beware of "warranty" R&R labor costs

[Doug Vetter]

Hi all,

I recently had a $1700 SigmaTek bootstrap gyro installed in our airplane
and figured I'd relate this story.

This gyro exhibited excessive precession since the day it was
installed....in other words, it was defective. I called my avionics
tech and asked him to order a new gyro. No problem. 5 weeks later it
shows up and is installed (they build these things to order because, as
we all know, gyros that sit on the shelf risk bearing problems and
premature failure).

Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
be put in an airplane.

So, I called SigmaTek today and they basically told me "tough...that's
our policy and we're not changing it". They even tried to pat
themselves on the back and say that they went over and beyond the call
by doing a swap with a new unit when refurbishing the original is
"strict policy". When I point out that I paid for a NEW gyro, so I
would naturally expect nothing less than a NEW gyro, they are still not
convinced that this is merely adequate post-sale support.

Since my issue was never with the Avionics shop, I paid their invoice,
but SigmaTek is now on my $hit list. While I positively LOVE their
gyros, I HATE their post-sale support.

Apparently (my avionics tech tells me) this is a common gripe with many
avionics/systems vendors. He said that he had many customer complaints
regarding the JPI engine analyzers, for example, and R&R labor was
getting out of hand, so now in his quotes for those systems he
explicitly states that R&R labor is not covered. I recommended he make
that boilerplate in all quotes so people are not surprised to learn that
they might have to pay for a manufacturer's mistake.

So, I suppose the moral of the story is Caveat Emptor. If you're
getting something installed, be sure to ask about who is responsible for
what if the unit/equipment needs to be taken out of the airplane for
so-called "warranty" service. A gyro is pretty simple to remove, but a
some other system intertwined with the aircraft's innards? Could amount
to BIG bucks.

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Justin Case]

Well, I'd be a bit ****ed at the shop if you ordered it through them.
They made the markup money along with the installation costs. Part of
doing business is building in a bit of warranty work. THEIR bitch
should be with Sigma Tek and they should be reimbursed by the
manufacturer, not you. You can't be in business and expect win-win.
It doesn't happen that way.

Customer service of this type should never be tolerated. Instead of
telling us about it, (and we're always on the lookout for the infamous
"Aviation Scumbag") your energies should be directed toward a consumer
group in your area. If you lie down and take it, they'll do it again
and again. And although it's nice to know, there's no other game in
town.

Personally I'm going back and forth on an autopilot decision. I have
an older Century that is in perfect shape, but some people are under
the impression that the new owner of the manufacturing company must be
paid a royalty if I were to use it. I refuse to be the victim of
extortion and am determined to have it put into the aircraft, even if
I do it myself and claim it's always been there. The unit was bought
and paid for back in 1975. OTOH, for about double the cash outlay I
can buy a new STec whose customer service is about the same as the
described in the original post.




On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:30:06 GMT, Doug Vetter >
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I recently had a $1700 SigmaTek bootstrap gyro installed in our airplane
>and figured I'd relate this story.
>
>This gyro exhibited excessive precession since the day it was
>installed....in other words, it was defective. I called my avionics
>tech and asked him to order a new gyro. No problem. 5 weeks later it
>shows up and is installed (they build these things to order because, as
>we all know, gyros that sit on the shelf risk bearing problems and
>premature failure).
>
>Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
>gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
>the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
>to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
>was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
>pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
>be put in an airplane.
>
>So, I called SigmaTek today and they basically told me "tough...that's
>our policy and we're not changing it". They even tried to pat
>themselves on the back and say that they went over and beyond the call
>by doing a swap with a new unit when refurbishing the original is
>"strict policy". When I point out that I paid for a NEW gyro, so I
>would naturally expect nothing less than a NEW gyro, they are still not
>convinced that this is merely adequate post-sale support.
>
>Since my issue was never with the Avionics shop, I paid their invoice,
>but SigmaTek is now on my $hit list. While I positively LOVE their
>gyros, I HATE their post-sale support.
>
>Apparently (my avionics tech tells me) this is a common gripe with many
>avionics/systems vendors. He said that he had many customer complaints
>regarding the JPI engine analyzers, for example, and R&R labor was
>getting out of hand, so now in his quotes for those systems he
>explicitly states that R&R labor is not covered. I recommended he make
>that boilerplate in all quotes so people are not surprised to learn that
>they might have to pay for a manufacturer's mistake.
>
>So, I suppose the moral of the story is Caveat Emptor. If you're
>getting something installed, be sure to ask about who is responsible for
>what if the unit/equipment needs to be taken out of the airplane for
>so-called "warranty" service. A gyro is pretty simple to remove, but a
>some other system intertwined with the aircraft's innards? Could amount
>to BIG bucks.
>
>Safe flying,
>
>-Doug

[[email protected]]

Certainly, if you bought the gyro retail from the same shop that installed
it, the shop should replace a defective unit free of charge, including labor
to R&R, and they should do all of the dealing with the manufacturer for
warranty adjustment. If you simply hired the shop to do an install of a
unit you bought directly from the manufacturer, or elsewhere, it would be
quite reasonable for the manufacturer to refuse to pay for R&R of a
defective unit.

-Elliott Drucker

[Michael]

"Roger Tracy" > wrote
> So let me get this straight. If I own a Century autopilot (which I do) then
> I have to pay some AH a royalty to use it? I think not.

Well, that depends on how you plan to use it.

If the autopilot is already installed and has paperwork, then no.

If you are planning to install it, then maybe. Specifically, it
depends on HOW you are going to install it.

Autopilot installation is considered a major alteration by every FSDO
out there. That means you need a 337, and you need to do it based on
acceptable data. Basically, you have three ways to make that data
happen.

If the autopilot was optional equipment for that make and model
airplane, then the airplane manufacturer will have approved drawings
for the installation. All you need to do is get a copy of the
drawings, follow them, and refer to them (Installed Autopilot123 in
accordance with AirplaneManufacturer drawing #123-456-789). You don't
have to pay a royalty, and pretty much any FSDO will accept that as
valid.

You could in theory get a field approval. Also no royalty. In
practice, field approvals are not being granted for autopilot
installations, period. Unless you've got something on someone at the
FSDO, they will tell you to get an STC or go home.

That brings us to the STC - the most popular way to install an
autopilot. The autopilot manufacturer is going to own the STC. These
guys have been pushing FSDO's to verify that you have permission to
use the STC. You want permission - you pay a royalty. Or you can
keep the autopilot on the shelf. Your call.

Basically, here is what's happening. There are effectively no new
airplanes being built. In order to make money, the autopilot
manufacturers have to sell new autopilots into old airplanes. That
means they need the old autopilots to go away. That's why they're
throwing up every possible roadblock to the installation of old
autopilots, and when that's not possible trying to make extra money
off them.

Michael

[Justin Case]

If you were the original purchaser not if you use it. But if you
wanted to install it in another plane, you would! That is unless you
have an IA that doesn't think he's a lawyer.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:11:21 -0500, "Roger Tracy"
> wrote:

>So let me get this straight. If I own a Century autopilot (which I do) then
>I have to pay some AH a royalty to use it? I think not.
>
>
>
>"Justin Case" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, I'd be a bit ****ed at the shop if you ordered it through them.
>> They made the markup money along with the installation costs. Part of
>> doing business is building in a bit of warranty work. THEIR bitch
>> should be with Sigma Tek and they should be reimbursed by the
>> manufacturer, not you. You can't be in business and expect win-win.
>> It doesn't happen that way.
>>
>> Customer service of this type should never be tolerated. Instead of
>> telling us about it, (and we're always on the lookout for the infamous
>> "Aviation Scumbag") your energies should be directed toward a consumer
>> group in your area. If you lie down and take it, they'll do it again
>> and again. And although it's nice to know, there's no other game in
>> town.
>>
>> Personally I'm going back and forth on an autopilot decision. I have
>> an older Century that is in perfect shape, but some people are under
>> the impression that the new owner of the manufacturing company must be
>> paid a royalty if I were to use it. I refuse to be the victim of
>> extortion and am determined to have it put into the aircraft, even if
>> I do it myself and claim it's always been there. The unit was bought
>> and paid for back in 1975. OTOH, for about double the cash outlay I
>> can buy a new STec whose customer service is about the same as the
>> described in the original post.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:30:06 GMT, Doug Vetter >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >I recently had a $1700 SigmaTek bootstrap gyro installed in our airplane
>> >and figured I'd relate this story.
>> >
>> >This gyro exhibited excessive precession since the day it was
>> >installed....in other words, it was defective. I called my avionics
>> >tech and asked him to order a new gyro. No problem. 5 weeks later it
>> >shows up and is installed (they build these things to order because, as
>> >we all know, gyros that sit on the shelf risk bearing problems and
>> >premature failure).
>> >
>> >Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
>> >gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
>> >the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
>> >to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
>> >was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
>> >pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
>> >be put in an airplane.
>> >
>> >So, I called SigmaTek today and they basically told me "tough...that's
>> >our policy and we're not changing it". They even tried to pat
>> >themselves on the back and say that they went over and beyond the call
>> >by doing a swap with a new unit when refurbishing the original is
>> >"strict policy". When I point out that I paid for a NEW gyro, so I
>> >would naturally expect nothing less than a NEW gyro, they are still not
>> >convinced that this is merely adequate post-sale support.
>> >
>> >Since my issue was never with the Avionics shop, I paid their invoice,
>> >but SigmaTek is now on my $hit list. While I positively LOVE their
>> >gyros, I HATE their post-sale support.
>> >
>> >Apparently (my avionics tech tells me) this is a common gripe with many
>> >avionics/systems vendors. He said that he had many customer complaints
>> >regarding the JPI engine analyzers, for example, and R&R labor was
>> >getting out of hand, so now in his quotes for those systems he
>> >explicitly states that R&R labor is not covered. I recommended he make
>> >that boilerplate in all quotes so people are not surprised to learn that
>> >they might have to pay for a manufacturer's mistake.
>> >
>> >So, I suppose the moral of the story is Caveat Emptor. If you're
>> >getting something installed, be sure to ask about who is responsible for
>> >what if the unit/equipment needs to be taken out of the airplane for
>> >so-called "warranty" service. A gyro is pretty simple to remove, but a
>> >some other system intertwined with the aircraft's innards? Could amount
>> >to BIG bucks.
>> >
>> >Safe flying,
>> >
>> >-Doug
>>
>
>

[Justin Case]

Good explanation, but unless I see it in writing where the
manufacturer has the authority to do this, I consider it a rumor. And
if the FSDO's (I don't care how many) are bowing to this, and it's not
in writing, they're violating the law. Can ANYONE cite the statute?

On 20 Aug 2003 15:19:12 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>"Roger Tracy" > wrote
>> So let me get this straight. If I own a Century autopilot (which I do) then
>> I have to pay some AH a royalty to use it? I think not.
>
>Well, that depends on how you plan to use it.
>
>If the autopilot is already installed and has paperwork, then no.
>
>If you are planning to install it, then maybe. Specifically, it
>depends on HOW you are going to install it.
>
>Autopilot installation is considered a major alteration by every FSDO
>out there. That means you need a 337, and you need to do it based on
>acceptable data. Basically, you have three ways to make that data
>happen.
>
>If the autopilot was optional equipment for that make and model
>airplane, then the airplane manufacturer will have approved drawings
>for the installation. All you need to do is get a copy of the
>drawings, follow them, and refer to them (Installed Autopilot123 in
>accordance with AirplaneManufacturer drawing #123-456-789). You don't
>have to pay a royalty, and pretty much any FSDO will accept that as
>valid.
>
>You could in theory get a field approval. Also no royalty. In
>practice, field approvals are not being granted for autopilot
>installations, period. Unless you've got something on someone at the
>FSDO, they will tell you to get an STC or go home.
>
>That brings us to the STC - the most popular way to install an
>autopilot. The autopilot manufacturer is going to own the STC. These
>guys have been pushing FSDO's to verify that you have permission to
>use the STC. You want permission - you pay a royalty. Or you can
>keep the autopilot on the shelf. Your call.
>
>Basically, here is what's happening. There are effectively no new
>airplanes being built. In order to make money, the autopilot
>manufacturers have to sell new autopilots into old airplanes. That
>means they need the old autopilots to go away. That's why they're
>throwing up every possible roadblock to the installation of old
>autopilots, and when that's not possible trying to make extra money
>off them.
>
>Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message om...

> If the autopilot was optional equipment for that make and model
> airplane, then the airplane manufacturer will have approved drawings
> for the installation. All you need to do is get a copy of the
> drawings, follow them, and refer to them (Installed Autopilot123 in
> accordance with AirplaneManufacturer drawing #123-456-789). You don't
> have to pay a royalty, and pretty much any FSDO will accept that as
> valid.

If it was approved on the type certificate, you don't even need a 337. Changes
in accordance with the aircraft specifications as certificated are not major
atlerations as far as far as part 43 is concerned.

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
> Good explanation, but unless I see it in writing where the
> manufacturer has the authority to do this, I consider it a rumor. And
> if the FSDO's (I don't care how many) are bowing to this, and it's not
> in writing, they're violating the law. Can ANYONE cite the statute?

43.5 says that you have to execute a 337 in a matter prescribed by
the administrator. Since Marion doesn't have time to deal with these
issues personally, she delegates it to the FSDOs. Believe me, unless
you got the STC paperwork with your serial number on it, it ain't acceptable
to the administrator. The only way to legitimately get the paperwork is
to get it from the certificate holder and if they want to charge for it,
there isn't anything you're going to do.

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Doug Vetter
> writes:

>Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
>gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
>the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor.

When my GNS 430 failed I was in Tucson, AZ. Unit was installed in Ohio, 6 mo
previous. The repair shop got a new one from Garmin, installed it, and
returned the defective, all at no cost to me. I assume Garmin covered it.

Chuck

[Justin Case]

Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
do you know your interpretation is correct. Now where does it say
that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
not in time of emergency. Show me the numbers so that I can see it
for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
"administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
tires.


On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:07:45 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
>> Good explanation, but unless I see it in writing where the
>> manufacturer has the authority to do this, I consider it a rumor. And
>> if the FSDO's (I don't care how many) are bowing to this, and it's not
>> in writing, they're violating the law. Can ANYONE cite the statute?
>
>43.5 says that you have to execute a 337 in a matter prescribed by
>the administrator. Since Marion doesn't have time to deal with these
>issues personally, she delegates it to the FSDOs. Believe me, unless
>you got the STC paperwork with your serial number on it, it ain't acceptable
>to the administrator. The only way to legitimately get the paperwork is
>to get it from the certificate holder and if they want to charge for it,
>there isn't anything you're going to do.
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
> Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
> up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
> do you know your interpretation is correct.

Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
can have an intelligent discussion. They are available here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
the satisfaction of the administrator.

So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.

Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator are a big
can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even have
to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
things at whim.

Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC paperwork.

> Now where does it say
> that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
> not in time of emergency.

What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
if you're going to be so vague?

> Show me the numbers so that I can see it
> for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
> "administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
> tires.

No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification has
been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.

[John Galban]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
<snip>
> That brings us to the STC - the most popular way to install an
> autopilot. The autopilot manufacturer is going to own the STC. These
> guys have been pushing FSDO's to verify that you have permission to
> use the STC. You want permission - you pay a royalty. Or you can
> keep the autopilot on the shelf. Your call.

Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
STC without their permission.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

Doug Vetter > wrote in message >...
>
> Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
> gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
> the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
> to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
> was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
> pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
> be put in an airplane.

I wouldn't be miffed with SigmaTek. I'd be miffed at the avionics
shop. My avionics and regular maintenance shops have a policy that
they'll do the warranty R&R for free if you bought the unit from them.
They get a cut of the parts cost, so they act accordingly. If you
bring in some outside part, they'll be happy to install it, but if it
needs to come back out, R&R is on your tab.

This is a fairly common policy at aviation shops. I'd expect my
shop to provide some added value for their cut of the parts price.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> If it was approved on the type certificate, you don't even need a 337.

Which can be a trip. When I bought my Maule, I added a few things as money
permitted. One item was a clock. Chief Aircraft had a model that was on the
optional equipment list. No STC required.

When it arrived, I discovered that they had sent a new model. This one had
internal lighting, which was the only difference. That meant that a 337 had to
be filed, a local FBO had to handle the paperwork (which costs), and the local
FSDO required a field inspection.

All for a stinking clock.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Justin Case]

Unfortunately I'll agree with you that the feds are pretty screwed up.
I'd like to see where it says that her highness can put the interests
of certain individuals in front of others.

The law I'm looking for is the one that seems to be referred to when
everyone says that permission is needed by the STC holder to install
one of his products. I need to drill down and see exactly what it
states so that I may make my case. Doesn't seem to be anyone that can
steer me in the direction of this legendary federal law. If the feds
are going to refer to it, I need to see it, or assume it doesn't
exist.

And as I figured, your 43.5 doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
satisfied with your interpretation. Neither does the referring
paragraphs of 43.9 or 43.11. If your reading of this were actual, it
would then be prudent to see the rules governing the actions of the
administrator. I will not blindly be led by the short hairs into
believing that an appointed individual can alter the laws of this
land. If the administrator is not allowing certain alterations, there
needs to be legitimate reason why, not just a "Duh, okay!".

And when you feel you're up to some real research and interpretation,
then respond with a good argument, not with the silly FAR's.


On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:58:07 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
>> Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
>> up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
>> do you know your interpretation is correct.
>
>Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
>can have an intelligent discussion. They are available here:
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
>How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
>says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
>the satisfaction of the administrator.
>
>So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.
>
>Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator are a big
>can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even have
>to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
>things at whim.
>
>Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
>STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC paperwork.
>
>> Now where does it say
>> that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
>> not in time of emergency.
>
>What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
>if you're going to be so vague?
>
>> Show me the numbers so that I can see it
>> for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
>> "administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
>> tires.
>
>No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification has
>been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
>who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.
>

[Justin Case]

It does now, as some of the crybabies found that they can manipulate
the system. There are arguments for both camps on this issue, but I
feel that it's just a rouse to try to make more money. Are you
allowed to buy used books without paying the publisher additional
royalties? But what I question are the STC's issued BEFORE this was
in effect (which may or may not violate consumer laws).

On 21 Aug 2003 16:14:39 -0700, (John Galban)
wrote:

(Michael) wrote in message >...
><snip>
>> That brings us to the STC - the most popular way to install an
>> autopilot. The autopilot manufacturer is going to own the STC. These
>> guys have been pushing FSDO's to verify that you have permission to
>> use the STC. You want permission - you pay a royalty. Or you can
>> keep the autopilot on the shelf. Your call.
>
> Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
>doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
>product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
>it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
>free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
>autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
>STC without their permission.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Justin Case]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:24:19 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb" >
wrote:

>
>"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
>> Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
>> doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
>> product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
>> it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
>> free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
>> autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
>> STC without their permission.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>Such an odd system. I would think that is safety were the primary concern
>it would work by precedent, i.e., once someone demonstrated that a certain
>installation of product X in aircraft type Y was safe and effective that
>from that point on it would be up to the A&P and/or avionics tech to make
>sure the procedure was properly adhered to.

True, but safety is only the spin. MONEY is the concern.


>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
> > doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
> > product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
> > it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
> > free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
> > autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
> > STC without their permission.
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> Such an odd system. I would think that is safety were the primary concern
> it would work by precedent, i.e., once someone demonstrated that a certain
> installation of product X in aircraft type Y was safe and effective that
> from that point on it would be up to the A&P and/or avionics tech to make
> sure the procedure was properly adhered to.
>
>
That would be fine if it wasn't so expensive to demonstrate to the FAA that
it is a safe mod.

Mike
MU-2

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Isn't that how most STCs work? The owner of the STC issues the STC
> > > doc for a specific airplane by serial number. If I buy an STCed
> > > product, it's only good for the serial number of the plane I purchased
> > > it for. I've never heard of STC holders issuing new STC doc for
> > > free, if you moved the product to another airplane. I'd think the
> > > autogas STC folks would probably go broke if you could transfer the
> > > STC without their permission.
> > >
> > > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> >
> > Such an odd system. I would think that is safety were the primary
concern
> > it would work by precedent, i.e., once someone demonstrated that a
certain
> > installation of product X in aircraft type Y was safe and effective that
> > from that point on it would be up to the A&P and/or avionics tech to
make
> > sure the procedure was properly adhered to.
> >
> >
> That would be fine if it wasn't so expensive to demonstrate to the FAA
that
> it is a safe mod.
>

Yes, that's definitely a problem that occurred to me. I would hope that
there would be a way to reduce this cost by application of some common sense
for most mods but maybe I'm expecting too much. I still think the present
way of doing things is a strange way of financing STCs.

[Mike Spera]

The warranty that comes with anything is governed by... well.. the
warranty that comes with it. We have come to "expect" that parts and
labor are covered on a "DOA" or defective out-of-the-box unit, but there
is no existing law stating this has to happen. This is probably due too
the fact that the warranty that comes with automobiles includes labor
most of the time, especiall when new.

Also, the turnaround time to get a replacement out to you is also
usually left to the manufacturer because they don't put that in the
warranty explicitly. Whether the replacement unit is new, used, or your
unit repaired is also up to them if it is no stated. Warranty language
is usually very vague, and, the warranty is your only contract. If it is
not specifically stated, you usually won't get it. Most dealers and/or
installation shops eat the labor charge to avoid bad blood with the
customer.

Good Luck,
Mike
Justin Case wrote:
> Well, I'd be a bit ****ed at the shop if you ordered it through them.
> They made the markup money along with the installation costs. Part of
> doing business is building in a bit of warranty work. THEIR bitch
> should be with Sigma Tek and they should be reimbursed by the
> manufacturer, not you. You can't be in business and expect win-win.
> It doesn't happen that way.
>
> Customer service of this type should never be tolerated. Instead of
> telling us about it, (and we're always on the lookout for the infamous
> "Aviation Scumbag") your energies should be directed toward a consumer
> group in your area. If you lie down and take it, they'll do it again
> and again. And although it's nice to know, there's no other game in
> town.
>
> Personally I'm going back and forth on an autopilot decision. I have
> an older Century that is in perfect shape, but some people are under
> the impression that the new owner of the manufacturing company must be
> paid a royalty if I were to use it. I refuse to be the victim of
> extortion and am determined to have it put into the aircraft, even if
> I do it myself and claim it's always been there. The unit was bought
> and paid for back in 1975. OTOH, for about double the cash outlay I
> can buy a new STec whose customer service is about the same as the
> described in the original post.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:30:06 GMT, Doug Vetter >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I recently had a $1700 SigmaTek bootstrap gyro installed in our airplane
>>and figured I'd relate this story.
>>
>>This gyro exhibited excessive precession since the day it was
>>installed....in other words, it was defective. I called my avionics
>>tech and asked him to order a new gyro. No problem. 5 weeks later it
>>shows up and is installed (they build these things to order because, as
>>we all know, gyros that sit on the shelf risk bearing problems and
>>premature failure).
>>
>>Then I get the bill. What's this? 1.0 hour labor ($75) to R&R the
>>gyro? I talk to my avionics tech and he says that while SigmaTek covers
>>the DG itself under warranty, they don't cover R&R labor. WTF? I think
>>to myself it's one thing if it failed in service at some point, but this
>>was broken from day 1. Even though SigmaTek tagged this equipment, it's
>>pretty clear it didn't go through sufficient "burn in" and general QC to
>>be put in an airplane.
>>
>>So, I called SigmaTek today and they basically told me "tough...that's
>>our policy and we're not changing it". They even tried to pat
>>themselves on the back and say that they went over and beyond the call
>>by doing a swap with a new unit when refurbishing the original is
>>"strict policy". When I point out that I paid for a NEW gyro, so I
>>would naturally expect nothing less than a NEW gyro, they are still not
>>convinced that this is merely adequate post-sale support.
>>
>>Since my issue was never with the Avionics shop, I paid their invoice,
>>but SigmaTek is now on my $hit list. While I positively LOVE their
>>gyros, I HATE their post-sale support.
>>
>>Apparently (my avionics tech tells me) this is a common gripe with many
>>avionics/systems vendors. He said that he had many customer complaints
>>regarding the JPI engine analyzers, for example, and R&R labor was
>>getting out of hand, so now in his quotes for those systems he
>>explicitly states that R&R labor is not covered. I recommended he make
>>that boilerplate in all quotes so people are not surprised to learn that
>>they might have to pay for a manufacturer's mistake.
>>
>>So, I suppose the moral of the story is Caveat Emptor. If you're
>>getting something installed, be sure to ask about who is responsible for
>>what if the unit/equipment needs to be taken out of the airplane for
>>so-called "warranty" service. A gyro is pretty simple to remove, but a
>>some other system intertwined with the aircraft's innards? Could amount
>>to BIG bucks.
>>
>>Safe flying,
>>
>>-Doug
>
>


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Dan Thompson]

Here's "the law", from http://www.awp.faa.gov/new/fsdo/release/long1098.htm:

SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATES

by Cathy VanAssche

In 1996, Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 44704 was amended to
incorporate Supplemental Type Certificates. The regulation now states that
if the holder of the supplemental type certificate (STC) agrees to permit
another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder shall provide the other person
with written evidence, in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator,
of the agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance based on a STC only if the person requesting the
change is the holder of the STC or has permission of the holder to make the
change.

The new requirements of the statute do not require the FAA to be an enforcer
of copyright statutes nor an adjudicator of property rights. The FAA
responsibilities for certification activities remain unchanged by this
legislation.

Any person who makes or causes to be made a fraudulent or intentionally
false statement or entry, that falsely expresses permission from an STC
holder to use that STC, may be in violation of 14 CFR Sections § 21.2 or §
43.12. STC holders and installers should be advised to retain records and
copies thereof in order to be able to demonstrate compliance with the
amendment to Section 44704. The owner/operator of the product on which an
STC alteration is installed should be advised to retain a copy of each
permission statement.

For further information on Supplemental Type Certificate Requirements,
please contact your local FSDO for a copy of FAA Notice 8110.69, HBAW 98-16,
and Public Law 104-264.


"Justin Case" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately I'll agree with you that the feds are pretty screwed up.
> I'd like to see where it says that her highness can put the interests
> of certain individuals in front of others.
>
> The law I'm looking for is the one that seems to be referred to when
> everyone says that permission is needed by the STC holder to install
> one of his products. I need to drill down and see exactly what it
> states so that I may make my case. Doesn't seem to be anyone that can
> steer me in the direction of this legendary federal law. If the feds
> are going to refer to it, I need to see it, or assume it doesn't
> exist.
>
> And as I figured, your 43.5 doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
> satisfied with your interpretation. Neither does the referring
> paragraphs of 43.9 or 43.11. If your reading of this were actual, it
> would then be prudent to see the rules governing the actions of the
> administrator. I will not blindly be led by the short hairs into
> believing that an appointed individual can alter the laws of this
> land. If the administrator is not allowing certain alterations, there
> needs to be legitimate reason why, not just a "Duh, okay!".
>
> And when you feel you're up to some real research and interpretation,
> then respond with a good argument, not with the silly FAR's.
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:58:07 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Justin Case" > wrote in message
...
> >> Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
> >> up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
> >> do you know your interpretation is correct.
> >
> >Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
> >can have an intelligent discussion. They are available here:
>
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFra
me?OpenFrameSet
> >How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
> >says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
> >the satisfaction of the administrator.
> >
> >So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.
> >
> >Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator are
a big
> >can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even have
> >to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
> >things at whim.
> >
> >Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
> >STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC
paperwork.
> >
> >> Now where does it say
> >> that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
> >> not in time of emergency.
> >
> >What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
> >if you're going to be so vague?
> >
> >> Show me the numbers so that I can see it
> >> for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
> >> "administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
> >> tires.
> >
> >No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification
has
> >been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
> >who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.
> >
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

Will the FAA prohibit the issuance of a second STC which is identical to an
existing one? The second paragraph text: "do not require the FAA to be an
enforcer
of copyright statutes nor an adjudicator of property rights" would seem to
indicate not. What I am getting at is that if some company is charging too
high a price for an STC what is to prevent a group of owners from hiring a
consultant to file for an identical STC of interest?


"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> Here's "the law", from
http://www.awp.faa.gov/new/fsdo/release/long1098.htm:
>
> SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATES
>
> by Cathy VanAssche
>
> In 1996, Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 44704 was amended to
> incorporate Supplemental Type Certificates. The regulation now states that
> if the holder of the supplemental type certificate (STC) agrees to permit
> another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft
> engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder shall provide the other person
> with written evidence, in a form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator,
> of the agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine,
> propeller, or appliance based on a STC only if the person requesting the
> change is the holder of the STC or has permission of the holder to make
the
> change.
>
> The new requirements of the statute do not require the FAA to be an
enforcer
> of copyright statutes nor an adjudicator of property rights. The FAA
> responsibilities for certification activities remain unchanged by this
> legislation.
>
> Any person who makes or causes to be made a fraudulent or intentionally
> false statement or entry, that falsely expresses permission from an STC
> holder to use that STC, may be in violation of 14 CFR Sections § 21.2 or §
> 43.12. STC holders and installers should be advised to retain records and
> copies thereof in order to be able to demonstrate compliance with the
> amendment to Section 44704. The owner/operator of the product on which an
> STC alteration is installed should be advised to retain a copy of each
> permission statement.
>
> For further information on Supplemental Type Certificate Requirements,
> please contact your local FSDO for a copy of FAA Notice 8110.69, HBAW
98-16,
> and Public Law 104-264.
>
>
> "Justin Case" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Unfortunately I'll agree with you that the feds are pretty screwed up.
> > I'd like to see where it says that her highness can put the interests
> > of certain individuals in front of others.
> >
> > The law I'm looking for is the one that seems to be referred to when
> > everyone says that permission is needed by the STC holder to install
> > one of his products. I need to drill down and see exactly what it
> > states so that I may make my case. Doesn't seem to be anyone that can
> > steer me in the direction of this legendary federal law. If the feds
> > are going to refer to it, I need to see it, or assume it doesn't
> > exist.
> >
> > And as I figured, your 43.5 doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
> > satisfied with your interpretation. Neither does the referring
> > paragraphs of 43.9 or 43.11. If your reading of this were actual, it
> > would then be prudent to see the rules governing the actions of the
> > administrator. I will not blindly be led by the short hairs into
> > believing that an appointed individual can alter the laws of this
> > land. If the administrator is not allowing certain alterations, there
> > needs to be legitimate reason why, not just a "Duh, okay!".
> >
> > And when you feel you're up to some real research and interpretation,
> > then respond with a good argument, not with the silly FAR's.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:58:07 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Justin Case" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
> > >> up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
> > >> do you know your interpretation is correct.
> > >
> > >Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
> > >can have an intelligent discussion. They are available here:
> >
>
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFra
> me?OpenFrameSet
> > >How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
> > >says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
> > >the satisfaction of the administrator.
> > >
> > >So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.
> > >
> > >Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator
are
> a big
> > >can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even
have
> > >to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
> > >things at whim.
> > >
> > >Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
> > >STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC
> paperwork.
> > >
> > >> Now where does it say
> > >> that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
> > >> not in time of emergency.
> > >
> > >What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
> > >if you're going to be so vague?
> > >
> > >> Show me the numbers so that I can see it
> > >> for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
> > >> "administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
> > >> tires.
> > >
> > >No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification
> has
> > >been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
> > >who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.
> > >
> >
>
>

[Justin Case]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:15:52 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb" >
wrote:

>Will the FAA prohibit the issuance of a second STC which is identical to an
>existing one? The second paragraph text: "do not require the FAA to be an
>enforcer
>of copyright statutes nor an adjudicator of property rights" would seem to
>indicate not. What I am getting at is that if some company is charging too
>high a price for an STC what is to prevent a group of owners from hiring a
>consultant to file for an identical STC of interest?

The problem is that the STC holders will cheerfully issue another STC
for the same item they've already sold, but at an inflated price.
For example Century will issue an STC for the "1" for the bargain
price of $1000.00. That's 25% of the cost of a new item. Extortion!
>
>
>"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
...
>> Here's "the law", from
>http://www.awp.faa.gov/new/fsdo/release/long1098.htm:
>>
>> SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATES
>>
>> by Cathy VanAssche
>>
>> In 1996, Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 44704 was amended to
>> incorporate Supplemental Type Certificates. The regulation now states that
>> if the holder of the supplemental type certificate (STC) agrees to permit
>> another person to use the certificate to modify an aircraft, aircraft
>> engine, propeller, or appliance, the holder shall provide the other person
>> with written evidence, in a form and manner acceptable to the
>Administrator,
>> of the agreement. A person may change an aircraft, aircraft engine,
>> propeller, or appliance based on a STC only if the person requesting the
>> change is the holder of the STC or has permission of the holder to make
>the
>> change.
>>
>> The new requirements of the statute do not require the FAA to be an
>enforcer
>> of copyright statutes nor an adjudicator of property rights. The FAA
>> responsibilities for certification activities remain unchanged by this
>> legislation.
>>
>> Any person who makes or causes to be made a fraudulent or intentionally
>> false statement or entry, that falsely expresses permission from an STC
>> holder to use that STC, may be in violation of 14 CFR Sections § 21.2 or §
>> 43.12. STC holders and installers should be advised to retain records and
>> copies thereof in order to be able to demonstrate compliance with the
>> amendment to Section 44704. The owner/operator of the product on which an
>> STC alteration is installed should be advised to retain a copy of each
>> permission statement.
>>
>> For further information on Supplemental Type Certificate Requirements,
>> please contact your local FSDO for a copy of FAA Notice 8110.69, HBAW
>98-16,
>> and Public Law 104-264.
>>
>>
>> "Justin Case" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Unfortunately I'll agree with you that the feds are pretty screwed up.
>> > I'd like to see where it says that her highness can put the interests
>> > of certain individuals in front of others.
>> >
>> > The law I'm looking for is the one that seems to be referred to when
>> > everyone says that permission is needed by the STC holder to install
>> > one of his products. I need to drill down and see exactly what it
>> > states so that I may make my case. Doesn't seem to be anyone that can
>> > steer me in the direction of this legendary federal law. If the feds
>> > are going to refer to it, I need to see it, or assume it doesn't
>> > exist.
>> >
>> > And as I figured, your 43.5 doesn't do it for me, and I'm not
>> > satisfied with your interpretation. Neither does the referring
>> > paragraphs of 43.9 or 43.11. If your reading of this were actual, it
>> > would then be prudent to see the rules governing the actions of the
>> > administrator. I will not blindly be led by the short hairs into
>> > believing that an appointed individual can alter the laws of this
>> > land. If the administrator is not allowing certain alterations, there
>> > needs to be legitimate reason why, not just a "Duh, okay!".
>> >
>> > And when you feel you're up to some real research and interpretation,
>> > then respond with a good argument, not with the silly FAR's.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:58:07 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Justin Case" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >> Show me! Show me! Show me! Don't quote numbers that appear to make
>> > >> up your argument. Although your "43.5" may or may not say that, how
>> > >> do you know your interpretation is correct.
>> > >
>> > >Do you have a copy of the FAR's? Read 43.5 and come back and we
>> > >can have an intelligent discussion. They are available here:
>> >
>>
>>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFra
>> me?OpenFrameSet
>> > >How does anybody know anything is correct. I read what it says. It
>> > >says that for a major modification you have to file the paperwork to
>> > >the satisfaction of the administrator.
>> > >
>> > >So you first have to agree or disagree with me on that.
>> > >
>> > >Now note that the things left to the discretion of the administrator
>are
>> a big
>> > >can of worms in the FAA. It pretty much means that they don't even
>have
>> > >to write down what they mean by that. They can approve or disapprove
>> > >things at whim.
>> > >
>> > >Now it has been my experience and the experience of others here that an
>> > >STC is by default acceptable provided you have the appropriate STC
>> paperwork.
>> > >
>> > >> Now where does it say
>> > >> that the "administrator" has the right to disregard other laws when
>> > >> not in time of emergency.
>> > >
>> > >What laws are you talking about? I can't make any intelligent comment
>> > >if you're going to be so vague?
>> > >
>> > >> Show me the numbers so that I can see it
>> > >> for myself. Help me out here, otherwise I'll think you're saying the
>> > >> "administrator" may decide that there's too much air in everyone's
>> > >> tires.
>> > >
>> > >No, I am saying the administrator can determine whether a modification
>> has
>> > >been done in accordance with her self-adopted standards. And anybody
>> > >who doesn't believe that hasn't worked with the FAA field system.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Justin Case]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:53:41 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
>
>> The law I'm looking for is the one that seems to be referred to when
>> everyone says that permission is needed by the STC holder to install
>> one of his products.
>
>There isn't such a law. The issue is what process you can use to approve
>the installation. If you have the valid STC paperwork, then the FAA must
>accept it because it says that the manufacturer under it's supervision of
>the FAA persuant to the STC issuance says that the installation is safe.
>Absent the STC, you must prove other documentation to the FAA that they
>find acceptable that the installation is safe and that the means for it continuing
>to be safe through maintenance is assured. This is frequently a rougher course.

So what you're saying is that the manufacturers state that a part is
safe for the original purchaser to install, but not subsequent owners,
using exactly the same guidelines as the original owner needed to
meet. Correct?

The "law" is something that everyone seems to quote as the authority
for the FAA to require the extortionists' permission to reuse a part
or system. I'm finding more that the law is vaporware, as I always
suspected. When and if I do find it, I'll be able to determine
whether or not there are restrictions or limitations stated.

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Case" > wrote in message
> So what you're saying is that the manufacturers state that a part is
> safe for the original purchaser to install, but not subsequent owners,
> using exactly the same guidelines as the original owner needed to
> meet. Correct?

The manufacturers won't issue you the paper saying it is safe unless
you pay. The FAA won't accept the STC as the basis for the modification
unless you have the paper. Can you understand that? There's no rule
specifically allowing them to gouge you, but the combination of the above
two effectively does.

> The "law" is something that everyone seems to quote as the authority
> for the FAA to require the extortionists' permission to reuse a part
> or system.

There is no regulation. But that has no bearing on the issue. The regulations
say that the FAA has the discretion to how to approve modifications to aircraft.
The FAA discretion currently says you must either have an STC, or meet some
common industry standard they approve of, or demonstrate by other means that
the modification is acceptable. The STC is a grease through the process. If
the STC holder can charge whatever they want for the paper to do it. If you want
to pursue the other actions, go ahead. It is the case as you suggested that some
field offices will take the presence of the previous approved installations as a good
part of that acceptance, but it's still got to go through the approval process.

[Justin Case]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:07:50 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Justin Case" > wrote in message
>> So what you're saying is that the manufacturers state that a part is
>> safe for the original purchaser to install, but not subsequent owners,
>> using exactly the same guidelines as the original owner needed to
>> meet. Correct?
>
>The manufacturers won't issue you the paper saying it is safe unless
>you pay. The FAA won't accept the STC as the basis for the modification
>unless you have the paper. Can you understand that? There's no rule
>specifically allowing them to gouge you, but the combination of the above
>two effectively does.
>
>> The "law" is something that everyone seems to quote as the authority
>> for the FAA to require the extortionists' permission to reuse a part
>> or system.
>
>There is no regulation. But that has no bearing on the issue.

Yes it does. Why is there a need to refer to a federal law as a
reason not to grant approval? If there's no law, not granting
approval is discriminatory.

>The regulations say that the FAA has the discretion to how to approve modifications to aircraft.

And they did, via approval of the STC data for the modification.

>The FAA discretion currently says you must either have an STC, or meet some
>common industry standard they approve of, or demonstrate by other means that
>the modification is acceptable.

Which is contained in the STC that is provided when you buy the part.
If I may, the FAA is now requiring more than an STC. Remember, we're
not manufacturing parts and installing them using someone else's data.
We're using parts and data supplied by the manufacturer. And did I
mentioned they were paid for a long time ago?

>The STC is a grease through the process. If the STC holder can charge whatever they want for the paper to do it.

They already have but there are laws against gouging.

>If you want to pursue the other actions, go ahead. It is the case as you suggested that some
>field offices will take the presence of the previous approved installations as a good
>part of that acceptance, but it's still got to go through the approval process.

What I'm trying to clarify is that the practice is not legal, and may
actually be discriminatory. The only guy I know who did it right was
Lew Gage with his oil filter. He would take a used unit, run it
through a series of tests, maybe even x ray, then issue the
replacement STC based on it being a safe to use part. He didn't ask
$75.00 for a sheet of paper as some of the current extortionists do.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> What I am getting at is that if some company is charging too
> high a price for an STC what is to prevent a group of owners from hiring a
> consultant to file for an identical STC of interest?

Nothing. Take a look at the Petersen autogas STCs. Now compare that list with
the ones provided by the EAA. Now compare prices.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
>> What I'm trying to clarify is that the practice is not legal,

Well you show me a law. I've posted the stuff that shows the regulations
pretty much leave it to the discretion of the adminstrator. If you have so
consumer law that says the FAA is required to do otherwise, let me know.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Justin Case wrote:
>
> Show me the federal law where
> it prohibits homicide.

Be a little hard. Homicide is the killing of a human being. Depending on the
circumstances, that's quite legal.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Satellite]

You are a moron, G.R. Patterson.

"...Homicide is the killing of a human being.
Depending on the circumstances, that's quite legal..."
and

"...Brute force has an elegance all its own..."

What garbage... Are you for real, man?


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Justin Case wrote:
> >
> > Show me the federal law where
> > it prohibits homicide.
>
> Be a little hard. Homicide is the killing of a human being. Depending on
the
> circumstances, that's quite legal.
>
> George Patterson
> Brute force has an elegance all its own.
>

[Dennis O'Connor]

Actually, there are four major kinds of homicide...

Premeditated
Self defense
Accidental
Laudable.

Denny

> >
> > Show me the federal law where
> > it prohibits homicide.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Satellite wrote:
>
> What garbage... Are you for real, man?

Absolutely. Break into my house at night and you're a dead man. That's legal
homicide. Illegal homicide is called "murder".

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:17:46 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Justin Case" > wrote in message ...
> >>> What I'm trying to clarify is that the practice is not legal,
> >
> >Well you show me a law. I've posted the stuff that shows the regulations
> >pretty much leave it to the discretion of the adminstrator. If you have so
> >consumer law that says the FAA is required to do otherwise, let me know.
>
> Sorry, this is America. YOU show ME the real law that is telling the
> FAA to disallow the installs.

I showed it to you already. A major modification requires supporting data
that is at the FAA's discretion.

[Russell Kent]

Justin Case wrote:

> Show me the federal law where it prohibits homicide.

I believe the answer is:

USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51, Section 1111.

which can be read at any number of websites including:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1111.html
- or -
http://uscode.house.gov/DOWNLOAD/18C51.DOC

Russell Kent

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dennis O'Connor > wrote:
: Actually, there are four major kinds of homicide...

: Premeditated
: Self defense
: Accidental
: Laudable.

Ambose Bierce wrote this up as:

1) Felonious
2) Excusable
3) Justifiable
4) Praiseworthy

--
Aaron Coolidge

[Michael]

Justin Case > wrote
> >I showed it to you already. A major modification requires supporting data
> >that is at the FAA's discretion.
>
> Jesus Christ!
>
> I guess so, thanks for being part of this conversation. Now can
> anyone else add anything intelligent?

Yes. You may not like it, but he's right. The FAA (in the form of
your local FSDO maintenance inspector) is free to reject the data you
provide in support of your major alteration for any reason. After
you've spent some time performing major alterations on airplanes and
submitting paperwork for same, you will learn that the smart mechanic
finds out what the local FAA will accept (not what you think the law
requires them to accept) in advance. It's not good, it's not right,
it sure as hell doesn't improve safety, but that's the way it is.

Michael

[Dennis O'Connor]

"There you go again..." < to quote my favorite President > "getting
technical."...

Denny

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, illegal homicide has three subdivisions:
>
> Premeditated (1st degree murder)
> Heat of passion (manslaughter or 2nd degree murder)
> Criminally negligent (G.R. Patterson's spring gun to kill intruders when
he
> is not at home to kill them in person)
>
> Even premeditated homicide can be legal, for example, in war time against
> enemy combatants, or when administering capital punishment.
>
>
>
>
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, there are four major kinds of homicide...
> >
> > Premeditated
> > Self defense
> > Accidental
> > Laudable.
> >
> > Denny
> >
> > > >
> > > > Show me the federal law where
> > > > it prohibits homicide.
> >
> >
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message om...
> Justin Case > wrote
> > >I showed it to you already. A major modification requires supporting data
> > >that is at the FAA's discretion.
> >
> > Jesus Christ!
> >
> > I guess so, thanks for being part of this conversation. Now can
> > anyone else add anything intelligent?
>
> Yes. You may not like it, but he's right. The FAA (in the form of
> your local FSDO maintenance inspector) is free to reject the data you
> provide in support of your major alteration for any reason. After
> you've spent some time performing major alterations on airplanes and
> submitting paperwork for same, you will learn that the smart mechanic
> finds out what the local FAA will accept (not what you think the law
> requires them to accept) in advance. It's not good, it's not right,
> it sure as hell doesn't improve safety, but that's the way it is.

And it's directly supported by the regulation I cited originally that you
keep ignoring. Half the damn rules have some part left to the discretion
of the administrator. Here's one of the few where it really means something.