On May 4, 9:23 am, "Jim Burns" wrote:
Does anyone in the group have any information, experience, or links to
documentation concerning a recent (past 6 months) change in Field Approval
Guidance for FSDO Inspectors requiring that they seek FAA engineering advice
and guidance, but not necessarily DER approval, on each and every field
approval no matter what level of documentation, testing, or experience the
applying A&P or FSDO Inspector has regarding the major change or alteration?

Yes. It's been around longer than that. Some FSDO's inspectors have
simply been ignoring it for a while, on the principle that "Hey, I've
been doing this for years and I know what I'm doing, so this is just
bull****, and what are they going to do to me anyway?" Well, they
can't be fired, but they can be told what (not) to do after the fact,
and they are being told. As time passes, all will be required to
comply. Of course about the time everyone is on the same page, the
rules will change again.

I'm not referring to the new requirement to pass on a copy of the 337 to
Oklahoma City, nor am I referring to the substitution of a previously TSO'd
part with a non-TSO'd part. My question arises from a recent conversation
with a A&P/IA friend who has recently ran into problems and delays for
multiple field approvals. He's working with the same FSDO inspector that he
has used for years, with whom he has a great relationship. Several of the
changes were simple alterations or installations, and several where
identical to other field approvals in like make and model which he breezed
through just last fall.

The FSDO Inspector is telling him that all new directives coming down from
Washington are forcing all field approvals onward to engineering for their
approval before the local inspector is being allowed to sign off. Many
times the paperwork simply disappears forcing the FSDO guys to make multiple
inquiries about it's progress and even requiring the submitting A&P to
reapply. The FSDO inspectors are rumored to be mad as hell about it and
feel that their judgment and experience has been tossed by the wayside.

Can anybody shed any light on this?

Yeah. We've been dealing with this for a little over 2 years in
Houston. Routine stuff is being rejected (how much more routine can
you get than a Stormscope installation in a Bonanza?) when exactly the
same stuff breezed right through 3 years ago. Coming up - more of the
same.

If you can get your A&P to install it on a logbook entry as a minor
mod, you should do it. As long as your IA doing the annual isn't an
asshole who decides to question this and take it up with the FSDO (Jay
Honeck can tell you how that happens - still got those strobes, Jay?)
you are fine. Moral of the story - choose your A&P and IA carefully.

Michael