I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
after not quite a year of working the problem....the
Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
could be generated from the twists and turns....but
the basic facts are:

1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
has wing extensions.
2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
more cooperation there.

Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee that
has been approved for tow hook installation in the
last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
this time last year has produced this result.

The Greater Boston Soaring Club has done just the this year. And, yes,
it was hell. I'll send you the email address for a contact but I want
his OK first.

Tony V.

Contact Sam Fly at Texas Soaring Association. Sam has done several for the
TSA and will be glad to share his process and 337 information.
"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
> after not quite a year of working the problem....the
> Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
> for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
> could be generated from the twists and turns....but
> the basic facts are:
>
> 1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
> has wing extensions.
> 2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
> plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
> more cooperation there.
>
> Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee that
> has been approved for tow hook installation in the
> last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
> brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
> this time last year has produced this result.
>
>
>

you did not state "what" restricted category the Pawnee is certificated to??
if it is "restricted" to ag use or something other than glider towing then
you need to, if possible, change this before it can be "unrestricted" from
glider towing
tim
"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
>I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
> after not quite a year of working the problem....the
> Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
> for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
> could be generated from the twists and turns....but
> the basic facts are:
>
> 1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
> has wing extensions.
> 2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
> plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
> more cooperation there.
>
> Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee that
> has been approved for tow hook installation in the
> last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
> brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
> this time last year has produced this result.
>
>
>

Restricted to ag use...and cannot be converted back
to Normal due to the wing extensions....

or at this date that is the latest interpretation...no
ag restricted aircraft can get a 337 for a hook addition




At 14:42 14 October 2004, Tim Mara wrote:
>you did not state 'what' restricted category the Pawnee
>is certificated to??
>if it is 'restricted' to ag use or something other
>than glider towing then
>you need to, if possible, change this before it can
>be 'unrestricted' from
>glider towing
>tim
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>>I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
>> after not quite a year of working the problem....the
>> Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
>> for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
>> could be generated from the twists and turns....but
>> the basic facts are:
>>
>> 1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
>> has wing extensions.
>> 2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
>> plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
>> more cooperation there.
>>
>> Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee
>>that
>> has been approved for tow hook installation in the
>> last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
>> brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
>> this time last year has produced this result.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

messy.......
tim
"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> Restricted to ag use...and cannot be converted back
> to Normal due to the wing extensions....
>
> or at this date that is the latest interpretation...no
> ag restricted aircraft can get a 337 for a hook addition
>
>
>
>
> At 14:42 14 October 2004, Tim Mara wrote:
>>you did not state 'what' restricted category the Pawnee
>>is certificated to??
>>if it is 'restricted' to ag use or something other
>>than glider towing then
>>you need to, if possible, change this before it can
>>be 'unrestricted' from
>>glider towing
>>tim
>>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>>message ...
>>>I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
>>> after not quite a year of working the problem....the
>>> Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
>>> for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
>>> could be generated from the twists and turns....but
>>> the basic facts are:
>>>
>>> 1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
>>> has wing extensions.
>>> 2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
>>> plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
>>> more cooperation there.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee
>>>that
>>> has been approved for tow hook installation in the
>>> last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
>>> brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
>>> this time last year has produced this result.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Stew,

The Pawnee will have to meet its type design (no wing extensions,
Chevy mirrors, etc.) before the FAA can change its category. You might
be able to talk them into it if the extensions are STC'd because an
STC is considered part of the type design. If they are not STC'd, well
all I can say is good luck. Looking at the guidance, it doesn't appear
that a DAR can swap the category and give you a new ticket, but I may
be wrong. DAR's are easier because you pay and they play; the FSDO is
understaffed and have much bigger fish to fry, just ask 'em.

I'll keep reading the 8130.2E and ask some of my buddies here on the
Dark Side. You know where to find me.

Jim


Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> Restricted to ag use...and cannot be converted back
> to Normal due to the wing extensions....
>
> or at this date that is the latest interpretation...no
> ag restricted aircraft can get a 337 for a hook addition
>
>
>
>
> At 14:42 14 October 2004, Tim Mara wrote:
> >you did not state 'what' restricted category the Pawnee
> >is certificated to??
> >if it is 'restricted' to ag use or something other
> >than glider towing then
> >you need to, if possible, change this before it can
> >be 'unrestricted' from
> >glider towing
> >tim
> >'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
> >message ...
> >>I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
> >> after not quite a year of working the problem....the
> >> Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
> >> for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
> >> could be generated from the twists and turns....but
> >> the basic facts are:
> >>
> >> 1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
> >> has wing extensions.
> >> 2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
> >> plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
> >> more cooperation there.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee
> >>that
> >> has been approved for tow hook installation in the
> >> last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
> >> brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
> >> this time last year has produced this result.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >

It gets worse...

Where I fly we wanted to tow banners for advertising and had the Feds come
out to see demonstrated ability at banner towing. The Pawnee is registered
Restricted; glider towing, banner towing. The Feds said that didn't matter,
that the aircraft had to be normal category for glider and/or banner towing.
I can't remember at this moment the exact reason why. They said they would
not shut our tow operation down (for now) but would not approve banner
towing in a restricted category aircraft, regardless what the Airworthiness
Certificate said.

Where does that leave us???
-Bob Korves

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> messy.......
> tim
> "Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Restricted to ag use...and cannot be converted back
> > to Normal due to the wing extensions....
> >
> > or at this date that is the latest interpretation...no
> > ag restricted aircraft can get a 337 for a hook addition
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 14:42 14 October 2004, Tim Mara wrote:
> >>you did not state 'what' restricted category the Pawnee
> >>is certificated to??
> >>if it is 'restricted' to ag use or something other
> >>than glider towing then
> >>you need to, if possible, change this before it can
> >>be 'unrestricted' from
> >>glider towing
> >>tim
> >>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
> >>message ...
> >>>I have posted to the group before about this situation...but
> >>> after not quite a year of working the problem....the
> >>> Pawnee in question still does not have fed approval
> >>> for a tost hook. Needless to say a doctoral thesis
> >>> could be generated from the twists and turns....but
> >>> the basic facts are:
> >>>
> >>> 1.) The aircraft is currently in Restricted Category...and
> >>> has wing extensions.
> >>> 2.) The Denver FSDO threw their hands up...so the
> >>> plane was taken to Liberal, Kansas with the hope of
> >>> more cooperation there.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone have knowledge of a Restricted Pawnee
> >>>that
> >>> has been approved for tow hook installation in the
> >>> last year? Prior to that it was not nearly as much
> >>> brain damage...but apparently a memo generated about
> >>> this time last year has produced this result.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hey Guys.
I know it doesn't make this any easier for you, but think this over a
minute.
The Feds grounded an entire fleet of restricted category aircraft. The
problems with
air attack tankers having thructural failures and aging aircraft issues was
well known.
Virtually NONE of those planes were certificated for the roles they were
used in and
that is the center of your issue. In the Feds eyes, you are operating an
aircraft in a
manner that it was never tested for and they are minimizing their risk
exposure by
saying no. PERFECTLY understandable. The approach needs to be a bit
different.
Instead of asking for a 337 for a one time deal, put together a cert plan
the same as you
would for an stc. It should be a no brainer. The biggest thing they will
look for is
the flight manual addendum listing the towing process and the emergency
procedures
to be used. Their standard is to maintain "continued safe flight to a
landing" as long as possible.
In the Medevac Chopper world, loss of an alternator will cause the need to
shed electrical loads.
The Feds have you turn off the patient first because they only care about
continued safe
flight and landing.
Work it like a STC and you should get there. Your local MIDO guys or a DAR
should get it done for you.

Scott.

If one FSDO accepts this addendum...would others have
too? One of the frustrations of the current process
for us...is differnet interpretations of the memo from
different offices.

Is anyone aware of someone who has tried this route
yet?



At 14:00 15 October 2004, Plasticguy wrote:
>Hey Guys.
>I know it doesn't make this any easier for you, but
>think this over a
>minute.
>The Feds grounded an entire fleet of restricted category
>aircraft. The
>problems with
>air attack tankers having thructural failures and aging
>aircraft issues was
>well known.
>Virtually NONE of those planes were certificated for
>the roles they were
>used in and
>that is the center of your issue. In the Feds eyes,
>you are operating an
>aircraft in a
>manner that it was never tested for and they are minimizing
>their risk
>exposure by
>saying no. PERFECTLY understandable. The approach
>needs to be a bit
>different.
>Instead of asking for a 337 for a one time deal, put
>together a cert plan
>the same as you
>would for an stc. It should be a no brainer. The
>biggest thing they will
>look for is
>the flight manual addendum listing the towing process
>and the emergency
>procedures
>to be used. Their standard is to maintain 'continued
>safe flight to a
>landing' as long as possible.
>In the Medevac Chopper world, loss of an alternator
>will cause the need to
>shed electrical loads.
>The Feds have you turn off the patient first because
>they only care about
>continued safe
>flight and landing.
>Work it like a STC and you should get there. Your
>local MIDO guys or a DAR
>should get it done for you.
>
>Scott.
>
>
>

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> If one FSDO accepts this addendum...would others have
> too? One of the frustrations of the current process
> for us...is differnet interpretations of the memo from
> different offices.
>
> Is anyone aware of someone who has tried this route
> yet?


The whole reason to do an stc is to gain the
stamp of approval that is recognised by all fsdo's.
An stc is accepted across fsdo boundarys.
A 337 attempt on the other hand is a local
approval and has no national standards for
acceptability. The local area sets it's own rules up and
thats that. The differences between a moderately complex
337 and an stc is timing. The mido guys have a backlog and
schedule to work with while the fsdo office is a bit more
flexible .

As part of my ongoing quest to understand and resolve
this....the AI told me today that the memo was generated
not only by the air-tankers shedding wings...

But that the FAA is being sued by the widow of a towpilot
killed in a glider-pullover accident, and a Pawnee
was involved. I had not heard of this...but was there
not lawyers trolling for towplane information here
or elsewhere?

they were trolling here.. I remember that..

BT

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> As part of my ongoing quest to understand and resolve
> this....the AI told me today that the memo was generated
> not only by the air-tankers shedding wings...
>
> But that the FAA is being sued by the widow of a towpilot
> killed in a glider-pullover accident, and a Pawnee
> was involved. I had not heard of this...but was there
> not lawyers trolling for towplane information here
> or elsewhere?
>
>
>

An update-

If your Pawnee is in restricted category...the FAA
can make life tough even if towing is on the certificate.
Email if u desire the gory details. My suggestion
is go to them first with what you have in mind if you
are looking at a 337.

I have not heard back from Northcraft or Ruprecht in
regards to the SSA petition on Pawnees...so am proceeding
on my own with some very valuable help from Roy Bourgeios.



At 05:12 16 October 2004, Btiz wrote:
>they were trolling here.. I remember that..
>
>BT
>
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>> As part of my ongoing quest to understand and resolve
>> this....the AI told me today that the memo was generated
>> not only by the air-tankers shedding wings...
>>
>> But that the FAA is being sued by the widow of a towpilot
>> killed in a glider-pullover accident, and a Pawnee
>> was involved. I had not heard of this...but was there
>> not lawyers trolling for towplane information here
>> or elsewhere?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Update #2-

The FAA crackdown on approving Restricted-Ag aircraft
for other uses is going to create problems for those
who operate Restricted Pawnees if:

1.) They do not have 'Glider Towing' on the certificate
as an approved activity...this is regardless of whether
the aircraft has been towing.

2.) If the aircraft has 'Glider Towing' on the certificate...but
has never towed...the FAA will likewise not approve
towing.

Don't even think of buying a Restricted Pawnee unless
you do your homework first....conversions back to Standard-Normal
are not particularly certain.

As far a getting 337's approved for things like switching
from Schweitzer to Tost...I imaginge that will get
messy too.

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
SNIP
> 1.) They do not have 'Glider Towing' on the certificate
> as an approved activity...this is regardless of whether
> the aircraft has been towing.
SNIP

We have a Pawnee that is in the restricted category and is approved on the
airworthiness certificate for glider towing and for banner towing. It has
been towing gliders for many years. The local FSDO says that the approval
for towing (done in a different region) was done in error but that they will
not shut down our towing operation (at this time?) because of it. Changing
to normal category can be a can of worms. The first problem is finding an
original manual, which is no longer available. We are also scared of not
changing to normal category, for fear of being surprised later. What to do?

Another example of our tax dollars at work...
-Bob Korves

I found the source of original manuals...with the new
owner of the type certificate in Argentina. Send me
an email and I will forward the information to you.



At 03:12 27 October 2004, Bob Korves wrote:
>
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>SNIP
>> 1.) They do not have 'Glider Towing' on the certificate
>> as an approved activity...this is regardless of whether
>> the aircraft has been towing.
>SNIP
>
>We have a Pawnee that is in the restricted category
>and is approved on the
>airworthiness certificate for glider towing and for
>banner towing. It has
>been towing gliders for many years. The local FSDO
>says that the approval
>for towing (done in a different region) was done in
>error but that they will
>not shut down our towing operation (at this time?)
>because of it. Changing
>to normal category can be a can of worms. The first
>problem is finding an
>original manual, which is no longer available. We
>are also scared of not
>changing to normal category, for fear of being surprised
>later. What to do?
>
>Another example of our tax dollars at work...
>-Bob Korves
>
>
>

The local FSDO
>>says that the approval
>>for towing (done in a different region) was done in
>>error but that they will
>>not shut down our towing operation (at this time?)

As best I can tell, FSDO's are not reading the 9/22/03
document...it states that restricted aircraft that
have an approved activity not in agriculture on the
certificate, and have done that activity, may continue.
(ie Glider towing)

Which might lead some to ask...what is the point of
all this? Since it will not stop existing aircraft
from continuing.

Perhaps if our Washington long-winger from the dark-side
is lurking, he may shed some light on this. :)






At 03:18 27 October 2004, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>I found the source of original manuals...with the new
>owner of the type certificate in Argentina. Send me
>an email and I will forward the information to you.
>
>
>
>At 03:12 27 October 2004, Bob Korves wrote:
>>
>>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>>message ...
>>SNIP
>>> 1.) They do not have 'Glider Towing' on the certificate
>>> as an approved activity...this is regardless of whether
>>> the aircraft has been towing.
>>SNIP
>>
>>We have a Pawnee that is in the restricted category
>>and is approved on the
>>airworthiness certificate for glider towing and for
>>banner towing. It has
>>been towing gliders for many years. The local FSDO
>>says that the approval
>>for towing (done in a different region) was done in
>>error but that they will
>>not shut down our towing operation (at this time?)
>>because of it. Changing
>>to normal category can be a can of worms. The first
>>problem is finding an
>>original manual, which is no longer available. We
>>are also scared of not
>>changing to normal category, for fear of being surprised
>>later. What to do?
>>
>>Another example of our tax dollars at work...
>>-Bob Korves
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>