In the global perspective, in Canada, we are very lucky to have the freedom to fly, own aircraft, and further, to modify them, compared to most other nations one earth. I won't go so far as to say that we can take flying as a right here, but we are a heck of a lot closer to that than most other nations! We enjoy this, because we have an aviation industry which is (for the most part) mature. Transport Canada, who itself has excellent world wide respect, demonstrates confidence in its industry, and provides paths to accomplish what the industry itself knows it needs - modified aircraft, for the purpose of this discussion. This path is an awesome economic benefit to operators, if followed well.
---------- ADS -----------
The path which TC places before industry to accomplish objectives, is regulated and usually very informative (lots of references, and guidance material). Sure, that path has requirements, but in nearly all cases, meeting those requirements is just good safety, and good business. Transport Canada depends upon we in industry to work as a team to execute the most safe aviation (in this case, modifications) we know to do, for its own sake. TC certainly does not have the resources to check everything, and if we place them in that position, we'll be mired to a standstill.
So we, industry, for our own sake, have to act as a cohesive team all the time. This goes right down to mods on aircraft. We all have a role, right down to the pilots I instruct, as to what they are going to fly for me during an EMI test flight. We can all be a team, and get the job done, safely, and to the satisfaction of the possible oversight of TC, or we can fail to do that, and competence is questioned, not to mention retesting and economic disadvantage to the aircraft operator.
So, when work with a team to accomplish an approval, we will work together, harmoniously toward a common goal, or I will pause the process to review the objectives. We will not work toward a goal, which is different from, or incomplete, in consideration of the TC requirements (unless we're aiming for restricted category, or an exemption - a whole different discussion). Sometimes a team member brings attention to something else to be considered, and that will be discussed. If the team cannot reconcile it them, it will go back to TC for consideration = delay and cost (so we do that judiciously)
So, for me, when a member of the team apparently view their own importance, or sense of being right during a project as to over rule the interests (or performance expectations) of the other team members during an approval process, that really slows things down = cost the aircraft owner money. Was it worth it? Rarely.
When am invited to a project to witness an EMI test, I come with the TC requirements for demonstration of compliance pretty well established. I did not create those requirements, they are a tool provided to me by TC to get the job done for the client. If another person involved with that project objects to my using that certification tool as I have been instructed by TC, and we do not come to agreement, one of us will be taking a step back. I am aware that aircraft owners have asked a person, who could not bring themselves to agree with the program, to step back.
S Neverblue, as I said much earlier, you work in your world, and I'll work in mine, After a hundred or so witnessed EMI test, on behalf of TC, I know what they expect of me, and that's what I'll be doing, whether you agree or not. If you are signing out modified aircraft with authority, continue along doing your job. In the mean time, I'll continue doing mine, as specified by TC, using "data" correctly, and doing thorough EMI testing, whether you like it or not!