Leading edge landing light

[jrenwick]

George the government is not concerned with estates, heirs or even living owners who do not reregister their aircraft, and the government will then take the aircraft registration. Why should STCs be different. Reregister your STC in order to establish ownership. Those with no active ownership, that are not being supported the government should release information for continued airworthiness of aircraft.

I'm not saying the government should give away an STC, in other words assign another owner. But at some point with no owner stepping forward STCs should fall into the public domain.

This is an interesting idea, but registration of an aircraft and ownership of an STC are not the same thing at all. Registration does not confer ownership of an aircraft; rather it is a condition of airworthiness (read your airworthiness certificate). Ownership of an STC is something completely out of the FAA's hands after it's initially granted, and the FAA probably can't register and certify an STC's ownership (as counties do for real property) any more than it can track and certify ownership of an aircraft.

[GAHorn]

George the government is not concerned with estates, heirs or even living owners who do not reregister their aircraft, and the government will then take the aircraft registration. Why should STCs be different. Reregister your STC in order to establish ownership. Those with no active ownership, that are not being supported the government should release information for continued airworthiness of aircraft.

I'm not saying the government should give away an STC, in other words assign another owner. But at some point with no owner stepping forward STCs should fall into the public domain.

That's Apples vs Oranges.

An STC is Intellectual Property. Revoking the registration number of an airplane does NOT confiscate the PROPERTY (airplane)...it only renders the registration (opertion) invalid.

The suggestion to treat STCs similar to registrations would only INVALIDATE the approval basis of ALL AIRCRAFT SO MODIFIED.

The only way gov't can confiscate intellectual property is subsequent to court judgement against the owner due to criminal activity.

[GAHorn]

!. Install the landing light in the leading edge.
2. Beg or borrow a copy of the STC and make a very bad, hard to read, copy.
3. ditto the 337
4. stuff them in with the other paperwork.
5. It all came that way with the airplane when you got it.

Won't be the first time THAT has been done...

AND...THAT is how unknowing PRESENT owners find themselves in possession of ILLEGAL airplanes when their competent inspector performs the annual inspection, because in the past some sorry CHEAT did that. This is equivalent to Land-Title Fraud. It cheats the future owner of the value HE PAID for.

This particular scenario also steals the signature of an honorable person who once-performed honorable work on a different airplane. The scenario portrays a very dishonorable activity.

If one takes it upon oneself to make log-book entries, OF ANY NATURE....then have the decency to sign your OWN NAME to it.

[GAHorn]

Hi folks,
I understand that I must get hold of the people that was issued the stc and buy the rights from them. In the case of the landing light in the leading edge it seems that the certificate was issued to Skycraft Corp of Medford, MA. Cant seem to find them on the internet. There was one number listed in a different state but had been disconnected. Anyone know how to proceed in trying to get the stc ?

The FAA has been very lax in requirements of STC holders to keep FAA advised of contact info changes. If FAA OKC doesn't have valid contact info for you...you will likely be "up the creek" with regard to that particular STC.
This can be maddening, but little can be done at present if you are unable to locate the STC holder, except to develop your own basis of approval thru your FSDO (field approval).
If you can gain the approval of your local FSDO-inspector, you might modify your airplane similar to the STC'd version. One advantage to that method is that no reliance upon unobtainable data will exist in the future.

[jrenwick]

It's not just STC holders that the FAA is bad at keeping track of, apparently. The TCDS for my J3 with a C90-8F engine installed says this: "Carburetor heat system must be modified to provide required heat rise. Approved modification made by M. Mullis, York, South Carolina."

Nobody knows who M. Mullis is, or what the modification is. The FAA has no data on it! Basically, if you install a C90, it's field-approval time, even though this is an approved installation according to the type certificate.

[n2582d]

Hi folks,
I understand that I must get hold of the people that was issued the stc and buy the rights from them. In the case of the landing light in the leading edge it seems that the certificate was issued to Skycraft Corp of Medford, MA. Cant seem to find them on the internet. There was one number listed in a different state but had been disconnected. Anyone know how to proceed in trying to get the stc ?

Skycraft had STC's for various aircraft. It appears he was big on replacing fabric surfaces with metal. On some STC's the same address is listed as being in Pennsylvania, others have it in Massachusetts. I called the number I found for Skycraft Corp and talked with the daughter of the fellow who had the STC. She said her father died about five years ago. Several of Skycraft's STCs, like the C-170 one, have the revised date of the STC in 2007 which would have been after the death of the owner. According to her the STC is now held by John Nickels of Woodstock Aircraft. I'll let someone else follow the trail from here. See also this discussion.

[dpowell]

Anybody got a stc & 337 for this light mod that would be interested in sending a copy to me for "inspection and research purposes"?? If so here is my e-mail. powelld@west-tenn.com thanks

[dpowell]

Also, thanks for the help. I will attempt contact with the new owner of the stc. If not available, then maybe I can go the field approval route. Thanks again

[minton]

!. Install the landing light in the leading edge.
2. Beg or borrow a copy of the STC and make a very bad, hard to read, copy.
3. ditto the 337
4. stuff them in with the other paperwork.
5. It all came that way with the airplane when you got it.

Won't be the first time THAT has been done...

AND...THAT is how unknowing PRESENT owners find themselves in possession of ILLEGAL airplanes when their competent inspector performs the annual inspection, because in the past some sorry CHEAT did that. This is equivalent to Land-Title Fraud. It cheats the future owner of the value HE PAID for.

This particular scenario also steals the signature of an honorable person who once-performed honorable work on a different airplane. The scenario portrays a very dishonorable activity.

If one takes it upon oneself to make log-book entries, OF ANY NATURE....then have the decency to sign your OWN NAME to it.

BL comes through again!! I love it

[blueldr]

Holey Moley you guys. We're not foolin' around with air carrier airplanes here. These C-170s are antiques! The only kind of an AI that would down an old C-170 ragwing, because someone had put landing lights from a later model in the wing, is not the guy to work on this kind of airplane. Castration by dull spoon and consumption from a dirty plate comes to mind.

[GAHorn]

bluEldr... I know you don't mean it like you just said...but the seriousness of this owners' paperwork problem is not YOUR problem..it's HIS....and he is looking for a serious solution, and that's why he's come here to ask his question. He clearly wants to do the right thing about this, and ridicule is not a solution.

Since when do airworthiness and proper maintenance record-keeping only apply to air carriers? Since when does the age of an airplane negate the applicable FARs?

If you are at a point where, for whatever reason, you think only experimental category airplanes are suitable for yourself...then go for it. But despite their age Cessna 170s are still certificated designs and are subject to the pertinent rules.

Now...I hope everyone knows I have a sincere fondness for BL and I certainly hope no one is under the misimpression I am/was inferring anything personal about his suggestions as to how one might "graft" paperwork from another airplane onto the logs of ones' own.

What I am saying is.... that more and more these days we are finding airplanes with improper and illegal paperwork because, in the past, someone has failed to properly document repairs and modifications. Next, along comes some innocent who ends up buying that airplane, sometimes after a "friend" has performed a "prebuy" and a year or so later when a seriously dedicated and competent inspector finds the airplane unairworthy due to improper modifications and/or records....our new friend comes to us looking for suggestions as to how to get his beloved 170 legally airworthy again.

Our new friend typically is the one who is suffering the consequences of some previous owners' ignorance or deliberate deception....and that is just wrong.

BL's simplistic solution was doubtless offered as a "off the cuff" response due to his perception of the landing light mod as being just plain silly (as the problem pertains to airworthiness)..and most of us would probably agree that landing lights are not among the most critical systems necessary to keep an airplane safely airborne. Unfortunately, that's not the new owners's problem. It's not even that the STC is no longer easily obtainable. It's the fact that without that paperwork an insensible/inordinate amount of money or work is going to be required to get the annual inspector (who happens to be doing his job correctly) to sign off on that airplane, and the insurance co. and the aviation authority is not going to allow it either. The new owner has been screwed by someone else, ....and a suggestion to plagiarize someone else's paperwork is just as lacking in integrity and legitimacy as the cause of the existing problem.
BL's is not a serious, valid solution....it's only a method to add oneself to the list of names who are culpable in the dishonesty, and is more of the same dishonesty problem.

Now comes another participant to the conversation....one who has held himself out as a duly authorized and certified aircraft mechanic...one who has in times-past taken serious issue with suggestions in these forums which attempt to assist owners in solving aircraft maintenance issues.... one who has criticized those who would provide owners with repair informations claiming that to provide an owner with such information is a horrible attempt to deny "professionals" such as himself an opportunity to make a living by making repairs that he should be hired to perform.... NOW COMES HE to applaud a patently illegal and nefarious activity of stolen/plagiarized MX records?

PULLL-EEZE... Let's keep these Hangar discussions on the honorable side, and do our best to provide serious questions of earnest owners legitimate methods to address the issues they seek to resolve. If one does not have a legal and moral solution/suggestion to questions of aircraft maintenance asked in these forums... if ones' comment is not clearly one couched in humor so as to not be mistaken for seriousness,... then please keep them to yourself or take them to a private communique.
The reason for the Hangar Forums are to share serious solutions to mx problems of these airplanes, not to complicate matters with questionable and clearly illegal suggestions.

[jrenwick]

George is absolutely right. If you've ever bought an airplane and later had an inspector tell you something on it was unauthorized or lacked documentation, you may know how disappointing and expensive this can be -- and many times really unforgivable if the proper authority could easily have been documented way back when the work was done. Clear and correct logbooks are and aircraft owner's best friend.

[dpowell]

Success!! Contacted the stc owner(Mr Nickels of Woodstock acft). Now have a legal authorization for a landing light!! Thanks all

[n2582d]

Posted here in error.

[hilltop170]

Out of the seven planes I have purchased for my own use, EVERY ONE had either missing, incorrect, or incomplete paperwork and logbooks! Some vastly worse than others but EVERY problem got corrected with various levels of anxiety, effort, money, and time. The FAA helped in each case and went out of their way to assist in making the planes airworthy once they realized I wanted to make them legal as well.

The worst was a PA-18-105 Special Super Cub that I bought a 1/3 share with two neighbors who had the plane for 20 years and had it annualled by the same IA until I bought in. I was told the paperwork was in good shape and I said I would like to take a look. The IA quit and we never saw him again. The Cub had 32 items that each one caused the plane to be unairworthy. The 150hp engine and airframe data plate were illegal as were the wings, flaps, prop, tires, wheels/brakes, elevators, rudder, etc, etc, etc.

In the end, the effort spent was well worth it on each plane, well maybe not on the Cub, but at least when we sold it, it WAS lagal.

p.s. BL- I'm posting this while eating lunch in Grants Pass.