No disparaging remarks were made, and I haven't criticized Mel or his mod. I only offered an explanation as to the FAA's previous view towards field approvals, and an explanation for their change of view.hilltop170 wrote: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.
Use of the term "Remove" implies the aircraft was returned to original status. In the example you used, Richard, the mod was not removed. It was maintained.
Yes, indeed, only Mel was deemed to have the necessary (astute) knowlege, skill, and understanding of his mod (sans additional documentation) to be authorized to perform the alteration. By definition that's why Mel is the only person so authorized on that particular multiple approval.