Pawnee hell

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 a

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 a

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 a

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 a

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 a

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 a

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 a

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.