You seem to be determined to engender an FAA paperwork blizzard. If so,
please go for it and don't bother with these newsgroups. If you have a
reasonable A&P who installs it and a reasonable IA who does your annuals,
the FSDO will never have a clue as to what is going on.

On the other hand, you seem to want to tweak the FSDOs nose and get them
into the "approval" process where it is not necessary. Your call, and your
airplane.

Most of us out in the unwashed backwater airports don't give a good god damn
about the FSDO, just about keeping our airplanes airworthy to the highest
standards. Again, your call, and don't give me the crap about the FSDO
pulling an inspection on you out of the blue.

Jim


--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"One's Too Many" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 3, 6:27 pm, " wrote:

It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
modification.

I thought that was the way it is supposed to work too, as reading the
regs seems to overtly state this. But in actual practice the A&P is
now being basically required to seek permission from above whether he
can declare something to be minor or not... that he is expected to
assume everything is major unless the FSDO grants him permission to
declare it minor after they review the details themselves.


If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help
everyone out.

I thought they were supposed to do exactly just that too -- to
"decline" the 337 with a note stating that the job is minor and to log
it as such. But that's not what's been happening in real life.


Good luck

Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337