Field approval delays

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Does anyone in the group have any information, experience, or links to
documentation concerning a recent (past 6 months) change in Field Approval
Guidance for FSDO Inspectors requiring that they seek FAA engineering advice
and guidance, but not necessarily DER approval, on each and every field
approval no matter what level of documentation, testing, or experience the
applying A&P or FSDO Inspector has regarding the major change or alteration?

I'm not referring to the new requirement to pass on a copy of the 337 to
Oklahoma City, nor am I referring to the substitution of a previously TSO'd
part with a non-TSO'd part. My question arises from a recent conversation
with a A&P/IA friend who has recently ran into problems and delays for
multiple field approvals. He's working with the same FSDO inspector that he
has used for years, with whom he has a great relationship. Several of the
changes were simple alterations or installations, and several where
identical to other field approvals in like make and model which he breezed
through just last fall.

The FSDO Inspector is telling him that all new directives coming down from
Washington are forcing all field approvals onward to engineering for their
approval before the local inspector is being allowed to sign off. Many
times the paperwork simply disappears forcing the FSDO guys to make multiple
inquiries about it's progress and even requiring the submitting A&P to
reapply. The FSDO inspectors are rumored to be mad as hell about it and
feel that their judgment and experience has been tossed by the wayside.

Can anybody shed any light on this?

Jim

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 09:23:57 -0500, "Jim Burns" >
wrote:

>Does anyone in the group have any information, experience, or links to
>documentation concerning a recent (past 6 months) change in Field Approval
>Guidance for FSDO Inspectors requiring that they seek FAA engineering advice
>and guidance, but not necessarily DER approval, on each and every field
>approval no matter what level of documentation, testing, or experience the
>applying A&P or FSDO Inspector has regarding the major change or alteration?
>

>
>Can anybody shed any light on this?
>
>Jim
>

Seems similar to what I went through a few years ago with adding a 2nd heat
muff to my airplane. I believe that this policy has been in place for
considerably longer than six months.

Advice: If at all possible, see if you can have the work done via a simple
logbook entry by your IA.
--ron

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Ron,
This isn't the same old business as usual BS from inspectors that simply
don't want to have their name recorded on a 337. These delays are being
reported by inspectors that had previously signed and are currently willing
to sign off on field approvals that they are intimately familiar with. I've
had a couple field approvals go through in less than 24 hours with nothing
more than a phone call, a fax, and a detailed conversation. This change,
according to the same FSDO inspector, is new guidance or mandate from
Washington.

The major alterations that my IA friend is implementing are without a doubt
major alterations such as single point fueling and air conditioning, both of
which are STC'd for the same make and similar models. The inspector he
works with has previously approved these alterations without a hitch but
says that now he's forced to pass the 337 up the channel to engineering
first.

Jim

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 09:23:57 -0500, "Jim Burns"
>
> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone in the group have any information, experience, or links to
> >documentation concerning a recent (past 6 months) change in Field
Approval
> >Guidance for FSDO Inspectors requiring that they seek FAA engineering
advice
> >and guidance, but not necessarily DER approval, on each and every field
> >approval no matter what level of documentation, testing, or experience
the
> >applying A&P or FSDO Inspector has regarding the major change or
alteration?
> >
>
> >
> >Can anybody shed any light on this?
> >
> >Jim
> >
>
> Seems similar to what I went through a few years ago with adding a 2nd
heat
> muff to my airplane. I believe that this policy has been in place for
> considerably longer than six months.
>
> Advice: If at all possible, see if you can have the work done via a
simple
> logbook entry by your IA.
> --ron

[Michael[_1_]]

On May 4, 9:23 am, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
> Does anyone in the group have any information, experience, or links to
> documentation concerning a recent (past 6 months) change in Field Approval
> Guidance for FSDO Inspectors requiring that they seek FAA engineering advice
> and guidance, but not necessarily DER approval, on each and every field
> approval no matter what level of documentation, testing, or experience the
> applying A&P or FSDO Inspector has regarding the major change or alteration?

Yes. It's been around longer than that. Some FSDO's inspectors have
simply been ignoring it for a while, on the principle that "Hey, I've
been doing this for years and I know what I'm doing, so this is just
bull****, and what are they going to do to me anyway?" Well, they
can't be fired, but they can be told what (not) to do after the fact,
and they are being told. As time passes, all will be required to
comply. Of course about the time everyone is on the same page, the
rules will change again.

> I'm not referring to the new requirement to pass on a copy of the 337 to
> Oklahoma City, nor am I referring to the substitution of a previously TSO'd
> part with a non-TSO'd part. My question arises from a recent conversation
> with a A&P/IA friend who has recently ran into problems and delays for
> multiple field approvals. He's working with the same FSDO inspector that he
> has used for years, with whom he has a great relationship. Several of the
> changes were simple alterations or installations, and several where
> identical to other field approvals in like make and model which he breezed
> through just last fall.
>
> The FSDO Inspector is telling him that all new directives coming down from
> Washington are forcing all field approvals onward to engineering for their
> approval before the local inspector is being allowed to sign off. Many
> times the paperwork simply disappears forcing the FSDO guys to make multiple
> inquiries about it's progress and even requiring the submitting A&P to
> reapply. The FSDO inspectors are rumored to be mad as hell about it and
> feel that their judgment and experience has been tossed by the wayside.
>
> Can anybody shed any light on this?

Yeah. We've been dealing with this for a little over 2 years in
Houston. Routine stuff is being rejected (how much more routine can
you get than a Stormscope installation in a Bonanza?) when exactly the
same stuff breezed right through 3 years ago. Coming up - more of the
same.

If you can get your A&P to install it on a logbook entry as a minor
mod, you should do it. As long as your IA doing the annual isn't an
asshole who decides to question this and take it up with the FSDO (Jay
Honeck can tell you how that happens - still got those strobes, Jay?)
you are fine. Moral of the story - choose your A&P and IA carefully.

Michael

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Maybe what has been going around is finally coming around (to my area).
Jim

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/volume2/media/2_001_00.pdf

Dated 2/23/05 leads us down the slippery slope. Figure 1-3 shows specific
changes that require either a STC, DER engineering, or an engineering
evaluation.

Yuck.

Jim

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Burns wrote:

>
> The FSDO Inspector is telling him that all new directives coming down from
> Washington are forcing all field approvals onward to engineering for their
> approval before the local inspector is being allowed to sign off.

I've heard this thing from various people working with FSDO's. I
guess the FAA is "fixing" the problem that different FSDO's have
different levels of difficulty by making everybody's life difficult.


>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Natalie" <> wrote

> I've heard this thing from various people working with FSDO's. I
> guess the FAA is "fixing" the problem that different FSDO's have
> different levels of difficulty by making everybody's life difficult.

Oh, good.

Another case of sinking to the lowest common denominator.
--
Jim in NC

[Michael[_1_]]

On May 4, 2:19 pm, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/volume2/...

Thanks for that link. Now I will know what not to ask for. Which is
basically everything.

> Dated 2/23/05 leads us down the slippery slope. Figure 1-3 shows specific
> changes that require either a STC, DER engineering, or an engineering
> evaluation.

That date makes a lot of sense - a little over two years ago is when
we started having these problems.

You know, I was going to get my IA when I became eligible (which is in
a few months) but now I doubt I will bother. I can ALWAYS find an IA
to sign an annual or an STC'd installation, and that seems to be all
you can do anymore. Basically, you can now forget getting a 337
without an STC without going through more trouble than it's worth.

> Yuck.

Amen

Michael

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Quote from the AMT forum from a DFW poster:

"I ran this is question by my PMI and here is the response I
received a few days ago..."


Question: "I'm hearing through the grapevine that the Field Approval
process is changing and that you (the local FSDO) no longer do field
approvals (Box 3). I've also heard that the IA may get authority to grant
field approvals. Any truth to it?"

Response: "Well, the Field Approvals are still being done but the powers
to be are wanting to hand the process off. The Field approvals would go to
Designees that would be rated to do the
function, for a price. The IA's would not get this authority. As of this
point in time the FSDO are still involved."


And from a Wisconsin poster:
"Our PMI has told us in no uncertain terms that field approvals for
autopilot installations are a thing of the past. I haven't heard anything
about other FA's yet......."

Jim