A B727-200 FAA FORM 337 FOR GPS INSTALLATION WAS REJECTED DUE TO ANTENNA LOCATION NOT AS SPECIFIED IN FORM 337.

Narrative

A FORM 337 WAS FILED AND RECEIVED BY THE LCL FSDO OFFICE ON MAR/MON/04. THE ALTERATION LISTED ON IT WAS A DUAL GPS INSTALLATION ON A B727-200. THE DATA USED TO INSTALL THE ANTENNAS WAS A FORM 8110-3 FROM ANOTHER B727. THE LCL FSDO OFFICE NOTIFIED ME ON MAR/MON/04 OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ANTENNAS WERE INSTALLED AT STATION 320 AND NOT AT STATION 367 AS STATED ON THE FORM 8110-3. THE REASON THE ANTENNAS WERE MOVED FORWARD WAS DUE TO A 3 FT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF THE GPS ANTENNAS TO BE FROM AN EXISTING HF ANTENNA. I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE DATA WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTALLATION DUE TO THIS DEV. SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT AFFECTED MY JUDGEMENT AND THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) TIME WAS SHORT DUE TO THE ACFT DUE IN SOUTH AFRICA IN THE NEXT 3 DAYS. 2) THE ACFT WAS LEAVING ON A FERRY PERMIT. 3) THE ANTENNA INSTALLATION WAS DONE IN THE SAME SKIN AREA. 4) THE FORM 8110-3 WAS NOT INITIALLY INCLUDED WITH THE DRAWINGS AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. A COPY WAS LATER RECEIVED. 5) THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I USED DATA APPROVED FOR AN ACFT AND APPLIED IT TO ANOTHER ACFT. UPON NOTIFICATION FROM THE LCL FSDO OF THE POSSIBLE VIOLATION; I SENT THE DATA USED FOR THE INSTALLATION TO A DESIGNATED ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE AND HAD A NEW DRAWING APPROVED. THE DRAWING WAS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE USED IN THE INSTALLATION. THE ONLY CHANGES WERE THE DRAWING NUMBER; STATION NUMBER; AND GPS MODEL NUMBER. DESIGNATED ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED ON APR/WED/04; A NEW FORM 337 WAS FILED; AND A LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS MADE. DURING THIS TIME THE ACFT WAS NOT IN OP.