Deactivating/Removing STC Major Alterations

[kontiki]

I'm going to pull the Grumman Tiger redtail mod off of my airplane.

It was installed by STC. Some idiot painted over the back of the original red lens (it was also cracked). The STC re-positioned the original flashing beacon inside the narrow red lexan lens and it draws 11 amps.

The space inside the lens is too narrow for an LED retrofit, and I couldn't keep the replacement red lens from cracking, so I finally said the heck with it. I don't mind the performance hit, I just want a brighter beacon and to reduce the electrical loads (to accommodate a UAT ADS-B solution).

Any body know of paperwork requirement for removing an STC, aside from a log book entry. I plan on re-balancing the rudder IAW the AMM.

 

[Tom-D]

The STC is removed paper work wise as it was applied. 337 explaining what was done, and returned to service by an IA.

 

[kontiki]

The STC is removed paper work wise as it was applied. 337 explaining what was done, and returned to service by an IA.

Thanks, haddn't come across this before I'll talk with the local IA.

At a 121 airline, with an engineering department, we usually document major alterations by writing Engineering Orders and Engineering Authorizations, but the exact policy varies from company to company, depending on what it says in the FAA approved policy documents for engineering processes. I saw 337s sometimes used at Northwest a long time ago, but not at Delta or Fedex.

 

[bnt83]

Thanks, haddn't come across this before I'll talk with the local IA.

At a 121 airline, with an engineering department, we usually document major alterations by writing Engineering Orders and Engineering Authorizations, but the exact policy varies from company to company, depending on what it says in the FAA approved policy documents for engineering processes. I saw 337s sometimes used at Northwest a long time ago, but not at Delta or Fedex.

Its really fun explaining to a vendor, that works mostly on 121 stuff, why I need a 337 for a component we sent them and they performed a major repair on, it usually goes "what is a 337?"

 

[Bell206]

FYI: 121 and 10 pax or more 135 ops operate under different maintenance rules and have the ability to self-authorize most of their internal actions via their opsspecs. Part 91 and 9 pax or less 135 ops fall under Part 43 for maintenance with 91K and 125 ops falling in between at times depending on size/type of aircraft.

 

[kontiki]

Its really fun explaining to a vendor, that works mostly on 121 stuff, why I need a 337 for a component we sent them and they performed a major repair on, it usually goes "what is a 337?"

I'm almost afraid to say this, I know the devil lives in the details; I'm surprised an 8130 isn't enough.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I'm almost afraid to say this, I know the devil lives in the details; I'm surprised an 8130 isn't enough.

the -3 is the vehicle to "use" the 337.

 

[kontiki]

FYI: 121 and 10 pax or more 135 ops operate under different maintenance rules and have the ability to self-authorize most of their internal actions via their opsspecs. Part 91 and 9 pax or less 135 ops fall under Part 43 for maintenance with 91K and 125 ops falling in between at times depending on size/type of aircraft.

The way I understand it at our 121, our AMTs are allowed no latitude for making minor changes to airplanes and procedures, period. Any repairs that are not within the scope of the SRM or done exactly per the SRM have to be approved by engineering. If it's possible to defer inoperative gear per the MEL, but there is any visible damage, including something so simple as a broken wire, for the repair to be deferred fly, Engineering has to be involved.

We also handle the FAA major progects, whether we obtain our own STC or use 3rd party support.

So in an engineering support group, we are in effect configuration QA oversight. In avionics, we also get a lot of requests for troubleshooting support. That is a huge PIA. It's nearly impossible to find latent faults that pop up every week or so, as an airplane flys around the system, from a cube. It's harder the more complex the planes get too. We can't duplicate a lot of them on the ground, AMM checkout passes. OEM really has no clue. I don't mind helping the techs when they have grounded it and are working on it, but usually it's not what we come up with from our office.

 

[Bell206]

I'm surprised an 8130 isn't enough.

Outside 121 most aircraft are required by 43 and 91 to have a 337 completed and retained for a major repair/alteration. A 8130 doesn't replace that requirement. The only document that can replace a 337 on occasion is a Part 145 work order release.

 

[kontiki]

Outside 121 most aircraft are required by 43 and 91 to have a 337 completed and retained for a major repair/alteration. A 8130 doesn't replace that requirement. The only document that can replace a 337 on occasion is a Part 145 work order release.

Honestly when bnt83 first posted it, it sounded like he didn't want to explain it, so I didn't ask. I really can't imagine what kind component mod qualifies for a 337. There are a lot of topics in aviation I have no clue about. It's really getting worse every day.

 

[Bell206]

I really can't imagine what kind component mod qualifies for a 337.

Weld repair on a turbine engine combustion housing by 3rd party vender with a DER 8110 approved process or a fabric recover on a set of Super Cub tail feathers you bought online are a couple examples requiring a 337 from someone. Basically any work performed on a component or part that falls under the guidance in 43 Appx A for major alteration/repair.

 

[Tom-D]

Weld repair on a turbine engine combustion housing by 3rd party vender with a DER 8110 approved process or a fabric recover on a set of Super Cub tail feathers you bought online are a couple examples requiring a 337 from someone. Basically any work performed on a component or part that falls under the guidance in 43 Appx A for major alteration/repair.

337s are no longer scrutinized by ASIs prior to being sent to OKC for filing, they can be made out and filed for any information that the owner want to be a permanent part of the history records.
Things like new W&B, and any other pertinent record keeping items that should never be lost.
337 are the only means of placing records in the FAA data base.
This is not to say every little item in the maintenance records should be sent to OKC for safe keeping.

 

[denverpilot]

This is not to say every little item in the maintenance records should be sent to OKC for safe keeping.

Leads to an interesting question: What items would you say should be that people don’t?

 

[mondtster]

Leads to an interesting question: What items would you say should be that people don’t?

From what I’ve seen, there is typically far more stuff that gets sent in on a 337 that doesn’t need to be instead of not sending enough.

Where owners and mechanics often seem to fall short is in properly documenting minor maintenance and repair jobs. It isn’t uncommon to see something that was fixed and not find any logbook entry for the repair, or a poorly written entry that leaves you with more questions than answers. This can be a big problem down the road when it comes to things like AD compliance.

 

[Tom-D]

From what I’ve seen, there is typically far more stuff that gets sent in on a 337 that doesn’t need to be instead of not sending enough.

Where owners and mechanics often seem to fall short is in properly documenting minor maintenance and repair jobs. It isn’t uncommon to see something that was fixed and not find any logbook entry for the repair, or a poorly written entry that leaves you with more questions than answers. This can be a big problem down the road when it comes to things like AD compliance.

Totally agree.
Most old 337s I see do not adequately relate what was done in block #8.

Many times I see 337s installing a STC and never removing that STC when the aircraft had that STC removed.
case in mind, 0-300 had a STC installing a light weight starter. Later the 0-300 was up graded to the 180- horse Lycoming. As far as records show the light weight starter was still installed.

 

[Tom-D]

I would like to see a block added to the 337 to show Aircraft Total Time.

This would make it impossible to throw away the old logs and start new with "Total time unknown"
And possibly save a few aircraft with life limited parts, when the logs come up missing.

 

[bluerooster]

What's to stop a mechanic from making footnote of AFTT in the description of work performed?

 

[Bell206]

What's to stop a mechanic from making footnote of AFTT in the description of work performed?

Nothing. But a dedicated TT block would make everyone fill it out.