DOES YOUR SCOTT 3200 "STEER" W RUDDER PEDALS

[GAHorn]

Modifications are approved by regional offices for use on aircraft registered, operated, and/or modified while in the jurisdictional area of the regional office.
I agree completely, that a FAA legal ruling in Alaska should also be legal in the lower 48. Unfortunately, Alaska has some exemptions to rules with which the rest of us must comply. Life is not always fair.

[voorheesh]

I believe that once the FAA has "approved" an alteration or repair that action is accepted everywhere in the US. The only case I am aware of where a 337 was reversed (after first being signed by an authorized inspector of DAR) was when the data provided to the FAA in the application turned out to be false. The basis for approval must be "data" acceptable to the FAA. The definition of "data" is where the waters get muddy, diferent FAA inspectors have diferent standards based on their experience and sometimes locations (such as AK). Data is typically derived from manufacturers, engineers, or standard practices acceptable to the FAA. Lately, the issuance of field approvals has been reigned in and I believe complex approvals are being done by aircraft certification offices rather than FSDOs. Incidentally, I have heard that a "field approval" for airplane A can be used as "data" for seeking the same approval for airplane B. Anyone have any experience with that?

[voorheesh]

Had a second thought. Like George says, there may be approvals done in AK that are limited to AK only but I've never seen one.

[MoonlightVFR]

Thank you for the many post in my desire to be more informed about the Scott tailwhel.

I need the Parts list in one hand and the comments in the other. I'm not quite there yet.

I felt rather humbled when two of you immediately [GAHORN and BSDUNEK ] revealed that OVER GREASING the assembly would cause it to NOT steer. I have been a tail dragger pilot/owner for 37 years and did not have a clue. In fact I distinctly remember one A/P bragging abou his new compressor being able to Blow Out old hardened grease.

I have missed a number of annual conventions; probably could have corrected years ago. The value of this web site is growing.

Is the Scott Tailwheel Company still in business ? What is their current address and phone number? Do they publish an Operations Manual? Do they publish a Repair Guide?

More questions - Has the Scott Tailwheel Company ever been invited as a guest speaker at THE INTERNATIONAL CESSNA 170 ASSOCIATION? If so I missed it.

Stop

[GAHorn]

The Scott tailwheel is now owned by TYCO, and although they still have a small customer-service office, they do not have a policy of ongoing R&D. They do not produce a manual.

The Army/Air Force Techical Manual for the L-19 aircraft has a reference to a maintenance manual (Technical Manual) supposed once printed by the GPO for the tailwheel, and I have tried for years to locate one without any success.

[blueldr]

I believe the guy up in Oregon that makes the big fat tundra tires now has replacement parts for the Scott tail wheels.

[buchanan]

Here is a link to the AK Bushwheel outfit in OR. They are GOOD folks to deal with.

http://www.akbushwheel.com/

Buck, Galena, AK

[blueldr]

When talking about a field approval on airplane A being used to get the same approval on airplane B, consider this:

I have copies of six (6) field approvals to install C-175 wings on a C-170B.
One of these field approvals is signed off by a FAA inspector who is still working in the same FSDO but he will not sign off on another.
I also have a copy of a letter from a Cessna engineer who states that the C-175 wings are essentially the same as the C-170B wings with the exception of the size of the fuel tanks.
The C-170B wings are the same as the early C-172 wings. The C-172 was also available with long range wings. The C-172 long range wings were the same as the C-175 wings. (40 gal. vs. 52 gal.)
I still can't get approval to use the C-175 wings on my C-170B.
And people wonder why the FAA is such a pain in the --- to try to do business with.

[voorheesh]

Try contacting the FAA aircraft certification office in Wichita, KS and ask them if they can approve the installation of diferent wings on single engine Cessnas. If they do not do this, ask them who in the FAA can take action on such requests. If they are responsible for such approvals, ask them what data you need to submit to support such a request. Be prepared to show them copies of any 337s where an FAA official has previously approved what you are requesting. If what you are saying about the similarity in wings is true, be prepared to demonstrate your position with facts. If you do not receive a satisfactory answer, you need to file a "customer service initiative" which is the FAA process to get a determination that goes up the chain of command and will result in a final answer in writing. You are entitled to fair treatment by the FAA which includes an unbiased evaluation of your request. It might well result in denial of your request but it should provide you with an explanation. Document each step and if you do not receive a satisfactory response, contact your congressman/woman. Unless you follow the above process, complaining about the FAA is wasting time.

[blueldr]

voorheesh,

I've been fooling with this wing thing long enough already. I'm eighty six years old now and there is no way in hell that I could complete the precedure you suggest within the years I hopefully have left.

I personally prefer to believe that the FAA, which was previously tasked with promoting aviation, is doing their very best to completely eliminate small general aviation in favor of the air carrier industry. Look at how long the fought the Light Sport catagory, and how they managed to emasculate it with the 1320 lb. gross wt. limit which eliminated the vast majority of small two place trainer type airplanes.

I'm so upset now that I'm going to go and have a cold one. I needed an excuse. Thanks.

[hilltop170]

Mel Wick at Wick Air in Palmer, Alaska, 907-745-4322, has a multiple 337 field approval for the tailwheel steering extension mod shown below. It is very effective in improving the tailwheel steering angle and responsiveness.

With the multiple 337 field approval, Mel can approve the 337 himself in block 7. without any requirement for block 3. sign-off by the feds.

You would have to check with Mel but I can't see why the mod could not be installed and signed off in block 6. by your local IA in any state.

Good news and bad news.

The bad news is I just called Mel and he confirmed he must install the extended tailwheel steering arm at his shop at Palmer, Alaska in order for his multiple field approval to be used.

The good news is if you want one of them, all you have to do is fly your plane up to Alaska and he can install one for you in about 30 minutes and it will be legal in the lower 48.

Isn't our FAA wonderful?

[voorheesh]

The requirement that only one installer can obtain approval for a mod doesn't make any sense. Is he saying that if you had to remove it in the future, you would have to go back to him? Is there something unique about it such as tooling or calibrated equipment that only he can do it?? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt this has anything to do with the FAA. Approval for modifying a certificated aircraft, engine, or appliance is about design and conformance with regs.
BlueDR, I apologize for making you feel bad. I am really glad you can still enjoy a cold one and hope you have many more. Your problem is that you fly airplanes that are type certificated and have to conform to complex and strict rules. That is why it is not easy to modify them. Manufacturers don't like mods too much because they might be exposed to liability. FAA and other authorities worldwide have extensive rules and protocols before they will give their blessing on what seems like a simple no brainer to guys like you. On the plus side, that is why we can enjoy 60 plus year old airplanes with the same level of reliability and safety as new ones. I'm sorry you havent got your wings approved but if you decide to pursue it and follow my advice you will find the process is painless. A customer service initiative consists of your writing one sentence to the FAA requesting a higher level review of something that has been rejected period. It continues up to Washington DC and can be appealed to a congressman if you believe the FAA treated you unfairly. If someone is really sure they are right, pursue it instead of feeling bad about it.

[hilltop170]

The requirement that only one installer can obtain approval for a mod doesn't make any sense. Is he saying that if you had to remove it in the future, you would have to go back to him? Is there something unique about it such as tooling or calibrated equipment that only he can do it?? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt this has anything to do with the FAA. Approval for modifying a certificated aircraft, engine, or appliance is about design and conformance with regs.

voorheesh-
The multiple field approval is similar to a one-time 337 field approval except that the FAA has determined it can be repeated more than once without further FAA scrutiny. It is official testimony of the trust the FAA has in a particular shop that the particular mod will be fabricated and installed as-approved.

The approval for this mod is given to Mel's repair station only, but it doesn't prohibit another shop from getting their own approval. You or I would have to submit our own 337 for approval if we wanted to duplicate the installation.

Once it is installed, it is legal on that aircraft from now on. It can be removed and re-installed by any A&P, it just has to be initially installed by the shop that has the approval. On the 337 it has a statement that states the mechanic who signed off the 337 has inspected the installation. If the 337 is sent to another shop for installation, Mel would have to actually inspect it himself at the other shop or would have to lie about inspecting the installation. He is not going to lie about it and it would be cost prohibitive to pay him to go to another state to inspect it himself.

Multiple 337 approvals are almost impossible to get these days but Mel has accumulated over 30 multiples for different mods over the years. He has had to defend them in the past from FAA attempts to dis-approve them and is fairly protective of them now. I don't blame him one bit and would do the same thing myself to protect my investment.

[GAHorn]

This is an example of the nightmarish situation which has developed regarding field approvals, and helps explain why FAA is tightening up the rules.

It is NOT simply to be obstinate or create difficulties for the aircraft owner. It is in order to assure that airworthy aircraft remain that way.

I do not believe it's possible for someone else to remove (returning the aircraft to original status) and and later re-install (essentially making a new installation of) Mel's modifications unless detailed instructions are provided. (That would require what is, in today's terms, ICA's.... Instructions for Continued Airworthiness...., which all modern field approvals and STC's must contain, something which Mel apparently did not provide.)
This does not imply that ordinary maintenance , not actual removal, cannot be performed.

If only Mel has been deemed sufficiently astute to install his own modification, then it's probably been determined that he was unable or unwilling to document the modification such that any other A&P/IA could duplicate it. (If he had documented it in such a manner, he would likely have been issued an STC... and he could have sold it as a kit (along with the necessary documentation and ICA) to others for installation elsewhere.

A "field approval" should be thought of as a "one time STC" in which the signing FAA inspector has taken upon himself all the responsibilities of issued a supplemental type certificate (along with the associated liabilities.) The cognizance of that responsibility, and the failure of modifiers to completely document the engineering basis of their modifications and the necessary steps to keep it airworthy (ICA's) has caused the FAA to re-exzmine the practice. It's a logical response they have developed, and it's probably the best response possible under the circumstances, despite the average anecdotal response of "stupid/meddling FAA".

[hilltop170]

George-
What are you trying to say? That multiples are not a good idea or shouldn't be approved? If a multiple field approval is approved by the FAA, it is approved. Period. This one is approved. Why the disparaging remarks?

Mel told me the number of possible aircraft this mod would conceivibly be installed on is so low going thru the expense of an STC would never pay out. The multiple was an economical way to do it. Otherwise we might not even be able to get one at all these days with the shut-down of one-time field approvals.

I think any method that can be employed to obtain valid modifications for us GA folks should be embraced.

The multiple approval that started this discussion DID have design and installation data. I have a copy in my logs.

It's not that Mel has been the only one deemed sufficiently astute to install this modification, it's just that he is the only one that DID IT! If this mod needs to be removed to make a repair to the rudder, for instance, it can be reinstalled without going thru any re-approval. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.