The International Cessna 170 Association

I was looking at the 170 TCDS thinking about batteries. Item 302 under electrical equipment calls out "Battery - 12 volt 24 amp. hr." Seems to me that would include the Concorde batteries. To my simple mind that would mean you don't need the STC. Did I get that one right?

The RG25 and certain other models are FAA-PMA replacements for the original battery. Unfortunately there is great difference of opinion amongst various FAA Inspectors/FSDO's as to whether that is sufficient to allow the direct replacement without the STC paperwork.

The solution is very simple: CYA

The STC is available "free" for the asking. Click on the following link, fill in the information. BE CERTAIN TO PROVIDE YOUR AIRCRAFT MODEL (170, 170A, OR 170B) AND SERIAL NUMBER !

They will kindly email to you the STC specifically assigned to your serial number. Include reference to that paperwork in your aircraft records when you install the battery.

Ta-Daaaa!

Here's the link for the request:
http://www.concordebattery.com/contact.php

Here's a link for specific information about their products versus your aircraft models:
http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/finalfaapma.pdf

CYA? With the Feds? Who woulda thunk.......

FYI The Condorde sealed batteries receiving FAA-PMA is a recent development in the last few years. They were not always PMA'd. And that is why there was an STC for prior to them receiving the PMA. Confuses a lot of folks and many of them work for a government agency I guess.

According to Concorde ("Shelly") their PMA approval was predicated upon their STC, therefore some inspectors require the STC.

I've been through this same ordeal on the Concorde battery, and other similar alterations. The FSDO opinions vary according to past opinions within their own office and they don't want to contradict themselves.
The Concorde battery installation does not meet the definition of a major alteration, and therefore should have never been granted an STC, as is the case with many other minor alterations.
But, George is right. CYA. You never know what a future IA's opinion will be during annual, nor what an FAA ramp check opinion may be. An STC, especially if free, and a 337 form are cheap insurance to protect yourself from others ignorance, and subsequent inconvenience of having to come up with the documentation at a later date.

wingnut wrote: The Concorde battery installation does not meet the definition of a major alteration, and therefore should have never been granted an STC, as is the case with many other minor alterations.

This is just one of many examples of over zealous FSDOs that have created the paperwork mess and hassle of maintaining a certified aircraft. I guess this is why more and more people are going the homebuilt route.

The battery may not meet the def: of a major alteration, but it also does not meet the def: of an approved part.... until the PMA was issued (which was based upon the STC.) Issuance of a PMA based upon an STC seems improper, in my opinion. Therefore if a PMA is improper, then an STC or field approval is the only recourse for the owner.

CYA

gahorn wrote:CYA

Or in my view don't buy a Concord......I have never had one last as long as a Gill....Brad