VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-13-2009, 10:43 AM
FLTENG FLTENG is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria B.C. Can.
Posts: 368
Default

Having worked professionaly in the aviation field for 30 plus years as an AME(M2) and a Flight Engineer I can understand builders frustrations.
It was my experience that when building my RV that some inspectors seemed to come from a different planet and there was a definite lack of communication between themselves and provincial and/or national heads not to mention not being able to work with a national standard of practices.

In my case it was the weight and balance exercise I was asked to do. Three scenarios were required, the first with a loading of a forward C of G, a rearward loading C of G and finally a gross weight loading C of G. I asked the then Provincial head of MD-RA if I should use published average adult weights and was told to use what ever weights I needed to 'make it work'. As a professional and after doing aircraft weight and balance calculations for more years then I care to remember, I know that gross weight is limited to both structural and operating limitations for take off and landing. Consequently I completed the W and B exercise with these parameters in mind and limiting the gross weights to ensure that the A/C C of G was within limits for take off with max fuel and when landing with minimum fuel. I was wrong. I was told that my figures should be such that gross weight will equal 1800lbs including cargo/baggagethat will be 100lbs and if your landing C of G is out of limits, change your passenger weight to bring the C of G to within landing limits, even if your passenger has to weight 300lbs.
I understand that the inspectors job is to insure that your airplane is safe to fly with in the guidlines as laid out by MD-RA, not their own. this is not to say some inspectors do not give good advise and/or building tips however your decision not to follow them should not be a reason to fail an inspection if you comply with TC and MD-RA regulations and guidlines.
But........sometimes you just have to play the game.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-13-2009, 11:15 AM
prkaye prkaye is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
I understand that the inspectors job is to insure that your airplane is safe to fly with in the guidlines as laid out by MD-RA
I'm not sure whether it is within the MD-RA's mandate to lay-out any such guidelines. I would like to see documented evidence on this, but I would suspect all they are really supposed to do is make sure builders follow standards which exist elsewhere, in regulations created by TC.
__________________
Phil
RV9A (SB)
Flying since July 2010!
Ottawa, Canada
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-13-2009, 11:55 AM
C-GRVT C-GRVT is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 305
Default powers of MD-RA

Phil,
you are absolutely correct.
An MD-RA is a "Minister's Delegate - Recreational Aircraft". The Minister is the Minister of Transport, and as a delegate, the MD-RA may only exercise the powers of the Minister in applying and enforcing the applicable regulations.
The MD-RA has no free-standing obligation (or right) to "ensure that your airplane is safe to fly". An MD-RA cannot impose requirements other than contained in the regulations. To the extent that the regulations leave room for discretion to be exercised or for interpretation , an MD-RA may exercise that discretion or interpret the regulation.
A builder should feel free to ask the MD-RA the authority relied upon for any requirement, and the MD-RA should be able to provide it, and distinguish between suggestions, and true requirements that flow from the regulations.
If a builder considers an interpretation unreasonable, or a requirement made that is not supported by the regulations, then the builder is free to seek clarification from the Minister/Transport Canada.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit,
(and federal "bureaucrat")
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-13-2009, 02:40 PM
Wayne Hadath Wayne Hadath is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kitchener Ontario CYKF
Posts: 60
Default Precover

Phil
It is my understanding that the fuselage requires a precover. If the inspector wants the turtle deck off then I would assume that is his choice. What is the foul with this request? The inspector may have a good reason for this. It may be as simple that he cannot fit in the tailcone of an RV 8 due to his size or age problems. If you are a bit miffed with MDRA, wait till you get to Transport Canada, there the real fun can begin. It is a long haul, try not to sweat the small stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-13-2009, 02:56 PM
C-GRVT C-GRVT is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 305
Default well,

I suppose the foul with this request is if one has already gone ahead and installed the skin, which I think is the position Phil found himself in.
Builders should be entitled to rely on known standards/requirements, based on real regulatory requirements, which I think is Phil's very valid point.
Bill Brooks,
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-13-2009, 03:09 PM
Frank Smidler Frank Smidler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Stoughton, WI
Posts: 473
Default Throttle & mixture cable connection nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by vlittle View Post
The primary function of the inspections are for flight safety. ........

The biggie is castle nuts and cotter pins. I don't think there is anywhere on an RV where a change is required to what Van's recommends. In some kits (especially ultralights) this is a big safety problem.
My experience is from south of the border (Canadian border that is) but is relevant. My DAR had an issue with the metal lock nuts used on the throttle and mixture cables connection to the carb. I have a RV-6 with a RV-7 firewall forward kit/set-up. Van's shows in the drawings these nuts and provides them. My DAR questioned there use and I had to show him that it was to plans. He accepted this and did not require me to change them to a nut and cotter pin. Other inspectors may not.

In defense of Van's use of the lock nuts, they are all metal so heat will not affect them and they are torqued down solidly to the spherical bearing so they will not "work" loose.
__________________
Frank Smidler
N96FS, RV-6
Flying 1/11/09
1085 hr
2WI6 Stoughton, WI
Formally of Lafayette, IN
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-13-2009, 06:37 PM
FLTENG FLTENG is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria B.C. Can.
Posts: 368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkaye View Post
I'm not sure whether it is within the MD-RA's mandate to lay-out any such guidelines. I would like to see documented evidence on this, but I would suspect all they are really supposed to do is make sure builders follow standards which exist elsewhere, in regulations created by TC.
Poor choice of words on my part.
I agree with what you say, however I feel where the problem starts is when an inspector uses his own interpretation of a regulation and/or requirement, material, practice etc. and insists that you must have a certain fitting or fixture made of another material because he knew somebody that or he thinks that.............I think you know where this is going.
If a builder follows the acceptable methods techniques and practices (AC 4313) and complied with requirements stated in CARS there should be no problems.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-14-2009, 07:41 AM
prkaye prkaye is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
What is the foul with this request?
As I thought was pretty clearly explained in my post, my issue is with INCONSISTENCY. One inspector tells me to go ahead and build and that fuselage precover is NOT required, and then another inspector is coming along telling builders it IS required. if I get stuck with an inspector of the second mindset, I do NOT want to be forced to disassemble my fuselage. Hopefully the fact that I have saved the email from the MDRA inspector who said to go ahead without a fuselage pre-cover will protect me.
__________________
Phil
RV9A (SB)
Flying since July 2010!
Ottawa, Canada
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-14-2009, 10:57 AM
FLTENG FLTENG is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria B.C. Can.
Posts: 368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkaye View Post
As I thought was pretty clearly explained in my post, my issue is with INCONSISTENCY. One inspector tells me to go ahead and build and that fuselage precover is NOT required, and then another inspector is coming along telling builders it IS required. if I get stuck with an inspector of the second mindset, I do NOT want to be forced to disassemble my fuselage. Hopefully the fact that I have saved the email from the MDRA inspector who said to go ahead without a fuselage pre-cover will protect me.
Yes indeed, a very real problem. This, I feel, may be because of a lack of indepth technical background in aviation. One has to remember that a vast majority of inspectors have regular day time professions/jobs not remotely related to aviation. This can be common problem with volunteer organizations where people of varying and non related backgrounds with minimum training and guidance are in a position of leadership (why I quit CASARA). A lack of standards/communication leads to inconsistency.
If you can crawl down to the back of your fuselage to buck rivets, your inspector should be able to crawl down there and inspect them.
Good thing you kept the email
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-14-2009, 02:12 PM
Ron B. Ron B. is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yarmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,408
Default

Transport Canada (Marine) has been this way for over twenty years at least. Recently they have had three inspectors leave for this same reason. Four inspectors in one office and all four request different things and some of them are major.
Get use to it, try to deal with the one that is more reasonable and move on. So far I'm very happy with our MD-RA. The only thing he won't budge on is the gascolator and he says it's above his head.
Ron
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.