issue of special c of a

Share ideas on building aircraft.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
barriegittens
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:52 am

issue of special c of a

Post by barriegittens » Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:30 am

Hi, I have been getting the run-around from a TC inspector with regards to the issue of a new C of A for my "one of" home-built. This follows the installation of an 0-320 to replace a Subaru EJ22. He is attempting to use Chapter 571 of the Cars to acquire "acceptable data" for the engine exchange; before issuing a new C o A. It appears to me that this inspector is confusing issuing a new document with maintenance requirements. This whole issue has been ongoing for three months now and there seems to be no end to his demands. I guess that my question is; has anyone else run across this type of thing and if so, how did you handle it? I have reached the end of my rope with this. Any advise would be greatly appreciated
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by ahramin » Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:47 am

This is perfectly normal. Changing engine type is not maintenance, it's a "Major Modification". Luckily we can use acceptable data for an amateur built so it's not an insurmountable task. Have you looked up the continuing airworthiness section of the MD-RA website and gone through the Major Modification section of the CARs?
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7336
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by photofly » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:15 am

If I remember right, the benefit of an amateur-built aircraft is that you only need acceptable data, not approved data or specified data. Be grateful!
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

barriegittens
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:52 am

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by barriegittens » Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:57 pm

Yes it is a "Major Modification" and it falls under the scope of the exemption to 549.01. Section VII (61) (x) - continuing airworthiness, which reads;"owners may devise their own data, which need not be approved, but must be subject to an appropriate level of review or analysis, or be shown to comply with recognized industry standards or commonly accepted practice. This fellow is refusing the issue of the C of A based on 571 even when 507.03 states that if the aircraft conforms to the 549 exemption Appendix A, the minister shall issue a special C of A. I realize this appears trivial but I cave come to an impasse with this inspector and unless I can come up with some sort of data for him he refuses to issue the document.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by ahramin » Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:21 pm

Acceptable data still means data. I'm assuming you have already stated that all work installing the engine conforms to AC 43.13? Have you requested a flight permit to do a gross weight climb test?

You say it's a "one of" homebuilt. Are you the original builder? I'm not familiar with the process for getting a C of A for non-kit amateur built aircraft. What was the original data submitted for the C of A? I've done the paperwork for a gross weight increase, a change of powerplant from an auto engine to a aircraft engine, and for a change from one aircraft engine to another. In all three the acceptable data was 43.13 plus the data from the kit manufacturer. Without the data from the kit manufacturer, I'm not sure what data they need.

I think a big part of the problem here is that normally MD-RA issues the C of A so no one at Transport has experience passing judgement on amateur built aircraft. Now you are in the position of having an Airworthiness Inspector make a decision that they have no experience making. I think you're going to have to be patient and work with them to figure out what boxes they need to check and provide the data so they can check those boxes. Might be worth your while to try to get a hold of the staff instructions for a Major Mod on an amateur built aircraft if such a thing exists. It might also be a good idea to call the representative who did the final inspection and signed the original C of A and ask them for advice. Don't be afraid to call MD-RA, they aren't involved with this particular aspect of amateur built aircraft but I'm sure they have a lot of knowledge about it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by ahramin » Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:30 pm

I think it would be easier to help you if you would post some information on the aircraft, details of how you accomplished the conversion, and a copy of the data you have already sent to your inspector.
---------- ADS -----------
  

barriegittens
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:52 am

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by barriegittens » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:48 am

What I did was forward a major modification report in June of 2017 and did not hear about it until this August when dealing with another project. I was unaware that the engine type was even on the C of A so that is on me. The aircraft has flown about 60 hrs since the changeover and this inspector didn't think that a climb test was necessary. When he first requested "data"; he wouldn't or couldn't tell me what data he required. He just kept repeating that he needed "acceptable data". Since that time I have supplied him with a lot of information on the mount, the 0-320, the Subaru and had the propeller manufacturer forward their data to him. I am also including the original report.
I think this has gone well beyond reasonable and has become a conflict between the two of us. I have been dealing with home-builts since the early 90's and run a flight school until the early 2000's but I have never come across this kind of treatment from a TC employee.

Good afternoon Barrie,
I can see your frustration; however, I am not willing to accept the attached data you have presented for C-FFPF’s Major Modification at this time. That being said, I have attached all of the data that I am currently aware of. If submitted data is missing please let me know so that I can add it to the attached document in order to conduct another review as I know that we were having some issues going back and forth by e-mail in the past. As you know, the biggest hurdle with this file is the fact that numerous modifications were performed without acceptable data. Now data is being pulled from here and there in an effort to justify the modifications that have already been performed to the aircraft.

The Flight Authority (Special Certificate of Airworthiness) for C-FFPF is not currently in force and the aircraft cannot be flown at this time.

Best regards,

Jonathan Power


Major Modification Report

Aircraft Manufacturer:
W B Gittens & M A Gittens
Make: Amateur built
Model: Legacy

S/N: 2003-01

Owner: W B Gittens & M A Gittens
Registration: C-FFPF
Name & Address of person
accomplishing Modification: W B Gittens, 5443 Hwy #1, Salmon River, NS B5A 5B3
Discription of work Accomplished:-
Items removed: Subaru EJ22 Engine
Includes:-
Engine Mount
Electro-air Ignition
Airflow Performance F-100 Fuel Injection
High pressure fuel pumps and pressure gauge
Ross Aero Propeller Speed Reduction Unit
Coolant Radiators
Custom remote oil filter assembly
74” 3 blade Warp Drive propeller c/w spinner
Complete Cowling Firewall Forward
Vacuum venturi
Narco 120 Com Radio

Items Installed: Lycoming 0-320A3B Engine s/n L-49517-27A
With Magnetos and carburator and vacuum pump, as removed from Piper Apache C-GVGK. Engine total time 254 hrs. since factory new. This engine has since been inspected and upgraded to 160HP as per Lycoming manuals.
Includes:-
New Custom Engine Mount
Nippon Denso Alternator
Skytec lightweight starter
Vetterman crossover exhaust
Catto 2 blade glass/carbon composite propeller and spinner
Low pressure fuel boost pump
Superior spin-on oil filter adapter
Custom cowl including nose bowl and baffles and carburetor air box
Fishing rod tube installed aft of baggage compartment
I-com A200 Com Radio

Cowlings and spinner painted to match

New Weight and Balances have been performed, including equipment lists, for both land and sea applications. These documents supersede any and all weight and balances which precede this date.

Signature of person submitting report Date
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7336
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by photofly » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:09 am

Engage someone like PilotDAR to sort it out for you.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by ahramin » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:03 am

I would start with a statement that all work was accomplished in accordance with AC 43.13 (as long as this was your reference for the modification). If that still isn't good enough and the inspector will not tell you what data is missing and you cannot get a copy of the staff instructions he is following, it's definitely time to hire someone who does this for a living to get the aircraft flying again.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by digits_ » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:37 am

barriegittens wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:48 am
Now data is being pulled from here and there in an effort to justify the modifications that have already been performed to the aircraft.
This statement would worry me the most. It hints that whatever you'll be sending him now, will not be accepted, as you seem to have lost credibility.

Did he ever specify what "data" he needs exactly? It is a ridiculously vague term.

You could try to contact a different TC region if you are confident you are right and the inspector is wrong. It could potentially backfire though, if the old inspector finds out when the new inspector talks to him.

Good luck....
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7336
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by photofly » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:09 am

TC inspectors are under a standing instruction not to "coach" applicants as to what is required, in any scenario. That is, they are forbidden to tell you why what you submit is unacceptable, or what would be acceptable. They are not advisors or consultants, only regulators. They can only accept, or reject a submission.

This leads to a Monty Python meets Franz Kafka outcome, and supplies a great source of income to retired TC inspectors, who, having retired, are allowed to tell you exactly what their former colleagues are looking for. For a fee.

Let me know if you want me to hook you up with someone; he's very reasonable.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3008
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by PilotDAR » Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:19 pm

I cannot speak with authority about what is accepted for modification of non certified aircraft, I work in the certified world. That said, "acceptable data" certainly includes AC43.13, which is broad and very useful (just make sure you're actually quoting chapter and paragraph when making reference to it. Thereafter, acceptable data also includes "(a) drawings and methods recommended by the manufacturer of the aircraft, component, or appliance" - that includes engines. I believe that Lycoming provides installation instructions for their engines (I may have a copy for the O-320). Other than specific engineering data about the strength of the engine mount, I would think that for the installation you've described, those two documents would cover everything.

One good way to demonstrate to the wary that you have thought of everything, and have acceptable data to describe how your modification is compliant, is to create a "compliance table". Refer to FAR Part 23, and list every design requirement paragraph (by number) which could have been affected by the changes you made. Then, along the same row in the table you'll make, describe what acceptable data shows that what you've done satisfies the requirement. If a design requirement is not applicable at all, don't mention it in your list. If it could have been applicable, and you've thought about it, and it's not, list it as not applicable, with a "because..." if you like. If it is at all applicable, make a credible description of how compliance to that requirement remains shown. If you create this table (Excel works well for this), and every affected design requirement has a statement against it showing what acceptable data applies, presenting this to the inspector should smooth path for you. If you've done a good job of it, and the inspector is not satisfied, it becomes several needed stepping stones which will save you a lot of expense if you need to hire in help.

The mod you describe sounds really good to me, and hard to get wrong, so documenting it in overkill mode should give the inspector the pride he needs to issue your C of A. If this does not work, try to ask for the reason(s), and PM me, more help is available....
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by ahramin » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:15 pm

PilotDAR wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:19 pm
create a "compliance table". Refer to FAR Part 23
Thanks PilotDAR, that's exactly what I was wondering.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by AirFrame » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:04 am

This sounds like a case of an owner/builder of an amateur-built aircraft who doesn't know the regulations surrounding amateur-built aircraft, and got caught with their pants down.

An engine or propellor swap where you're not replacing with something of the same spec that was there before (O-320 to O-320, for example) *is* a major modification and it needs to be approved by TC. As others have pointed out, "acceptable data" is all that's required. You need to show that you've considered all of the things that changing an engine and propellor will affects, and how they will affect Performance, loading, etc. If you haven't done that you won't get approval.

The aircraft type is listed as "Legacy". Is it truly a one-off design, or is it based on a Lancair Legacy? Or some other known aircraft type? If it were, you could perhaps point to the kit manufacturer's website that specifies that the engine you're installing is an option.

Doing this after the change was made and trying to "backfill" the data is going to be difficult because they can't say "we need XXX from you" to tell you what acceptable data is required. You have to know what is critical about the change, and explain why the change is safe. You can't just claim "oh, it's experimental" and off you go. It's just like trying to go flying in Special VFR conditions... NavCanada can't ask "would you like Special VFR?" You have to know what to ask.

Are you trying to change other things at the same time, like increasing the Gross Weight? If so, try removing that change and tackle it later.

DId you send them anything other than the major modification report, and the specs for the engine mount and other new parts installed? You'll need to tell them not only what these parts are, but why they are acceptable alternatives. Does the mount attach to the same points as the Subaru mount? With the same size bolts? Is the engine the same weight? Will the thrust/power output of the new engine/prop be greater? How will the structure of the aircraft take that additional load?

As suggested... Quote AC 43.13, Far part 23, and itemize how your change stacks up to standard requirements.

Oh, and MD-RA's mandate is for new construction or imports of amateur-built aircraft. Once it's registered and flying in Canada, their job ends. Beyond that Transport Canada is responsible.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3090
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by Bede » Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:39 pm

I know of someone who asked the TATC for a hearing to review the Minister's determination of something (he wasn't violated). 2 days later he got what he wanted and abandoned the request for the Review.
---------- ADS -----------
  

barriegittens
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:52 am

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by barriegittens » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:26 am

TATC is what I am planning on this week, if nothing moves, in a last attempt to resolve this situation. I have been around amateur-builts for about 30 years and have never ever seen this sort of demand. The aircraft was built by me and was issued a special C of A. The only change was the replacement of the original firewall forward with a 0-320 replacing a Subaru of the same horsepower. I don't see anywhere in the regulations that it is necessary to seek TC's blessings in order to do that. After being pressed on the issue; they are now even looking for data regarding the matching of the Catto propeller to an 0-320 engine. I wonder how many of these combinations are out there in the world? Probably what bothers me the most is the demand for data, that has not been defined. Acceptable data being a wide open description for "whatever they want it to be"
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by AirFrame » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:54 am

barriegittens wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:26 am
The aircraft was built by me and was issued a special C of A.
Barrie, is it truly a one-off design, or is it a modification of a standard kit for something?
---------- ADS -----------
  

barriegittens
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:52 am

Re: issue of special c of a

Post by barriegittens » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:50 am

It's for sure a one- off. Originally most of the parts were from a C120 but there were many many mods used throughout the entire airframe. Many of those mods were created to accommodate the Subaru's increase in horsepower. ie: boot cowl increased from .032 to .040 with stronger internal mounts for the engine mount. No kit involved here.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Homebuilders”