I bought the two field approvals for the Cleveland 199-62 dual puck conversion, made up a proposal 337 and sent it in to my PMI in Scottsdale. Here's the meat of his quick response:
"In accordance with current directives from Washington dealing with Field Approval as found in Order 8300.10, Volume 2. Chapter2, Change 21 dated 2/23/2005, I will be forwarding your request on to the Pacific Western Region office who will ask for assistance from the Aircraft Certification Office. This will necessitate a wait in a response from them as to their direction"
I'd like to hear from anyone who has gotten a field approval for this conversion, especially after 2/23/2005. But I think it would be good to know the total number of 170's that have this conversion so all who have it chime in please.
Maybe I'll just start looking for a 180 to buy that needs this nice kit I have.
Dave, I don't know if your 170 has 180 gear, but if it does then double puck brakes are allowed to be used with only a log book entry. Because once the 180 gear was approved for the 170 tire size and ply, brakes that apply to a 180 can be used on the 170. Lance
If you are referencing an STC for 180 gear legs and as part of that STC the dual puck brakes are allowed then you would be correct as long as that STC was used to gain approval for that particular installation. I believe there are a lot of 180 gear leg modifications done under a one time approval, not an STC. In this case there would be no approval for the dual puck brakes unless they where specifically specified in that approval.
Do you know of another way they are approved?
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Right on Bruce. Lance is logically correct that they will work fine but the STC from Cleveland has an approved airframe list not based on what legs you have.
My legs were done on a field approval. I'm wondering if the leg STC covers the 199-62 brakes that it might be possible to buy the STC and just use it for the brakes......
They still might give me a field approval though. I have so many friends that used to have certified airplanes that now are building RV's or have experimentals and have none of these BS problems. Dave
Last edited by Dave Clark on Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No problem Dave, I feel the same way and I don't have a IA certificate. In fact I don't have an A&P though I have the training. Everything I do I have to have one of my friends review and sign off my work . That is frustrating in itself for me and my friends.
The challenge of the FAA is just that a challenge. Not unlike the perfect short field landing it is just another illusive hurdle to overcome with my work/hobbie.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Yes Dave, I got this from Bill O' Brien the FAA inspector that drafted the field appoval rules during a IA seminar. Any STC's that relate to the 180 gear or parts like large bush tires and wheels or 850.X6 wheels that might be on the TC of the 180 are eligable to install on the 170 once a field approval has been given for the 180 gear. All you have to do is use the brake STC and on the 337 list the prior field approval as the basis of approval and the listing of the model 180 on the STC that the gear came off. If the part was on the 180 TC and relates to the 180 gear then just a log book entry is reqiured. As soon as I find a deal on a set of double puckers you'll see them on my 52 170B - 180 Lyc / 180 Gear. Lance
P.S. If your IA doesn't like it next time your on the way up to WA. or down to AZ. drop into RNO and I'll turn the paper work into the FAA.
I am an IA. My PMI at the Scottsdale FSDO sent it out "to the Pacific Western Region office who will ask for assistance from the Aircraft Certification Office. This will necessitate a wait in a response from them as to their direction"
It looks like he got the Chapter wrong. I went to http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/exam ... soldtd.pdf which is where it is addressed. Specifically Chap1 fig 1-3 E.910 (page 1-19). Anyway it tells me that it needs only evaluation, not engineering or an STC. Maybe he just has no authority to approve it. I'm going to call him Monday.
Maybe I'll need to send the 337 to your guy but I'm not panicked yet. Can you give me Bill O'Brien's' phone? And was it recent or before the 2/23/2005 date?
Dave, I took a look at that site and thats what I got out of it. I also looked at what I have from the FAA from when field approvals got hot a couple of years ago, and it hasn't changed. Bill O' Brian is out of Washington and makes the seminars when he can escape. He wrote and restarted the field approval chapter. He also prides himself on answering any questions that come to him and gives out his washington email address. I don't have it but it can be found. I still stand by the fact that you don't need a field approval to add the double puck brakes. The STC allows them on the 180 gear and the field approval lets you put the gear on the 170. Lance
Watkinsnv wrote:Dave, I don't know if your 170 has 180 gear, but if it does then double puck brakes are allowed to be used with only a log book entry. Because once the 180 gear was approved for the 170 tire size and ply, brakes that apply to a 180 can be used on the 170. Lance
This does not sound right to me and I have talked to Father Bill too. I will ask my fsdo.
Last edited by mit on Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you guys get the fuzz all stirred up about doudle puck brakes on C-170 airplanes,the first thing that will happen is that they'll all be looking at every C-170 they come across to see if they can make a couple of brownie points at the FSDO. Why don't you just quietly install them and enjoy! After all, the newest C-170s are now fifty years old. The inspectors of that age are generally sitting in the FSDO and the guys out in the field are too young to know what to look for on airplanes that old. There is no sense in srirring them up and and making it tough on the pirates and bootleggers among us.
blueldr wrote:If you guys get the fuzz all stirred up about doudle puck brakes on C-170 airplanes,the first thing that will happen is that they'll all be looking at every C-170 they come across to see if they can make a couple of brownie points at the FSDO. Why don't you just quietly install them and enjoy! After all, the newest C-170s are now fifty years old. The inspectors of that age are generally sitting in the FSDO and the guys out in the field are too young to know what to look for on airplanes that old. There is no sense in srirring them up and and making it tough on the pirates and bootleggers among us.
Present company excepted, of course.
Because I have too much to loose as both the pilot and IA should I ever crunch it and hurt someone. Plus it just isn't right. But it gets tempting for sure
