would involve submitting the dataplate and Airworthiness Cert to OKC.

[n2582d]

... Originally, this STC may not have required Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, but is it possible, an AD or SAFO might come up during its lifetime? Do those fall back on Cessna? I doubt that. ...

You've got that right! SNL06-6 looks like it comes straight from Textron's legal department. Even aftermarket PMA'ed parts that do not require an STC are considered a modification and thus will not be supported by Cessna.

[ghostflyer]

I am agreeing with what every body has stated here but i am suggesting do some research your self . go to the FAA and explain the situation and then get their answer in writing . I would also consult a aviation lawyer to get the facts on the legality of the exchange of parts or STC,s between aircraft . I have seen and had a copy of Bush’s conversion and it didn’t state any serial number of a aircraft in the paper work and neither did Harry’s STC. I wrote it in my STC myself my serial number at the request of my insurance broker. I have numerous EI. instrument STC,s ,there are no serial numbers or aircraft rego on the STC,s.
What surprised me that at Oshkosh one year ,i sat down with 4 FAA guys in their “hangar” and asked a number of questions at them which included the issue of STC,s. One issue that was supported by 3 of the FAA guys that “dead” or non supported STC ,s should be or allowed to be supported by a recognised PMA facility. One guy even suggested that a non supported STC on a aircraft should be removed from that aircraft . He gave the example of a cracked engine mount under a STC. Ok a AD can be raised for the issue but the manufacturer of the STC who isn’t around anymore can not raise with STC holders repair or alterations for the STC.
The funny part of having many STC,s on my aircraft and having had a number of ramp checks and conformity checks by our aviation authority is that NO one has asked about my many STC,s on my aircraft. It’s been “where,s Your maps ? ,where,s your fuel log? Weight and balance ? . Sorry it’s all electronic ,here,s my IPAD. One inspector called me a “Techo Freak” and stormed off . I think the ipad was a bit beyond him. GEE i love avaition.

[ghostflyer]

I was surprised that Bush STC [engine conversion] was nearly exactly the same as Harry’s STC. The drawings ,the wording of both assembly instructions etc. The parts list etc . I am not suggesting anything but found it interesting. The FAA isn’t interested in the costs or purchase /transport issues. They are only interested in airworthiness of the STC and the correct paper work.

[c170b53]

I was surprised that Bush STC [engine conversion] was nearly exactly the same as Harry’s STC

Those who had the chance to talk to Harry often got more info than they were prepared for. It was always a delight to talk to him. As I understand it (from Harry) he was the mill for the Bush operation, the Williams were the front office. Harry left, moved to California and started Delair.
All of these conversions are very similar so a conversion from Bush to Delair might be the solution, the big ticket items likely can be used albeit the “kit” still will come in around 15k.