Airworthiness Certification: Requirement for engine ground time

avi8tor50 · #1 02-12-2009, 01:01 PM

Hi all-
I am getting closer to my airworthiness inspection. There is a point of confusion as to any requirement for engine ground time run prior to inspection. I have a new Lycoming D1A which, of course, has had about an hour of "ground time" run at the factory. I realize that I will have to fire up the engine and inspect for leaks as well as complete some taxi tests. I spoke with technical support at Lycoming and their recommendation was to MINIMIZE the time of running the engine on the ground and to limit the taxi tests.

My question is, and this may best be answered by all the DARS out there, first of all, is there a specific requirement for a set amount of engine ground time run? What do most builders do in this regard, keeping in mind that this is a new engine that requires a break-in? I would appreciate any advice!

Peter K
9A

erich weaver · #2 02-12-2009, 01:47 PM

There is no requirement; howver, I suggest talking over any and all questions with your inspector (DAR or FAA inspector) prior to them showing up. That way you have already started building a relationship, and there are no surprises regarding what he expects to see.

Yes, the engine manufacturers all seem to want minimal ground run time, but you do need to run it of course to cycle the prop, ensure full RPM and power, etc

good luck

erich

kentb · #3 02-12-2009, 02:33 PM

He told me that he didn't need it done before the inspection/paperwork.
Therefore I ran it the first time after I put all the inspection plates back on. I ran it about 4 time for only a couple of minutes each time.
The first time I found that one of the mags was not working. Took me about 1/2 hour to find and correct the wiring. Ran it again to set the max CS prop speed and the ideal speed. I needed to do this a couple of time to get it close.
The only taxi test was from my hangar to the end of the runway (about 1/2 mile). A quick run-up and then full throttle down the runway.
With a Vans design you don't need to feel out the fly-ability of the airframe with high speed taxi testing. Just give it full power and be ready to abort if needed.

On my first flight I was so excited that I forgot to watch CHT until my flight advisor (flying behind in a chase plane) ask me where they were. Whoop! up to 460 already, so I backed off a little on power and tipped the nose down.

Have fun.

Kent

RV6_flyer · #4 02-12-2009, 04:52 PM

There is NOTHING in the regulations that require that you run the engine. The guys that responded before me are correct.

MTBehnke · #5 02-12-2009, 05:41 PM

The information packet I received from the Minneapolis MIDO requires in the request letter for the airworthiness inspection that we check yes to:

"The powerplant installation has undergone at least one hour of ground operation at various speeds from idle to full power to determine and ensure that all systems are operating properly. This time has been recorded in the aircraft log book."

rvbuilder2002 · #6 02-12-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTBehnke

The information packet I received from the Minneapolis MIDO requires in the request letter for the airworthiness inspection that we check yes to:

"The powerplant installation has undergone at least one hour of ground operation at various speeds from idle to full power to determine and ensure that all systems are operating properly. This time has been recorded in the aircraft log book."

I don't know who came up with this requirement but their is nothing in the regs that I know of to justify it.

On the other hand, in contrast to Gary's post, all of the DAR's and FAA airworthiness people that I know require the builder to sign of a condition inspection stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (the operating limitations that they are about to issue a builder requires a condition inspection within the previous 12 months). As part of the inspection, they expect that the engine has been run at least long enough to verify no leaks, seems to run normally with good power, and all instrumentation appears to be working. A builder can't really sign of an aircraft as being in a condition for safe operation if he hasn't checked these things can he? But this can all be done in just a few minutes...doesn't require an hour.

RV6_flyer · #7 02-12-2009, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

I don't know who came up with this requirement but their is nothing in the regs that I know of to justify it.

FAA airworthiness people that I know require the builder to sign of a condition inspection stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (the operating limitations that they are about to issue a builder requires a condition inspection within the previous 12 months).

The Condition Inspection is per FAA Order 8130.2 (F Change 3 is the latest) in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D of part 43.

Read FAA Order 8130.2F Change 3 "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products" that is linked above for all the requirements.

Hawkeye7A · #8 02-13-2009, 12:09 AM

I had heard that the DAR isn't required to even have you start your engine during the inspection. I thought that to be a bit strange. After mine did a very thorough visual of the plane and the paperwork, he then had me pull it out of the hangar and run it up long enough to see that the critical instruments came off the "peg" and begin to show OT, OP, and a few other indications to prove that each gage was indicating the increase in heat, pressure, etc., i.e. working as intended. One thing that he didn't check was something I'd read that Mel likes to do which made a lot of sense. Mel will have you go to full aileron deflection and then motor the flaps to match the aileron deflection. Then go full stick the opposite direction and check the other side, and this will confirm that the controls are properly rigged and the stops set as instructed. Easy check and, like I said, it will give you an indication of how well balanced the rigging is.

dmaib · #9 02-13-2009, 06:41 AM

I don't have my info from the Minneapolis MIDO in front of me, but remember that they required one hour of engine run time [u]on the airframe.[u]
The DAR confirmed this when I talked with him prior to the inspection. He also wanted to see the engine start and run for just a minute or two.
I think this must be one of those areas that different FSDO/MIDO's have local policies.

N941WR · #10 02-13-2009, 07:21 AM

I had my -9 inspected by the Charlotte FISDO and the guy just walked around the plane once. Not only did he not ask about the engine but he didn't even move a control surface of have me do it. Heck, he didn't even want me to power up the panel. His only comment was, "They are putting glass in these things now? Let's get to the paperwork."