Champ 7EC Gross Weight Increase

Here is a small part of note 15:


The following changes apply to 7ECA and 7GCAA aircraft built in 1995 and later (all with 7-1566 wing frames).

C.G. Range and Maximum Weight changes also apply to any 7ECA, 7GCAA, or 7KCAB that retrofits with 7-1566 wing frames or 7-1567 covered wing frames.

Normally, a POH is just a copy of an AFM. If an approved AFM states a limitation in the Limitations section that disagrees with the type certificate, then what?

I should get my hands on a recent AFM in the next couple days.
 
Just got a copy of a different POH. It has apparently been corrected - earlier versions allowed the GCAA AND 7KCAB to observe a forward limit of 10.5” all the way to 1750#.
 
Bob Turner said:
Here is a small part of note 15:


The following changes apply to 7ECA and 7GCAA aircraft built in 1995 and later (all with 7-1566 wing frames).

C.G. Range and Maximum Weight changes also apply to any 7ECA, 7GCAA, or 7KCAB that retrofits with 7-1566 wing frames or 7-1567 covered wing frames.

Normally, a POH is just a copy of an AFM. If an approved AFM states a limitation in the Limitations section that disagrees with the type certificate, then what?

I should get my hands on a recent AFM in the next couple days.
Click to expand...
As an IA I’m telling you the serial number eligibly in note 15 is the important part, any (in that eligibility range) that are retrofitted also apply, outside of that do not. Also TCDS is god(unless later superseded by “approved data”). POH(general) or copy of a different AFM for a lost AFM is not “Approved Data”. To be an AFM it needs to be specific to that airframe with make, model and serial number with the FAA stamp to be “approved data”. Can you use a copy as a basis/data for a field approval or 337, depending on your FSDO, DER and applicability yes, but not alone. An up to date Airframe maintenance manual is also “approved data”, the IPC is not, nor is that MM the second after the newer revision goes into effect and it hasn’t been added even though it was yesterday. Also if there was an AD that came after limiting the cg from the 14.2 to 19 on TCDS to say 14.5 to 17.229. You would have to follow that AD if it’s applicable even though the TCDS says different since that AD is “Approved Data”. The hard part is keeping track of it all, figuring out applicability and doing your best to make sure there isn’t something superseding it. Hence why they say 10 hours allowed for the annual “inspection” but it will actually take you another 10 off aircraft IF you do all the paperworks correctly.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2179.webp
    IMG_2179.webp
    74.4 KB · Views: 9
Did not mean to get you angry with me. I was just wondering if an AFM was approved data. I realize that there is no AFM for a 1977 bird. There is an AFM supplement, though, that I have not studied.

As to the serial number, if you look at the line with the bold print, it specifically authorizes the weight increase for any 7ECA with the factory metal spar wings. As an IA, I really do not have the knowledge to say that a statement like that is in error or superseded by the serial number restrictions, but as a member of the California and Patent Bars, I can tell you that that statement is as good as gold if you go to court. It is what we call an express statement.

I agree about the 10 hours statement. I 100% agree that if this aircraft does not specify a 10.5" forward limit in its supplemental AFM documents it cannot be flown that way.

It is beginning to look like the limitations sections in some POHs are simply in error. I think this is an intriguing question.
 
No, not angry at you, just triggered my inner mechanic, I think my daughter calls it “scratching your tism” I would like to agree with your legal reading of it, All ECA’s, but reality is neither FSDO I have used, would likely approve anything out of a specific range like that anymore without you first being able to prove you had upgraded all other changes that may have occurred prior to those serial numbers, and good luck proving that without specific documentation from the manufacturer. At least not anymore. FAA has changed massively since I started. Anyway hope everyone has a good day.
 
FSDOs are not populated with lawyers. My FSDO routinely mis-interprets stuff, and one guy would love to violate me. He just can’t find a specific rule to put in the letter. The rest like me, and often go to bat for me.

That said, my old Chief Pilot got a law degree, then joined the FSDO when he turned 60. Good guy.

When the type certificate permits something, the FSDO has no role. You don’t even need a 337 in a lot of cases.

I think my problem is that, at weigh-in, somebody used the wrong formula, or put the wrong measurements in. This happens frequently. My experience with Cubs is that over half are incorrectly done (easy, since the Cub AFM has two different data in the same w/b section). I did find one that used the wrong formula, and several with incorrect wheel distances.

I should have answers by the end of next week. I really could use accurate “D” dimensions for the equation - Bellanca wants us to measure them each time. Do the wheels really move around that much?
 
I had to reweigh my 7gcbc after finishing up the wing rebuild. I had the same issue.... Way too far forward CG. Could not get it into CG even with baggage. Didn't want to reweigh, cause they never come out lighter! Turns out the gear measurements where correct at the last weigh-in. But the weight at the tail was way off. I'm wondering if the leveling was off last time, making it too far forward. Either way, the plane flys great
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top