Nacair Grounded ?

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:27 am

Heard a little blip on the radio about 3 of Nacair's aircraft being grounded by Transport for being painted at or by an unapproved facility. Something about control surfaces being removed, painted and replaced by painters rather than AME's.

Any of the Nacair folks care to comment? Any truth to this?

CD · Post by CD » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:43 am

Something linked to the new aircraft

NACAir expands their fleet

I haven't seen anything in the news to suggest a grounding...

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:28 am

Yup the new aircraft, word around the peg is that it has or had something to do with who put the plane back together after they were painted, and some paperwork problems, no weight and balance revision completed.

I heard this from people outside the company and knowing how reliable those sources can be I thought I'd ask here...I find it hard to believe as every indication on this site has been that they are a top notch operator, pretty scary if it has merit...not the best corner to cut to try and save a few bucks.

5x5 · Post by **5x5** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:49 am

Hey Hotfuel - why does this bug you so much? Please elaborate on why it's so scary? It's quite probable that the work was properly supervised and if poor paperwork was the only real sin - omigod - you've bought totally into the "it's not safe unless the paper says so" mindset and I wish you the best.

Also, I would be interested in more info on what corners you think it would be OK to cut to save money.

In general, I'm not sure you should go over the top and slag a company due to some rumours you heard.

bzhpilot · Post by **bzhpilot** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:02 am

This is true the 3 new painted were grounded. They received a flight permit within the next hour to get the problem fixed in T bay.
Those aircraft are back online.

The parts were NOT replaced by "painters" but by FAA certified mechanics. They were then inspected by our own AME before we picked the aircrafts up. TC wanted the parts to be replaced by TC certified AME. So it is done now.

They were no cutting corners to save money.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:52 am

5x5 wrote:It's quite probable that the work was properly supervised and if poor paperwork was the only real sin - omigod - you've bought totally into the "it's not safe unless the paper says so"....

That was the start to Skyward going down. Penwhipping shit until it all came apart. If that's your attitude about unsafe paperwork, you're in for a great ride.

By the way, what new AC are we talking about? I've only heard that NAC was getting 1990's. Are they in WG now?

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:53 am

Hey Hotfuel - why does this bug you so much? Please elaborate on why it's so scary? It's quite probable that the work was properly supervised and if poor paperwork was the only real sin - omigod - you've bought totally into the "it's not safe unless the paper says so" mindset and I wish you the best.

Also, I would be interested in more info on what corners you think it would be OK to cut to save money.

In general, I'm not sure you should go over the top and slag a company due to some rumours you heard.

Well 5X5 I think your reply is a little over the top. I don't believe I slagged the company I actually stated that I have heard and read that they are a fine company and was simply asking if anybody had facts as oppossed to rumour.

What corner would I cut to save a couple of bucks? well lets see...how about purchasing a consumable from a local supplier that buys the product I need but in volumes greater than I, glycol come to mind. If I go direct to Univar and purchase direct my cost per litre is X but I can go to a local FBO that purchases the same product from Univar but in much higer volumes...they will sell me the same product but at a lower price than I would pay to Univar...volia I have cut a corner and saved a few bucks. Take a chill pill, I asked for facts...not interested in rumour. And to answer your other question...yes I would consider it scary if in fact control surfaces were removed and replaced by unqualified people and the aircraft were allowed to fly...but I never said that was the case, I asked the question.

So from what I've now read on this topic its Transport being over the top...the aircraft was disassembled for paint, painted and reassembled by quaified people, inspected and signed out by a qualified employee of NacAir, the aircraft were returned to service and subsequeintly Transport rears their ugly head and decides that the parts need to be removed and rehung by TC approved AME's? I'm missing something here. Would not the Nac guy that signed off the aircraft at the paint shop been the approved guy?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:09 am

So from what I've now read on this topic its Transport being over the top...the aircraft was disassembled for paint, painted and reassembled by quaified people, inspected and signed out by a qualified employee of NacAir, the aircraft were returned to service and subsequeintly Transport rears their ugly head and decides that the parts need to be removed and rehung by TC approved AME's? I'm missing something here. Would not the Nac guy that signed off the aircraft at the paint shop been the approved guy?

Which begs this question.

If a Canadian registered airplane had a part removed and replaced in the USA by a Licensed qualified FAA mechanic and signed out airworthy, would TC require the part to be removed and replaced by a TC licensed mechanic on return to Canada?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:17 am

ei ei owe wrote:
5x5 wrote:It's quite probable that the work was properly supervised and if poor paperwork was the only real sin - omigod - you've bought totally into the "it's not safe unless the paper says so"....
That was the start to Skyward going down. Penwhipping shit until it all came apart. If that's your attitude about unsafe paperwork, you're in for a great ride.

By the way, what new AC are we talking about? I've only heard that NAC was getting 1990's. Are they in WG now?

What are 1990's?? Do they come in flourecent pink??

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:21 am

Bede wrote:
What are 1990's?? Do they come in flourecent pink??

You got me on that one.....

bzhpilot · Post by **bzhpilot** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:24 am

You got the point cat driver.

5x5 · Post by **5x5** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:25 am

So, requiring a Canadian certified AME to re-do perfectly good work because it had originally been done by an American (but approved by a qualified Candian person) provides for a wonderfully safe paper trail. And by extension, now a safe airplane. I'm very happy.

And Hotfuel, a well reasoned and responsible purchasing decision such as you described is not what I would call "cutting corners". That phrase, and the way you used it, implied that something untoward (and scary) was done to save money. That's why I wondered what you'd accept along those lines.

And eieiowe - 'penwhipping' and getting inadvertantly caught up in the maw of TC are two very different things. I hope you own/run a company some day.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:38 am

And eieiowe - 'penwhipping' and getting inadvertantly caught up in the maw of TC are two very different things. I hope you own/run a company some day.

Why would I do that when all I hear on this site is how hard it is, how political it is, how TC is such crap, how bitchy pilots are, how tough it is to train guys and keep them around.... you get it. I'm happier flying for someone that treats me well than being the one trying to make it all happen. Am I living to my fullest capability? No, but I've it good right now.

As for penwhipping, if you do it, you'll get caught and shut down. There was nothing "inadvertant" about the TC mob that descended in YTH a couple years back.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:56 am

Cat Driver wrote: Which begs this question.

If a Canadian registered airplane had a part removed and replaced in the USA by a Licensed qualified FAA mechanic and signed out airworthy, would TC require the part to be removed and replaced by a TC licensed mechanic on return to Canada?

I'm thinkin' you know the answer .... and I won't swear to it, but I believe the answer is no... it only requires that an appropriate Canadian AME holder signs the final release for the work... which implies he's overseen the work as required.

And I believe that works both ways... I recall while changing an engine on a United DC10 some United mechs watched over us so they could sign for it, but we did the work.

N2 · Post by N2 » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:03 am

What, you mean TC has a problem with using Tremclad and a roller from Canadian Tire?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:17 am

I'm thinkin' you know the answer .... and I won't swear to it, but I believe the answer is no... it only requires that an appropriate Canadian AME holder signs the final release for the work... which implies he's overseen the work as required.

Of course I know the answer Mitch.

All I am doing is pointing out how fuc.in stupid some of this stuff can get.....if true that is, I wonder if TC did insist on removing and replacing parts that were worked on by FAA mechanics and signed out by a Canadian company AME?

I find that hard to believe.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:45 am

When an aircraft is manufactured outside of Canada, and is imported, does Transport insist that the aircraft be completely disassembled, and each part overhauled, inspected and re-assembled by a Canadian mechanic, before it is flown in Canada?

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:04 am

Judging by the amount of work done on planes imported from the US, it seems just a hair shy of complete dissasembly.

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:00 pm

Well I'm finding this one a little more interesting now. I originally asked a question to eliminate the rumour factor. Seems I have opened a can of worms.

Any of the respondents actually work for said carrier? Did they in fact have to remove painted components, reinstall and rerig? If so why? It sort of lends credibility to what I heard. Did they in fact send an AME to the paint facility and did he oversee the reinstall/rerig and sign off accordingly? if so and the 1st part is true... that they had to do it all over again once back in Canada...my question is why? If all the paperwork, logbook entries etc were in order what caused the Transport alarm to go off?

seiger · Post by **seiger** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:10 pm

hotfuel is wasaya's CP

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:30 pm

I see where you’re coming from, CP raising on-line shit storm to discredit competitor...pretty low brow stuff.

Hate to burst you bubble, short answer is no I’m not.

Even if I was the competing CP I think the questions are still relevant, if everything was done by the book, what set off the alarm bells at Transport? If indeed there was any alarms going off. At this point nobody has actually come forward and stated they work there, confirmed or denied any of the posted statements, comments or questions.

impress · Post by **impress** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:01 pm

Any CARs reference to work performed in US? Wouldn't it be covered under your MPM "Maintenance Agreement" and bi-lateral agreement? I'm curious, ive never treaded this water but could be useful info for any operators considering going south for Avionics/paint. What about all the N-registered A/C that come to Canada to get C/D checks at places like ACS in YWG? Do they send a company rep to sign off on all of the ACS guys work? Seems crazy

AEROMONKEY · Post by **AEROMONKEY** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:01 pm

http://www.tbsource.com/localnews/index.asp?cid=91655

AEROMONKEY · Post by **AEROMONKEY** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:02 pm

http://www.tbsource.com/localnews/index.asp?cid=91655

AEROMONKEY · Post by **AEROMONKEY** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:02 pm

http://www.tbsource.com/localnews/index.asp?cid=91655