STC's

General discussion and guidelines
Post Reply
jkvincent
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 22:34
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

STC's

Post by jkvincent »

...with field approvals practially non-existent, then (in general),
how does a person go about aquiring (holding) an STC for a modification?
Jim
jkvincent
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 22:34
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

Post by jkvincent »

I did some research, ...WHEW !!
never mind.
Jim
User avatar
joea
Site Admin
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 13:01
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Contact:

Post by joea »

So what all is involved?

This is one of the reasons why we want to keep all the existing STC's alive.

Joe
jkvincent
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 22:34
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

Post by jkvincent »

Well, it's the FAA....
Paper work, Proto type, Testing, Engineering, ...did I say Paper work?
Don't make the mistake of installing the Proto Type without prior FAA approval.
There's a good bit of other stuff too, but you get the idea.
Jim
User avatar
BobK
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 15:55
Location: Anchorage, AK
Contact:

Post by BobK »

Sheesh.....

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... C21-40.pdf

Can you say HEADACHE ?

Hasta ~

Bob K.
Anchorage, AK[/i]
Dennis
Posts: 758
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 09:09
Location: 7M2
Contact:

Post by Dennis »

I also have a Cherokee. Several years ago, I bought a new STC extended baggage compartment for the lower floor of the Cherokee. It was simple and straight forward.

Essentially, it just blocked off 1/2 of the lower floor with an access door/doubler in the existing floor. No increase in baggage weight. I think I was the first to buy the STC. When talking to the developer of the STC, he said it cost him $20,000 for the STC.

Think about it, $20,000 to block off an area and add a door with no change in loading or aerodynamics or horse power.

That is why there are no new STCs. Good thing Edison did not have to get STCs or we would still be using smoke signals.

Dennis
AV8R2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:41
Location: Chugiak, Alaska
Contact:

STC

Post by AV8R2 »

I am glad to see someone actually research getting an STC. Good for you! Now with that bit of knowledge it isn't hard to see why that new little "Do-Dad" costs so much is it.

We have approximately 25 STCs, 19 supplements to our PMA plus 6 Engineering Design Approvals.

We just acquired another STC and the PMA letter has been sent out. We should receive the letter (supplement to original PMA Letter) in a few days.

We still have 17 STC applications that are active in the Anchorage ACO for various aircraft including Champs, Chiefs, Sedan, Cessna 170/180/182/185. We even make parts for Taylorcraft.

All this is in addition to all the new data, parts, pieces, etc. that we are adding to the original Sedan data to make the plane more useful, fun and worth owning.

I am not complaining at all here; this is what I have chosen to do for a living and I love it. Heck, I'm just a new kid on the block by some of my peers standards. Atlee Dodge retired with over 150 STCs. I learned a lot from Atlee and others like him; and I'm still learning!

I'm glad that there is an appreciation of my and other STC Holder's efforts. It helps make it all worth while.

Blue Skies and a fair tailwind to you all,

Burl
When all else fails, go to the source. Factory Approved parts and data will get you back in the air.
MikeB
Posts: 3246
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 17:07
Location: Western Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by MikeB »

I'm STILL waiting for approval to use the approved pop rivets in my .032 Champ wings in accordance with SL 85. Good thing I don't need them right now but it has been probably 6 months since the paperwork (337) was sent in. I can't imagine how anyone can justify tying up someone's equipment for such a long time.

Mike Berg
"If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money"
Dusty
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 23:13
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

The field approval process is not entirely dead. I've gotten 3 or 4 in the last couple years. The right AI with the right relationships is crucial. My last attempt - to use PK screws instead of nails to attach my ribs to my new spars - took all of 30 minutes....

Minor alterations are also sometimes a viable option, and using a slightly different rivet is, in my non-AI-having opinion, a good candidate. Asking approval for something that's already implicitly granted doesn't make much sense to me.
MikeB
Posts: 3246
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 17:07
Location: Western Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by MikeB »

Had phone conversation with a knowledgable IA the other day and he said (in short) it looks to him like a field approval is not even necessary as basically the fabric is being attached to the ribs by an already approved factory method with the approved rivets. So in effect, the attachment method just becomes part of the covering process of the STC.

Well, you try to do things "right" and I was told by a couple of IA's that approval was necessary so there you go. My IA fully agrees with me but somewhere down the line another IA might do an annual or the plane is sold and question the attachment method and the plane is tied up again.
I know common sense will eventually prevail. Just might take awhile yet and having a 337 on record might help our someone else on this forum when it comes time to rebuild their wings.

Mike Berg
"If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money"
Dusty
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 23:13
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Common sense can not prevail as long as we're encouraging the FAA to say "no" by asking every time we want to do something that we've clearly already been given permission for.

The theoretical other future AI is an idiot and nobody should care what he'll think. He should be able to read a log book as well as a 337. If it's approved now, under whatever method, it's approved. You're never married to the last AI on the planet; there are always options.
Post Reply