John Benham Exhaust parts list HELP!

[canav8]

Folks, Anyone have a copy of John Benham Parts List Document number PL-1001-001 Revision C dated March 07,1993 or a later revision for the Benham or Bartone Exhaust extensions STC SA8645SW? I am trying to verify documentation with the FAA and the master paperwork file associated with the STC. Thank you for any help you can provide.
Doug Mueller
(702) Four99-FourNine89
email: canav8 at cox.net

[ron74887]

Doug, I have the drawing but sorry it was before he had the STC issued. Mine happen to be the first set installed-you are welcome to get a copy. No numbers on them. Ron

[canav8]

Thank you Ron. I have documents that show installation but also do not show a date. This is the problem the FAA has with this. They do not know if it was updated and I am trying to verify it. I would hate to see the FAA revoke this STC. I am trying to work with them. Doug

[GAHorn]

I seem to recall that John D ran into an argument with his SAT-FSDO over this same issue. He did not have a copy of the parts list which the issued STC required. He subsequently abandoned providing the paperwork and STC to buyers telling buyers to do it under field approval. According to John’s angry response (when I asked him about it) SAT FSDO refused to deal with him until he produced a copy which had their stamp-of-approval upon the document. He was pretty angry about it. I believe Pat Bartone obtained the remains of John’s inventory after the estate-sale, but I’ve never heard of anyone who had that list.

[ron74887]

Doug, I also have the parts lit and instructions along with district approval 337 dated 1988. One of the (I'll use funny) things that started all the humbug. John stated drill a 1/4" hole and FAA & Cleo said it has to be 1/4" exactly. John said use 1/4" bit and drill the &^%%& hole. that was a big argument because no +/- .005 that they (FAA) wanted where it would not have to be exactly 1/4" and that started the crap!!!! no date on my drawings or list. Ron

[daedaluscan]

I bought mine about three years ago and have all the paperwork that came wih them ( not much I recall). In Cuba till the 8 th jan so Ill dig it out when I am home.

[canav8]

The instructions are the thinnest of all STCs the FAA has ever seen. Charlie, thanks give me a shout when you get back. Dont forget to bring the Cohibas back for me.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The instructions are the thinnest of all STCs the FAA has ever seen.

Intentional on John's part i'm sure.

He and those who lived in a simpler time had the philosophy to document as little as one had too. This was for two purposes. 1. If it was written, if had to be followed. This left a lot of detail to the discretion of the installer who was expected use good judgement. 2. If what was written didn't work out, the writer had a higher chance of being held accountable for what was written. Best to let the installer take the responsibility for what ever was done.

Of course today it is the exact opposite. If it isn't expressly written, in simple language that can't be construed to have two meanings, you can't do it. This takes volumes to explain the simplest of procedures.

What is different today than in John's time is it has become a real art, and in many cases, an industry of its own, to document as little as the authorities will accept. Good luck.

[GAHorn]

John told me he once had a “special” relationship with an FAA Inspector in SAT. I suspect that person eventually retired and subsequent Inspectors were found to be more strict in following increasingly-strict rules. This became quite an issue when he had to enlist Cleo Bickford’s assistance in instrumenting for obtaining approval for an IO-360 STC he was pursuing. It (the IO-360 STC) was eventually issued but that may be about the time John stopped attempting to develop additional STCs. (For instance his baggage door installation and his door-latch modifications.)

It is true as Bruce indicated, simpler times when both A&Ps and Inspectors usually had extensive experience with simpler airframes talked the same language as opposed to later times when the FAA source for Inspectors became military and engineering backgrounds/professions with less experience in small airframes.

[canav8]

John told me he once had a “special” relationship with an FAA Inspector in SAT. I suspect that person eventually retired and subsequent Inspectors were found to be more strict in following increasingly-strict rules. This became quite an issue when he had to enlist Cleo Bickford’s assistance in instrumenting for obtaining approval for an IO-360 STC he was pursuing. It (the IO-360 STC) was eventually issued but that may be about the time John stopped attempting to develop additional STCs. (For instance his baggage door installation and his door-latch modifications.)

It is true as Bruce indicated, simpler times when both A&Ps and Inspectors usually had extensive experience with simpler airframes talked the same language as opposed to later times when the FAA source for Inspectors became military and engineering backgrounds/professions with less experience in small airframes.

No argument there. I believe I will be able to maintain this stc, but I just need to verify what are the current documents since a lot of the documents do not include dates. I got a fabricator acceptable so now it is just paperwork. D