L-19 Push-Pull tubes in a 170

[twperrenoud]

Hello, i was wondering if anyone has installed push pull tubes from an L-19 (which were standard equipment) onto a 170. Hopefully someone has gotten a field approval for this and will let me copy the paperwork to submit to my fsdo. Any info will help! Thanks

[lowNslow]

What exactly do these "push pull" tubes do? Are you talking about something like this which has an STC ?
http://basinc-aeromod.com/tail_pull_handles.php

[twperrenoud]

Yes just like that from BAS. Only i have one from an L-19 that is a cessna part number and would like it on a 170.

[GAHorn]

BAS has the STC which allows that installation. (That's how they came up with the idea.) You can buy the paperwork without the parts if you already have the L19 parts. Otherwise you might visit your local FAA/FSDO for a field approval.

[blueldr]

Did you buy this airplane when new? Not very likely.
If it was mine, I'd install the damn thing and if anyone asked me about it I'd just tell them it was always in the airplane since you had it, and you have no idea when it was installed. Truth be known, I'll bet that there are a bunch of like installations. I know of quite a good many of these tail pull gadgets that were home made and have been used for years.

[flyboy122]

Did you buy this airplane when new? Not very likely.
If it was mine, I'd install the damn thing and if anyone asked me about it I'd just tell them it was always in the airplane since you had it, and you have no idea when it was installed. Truth be known, I'll bet that there are a bunch of like installations. I know of quite a good many of these tail pull gadgets that were home made and have been used for years.

Well, technically if a mod is on an airplane and there is no paperwork for it, the current owner would be responsible for dispositioning it (either remove it, or get an approval). This is part of the buyer beware....if an airplane is missing 337's for mods you should assume you will be on the hook for those.

However, in this case could one make an argument that this is a "minor change", thus only requiring a logbook entry? It's only used on the ground, and doesn't effect the aircraft in operation. However it does mess with the structure....

DEM

[GAHorn]

Is there a legitimate reason to avoid purchasing the proper approval paperwork or taking another legitimate path to approval... other than the fairly reasonable cost of doing so?
Then why would you deliberately do what is illegal and unsupportable?
Would you forge a car title? or a gun purchase? or an insurance policy?
Will it be possible one day in-court for you to ask yourself "What was I thinking!"...?

(Not to mention your own knowledge of yourself being dishonest.....)

[edbooth]

Damn, I'm going to have to go with George on this. If you are going to carry insurance on your plane, ya better have your paperwork in order. Personal opinion, but I think if you have an incident they will look for any excuse not to pay no matter how far fetched they have to go. Any good IA will not let these things slip by during your annual inspections. If they do , they are not doing you or themselves any favors. It is usually not that more expensive to do it right. You are responsible for what is installed on your plane and the approval paperwork whether it was last week or twenty years ago. If you don't like these rules, go experimental.

[GAHorn]

Another consideration is the lost-value when you sell it.
When you buy an airplane.... don't you argue with the seller whenever you find he's been modifying without complete paperwork?

If you don't do it right your savings is only temporary, your liability is real, and your protection is "paper-thin".