Any legal reason a USB charger has to be certified?

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

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. 

Rich, it's been that way since I got my IA 17 years ago.  You mail them in to Oklahoma City and a clerk scans them in to the aircraft's records.  (Unless you're looking for a Field Approval- then you mail it to your local FSDO and they review it before the work is completed.)

Your local FSDO will scrutinize them if you contact them for something- such as when I was getting my old-as-hell Garmin GPS IFR certified.  Luckily, they liked what they saw...

[tigers2007]

The “scan and burn” practice is what I was told years ago. I figured that nobody read them after seeing the 337’s filed on my old C150. Some of them were completely illegible and some contained virtually no information.
So after a 337 is filed, is it the responsibility of the filer to verify it was approved? What am I missing here. I thought they installed the widget, filed the 337, and called it a day (if the AMT chose to go this route).

Edited March 9, 2020 by tigers2007
iphone autocorrect grammar errors

[ragedracer1977]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

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!

I wonder what the point of a 337 is at this point then. If they're defacto approving them by adding them to an aircrafts records, and they're saying an IA is authorized to make his own determinations without asking anybody, at what point does it even matter anymore. 

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Rich, it's been that way since I got my IA 17 years ago.  You mail them in to Oklahoma City and a clerk scans them in to the aircraft's records.  (Unless you're looking for a Field Approval- then you mail it to your local FSDO and they review it before the work is completed.)

Your local FSDO will scrutinize them if you contact them for something- such as when I was getting my old-as-hell Garmin GPS IFR certified.  Luckily, they liked what they saw...

I'm new to the IA game and trying to get it all figured out. He was talking like they used to review them. Maybe he was being nostalgic for a long time ago!

I'm getting pretty frustrated trying to figure out what the FAA wants. Every time I turn around I get a different answer.

Thanks for your input.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I wonder what the point of a 337 is at this point then. If they're defacto approving them by adding them to an aircrafts records, and they're saying an IA is authorized to make his own determinations without asking anybody, at what point does it even matter anymore. 

They are there to keep track of alterations to the airplane. I think they are valuable, and required by regulation. While I would like my work checked, I'm kind of glad that they don't go over them with a fine tooth comb. 

I guess the only time they will get scrutinized is when a plane crashes.

[tigers2007]

I dare someone to file a 337 for installing a “Mr Fusion” and see if they catch it.

[ragedracer1977]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

They are there to keep track of alterations to the airplane. I think they are valuable, and required by regulation. While I would like my work checked, I'm kind of glad that they don't go over them with a fine tooth comb. 

I guess the only time they will get scrutinized is when a plane crashes.

I agree they're valuable.  It's nice to know that if somehow I lost all my 337s I could get them from the FAA.  

It's also nice for the next owner to know that whatever was done to the plane was done with the best intentions to do it right.

[PT20J]

I think this will clear up most 337 confusion: 

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43.9-1G.pdf

Skip

[Old Chub]

by quoting ragedracer 1977

"I wonder what the point of a 337 is at this point then. If they're defacto approving them by adding them to an aircrafts records, and they're saying an IA is authorized to make his own determinations without asking anybody, at what point does it even matter anymore." 

FAA is not approving the 337 by adding it to the aircraft records.   This is done by the individual or individuals (maybe including a FSDO inspector with Field Approval) signing the document and not when accepted by OKC for scan.

The FAA considers the aircraft records housed in OKC as permanent records.   As silly as this sounds they don't consider your log book the same way.   Under their interpretation they have no method of mandating what major alteration or major repair was done to your aircraft past the next inspection cycle (AD compliance and records are a different subject) other than documenting with Form 337 which then is considered part of the aircraft permanent records.  

The IA that signs the bottom of the FAA Form 337 is a delegated authority from the FAA.  This is why the IA has to accomplish training or show use of this delegation to keep it active.

I always add the aircraft TT and sometimes engine and propeller TTSO (or TTSN if applicable) to my Form 337s.   It may not sound important (or may sound excessive) but lets say the aircraft looses all of its records in a fire; this will at least be something to try to recreate what time was on the aircraft at a certain point in time.   

 

FAA A&P,  AI,  DAR

  

  

[PT20J]

2 hours ago, Old Chub said:

I always add the aircraft TT and sometimes engine and propeller TTSO (or TTSN if applicable) to my Form 337s.   It may not sound important (or may sound excessivaircraft looses all of its records in a fire; this will at least be something to try to recreate what time was on the aircraft at a certain point in time. 

I think that's a great idea. And as you noted, the FAA doesn't have the same view of logbooks that we do. For example, suppose an owner had an annual inspection performed thirteen months ago and none since, and that inspection was recorded on a single page in the aircraft logbook. As far as the FAA is concerned, the aircraft is unairworthy until it passes a new annual inspection. So, why would it care about the last one that is no longer valid? Water under the bridge. Per  91.417, you could legally rip that page out of the logbook and throw it away -- the FAA doesn't care. 

Skip

[Old Chub]

Skip,

You got my point exactly.  The FAA only views the current aircraft record as mandatory.  Past that there is no regulation showing that this history is required.  

 

Warren

FAA A&P, IA, DAR

[JOR]

To answer a couple questions that have been brought up.  How is a GE4509 bulb, leather, etc. authorized since there is no PMA or TSO?  Every part on your on a type certificated airplane is certified to be installed in the airplane through the certification process and issuance of the type certificate.  That is why you won't see a TSO or PMA on light bulbs or a stringer or rib...

 

Also, keep in mind that just because a part has a TSO, the TSO itself is not authorization to install the part on any aircraft.  A PMA and it's list is authorization for those TC's listed.

 

In order for your aircraft  to be "airworthy" it has to meet  it's TC or be in a properly altered state.  Technically, if the parts you are installing on your aircraft were not approved under the type certificate, STC, or part 21 for replacement parts, field approval, or DER whether minor or major alterations, your airplane is not in a properly altered stated.  A&P IA privileges do not include authoring parts for installation on aircraft.

 

Standard parts are typically hardware, wiring, etc.  They are considered standard parts because they are made to very specific criteria, AN, MS, Mil-Spec.  An AN bolt for example has to meet load requirements, be made of very specific materials, meet nominal size tolerances etc. much like a TSO.  These requirements are published and verifiable. 

 

 

 

 

[cliffy]

Standard parts also include light bulbs because there is a specific SAE  design criteria for say a GE4509  light bulb that anyone can follow to make an exact duplicate, that is why LED bulbs don't technically meet the Standard Parts criteria (they don't match the national design exactly and in every detail)  Technically all LED bulbs need to met some other approval basis (usually STC) to be actually legal to use. 

Standard parts do not require a PMA annotation by regulation. As long as it is made to exactly match the national standard for design no PMA/TSO/STC or anything else is required.

[Jim F]

On 3/4/2020 at 3:37 PM, ragedracer1977 said:

That might be true, but it's not relevant

A friend installed a tractor LED as a landing light, same PAR36 so should be good, right.  After he departed a private field with radio call outs and then called ATC to do some practice approaches he found the he was always Tx on both radios and any frequency, NORDO.   He found that when he turned the landing light off everything was good.  Yes tractor LED are cheaper, No they don't work if you want to use your radio.  Oh course you are totally legally in using a cigarette lighter USB charger.  kind of relevant

[Will.iam]

So how does NORSEE fall under these requirements? Asking for a friend. 

[cliffy]

The parts have to have NORSEE approvals