Ron,
This isn't the same old business as usual BS from inspectors that simply
don't want to have their name recorded on a 337. These delays are being
reported by inspectors that had previously signed and are currently willing
to sign off on field approvals that they are intimately familiar with. I've
had a couple field approvals go through in less than 24 hours with nothing
more than a phone call, a fax, and a detailed conversation. This change,
according to the same FSDO inspector, is new guidance or mandate from
Washington.

The major alterations that my IA friend is implementing are without a doubt
major alterations such as single point fueling and air conditioning, both of
which are STC'd for the same make and similar models. The inspector he
works with has previously approved these alterations without a hitch but
says that now he's forced to pass the 337 up the channel to engineering
first.

Jim

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 09:23:57 -0500, "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?



Can anybody shed any light on this?

Jim


Seems similar to what I went through a few years ago with adding a 2nd
heat
muff to my airplane. I believe that this policy has been in place for
considerably longer than six months.

Advice: If at all possible, see if you can have the work done via a
simple
logbook entry by your IA.
--ron