Missing STC Paperwork

[Bell206]

Information they require on the STC submittal form that I don’t have. Such as purchase date. Where the purchase was made. Batch number. Invoice number etc.

FYI: you should have called their tech support. If referring to the online form its for new purchases only and not existing installs.

 

[WDD]

I have a hunch that 90% of the GA fleet has at least something existing on the plane added long ago for which there isn't a piece of paper, copy of the STC, etc. Heck, there is at least something on the plane not factory that the owner isn't and never will be aware of. These are old airplanes.

Me? Mostly OCD. I re organized the log books, added tab dividers, cleaned out an old warranty card for a Tanis heater installed on an engine core replaced 15 years ago, etc. But I also know maybe somewhere there is a widget put in 30 years ago that's perfectly fine for which there isn't a piece of paper. I'm not going to scrap the plane for parts, and I'm going to fly and not worry about it.

 

[WDD]

It involved getting the plane flown to the STC holder for inspection;

Looking to learn maybe something new. Why did the STC holder have to personally inspect the plane? What is in play is whether the STC holder granted the plane owner the right to use their product / intellectual property. The STC holder isn't responsible for how it's installed. Hence, they should just need to provide a "permission slip" that plane serial number 123456 has the right to use this widget.

 

[Bell206]

I have a hunch that 90% of the GA fleet has at least something existing on the plane added long ago for which there isn't a piece of paper, copy of the STC, etc. Heck, there is at least something on the plane not factory that the owner isn't and never will be aware of.

In my experience I would put the percentage closer to 30-35%. The top end owners all know what is on the aircraft and maintain the aircraft at that level. The middle group vary from the top end to the bottom end. Regardless, for any aircraft to be considered airworthy it must conform to its type design (or properly altered condition) which is further stated in Block 6 of its AWC.

 

[Mooney Fan]

FYI: you should have called their tech support. If referring to the online form its for new purchases only and not existing installs.

I know. Replacement was going to be subject to a fee. And considering they were also closed Friday I elected to buy a replacement for the 21 year old filter even though they are advertised as a life time product. I’ll have it in hand Tuesday.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Looking to learn maybe something new. Why did the STC holder have to personally inspect the plane? What is in play is whether the STC holder granted the plane owner the right to use their product / intellectual property. The STC holder isn't responsible for how it's installed. Hence, they should just need to provide a "permission slip" that plane serial number 123456 has the right to use this widget.

I should have mentioned this. I wanted the STC holder, who was also the installer in 1987 (I purchased the plane in 2017), to ensure everything was still correct and operational and proper. The paperwork snafu ended up being advantageous to my prebuy.

 

[WDD]

I should have mentioned this. I wanted the STC holder, who was also the installer in 1987 (I purchased the plane in 2017), to ensure everything was still correct and operational and proper. The paperwork snafu ended up being advantageous to my prebuy.

Amazing you were able to find the person who installed it 40 years ago. If the log books were missing, and the installed widget wasn't self evident, how would anyone know? If the log books were missing, the widget was noticed, the STC could be located, but the 337 was missing (no log books), what then?

 

[Bell206]

If the log books were missing, and the installed widget wasn't self evident, how would anyone know?

Keep in mind for an aircraft to be legally operated it must have the maintenance records required in 91.417 which are typically enough to determine aircraft conformity. Even the FAA does not require retention of any other records outside of 91.417 except for those from 91.411/413. So an owner operating without those required records gets into airworthiness and other issues per the existing guidance.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Amazing you were able to find the person who installed it 40 years ago. If the log books were missing, and the installed widget wasn't self evident, how would anyone know? If the log books were missing, the widget was noticed, the STC could be located, but the 337 was missing (no log books), what then?

FAA Aircraft Records. If it was installed as per the STC then a copy of the 337 will be on record.

 

[schmookeeg]

I have never understood why the FAA put themselves in the position of "intellectual property cop" in STCs.

There are STC holders who will refuse to transfer a permission letter for a widget they already sold without a hefty friendship fee. The Horizon Tacho was a bad one for this. They wanted $700 to transfer permission for their $500 widget. Jerks. Guess which Tacho I stopped using/recommending. It was a nice piece of kit otherwise.

Arguably there is nothing forcing the STC holder to help in this situation at all. They can charge 10 grand to re-issue if they like.

I think if the installer certifies the installation was legal and correct, the FAA should be satisfied and then bugger off. The rest should be a civil matter, tantamount to software piracy. Otherwise we get potential for abuse by STC holders -- regulatory capture / artificial scarcity. If the FAA is concerned that a widget was installed without permission, their concern should start with the installer and ask them to present the approved data they installed the thing with. None of this "you wouldn't download an engine upgrade STC?" BS.

$0.02

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Log books were there since new (1976). The mods were performed in 1987. The mods were recorded in the logs, but just not in “today’s” acceptable format. Not that the format or regs have changed, just that there are more so called experts. The knowledge transferred to mere mortals as well as A&Ps and IAs since the internet age has led to more scrutiny. This is true in the medical field, real-estate, or any other field.

The STC holder had high enough integrity to help provide what I needed. And I was fortunate that he was alive and in business. I suppose that’s not always the case.

 

[Bell206]

I have never understood why the FAA put themselves in the position of "intellectual property cop" in STCs.

Congress mandated they provide a regulatory protection to STC data as the STC holders were losing millions every year to unauthorized use of that data. Unfortunately, the standard IP laws were not always applicable for aviation IP data due to the fallout from the old Wright Brothers patent wars. So specifically to aviation IP a good number of holders had no recourse to protect their data prior to 91.403(d). While I don't know what you mean by a transfer fee, yes there are some STC holders that withhold data and charge additional fees for whatever reasons. However, there are certain rules that can and do force their hand to provide that data which I've have used in the past.

 

[schmookeeg]

While I don't know what you mean by a transfer fee, yes there are some STC holders that withhold data and charge additional fees for whatever reasons.

Buy STC'ed (and N-number locked permission) widget, sell widget, need new permission letter.

...exposing you to unreasonable STC holder mischief.

I'd love to learn what possible recourse exists in that scenario, I haven't found anything useful in my searches. I don't need to arm-twist, but... the fee for a piece of paper and some bookkeeping can get excessive. Transferring (already purchased) colemill STC permissions is something north of 5-figures last time I checked. Absurd.

 

[Half Fast]

I think if the installer certifies the installation was legal and correct, the FAA should be satisfied and then bugger off. The rest should be a civil matter, tantamount to software piracy. Otherwise we get potential for abuse by STC holders -- regulatory capture / artificial scarcity. If the FAA is concerned that a widget was installed without permission, their concern should start with the installer and ask them to present the approved data they installed the thing with. None of this "you wouldn't download an engine upgrade STC?" BS.

Let's go down the documentation rabbit hole for a moment.

91.417(b)(2) tells us which records must be retained and transferred with the aircraft:

The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.​

What are the records in paragraph (a)(2) that relate to alterations, you ask?

Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.​

So, what are those forms prescribed by 43.9(d)?

In addition to the entry required by paragraph (a) of this section, major repairs and major alterations shall be entered on a form, and the form disposed of, in the manner prescribed in appendix B, by the person performing the work.​

Now, then, we've almost reached the rabbit at the bottom of the hole. We finally take a look at 43 Appendix B(a).

Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this appendix, each person performing a major repair or major alteration shall—​

(1) Execute FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate;​

(2) Give a signed copy of that form to the aircraft owner; and​

(3) Forward a copy of that form to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, within 48 hours after the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is approved for return to service.​

Stringing all this together, we see that the only record that must be retained permanently and transferred with the aircraft is a copy of Form 337. There is no mention of any need to retain the permission letter.

As far as I can tell from the regs, the FAA has not authorized, much less empowered, IAs to act in the role of intellectual property cops. As you state, that's a civil matter, and there are civil courts to deal with such things. The role of the IA is inspect the aircraft for conformity to the type certificate and to alterations/repairs documented on the 337 forms. The mother-may-I slip is not necessary to determine conformity, nor is there a requirement for the owner to retain and produce it.

If there are FAA rulings or legal opinions to the contrary, I've been unable to find them. If someone can produce something official from the FAA that clearly requires retention of the permission letter, I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion. (But if you can't find it either, for Pete's sake don't ask the FAA!)

 

[schmookeeg]

I love this site's affinity for rabbit holes

The issue is the ICA is part of the STC package and you can't "share" ICAs, so it becomes the tollbooth mechanism.

The FAA is sort of complicit in structuring things to advantage STC holders. I would think ICAs need to be "here's a list of actions that need to be taken, here are the known interactions with other hardware or other STCs or whatever... end of list". They should be published because they directly influence airworthiness determinations, and none of them are secret sauce.

Yet, here we are.

 

[Bell206]

Buy STC'ed (and N-number locked permission) widget, sell widget, need new permission letter.

Interesting as I know of no STC installation that is “N-number locked.” Nor of any FAA requirement to transfer such permission as part of a registration change. Now if you are removing the STC and installing it on another aircraft then yes you must transfer the STC permission to the new model and serial number. Don’t know what else to offer?

The FAA is sort of complicit in structuring things to advantage STC holders.

Strictly on congress. The FAA wanted no part of this responsibility.

If there are FAA rulings or legal opinions to the contrary, I've been unable to find them.

After 2006 they left it to the owner whether to retain it or not in 91.403(d). My recommendation to owners was to retain it. For STCs prior to 2006 even though there was no letter requirement, I would always recommend making an effort to obtain one if possible.

 

[Half Fast]

After 2006 they left it to the owner whether to retain it or not in 91.403(d).

So if retaining it is optional, it seems like @Mooney Fan 's mechanic shouldn't insist that he needs it.

 

[Half Fast]

The FAA wanted no part of this responsibility.

Agreed. And from the wording of the regs, it seems that the FAA has taken on as little responsibility for this as possible. There doesn't seem to be any need for anyone to retain the permission letter and the letter isn't submitted to OKC with the 337, so if the STC holder has a beef, the FAA will be a poor choice for enforcement.

 

[schmookeeg]

Interesting as I know of no STC installation that is “N-number locked.” Nor of any FAA requirement to transfer such permission as part of a registration change. Now if you are removing the STC and installing it on another aircraft then yes you must transfer the STC permission to the new model and serial number. Don’t know what else to offer?

I fear we're talking past one another on this. Yes, I was speaking of transferring the STC to another airframe (or selling the widget which presumably someone wants to install in another airframe?), another permission letter needs accompany it? And therein exposes one to STC Holder "fees" ? I feel like we're describing the same thing.

I like being able to sell things after I buy them and no longer want them. Without rent-seeking in the way.

 

[Mooney Fan]

So if retaining it is optional, it seems like @Mooney Fan 's mechanic shouldn't insist that he needs it.

He's a mechanic the buyer selected off a list I provided him to conduct his pre-buy.

 

[Bell206]

So if retaining it is optional, it seems like @Mooney Fan 's mechanic shouldn't insist that he needs it.

Why not? To me the mechanic is performing a proper conformity check and by extension a proper prebuy.

I like being able to sell things after I buy them and no longer want them.

Except you can still sell them all you want. It falls to the buyer to work out that permission. Regardless, the original problem wasn’t the selling of STCs but the copying of them and using that copied approved data to install them. My guess if you were an STC holder you wouldn’t like that either if you had invested big money to develop it and couldn’t recoup your investment?

 

[WDD]

He's a mechanic the buyer selected off a list I provided him to conduct his pre-buy.

But that has nothing to do with whether he is correct or not.

 

[pfarber]

Now you are implying no FAA Form 337 was filled.

It doesn't matter if there is a 337 or not. Did you not read the FAR 21.120 where the STC holder MUST supply written permission? Where is that?

We are assuming that the STC holder will NOT provide a copy of the original STC that allowed the install. If the holder does so, then this is all a moot point. Well other then the question of ICA's or maintenance (why did you keep ignoring that?)

The 337 IS NOT PERMISSION TO INSTALL AN STC. Its only notification.

What part of the of the STC holder must give EXPLICIT permission, and the owner must have that documentation that that STC was allowed to be installed, is confusing?

Gee, its not like this is the first time its ever happened:

One STC please . Pretty please!

Circa 25 years ago Congress passed a law allowing Supplemental Type Certificate Holders to protect their intellectual property. This is via requiring that a written Permission Letter be obtained from the STC Holder in order to use the STC. Prior to that “ bootleg” or“ pirate “ use of that...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

 

[pfarber]

Let's go down the documentation rabbit hole for a moment.

91.417(b)(2) tells us which records must be retained and transferred with the aircraft:

The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.​

What are the records in paragraph (a)(2) that relate to alterations, you ask?

Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.​

So, what are those forms prescribed by 43.9(d)?

In addition to the entry required by paragraph (a) of this section, major repairs and major alterations shall be entered on a form, and the form disposed of, in the manner prescribed in appendix B, by the person performing the work.​

Now, then, we've almost reached the rabbit at the bottom of the hole. We finally take a look at 43 Appendix B(a).

Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this appendix, each person performing a major repair or major alteration shall—​

(1) Execute FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate;​

(2) Give a signed copy of that form to the aircraft owner; and​

(3) Forward a copy of that form to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, within 48 hours after the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is approved for return to service.​

Stringing all this together, we see that the only record that must be retained permanently and transferred with the aircraft is a copy of Form 337. There is no mention of any need to retain the permission letter.

As far as I can tell from the regs, the FAA has not authorized, much less empowered, IAs to act in the role of intellectual property cops. As you state, that's a civil matter, and there are civil courts to deal with such things. The role of the IA is inspect the aircraft for conformity to the type certificate and to alterations/repairs documented on the 337 forms. The mother-may-I slip is not necessary to determine conformity, nor is there a requirement for the owner to retain and produce it.

If there are FAA rulings or legal opinions to the contrary, I've been unable to find them. If someone can produce something official from the FAA that clearly requires retention of the permission letter, I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion. (But if you can't find it either, for Pete's sake don't ask the FAA!)

I agree this is the correct path but there is a need to retain the permission letter, one hint is 21.120. Also Congress's intent to allow STC holders to control their IP. STC holders have WIDE latitude to restrict the STC an N number, an airframe SN, or even to a specific person, and the even if the STC can be transferred to another person.

As for the FAA's enforcement, you must have written permission to install an STC. Without it your airplane is unairworthy as there it no way for the FAA to conclude that the STC was allowed by the STC holder. There might be a valid reason why they didn't want to issue a permission letter... failure to pay the fee, a previous STC conflicts, they simply didn't want to, etc

Also the permission letter is part of the the STC package, which must be kept and maintained. If an IA looks at an STC and doesn't see page 1 'permission to install on XXXXX' then he's not really IA'ing, are they? So yes, they are kinda like the gatekeepers.

Be careful when you buy used STC'd parts.

It's a steep learning curve in aviation at times. I've just encountered a problem that was news to me. When you buy an STC'd part, say from someone parting a plane out, even though you have all the STC paperwork and installation manuals and parts list, you still need a written authorisation...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

STC's

Could someone please explain how these work? I found the list on the FAA website for our club plane (1968 172i) and there are quite a few. Everything from visors to seat belts to engine mods are included. As I understand it, these are for anything that alters the airplane from its original...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

Best practice would be to send in a copy of the permission letter as part of the 337 so its recorded in OK. Yes, the owner gets one, but there is no harm in sending it in.

 

[Mooney Fan]

Back to the 2006 legislation. Prior to that was the owner ‘required’ to maintain STC documentation? Seeing as the IA in 2004 submitted 337’s for the modifications, not one copy of the STC’s were submitted to the FAA. At least they didn’t provide any with their supplied records for the aircraft.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Back to the 2006 legislation. Prior to that was the owner ‘required’ to maintain STC documentation? Seeing as the IA in 2004 submitted 337’s for the modifications, not one copy of the STC’s were submitted to the FAA. At least they didn’t provide any with their supplied records for the aircraft.

Typically the STC paperwork is not provided to the FAA with the 337. Even though we have someone keep repeating that a 337 is nothing but a "notification" with no basis in fact, the 337 is in fact a return to service document (see block 7) and the description of the work (block 8) is what's being attested to.

I've completed 8 Form 337's this year and all 8 were done in support of the STC's installed. I did not submit copies of the STC with the 337 to OKC. The STC paperwork is with the aircraft records including a copy of the submitted 337.

 

[Half Fast]

Without it your airplane is unairworthy as there it no way for the FAA to conclude that the STC was allowed by the STC holder.

Nope. Airworthiness is determined by the conformance of the aircraft to its type certificate plus alterations/repairs documented on the 337 forms. "Permission" has nothing to do with it. The permission letter does not provide any technical information necessary to determine conformance. There might indeed be "no way for the FAA to conclude that the STC was allowed," but it's not the obligation of the owner to provide that means. Permission at that stage is a civil matter, and other means are available to the STC holder.

Also the permission letter is part of the the STC package, which must be kept and maintained. If an IA looks at an STC and doesn't see page 1 'permission to install on XXXXX' then he's not really IA'ing, are they? So yes, they are kinda like the gatekeepers.

Nope. Read carefully the regs I quoted, as they explicitly state what must be retained and transferred with the aircraft. Don't make inferences; just read what it says. There's not one word saying the "STC package" must be kept; only the 337 forms are called out for permanent retention.

The 337s will reference the STCs, which are on file with the FAA, and they may need to be reviewed by the IA to understand the 337s, but there is no need to review the permission letter to understand the 337.

If an IA looks at an STC and doesn't see page 1 'permission to install on XXXXX' then he's not really IA'ing, are they?

Sure he is. His job is to ask, "Does this aircraft conform to its description as given by the TC and the 337s?" not to ask whether the owner has paid his bills or kept a copy of some piece of paper that the regs don't require him to retain.

Don't try to make more of this than it is. The FAA did the bare minimum to comply with congressional direction. They didn't sign up to enforce intellectual property rights, and if they had wanted to require owners to retain permission letters they could have easily made the reg say so. They didn't.

 

[Half Fast]

Seeing as the IA in 2004 submitted 337’s for the modifications, not one copy of the STC’s were submitted to the FAA. At least they didn’t provide any with their supplied records for the aircraft.

If you'll read the regs, you'll see that the 337 is all that is required to be submitted. The FAA had to approve the STC in the first place, so they already have it. The 337 then tells them that the STC was implemented on Nxxxx. That completes the chain.

 

[Bell206]

Back to the 2006 legislation. Prior to that was the owner ‘required’ to maintain STC documentation?

Keep in mind the 2006 rules only introduced the permission requirement on both sides and didn't change anything else. For example, Part 43.13(a) requires the use of current ICAs so those should have been retained prior to 2006. Or in some cases, the STC certificate or data package required the retention of certain documents similar to the requirement #2 of the STC conditions and limitations below. And then you have those STCs which are not considered major alterations so there would be no 337 requirement. And so on.

But to add on the 337s, they have a singular purpose and are not considered a repository for all records sent to OK City. For example, prior to the 2002 change to the 337 process, those forms were sent to the local GADO/FSDO office for review and any 337 submission not deemed applicable or any added documents outside the 337 requirement would be returned to the sender. So there are certain STC documents that were retained prior to 2006, and after 2006.

 

[Bell206]

As for the FAA's enforcement, you must have written permission to install an STC. Without it your airplane is unairworthy as there it no way for the FAA to conclude that the STC was allowed by the STC holder.

So whats your professional advice concerning the written permission for STCs issued or installed prior to 2006? Or toward STCs whose holder has surrendered or abandoned those STCs regardless of year?

 

[Mooney Fan]

(((sigh))) To avoid placarding the A/P I'm trying to run down the AFMS. Its for the Mitchell Automatic Flight Control System Model AK174 Auto-Control IIB. The manual P/N is 68S458.

If anyone has a digital copy they could share it would be much appreciated. We have searched on line and while there are Supplements out there, we can't seem to track down the one for the AK174.

Thanks