Champ/Chief hinged cowl

[Jim McCartney]

Hello, The local FSDO is requiring written authorization for my Champ hinged cowl. Has anyone received a field authorization for one? I would be most appreciative if I could get a copy. Thank you, Jim

[Paul Agaliotis]

Jim,
I have seen cowls hinged on one or both sides. I don't believe this would be major repair or alteration. This would be more of a minor alteration to the part. At most a log book entry.
Is there any specific reason they are concerned with the modification?
Paul

[rkittine]

My hinged cowl on my Chief was just a log book entry.

Bob

[rkittine]

My hinged cowl on my Chief was just a log book entry.

Bob

[rkittine]

My hinged cowl on my Chief was just a log book entry.

Bob

[rkittine]

Sorry about the duplicates. Not sure how that happened.

[james gevay]

I'm not sure why they would want authorization as long as the structure of the top cowling is attached as well as the old single piece one.
As for me, I think it's a great feature and I'm going to install a hinged top piece on mine when I re-do the cowlings.

[rkittine]

Standing out on a Float to check the oil and inspect the engine compartment during pre-flight is sure enhanced.

Bob

[Jim McCartney]

Thank everyone for your replies. The local FSDO is having their way with me. They say it is a major alteration, and I have to apply for a field authorization! Almost every Champ I have ever seen has one. I think they are using me as a training exercise. They are also making me provide a minimum equipment list!

[Red(neck) Barron]

In other words, they are using their government appointed authority to bolster their already over inflated egos and become bigger dickheads than they already were. These were probably the kids who were picked on in school and now they are transferring their frustration onto an innocent victim over a ridiculous issue. This does nothing to further the safety of aviation, it only serves to further the distrust and contempt for governmental agencies and some of the people in them. So unfair and unnecessary. No wonder our society is in such an upheaval with things such as this occurring. Those people are poor representatives for an agency that, I believe, is trying to improve itself.

Of all the issues to get excited over, hinges on a Champ cowl. Unreal!

Now I need a shot of Jack and it's only 8am.

[Paul Agaliotis]

Jim,
Ask them the reason it falls into the category of a major alteration. I'm going to look in my copy of the Service Bulletins and see if the cowl is mentioned, I believe it was.

As for the MEL, it's included in the Type Certificate. It's called required equipment. No MEL document was created for the Aeroncas. They figured out that if the tailwheel was missing you probably wouldn't fly it.

Mention to your inspector that you lack the authority to create the MEL or the CDL, component deviation list. That would require the TC holder to have supporting documents to allow the dispatch of the aircraft with INOP items and the added requirements for doing so. The CDL allows you to fly with missing items provided you compensate in some way for the missing items. Generally we use it for panels and fairings that are missing and take a fuel penalty for operating it in this condition.

Unfortunately people like this is why there is undocumented work being accomplished. For such a simple modification we have wasted too many words. However you decide to proceed, document the work! If you choose to use the minor alteration with a log entry, state as such. If there is push back from the FAA the conversation is on why you believe it is a minor alteration. If you fail to document the modification the conversation will be about false or mis-leading statements, a violation of FAR 43.12 or 43.13, too lazy to look it up. But it's in there.

Good luck with this new guy.
Paul

[Jim McCartney]

Larry, you have reflected my thoughts and feelings spot on! Paul, Your rational contributions are always welcome and appreciated. Thank you both, for your contribution! I have discovered that Wagaero offers the hinged cowl as a PMA`d part number 74731. I`m not sure if that will help my cause or not. Thanks, Jim

[Dennis]

With all due respect, why are you talking with FSDO about this?

Dennis

[Jim McCartney]

Hello Dennis, This all started because the FAA website showed my Champ as manufactured in 1956. I have a copy of the original bill of sale from Aeronca showing it manufactured in 1946. I asked Oklahoma city to change the date because I have entered the plane in the classic category at airshows. This category is for dates 1945 to 1955. Ok city said I had to have a letter from the local FSDO to authorize them to make the change. I took the bill of sale to them and they said they would have to come to my hangar and inspect the aircraft and the logs. They found a few minor items in the aircraft, such as some of the bolts were 1 1/2 threads too short, some of the placards were not installed on the panel, incorrect checklist (wrong N number on it), no minimum equipment list, no supporting paperwork for the hinged cowl and Cessna 150 exhaust. Also, I had an Ebay data plate on the engine and no engine log books. They made me replace the engine with a newly rebuilt crankcase from Divco and grounded the airplane since the first of September of last year. The engine is in the process of being rebuilt at this time. It had 42 hours on it since a complete rebuild. They found not a single safety item, just a lack of a paper trail. By the way, this airplane took Grand champion at the Arlington airshow last year.

[Paul Agaliotis]

Jim,
That happened to a bunch of airplanes. When the FAA was invented in 1956 they had IA's do an annual inspection instead of giving you a new airworthiness certificate each year. So when they issued the new permanent airworthiness certificates they all were dated 1956. When the airplanes changed hands the information on the certificate was put on the bill of sale and recorded in OKC as 1956. My L-16 is in the same situation, and I'm OK with that.
Involving the FAA in any aspect of aviation is generally not a good idea, their big shoes tend to scuff the interior and the red foam noses can foul the controls if misplaced. Best to let them live out their dreams under the "big top".
Paul