Hi Ed,
If you look up Dave's post of Feb. 4th, and Paul's response of that
same date, Paul related his inability to get cooperation from "his"
supervising FAA region such as you (and presumably your A&P or IA) got
routinely approved elsewhere. You should be well aware that the same
things has been a problem with regard to getting split elevator
installations approved in certain FAA Regions.
There is no question that "minor modifications" can be accomplished
with only the appropriate log book entry. There appears to be more
than a little difference of opinions as to how far the discretion of an
A&P or IA goes when they INTERPRET what is a "minor modification". The
FAA would prefer to be the sole arbiter of this question, but that is
not, as I read them, anywhere specifically so stated in applicable
regulations.
There is some excellent guidance here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/harness_kits/media/
shoulderpolicy.pdf
Policy Statement Number ACE-00-23.561-01 dated September 19, 2000, is a
rather rare "FAA general statement of policy applicable to modifying
small airplanes". That said, the FAA talks out of the other side of
their mouth. It doesn't really intend to clarify or simply such policy
by admitting in describing "...the general effect of this policy..."
that "...we do not intend that this policy set up a binding norm...".
Why not? Well, if FAA logic were predictable in the review and
approval of 337s and STCs, whether right or wrong, it would restrict
arbitrary, inequitable and inappropriate disapprovals or refusals to
act by their representatives. They might actually have to deal with
"applicants" in good faith! The FAA did actually admit that
"Applicants should expect the certificating officials would consider
this information when making findings of compliance...As with all
advisory material, this statement of policy identifies one way, but not
the only way, of compliance."
This document specifically addresses the approval of a retrofit
shoulder harness installation by means of STC, Field Approval, or as a
minor change. It acknowledges that "Shoulder harness installations may
receive approval as a minor change [when] the FAA certificated mechanic
who installs the shoulder harness records it as a minor change by
making an entry in the maintenance log of the airplane."
It admits that "The FAA does not encourage the approval...as minor
changes." That is because the FAA is not involved whatsoever in such
approval. They even go so far as to say that "...the FAA should not
forbid [such approval] as a minor change in...the front seats of those
small airplanes manufactured before July 19, 1978...". It suggests
that such an installation "may receive [such] approval if "[T]he
certification basis of the airplane is 14 CFR part 23 before Amendment
23-20, part 3 of the CARs, or a predecessor regulation" [and] no holes
are drilled or welding is required, but there is no regulatory basis
for such restriction referenced and therefore the FAA would not
properly be involved in such determination unless the certificated
mechanic were to solicit such (which would be really dumb).
They acknowledge that "Installations approved as a minor change may not
provide the occupant with the protection required by [later
regulations] However, a pproperly installed...installation is a safety
improvement over [the mere seat belt actually required]."
"Commenters praised the proposed policy for promoting safety,
especially on older airplanes." Well, duh? I would instead expect
such to be an ongoing mandate of the FAA. You "praise" those that go
above and beyond the call of duty. Not those that do the absolute
minimum, which seems to be the "standard" expected of FAA personnel. I
agree fully with the commenter that said "This is indicative of a long
overdue recognition that better is the enemy of the good, and people
need to make these reasonable improvements even if they cannot be of
the standard of current regulations for new aircraft."
The FAA responded that "We agree that removing many of the barriers
associated with the installation...will allow owners of certain small
aircraft to increase the safety of their aircraft. We also agree that
we should allow minor change installations that use non-TSO-C114
harnesses." "Installation of shoulder harnesses may be accomplished
without FAA approval if the installation is a minor change to the
airplane design". "For aircraft certificated before the effective date
of Amendment 23-20...the installation...is not essential to the
operation of the airplane." A shoulder harness installed as a minor
change does not have to provide the level of...head impact injury
criteria and harness strength requirements, including fitting
factors...required by 14 CFR § 23.561.
"Before Amendment 23-20 (which became effective September 1, 1977),
§23.1301 contained essentially the same requirement as CAR 3.652.
Amendment 23-20 deleted the words "essential to safe operation" and
made the provisions of §23.1301 applicable to "each item of installed
equipment. Regarding these rules we conclude that if a shoulder
harness is not required equipment, it is not essential to the safe
operation of the airplane. Therefore, CAR 3.652 and § 23.1301, before
Amendment 23-20, should not be used as a basis to
prohibit...installation by minor change. The mechanic making such
installations should consult AC 43.13-2A...for details of
installation."
The FAA acknowledged that "During 1998, the Small Airplane Directorate
took part in the Aviation Safety Program..." and that "this program
supports the occupant survivability element of the Administrator's
Safety Agenda for general aviation. The FAA has a goal of
significantly reducing the number of fatal accidents over a ten year
period."
I would suggest that EVERY element of the "Administrator's Safety
Agenda for general aviation" should receive ongoing support and be
updated as appropriate to such goals. I would argue that more
efficient electronic ignition systems retrofitted to older
magneto-sparked engines would improve engine life and efficiency...less
valve sticking from use of 100LL and more miles per gallon burned would
obviously reduce forced landings and save both lives and property.
Better and more modern instrumentation, such as EGTs and CHTs, OSA
gauges, electronic navaids and gyros, GPS units, quartz clocks, cockpit
lighting, external strobes and pulsing halogen landing lights are all
examples of items that would improve the safety of every plane in the
air were older aircraft were encouraged to install the less expensive
non-PMA/TSO units that homebuilt aircraft of new construction may
install.
I would even argue that the reliable operation of such products in
homebuilts, even though not "produced for use in certificated
aircraft", for, say 100 hours without adverse effect on the aircraft in
which they are installed or on other aircraft operating within normal
range in normal operations near such aircraft should be considered
"acceptable data" that the safety conveyed by such products is of
greater importance and effect than the arbitrary imposition of FAA
PMA/TSO requirements on airframes clearly certificated prior to the
existence of such requirements.
I.E. is it more safe to have more aircraft operating with working
radios or to have significantly fewer radio-equipped aircraft hauling
FAA/PMA approved units? In every instance I want everyone in the
pattern "on the air" (given the choice), and if a permanently-attached
external antenna gives radios on board more range or if a cigar plug
gives longer and more reliable power, then would not "normal" permanent
installations that would tend to last longer and be more reliable offer
a higher comparative level of aviation safety than the tangle of
"uninstalled" wires present in cockpits today under current
(mal)practice?
Regards,
William R. Bayne
.____|-(o)-|____.
(Copyright 2010)
--
On Feb 10, 2010, at 18:07, Ed Burkhead wrote:
All,
I'm a bit puzzled by some of the fuss over TSO versus non-TSO
instruments.
When I wanted to install a non-TSO non-STC EGT gauge (K&S), we figured
out
the installation (simple, of course), filled out the form 337, got it
signed
off by the FAA and all was happy.
Bill Bayne went into detail about how such installations improve
safety.
Are people getting such improvements rejected?
Or, is the fuss over whether they can be added with just a log book
entry
with no form 337 being submitted?
Ed
