cliffy Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 Here's a question on this thread that might be interesting to see- Who on here (those posting in this thread) holds or doesn't hold an A&P rating? I'll start Cliffy I have an A&P Come on let's everyone who has posted on this thread sign in and say one way or the other Quote
Yooper Rocketman Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 15 minutes ago, cliffy said: Here's a question on this thread that might be interesting to see- Who on here (those posting in this thread) holds or doesn't hold an A&P rating? I'll start Cliffy I have an A&P Come on let's everyone who has posted on this thread sign in and say one way or the other Seriously? So the propagation continues. Only those with an A&P are credible? And how often is recurrent training required? NEVER. I know A&P’s .......... ah, never mind. I will take the high road here. Maybe a more appropriate question is how many hold a current IA, as they actually hold a certificate requiring currency. Or maybe we could avoid chest pounding and at least stay somewhere close to the OP’s topic, giving him an actual answer that is honest, explained and correct I will resist going down this road any farther. And no I don’t hold an A&P. Send me to the bottom of the barrel. Tom 3 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 I think one of the points brought out in this thread is that it all depends on who you talk to. I'm not an A&P, but I am on a first name basis with somewhere between 20 and 30 A&P's and IA'a. On a lot of this stuff, you'll get a different answer depending on who you're talking to. The written communication from the FAA still leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Even different FSDO's will give you different answers. The reason no one in their right mind would "go ask the FSDO" is that it depends which one you're talking to or which area in the country you are that determines the answer. Another quick example is all of us with G5's and Aspens in our panels. Depending on who you talk to, it might get approved or it might not. So for something simple like LED's in the cowl or a USB port in the panel, you make a decision, and you take your chances. There is no definitive answer. And @Yetti explained why already. 3 Quote
Ragsf15e Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 Wait, didn’t a $3.2M Vision Jet light on fire and burn up due to a faulty PMA USB?! 1 Quote
Skates97 Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 40 minutes ago, cliffy said: Here's a question on this thread that might be interesting to see- Who on here (those posting in this thread) holds or doesn't hold an A&P rating? I'll start Cliffy I have an A&P Come on let's everyone who has posted on this thread sign in and say one way or the other I'm not an A&P, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express more than once in my lifetime... 2 3 Quote
cliffy Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) My point being that its easy to postulate if you have no skin in the game. Lots of information has been given here as to what the regs say or don;t say. You can read it for yourself and do what you want. You asked a question and got an answer and then we proceed to disassemble the answer because you don't like it. If you don't have a license that you worked years to get and keep then talk is cheap. Believe what you want- Do what you want Ask your A&P to install it. Do it yourself if you want. You're still responsible for the maintenance on your airplane IF it ever gets looked at by the Feds. Yuz pays your money and yuz take your chances Go for it Killing the messenger because you don't like the message ain't the way to get good advice that you asked for. Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer. Edited March 6, 2020 by cliffy Quote
carusoam Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 So.... a summary that may be interesting... stuff I read above.... One low cost way... that appears to be legal.... and doesn’t look too horrible... and can be updated readily... 1) Install a new cigarette lighter socket... with whatever PMA/TSO/blank sheet of paper that it comes with... 2) Have your favorite mechanic do the install with the proper electrical protection.... and signature in the log book... 3) Slip in your favorite portable Scosche USB device into the socket... 4) If it makes noise... find a different brand... 5) When selecting the USB device... make sure it has the proper amperage rating for the device you want to plug in... 6) Total cost of hardware... about 0.11 AMU... 7) If you want to test out your Scosche device first, before committing to cutting the new cigarette plug... there are portable 3-socket devices that can be slipped into the original cigarette lighter... put the Scosche in there first... PP thoughts only, not a Mechanic or IA.... but I know a few around here... Best regards, -a- 3 Quote
EricJ Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, cliffy said: My point being that its easy to postulate if you have no skin in the game. Lots of information has been given here as to what the regs say or don;t say. You can read it for yourself and do what you want. You asked a question and got an answer and then we proceed to disassemble the answer because you don't like it. If you don't have a license that you worked years to get and keep then talk is cheap. Believe what you want- Do what you want Ask you A&P to install it. Do it yourself if you want. You're still responsible for the maintenance on your airplane IF it ever gets looked at by the Feds. Yuz pays your money and yuz take your chances Go for it Killing the messenger because you don't like the message ain't the way to get good advice that you asked for. Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer. FWIW, you copied an AOPA article. I've been citing FARs and ACs. I do have a mechanic certificate. All of that makes my opinion no better than anybody else's who has skin in the game here by owning and operating a certificated aircraft and trying to manage its maintenance and upkeep and safe operation. We all put our butts and our loved one's butts in our airplanes and cart them around the skies, and I don't think you can have much more skin in the game than that, regardless of how many ratings any of us have or how long we've had them. Edited March 6, 2020 by EricJ 2 1 Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 After a day of conflicting FAA immersion, I have to think that these discussions would probably immunize anybody from any enforcement action. The FAA is after people that are trying to pull one over on them. It is obvious that everybody here is trying there darndest to find legal justification for what they want to do. This is a far cry from trying to violate the regs. The intent here is to do the right thing. The worst that they can accuse anybody here of, is a difference of opinion. 4 Quote
Yetti Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 8 hours ago, cliffy said: My point being that its easy to postulate if you have no skin in the game. Lots of information has been given here as to what the regs say or don;t say. You can read it for yourself and do what you want. You asked a question and got an answer and then we proceed to disassemble the answer because you don't like it. If you don't have a license that you worked years to get and keep then talk is cheap. Believe what you want- Do what you want Ask your A&P to install it. Do it yourself if you want. You're still responsible for the maintenance on your airplane IF it ever gets looked at by the Feds. Yuz pays your money and yuz take your chances Go for it Killing the messenger because you don't like the message ain't the way to get good advice that you asked for. Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer. Oh come on that is too easy. You should know that the regs place the responsibility of airworthyness on the Owner not the IA or AP. So as owners we have greater conformity responsibility than the AP. To that end I have pictures of tons of unairworthy stuff that was done by APs to the plane that I own. My deal with the IA is that it is only airworthy till it exits his hangar as alot can happen after that and he should not be responsible for it. We have been through this before. Let's say the Alternator falls off. Well who worked on it last? You won't know because the log book entry only says Replaced Starter. But you have to take off and reinstall the alternator to get to the last bolt on the starter. That said, we found out last time that the alternator bracket had been installed upside down for all the years I owned the plane. The not certified guy me was the one that took a couple of extra seconds to check the alignment on the belt and see that it was a 1/4" inch out. Then the IA found the book and we looked up the proper way for the bracket together. My work is always better or at least to factory standards so he can keep his ticket. 2 Quote
ragedracer1977 Posted March 6, 2020 Author Report Posted March 6, 2020 7 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said: After a day of conflicting FAA immersion, I have to think that these discussions would probably immunize anybody from any enforcement action. The FAA is after people that are trying to pull one over on them. It is obvious that everybody here is trying there darndest to find legal justification for what they want to do. This is a far cry from trying to violate the regs. The intent here is to do the right thing. The worst that they can accuse anybody here of, is a difference of opinion. Sometimes I wonder about the FAA... Total topic shift. A friend of mine is a LEO and a pilot. He does a lot of drug interdiction stuff. Last week, he attended a"seminar" down at AVQ put on by the FAA on how to identify people who are moving drugs. The main indicator? They're flying an airplane. Yup. Airplanes are expensive. Pilots will do anything to afford to fly. Hell, the head FAA guy took them out on the ramp to look at airplanes. Somehow the topic of IFR vs VFR airplanescame up. The FAA guy said you could tell which airplanes were VFR only, because they didn't have "computers" in the dash. My friend asked what that had to do with anything. The guy seriously believed that a plane had to have a bunch of computers in the dash to be IFR legal. He didn't know you could fly IFR with just radios. 1 1 Quote
cliffy Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 21 hours ago, Yetti said: And so the plot thickens here using your definition. A wheelen PAR 46 LED bulb for tractors sold off Amazon is certified to SAE J1113-42 Class 5 EMI. So now we have a regulated body and nationally identified standards. Good go? Maybe not so That SAE paper only speaks to the EMI emissions of the bulb and not to the "design" of the bulb. Th bulb does not match "in all aspects" the design of the normal incandescent bulb as required by the Standard Parts criteria. 20 hours ago, RobertGary1 said: How is adding a USB charger a major alteration? Just a quick minor mod sign off from an A&P would seem to do it. Its not a MA The A&P still has to determine that the part is legal to install on a certified airplane. There has to be some kind of approval as it does not qualify as a Standard Part. 11 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said: Four pages on whether you can install a USB port in a certified airplane that doesn't have the FAA's blessing? And you wonder why I built my own!!! @Skates97 had a very valid point. One of the top avionics /panel builders in the country has a USB port in EVERY panel they sell. I can assure you it's not TSO or PMA approved based on what it cost me. I suspect nearly every new home built plane has a non-TSO'ed USB port and I have yet to read about one issue with them. I got so sick of ridiculous regulations and restrictions, I saw the path to satisfaction in the Experimental world. For a significant amount of time now Van's RV series home built's (yes, just one brand of home built airplane) has certified more new planes annually than the entire GA Certified Fleet COMBINED. Now, amazingly, some of the "Experimental" Avionics are being approved for "Certified" use. I did most my own work on all of my planes, under the supervision of my best friend (and A&P). He struggled with the antiquity of the FAA regs, and how ridiculously slow change came. He thought he died and went to heaven working on my Lancair with me. Common sense was permitted! He went to his grave (recently) with his proudest accomplishment (aviation wise) being his participation in my project. No I don't wonder why. I agree 100% with what you have said here. 1 Quote
cliffy Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 22 hours ago, Yetti said: Below is a cut directly from the FAA website on electronic parts= A part manufactured in complete compliance with an established industry or U.S. Government specification which includes design, manufacturing, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements; or for a type of part which the Administrator has found demonstrates conformity based solely on meeting performance criteria, is in complete compliance with an established industry or U.S. Government specification which contains performance criteria, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements. The specification must include all information necessary to produce and conform the part and be published so that any party may manufacture the part. Examples include, but are not limited to, National Aerospace Standard (NAS), Army-Navy Aeronautical Standard (AN), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), SAE Sematec, Joint Electron Device Engineering Council, Joint Electron Tube Engineering Council, and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This definition incorporates two categories of standard part criteria. Initially, the FAA recognized as “standard” those parts that met published specifications that included information clearly establishing design, materials, manufacture, and uniform identification requirements. The FAA issued a subsequent interpretation of standard part that provided for a class of parts conforming to a standard not based on their physical configuration but on their meeting a specified performance criterion. The FAA stated this second category of standard parts is best exemplified by discrete electrical and electronic parts. See 62 Fed. Reg. 9,923 (1997). The FAA must make a specific finding of applicability to a class of parts before the “performance only” criterion can be used. So, in the above paragraph a standard part has to be made according to and tested to a specific design criteria set up by a nationally recognized authority. so that exact duplicates can be made by anyone. The last sentence actually points to (as one example) an LED light bulb. The LED is not made to exactly duplicate the incandescent light bulb that it wants to replace only its performance matches the called for light bulb THEREFORE it must have a separate FAA approval to be used. I also quoted direct from the FAA website and the article paraphrased FAA material 21 hours ago, jaylw314 said: Other bulbs, like strobes and cabin lights, wouldn't, just like landing lights. However, navigation lights DO have required specs and a TSO ( and I don't think would be considered a standard part). A PMA is technically required for a manufacturer to use the word "aviation" in the part description in their sales catalog. In theory that is the only meaning of PMA. I think you'll find that strobes meet a TSO standard Any other "incandescent" light BULB fits the Standard Part criteria. A Navigation Light ASSEMBLY has to meet a TSO for brightness, angle of view (vertical and horizontal) and color temperature. That is why the ASSEMBLY is TSO'd. Now, the incandescent light BULB inside the navigation light assembly is a Standard Part and by itself has no TSO or PMA qualification requirement. It does have a nationally recognized standard as to design, reflector size and coverage, wattage, color temperature ,etc. Changing anything in the nav light assembly as approved (like the bulb with an LED bulb, non-certified) actually invalidates the TSO qualification. If you want to read what it takes to qualify a navigation light just go to the Whelen website and read it there. This is why Whelen went to the trouble and expense to certify their LED nav lights to meet the TSO standards. Its quite definitive, A PMA (Parts Manufacturing Approval) is required to manufacture ANY part made and offered for sale to the public for use on certified airplanes (other than standard parts). It means the FAA has looked at the manufacturer and has determined that its process meets FAA standards quality and tracking and can be sold to the public. The letters "PMA" are required to be stamped on each part (some exceptions for small parts). Its all in a specific AC. Mention was made of auto stereos and the like installed in airplanes. There is a specific AC that authorizes that as this came up a couple of decades ago on corporate jets wanting TVs and stereos installed.. Yes all this stuff is technicalities in the certified world. That is why I agree with Yooper about homebuilts. Lots of this stuff makes no sense in a practical world. Much of it actually detracts from aviation safety. FAA bureaucracy is killing GA and there is not much we can do about it. Edited March 6, 2020 by cliffy Quote
Yetti Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 36 minutes ago, cliffy said: Yes all this stuff is technicalities in the certified world. That is why I agree with Yooper about homebuilts. Lots of this stuff makes no sense in a practical world. Much of it actually detracts from aviation safety. FAA bureaucracy is killing GA and there is not much we can do about it. Bingo. So does a $60 STratux hooked up to a $100 pad improve safety? Of course it does. Does an uncertified USB to power those things make it a riskier install than having a big ole litithum Ion battery pack? Quote
cliffy Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Yetti said: a big ole litithum Ion battery pack? A thermite grenade? Quote
afward Posted March 6, 2020 Report Posted March 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, cliffy said: A thermite grenade? Isn't that what Yetti said? That reminds me, I need to add some angry pixies to mine so it can be fully "fueled" for my next flight... Quote
EricJ Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 On 3/5/2020 at 9:41 PM, N201MKTurbo said: After a day of conflicting FAA immersion, I have to think that these discussions would probably immunize anybody from any enforcement action. The FAA is after people that are trying to pull one over on them. It is obvious that everybody here is trying there darndest to find legal justification for what they want to do. This is a far cry from trying to violate the regs. The intent here is to do the right thing. The worst that they can accuse anybody here of, is a difference of opinion. This has been my take-away as well. Various FSDO's don't agree with each other, various people within a FSDO don't agree with each other, and we have written legal opinions from FAA legal counsel saying that what the regs say may not mean what they say, (the MacPherson letter on the Coleal question about Preventive Maintenance: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/coleal - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf) I think the usual advice of whatever your A&P and IA are okay with is okay. For your airplane those are the opinions that matter. Personally if I can find a FAR or an AC or, better yet, a written FAA legal opinion, that I can point to as a basis for why I did something, I'm comfortable with it. 3 Quote
smwash02 Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 This isn't strictly on topic, but was showed to me by my A&P today. A "reasonably" priced, certified USB charger with pass through to any USB devices for easy hookup. Wiring diagram discusses how to make all the ports hot. Might have to pull the trigger on this one. Quote
ragedracer1977 Posted March 9, 2020 Author Report Posted March 9, 2020 51 minutes ago, smwash02 said: This isn't strictly on topic, but was showed to me by my A&P today. A "reasonably" priced, certified USB charger with pass through to any USB devices for easy hookup. Wiring diagram discusses how to make all the ports hot. Might have to pull the trigger on this one. If that is ok, then the charger in my original post is too. It's not TSO. Not PMA. No STC. Quote
smwash02 Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said: If that is ok, then the charger in my original post is too. It's not TSO. Not PMA. No STC. It's right in the description it's both STCd and PMAd. You would still need a signature as a minor alteration since it's STCd as part of the engine monitor, but I doubt this would be a challenge given its blessings. Quote
EricJ Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, smwash02 said: This isn't strictly on topic, but was showed to me by my A&P today. A "reasonably" priced, certified USB charger with pass through to any USB devices for easy hookup. Wiring diagram discusses how to make all the ports hot. Might have to pull the trigger on this one. From the Q&A it says the middle three ports are not for charging and are for data transfer with the CGR-30s. The documentation says that they can be converted to charging ports by jumpering some external pins. Without converting them I'd think that'd get pretty confusing, especially if somebody plugs their nav tab into it and hopes to charge, and winds up with a dead battery. 10 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said: If that is ok, then the charger in my original post is too. It's not TSO. Not PMA. No STC. It is FAA-PMA but according to the Q&A it is not TSO'ed and is not intended for installation stand-alone, and is an add-on to the STC for the CGR-30. One of the answers says it could be installed as an alteration. That said, the relevant TSO doesn't say much, so imho it's not a loss to not have the TSO. It looks to me like just another expensive charger. Edited March 9, 2020 by EricJ 1 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 19 minutes ago, EricJ said: It looks to me like just another expensive charger. One problem with these/this charger is that USB-A is yesterdays tech. I'd like to have more USB-C charging ports in the cockpit. And I'd hate to spend this much, along with shop rate for installation, only to have it obsolete by the time it's installed. In my cockpit, my Avidyne IFD540 has a USB-A port that will charge, my PMA450b has a USB-C port that provides charging power, and then I have a 2 port USB charger in the lighter socket. That gives me four charging options. If I need more than that, I keep a battery power bank in the flight bag. 2 Quote
EricJ Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: One problem with these/this charger is that USB-A is yesterdays tech. I'd like to have more USB-C charging ports in the cockpit. And I'd hate to spend this much, along with shop rate for installation, only to have it obsolete by the time it's installed. In my cockpit, my Avidyne IFD540 has a USB-A port that will charge, my PMA450b has a USB-C port that provides charging power, and then I have a 2 port USB charger in the lighter socket. That gives me four charging options. If I need more than that, I keep a battery power bank in the flight bag. That's exactly why I had lighter sockets put in (by a repair station, which turn out to not be PMA/TSO/or anything else), so that whatever comes along I can adapt quickly by plugging whatever is needed into it. I carry a little, lightweight, air pump that can put a few psi in a tire if need be, and it runs off the lighter socket, so having a lighter socket just seems to give an awful lot of flexbility. The relevant TSO that gets stamped on these USB chargers is TSO-C71, which was written in 1961 for DC-DC converters at the time that were put on transport category airplanes. There are some fairly loose tolerance specs on input/output (without specified voltages, just relative tolerances), and the essentially meaningless interference spec that I quoted earlier. That TSO provides essentially no meaningful constraints or improvements over anything reasonably modern that you'd buy off the shelf these days which are supposed to meet FCC Part 15 limits for unintentional radiation at a minimum. The only in-panel USB charger I've noticed that has any kind of attempt at a meaningful aviation RF interference spec is this one: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/stratuspower11-14946.php which specifically says that they've done shielding for interference mitigation, and that it is certified to RTCA DO-160, which does have relevant emissions specs (as well as a bunch of environmental and other specs). Their documentation says that they tested to the emissions Category B spec of DO-160, which is the least restrictive spec to "tolerable levels". I haven't been able to find out specifically what "tolerable levels" means. I find all of this very interesting and the level of frustration felt by people trying to navigate this stuff is totally understandable. This topic is right in my professional wheelhouse as a wireless comm engineer, and if I had to pick a unit for a project for production for panel installation and had moderately tight RF emission specs, I'd just pick something reasonably inexpensive and test sufficient batches to get confidence that they'd work or could be shielded sufficiently to meet the requirements. Trying to follow the spec document trails on what's on the market just doesn't seem to be useful, and the expensive stuff doesn't come with any guarantee of being any better from an electrical perspective than the cheap stuff. Edited March 9, 2020 by EricJ 4 Quote
cliffy Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 8 minutes ago, EricJ said: That's exactly why I had lighter sockets put in (by a repair station, which turn out to not be PMA/TSO/or anything else), so that whatever comes along I can adapt quickly by plugging whatever is needed into it. I carry a little, lightweight, air pump that can put a few psi in a tire if need be, and it runs off the lighter socket, so having a lighter socket just seems to give an awful lot of flexbility. The relevant TSO that gets stamped on these USB chargers is TSO-C71, which was written in 1961 for DC-DC converters at the time that were put on transport category airplanes. There are some fairly loose tolerance specs on input/output (without specified voltages, just relative tolerances), and the essentially meaningless interference spec that I quoted earlier. That TSO provides essentially no meaningful constraints or improvements over anything reasonably modern that you'd buy off the shelf these days which are supposed to meet FCC Part 15 limits for unintentional radiation at a minimum. The only in-panel USB charger I've noticed that has any kind of attempt at a meaningful aviation RF interference spec is this one: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/stratuspower11-14946.php which specifically says that they've done shielding for interference mitigation, and that it is certified to RTCA DO-160, which does have relevant emissions specs (as well as a bunch of environmental and other specs). Their documentation says that they tested to the emissions Category B spec of DO-160, which is the least restrictive spec to "tolerable levels". I haven't been able to find out specifically what "tolerable levels" means. I find all of this very interesting and the level of frustration felt by people trying to navigate this stuff is totally understandable. This topic is right in my professional wheelhouse as a wireless comm engineer, and if I had to pick a unit for a project for production for panel installation and had moderately tight RF emission specs, I'd just pick something reasonably inexpensive and test sufficient batches to get confidence that they'd work or could be shielded sufficiently to meet the requirements. Trying to follow the spec document trails on what's on the market just doesn't seem to be useful, and the expensive stuff doesn't come with any guarantee of being any better from an electrical perspective than the cheap stuff. THIS I can agree with 100%! My entire career has been basically 100% black and white as to regs and it has served me well with no violations or LOIs ever. But, I have also learned a lot from EricJ and his investigations. The installation of the non-PMA/TSO lighter socket is interesting in that I wonder what influence the installing agencies "Repair Station" status may have on getting the install "officially" legal" as Repair Stations have more latitude in maintenance than even A&Ps have. This is something not in my sphere as I have never worked for or in a Repair Station. I kind of feel that if any of these USB chargers were installed as a Minor Alteration and someone form the Feds objected I don't think anyone is going to jail over it, At best a letter to remove it might happen. I don't know if I would want to be the A&P signing that off but some might be willing. The legal risk is probably very low. That being said, in the big scheme of things in airplanes, all this is minuscule. Nothing here with USB sockets could possibly be a large safety hazard if installed using proper wiring and methods. The biggest issue in my mind would be the ultimate check of "does it meet its Type Design or not" ? The FAA is so far behind the changing world of electronics its embarrassing and to be entrenched in "one size has to fit all" mentality IS affecting safety in many arenas of aviation. Moving mountains with one shovel takes decades. 3 Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted March 9, 2020 Report Posted March 9, 2020 At the maintenance symposium last week, I attended a session with the head of the local FSDO. He went on a rant about how the FAA has lost its way. One thing he mentioned that I wasn’t aware of is that 337s are no longer reviewed in any way. When you send them in, they are scanned and added to your airplane record. Nobody reviews them! He also said that anything sent in with the 337 that won’t fit in an 8 1/8 x 11 scanner is thrown in the trash with no notification to the sender. With that being said, there are probably people sending in 337s and not hearing anything back from the FAA and assuming wrongly that whatever they turned in was approved. Which is not the case! 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.