DAR’s - When are Ops Limitations “Good enough”. Or, how long does one argue with the FSDO?

[Phyrcooler]

Apologies for the length. This is a new post after receiving yet another messed up AWC and Operating Limitations.

A couple months ago, I replaced a fixed pitch propeller with a ground adjustable. I duly contacted my local FSDO as stipulated in my then-current Ops Lims for what I thought would probably be considered a “major” change. After a multitude of weeks, I was finally assigned an inspector. After our initial phone conversation, it was obvious he knew little to nothing about airworthiness certificates, experimental aircraft, and operating limitations. (He later admitted he came from a different area, and this was his first assignment to learn on.)

A couple weeks later I was issued a complete disaster of a document. It would take too long to explain the depth of the mess. I solicited and received some advice here that confirmed my base knowledge was correct. I contacted the inspector, and had a long phone conversation with him including a review of Table D and how it is applied to the issuance of operating limitations. A couple more weeks go by, and I get a phone call from the inspector who has someone else in his office with him providing instruction. I answer their questions and tried to respectfully provide a bit of input as the conversation would allow. A couple more days go by. And I receive another AWC/operating limitations.

This one had many corrections, but still fails to follow table D. A couple of issued Ops Limitations are incorrect - quoting the wrong sections of Table D. Some of the limitations are paraphrased. Some are combined with others; others draw bits from incorrect paragraphs. And by the time you get to the end, it has turned into a word salad. By and large, I think they are functional from the standpoint of it doesn’t appear to restrict the use of my aircraft as I fly it currently. (Though I’m not an expert and thus not sure if I’m missing something.) But that leaves in a couple that are wrong - one of which could be important in the future?

For example, the wrong section (40) was quoted about not having a second person aboard during phase 1 testing. The correct section (41) should have been used which references the Additional Pilot Program. Not critical to me today. But.?

More importantly, the wrong section of Table D (47) which covers IFR operations was inserted. The one issued is for 21.190 - which is specific to Light Sport Aircraft, and not 21.191(g). It allows for IFR operations IF it is included in the “manufacturers’ aircraft operating instructions (AOI)”, which of course my EAB does not have. Therefore, while neither myself or the aircraft is currently IFR qualified, it doesn’t appear the aircraft could be made so without a new (corrected!) update of the Ops Lims.

I’ve summarized for brevity (), but this doesn’t do justice to the initial weeks of no communication, and then the weeks of frustration in dealing with folks whom, while well intentioned, don’t know what they’re doing. My initial phone call to the FSDO was April 2. Do I keep fighting, and ask for yet another amended AWC/Ops Lims?

If I understand correctly, I could just hire a DAR to reissue, right?? I probably should have a professional review regardless.

Any advise on how to proceed? Has anyone else experienced this? DAR’s - Can this needed review and reissuance be done by a DAR?

Thanks all!

 

[Quotafiller]

i cant say what i want here. rant, rant rant, rant over. sorry

 

[Taltruda]

so you replaced a fixed pitch with a ground adjustable (essentially fixed pitch) prop? What material are they made of? Did it significantly change the W&B?

 

[ForgeTheFlight2013]

Depends entirely on whether it hurts your Phase II flying. If they’re stripping out standard Night/IFR language or making future major changes an administrative nightmare, don't cave…fixing that down the road is a massive pain. But if it's just weird, petty wording for your Phase I test area? Swallow your pride, take the signature, and go flying. You'll never out wait the FAA on semantics.

Apologies for the length. This is a new post after receiving yet another messed up AWC and Operating Limitations.

A couple months ago, I replaced a fixed pitch propeller with a ground adjustable. I duly contacted my local FSDO as stipulated in my then-current Ops Lims for what I thought would probably be considered a “major” change. After a multitude of weeks, I was finally assigned an inspector. After our initial phone conversation, it was obvious he knew little to nothing about airworthiness certificates, experimental aircraft, and operating limitations. (He later admitted he came from a different area, and this was his first assignment to learn on.)

A couple weeks later I was issued a complete disaster of a document. It would take too long to explain the depth of the mess. I solicited and received some advice here that confirmed my base knowledge was correct. I contacted the inspector, and had a long phone conversation with him including a review of Table D and how it is applied to the issuance of operating limitations. A couple more weeks go by, and I get a phone call from the inspector who has someone else in his office with him providing instruction. I answer their questions and tried to respectfully provide a bit of input as the conversation would allow. A couple more days go by. And I receive another AWC/operating limitations.

This one had many corrections, but still fails to cleanly follow table D. A couple of issued Ops Limitations are incorrect - quoting the wrong sections of Table D. Some of the limitations are paraphrased. Some are combined with others; others draw bits from incorrect paragraphs. And by the time you get to the end, it has turned into a word salad. By and large, they are functional from the standpoint of it doesn’t appear to restrict the use of my aircraft as I fly it currently. (Though I’m not an expert and thus not sure if I’m missing something.) But do I leave in a couple that are wrong - one of which could be important in the future?

For example, the wrong section (40) was quoted about not having a second person aboard during phase 1 testing. The correct section (41) should have been used which references the Additional Pilot Program. Not critical to me today. But.?

More importantly, the wrong section of Table D (47) which covers IFR operations was inserted. The one issued is for 21.190 - which is specific to Light Sport Aircraft, and not 21.191(g). It allows for IFR operations IF it is included in the “manufacturers’ aircraft operating instructions (AOI)”, which of course my EAB does not have. Therefore, while neither myself or the aircraft is currently IFR qualified, it doesn’t appear the aircraft could be made so without a new (corrected!) update of the Ops Lims.

I’ve summarized for brevity (), but this doesn’t do justice to the initial weeks of no communication, and then the weeks of frustration in dealing with folks whom, while well intentioned, don’t know what they’re doing. My initial phone call to the FSDO was April 2. Do I keep fighting, and ask for yet another amended AWC/Ops Lims?

If I understand correctly, I could just hire a DAR to reissue, right?? I probably should have a professional review regardless.

Any advise on how to proceed? Has anyone else experienced this? DAR’s - Can this needed review and reissuance be done by a DAR?

Thanks all!

 

[Phyrcooler]

so you replaced a fixed pitch with a ground adjustable (essentially fixed pitch) prop? What material are they made of? Did it significantly change the W&B?

Correct. Same material, minimal change to W&B. That was exactly the discussion I had with the FSDO initially. My research across here and other forums were that some FSDO offices still consider it a “major” change. Not wanting to be on the wrong side of the FAA and my insurance company if something went awry I was conservative and asked. And all I was seeking was an updated phase 1 test location.

 

[Phyrcooler]

Depends entirely on whether it hurts your Phase II flying. If they’re stripping out standard Night/IFR language or making future major changes an administrative nightmare, don't cave…fixing that down the road is a massive pain. But if it's just weird, petty wording for your Phase I test area? Swallow your pride, take the signature, and go flying. You'll never out wait the FAA on semantics.

That’s where I’m seeking advice. Will this be harder to change in the future? It’s not about petty language, but I am concerned I’ll miss something written in the non-standard limitations. And as I noted, the language for IFR appears to preclude myself or a future owner from IFR flight without rewriting these again. Lastly - while I know DAR’s do initial sign-offs, do they get involved in cases such as this? Could that be my best route due to the obvious issues at the FSDO assigned my geographic area?

 

[RV7A Flyer]

If you decide to continue to try to get them corrected, you might consider a different plan of attack. Instead of debating with the inspector via repeated phone conversations, you might try presenting him with what you believe to be a full and correct set of Op Lims, preferably from an existing set for an already-flying aircraft of the same type, along with an accompanying set of correct references. In other words, instead of letting someone who doesn't know the answers fumble around and try to find them, ending up in never-ending back and forth rewrites, present him with the answer you want and why it's correct.

Sort of akin to the old adage about team members and managers: Never present a problem without a proposed solution if you can.

 

[RNB]

Post the Op lims.

 

[Dugaru]

Instead of debating with the inspector via repeated phone conversations, you might try presenting him with what you believe to be a full and correct set of Op Lims, preferably from an existing set for an already-flying aircraft of the same type, along with an accompanying set of correct references.

Don’t know much about THIS specific scenario, but: my deep experience with the regulatory state generally leads me to conclude that this entirely sensible suggestion will never, ever work. Demonstrating that you know more than the regulator, even when you do it politely, tends to be pure kryptonite. I would truly love to be proven wrong.

 

[Mark Dickens]

If you can make their job easier by somehow presenting an acceptable set of Op Lims that they could just approve, that might get the job done...they do not want to have to fool with this stuff and if you can help them get this off their desk, I bet they would jump at it. I've seen a case where after an inspection, the approved test area was way too small. A modified test area was presented to the inspector and they signed off on it...perhaps one of the "silverback" DARs on this site might gen one up for you???

 

[GyroF-16]

If you decide to continue to try to get them corrected, you might consider a different plan of attack. Instead of debating with the inspector via repeated phone conversations, you might try presenting him with what you believe to be a full and correct set of Op Lims, preferably from an existing set for an already-flying aircraft of the same type, along with an accompanying set of correct references. In other words, instead of letting someone who doesn't know the answers fumble around and try to find them, ending up in never-ending back and forth rewrites, present him with the answer you want and why it's correct.

Sort of akin to the old adage about team members and managers: Never present a problem without a proposed solution if you can.

I support this plan.
When I requested amended Ops Limits a few months ago to change the Phase I area and allow LSR-I to conduct condition inspections, that what I did. Then, when the “first draft” of the Ops Limits came back, I had something to compare it to. I got on the phone with the inspector, and we walked through the tables together, correcting several errors. I was diplomatic, and didn’t call them “errors”, and by the next day, I had a completely correct set of Ops Limits. I’d send a draft saying “This is what I think the new Ops Limits should say. Would you please review them and tell me what you think?”.

 

[rockyfatcat]

I thought I had a similar situation. I upgraded to IFR from day VFR only, fixed pitch to ground adjustable, and repainted the aircraft. I’m an A&P and will do a new W&B.

I asked a similar question and someone suggested reading the op’s limits VERY CAREFULLY.

I was under the ASSUMPTION that switching from fixed pitch to ground adjustable would require revisiting phase one. My section 14 has verbiage about incorporating a major change like from a fixed pitch to a controllable prop. The ground adjustable is just a TYPE of fixed pitch prop as it is NOT controllable in flight. Hence not a major alteration.

As far as switching from day VFR ONLY to IFR & night operations. My notes 23 & 24 authorize compliance when the instruments specified under 91.205 (c) & 91.205 (d) are installed, maintained, and signed off in the maintenance records.

Please reread your op’s limits very carefully. Are you really doing a major alteration?

Your op’s limits may be different than mine, and you may have stirred up a hornets nest with your revised AWC.

Good luck!

 

[DanH]

Might be too late in this case, but I don't grasp why they are issuing new OpLims. Most of the OpLims say (to paraphrase) "If you make a make major change, contact us and get a written response before resuming flight." I don't recall a specific requirement for new OpLims. Were they requested. for a change of test area or something?

I've gotten into this twice. In the first case, I had designed, built, and installed an entire new PSRU, certainly a major change to the powerplant. I got back a letter saying (again paraphrasing) "You can change anything you want, now and in the future, and you don't need to contact us again." The second time was technically not a notification, but rather a request to determine if the stated changes were major or minor. That one took weeks, but eventually resulted in a declaration that substituting AFP fuel injection for a carb, with the addition of inverted fuel and oil systems, was not a major change. Point here is even the FSDO folks had no detailed guidance regarding major or minor.

 

[Vern]

Might be too late in this case, but I don't grasp why they are issuing new OpLims. Most of the OpLims say (to paraphrase) "If you make a make major change, contact us and get a written response before resuming flight." I don't recall a specific requirement for new OpLims. Were they requested. for a change of test area or something?

I've gotten into this twice. In the first case, I had designed, built, and installed an entire new PSRU, certainly a major change to the powerplant. I got back a letter saying (again paraphrasing) "You can change anything you want, now and in the future, and you don't need to contact us again." The second time was technically not a notification, but rather a request to determine if the stated changes were major or minor. That one took weeks, but eventually resulted in a declaration that substituting AFP fuel injection for a carb, with the addition of inverted fuel and oil systems, was not a major change. Point here is even the FSDO folks had no detailed guidance regarding major or minor.

Dan

Several reasons for changes besides major.

Update phase 1 area and add -18 which allows. LS course for signing off CI

 

[ve0kog]

Don’t know much about THIS specific scenario, but: my deep experience with the regulatory state generally leads me to conclude that this entirely sensible suggestion will never, ever work. Demonstrating that you know more than the regulator, even when you do it politely, tends to be pure kryptonite. I would truly love to be proven wrong.

Contacting a peer FSDO which has, presumably, better understanding of the problem and stating your concern indicating hardship with the local office as the reason for requesting out of area service worked in my case. The wheel started turning when the issue became known outside of the local jurisdiction

 

[clarenceoveur]

I'm not know as being a FAA cheerleader, but. I made the change from a GA prop to CS. The Scottsdale FSDO handled it and was very easy. I expected a dumpster fire but the whole thing only took about 3 days, all web based and a phone call or two. I guess I got lucky.

 

[Webb]

Contacting a peer FSDO which has, presumably, better understanding of the problem and stating your concern indicating hardship with the local office as the reason for requesting out of area service worked in my case. The wheel started turning when the issue became known outside of the local jurisdiction

Ask Dad when Mom said no. It was one of the worst spankings I ever received as a youth…..

 

[Phyrcooler]

I support this plan.
When I requested amended Ops Limits a few months ago to change the Phase I area and allow LSR-I to conduct condition inspections, that what I did. Then, when the “first draft” of the Ops Limits came back, I had something to compare it to. I got on the phone with the inspector, and we walked through the tables together, correcting several errors. I was diplomatic, and didn’t call them “errors”, and by the next day, I had a completely correct set of Ops Limits. I’d send a draft saying “This is what I think the new Ops Limits should say. Would you please review them and tell me what you think?”.

When the first AWC came back, I handled it very much like you. I also took the AWC and penciled notes for reference along with providing reference sections from 8130.2L including specific sections of Table D and emailed them all for his ease of reference during our conversation. I then called him, and likewise was very diplomatic and not only explained why some sections were applicable and others not, but basically walked him through Table D. He was very appreciative and also repeatedly apologetic. This is a very polite older gentleman who is probably just over his head due to being thrown into a project without proper training. I don’t want to burn him in this process. I had actually considered producing a complete draft Ops Lims at that time as you and others appropriately suggest, but thought he understood the process enough after our conversation and didn’t want to be insulting.

My later phone conversation that included whomever (manager?) was providing him guidance however led me to strongly believe that my input was NOT wanted - at least by that person - sort of as Dugaru opined above.

I’m currently going through these again with a fine tooth comb to make sure there aren’t other gotchas. (Yes I found another). So, it’s definitely not “good enough” as I originally wondered. I’ll only have 3 or 4 sections that Im asking to be fixed. I’m going to cut and paste each along with the appropriate reference and then provide the correctly written section for his use. That should make it easy if he gets approval to re-do it again to just copy/paste onto the document.

 

[Phyrcooler]

If you decide to continue to try to get them corrected, you might consider a different plan of attack. Instead of debating with the inspector via repeated phone conversations, you might try presenting him with what you believe to be a full and correct set of Op Lims, preferably from an existing set for an already-flying aircraft of the same type, along with an accompanying set of correct references. In other words, instead of letting someone who doesn't know the answers fumble around and try to find them, ending up in never-ending back and forth rewrites, present him with the answer you want and why it's correct.

Sort of akin to the old adage about team members and managers: Never present a problem without a proposed solution if you can.

Understand. I wasn’t clear in my original post. It wasn’t just debating on the phone. I definitely was not letting him fumble around. I provided him with a notated edit of the Ops Lim, notated sections of Table D, and other reference material which I then explained via phone with him.

I like your idea that it would be great to provide him with an actual well executed recent set of Ops Lims. None of my contacts have one. (Most of my flying buddies are in antique and certificated planes). If anyone here has one they want to redact personal info and share, it would be helpful. It would be good for him to see a well written current one done by another FSDO.

 

[Phyrcooler]

Contacting a peer FSDO which has, presumably, better understanding of the problem and stating your concern indicating hardship with the local office as the reason for requesting out of area service worked in my case. The wheel started turning when the issue became known outside of the local jurisdiction

I was/am curious about this possibility. My original operating limitations specifically said I had to contact the FSDO for my geographic area. I searched and couldn’t find any FAA direction regarding going to a FSDO outside ones area. However, in one of the forums someone successfully did so, but related how they had to submit a letter, I believe from one FSDO to the other, allowing that to happen. I hadn’t pursued it further, probably because of my aversion to not following the rules. My career was spent in a chain of command environment. One of the things that would get my subordinates in hot water with me was the “mom vs dad” game already alluded to. If my issue isn’t resolved, I will have to look into this more.

 

[ve0kog]

One of the things that would get my subordinates in hot water with me was the “mom vs dad” game already alluded to

What I've heard, and I don't know how true, is that the FSDOs get some kind of internal credit tokens for work they complete if it comes from their local area. Outside requests are volunteer/workload permitting, but there is nothing in the regulations that blocks it. The other option is to complain to the "mom" in Oklahoma.. None of this is attractive and paints you as a whiner, but hey we are the customer here.

 

[ronrapp]

Might be too late in this case, but I don't grasp why they are issuing new OpLims. Most of the OpLims say (to paraphrase) "If you make a make major change, contact us and get a written response before resuming flight." I don't recall a specific requirement for new OpLims. Were they requested. for a change of test area or something?

They were requested because he purchased the plane from a guy in the northeast, but lives in the desert southwest, so he needs a new Phase 1 test area. Assuming there's a need for going back to phase 1 at all -- which seems to depend on which FSDO you're dealing with and which individual you're talking to. It shouldn't be that way... but it is.

Phyrcooler is being conservative. He mentioned insurance. If something happened, would an insurance company deny coverage because of the change if there was what they would consider to be a major change without a Phase 1? Who knows.

I told him if it was me, I'd consider it a minor alteration and go fly. I've seen far more significant changes deemed minor by mechanics, inspectors, and FSDOs. But you can't fault someone for taking the more conservative route.

I think he's being smart by not burning any bridges with the current FSDO employee. Sounds like the FAA employee is aware that he's got a lot to learn and that this is his first time issuing OpLims. Hey we all have to start somewhere, I suppose. But by being patient a person might make an ally at the FSDO instead of an adversary, and taking the long view, that could pay off in the future.

It's just a bummer that this all has to take so long.

Phyrcooler: could you accept an imperfect document just to get you back in the air, while still requesting changes/corrections from the FSDO? Something to think about: you might not care about IFR capability or two pilots for Phase 1, but a future buyer of your airplane might.

--Ron

 

[DanH]

They were requested because he purchased the plane from a guy in the northeast, but lives in the desert southwest, so he needs a new Phase 1 test area.

Yeah, I guessed right.

Ok, next question...I thought OpLims were generated by our DARs from a standard FAA-supplied template. Is that true?

 

[Mel]

Yeah, I guessed right.

Ok, next question...I thought OpLims were generated by our DARs from a standard FAA-supplied template. Is that true?

YEP! FAA Order 8130.2L, Table D.

 

[ronrapp]

YEP! FAA Order 8130.2L, Table D.

That covers new builds pretty easily.

What about modifications to an existing OpLim? Do they just update, say, the Phase 1 test area, or when updating that do they simply apply the latest version of the current template?

--Ron