Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:02 PM - re- RV6a maximum gross weight @1650 lb. (Jim Jewell)
2. 08:05 PM - Re: re- RV6a maximum gross weight @1650 lb. (G McNutt)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re- RV6a maximum gross weight @1650 lb. |
A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The application
included the requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
A week later I received the as applied for registration which now resides in
the aircraft as required.
My local inspector is an acquaintance. He was professional diligent and
helpful in all regards. He is in fact a highly trained aircraft structural
AME. By trade.
Yesterday upon having completed the final inspection process of my RV6-a he
had to inform me of the following; It has been decided that the maximum
gross weight during the 25 hr. flight test period will be set by the MDRA at
the kit manufacturers stated (in my case1650 lb.) regardless of the
applicant's requested weight.
It is as yet unclear to me and the inspector exactly how this will effect my
intention to maintain the previously applied for and accepted 1775 maximum
gross weight.
Is this little more than a mild shifting of weight by the MDRA with little
or no effect on the builders?
Will I have to re-test the aircraft for some as yet undetermined additional
flight period?.
It might mean that I have to re-do the gross weight climb test at the
requested 1775 lb. weight.
Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime to prove
the airframe is up to the task.
The first three options can be complied with, the later would of course be
out of the question.
I have no word from the MDRA administration or the local provincial rep. as
to the why's and how's this rule change was arrived at. No advance warning.
No background or explanations offered to the local inspector. No word as to
where this will leave me in dealing with the MOT ? I was informed that after
the 25 hr. test period I will be on my own with the MOT. in this regard.
No opportunity at all to have input on the matter!
My bet is that after turning over one or two rocks in this pile,, a lawyer
will be found !?
Jim in Kelowna
P.S. I almost put the sealed envelope containing the paper work re- the
inpection into the mailbox without checking the amount of postage that was
on it.
Upon doing so I went to the post office and had the postage increased to the
required $1.xx additional amount.
Had I not done so the affixed return address was to the head office in
Ontario instead of here in Kelowna. With the incorrect postage it would have
been returned or sent to Ontario then back to B.C. to be scrutinized By
Terry Elgood before arriving back here. Who knows how long that would take?.
This might explain some of the gripes I have heard about the paperwork turn
around time? If by chance you are given the wrong envelope, a small error
will have a fairly big effect.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re- RV6a maximum gross weight @1650 lb. |
Hi Jim
Looks like "passing the buck" from MDRA to Transport. You will probably
have to jump through a bunch of hoops for T/C.
You will have to get into T/C's policy letters to get the real hoops
that will be required.
Here is some reading to start with.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/AARPE/Recreational/AMAs.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/maintenance/aarpc/msi/Msi_59.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/maintenance/AARPC/MSI/Msi_14.htm
Good luck
George in Langley
Jim Jewell wrote:
>
> A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The application
> included the requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
> A week later I received the as applied for registration which now
> resides in the aircraft as required.
> My local inspector is an acquaintance. He was professional diligent
> and helpful in all regards. He is in fact a highly trained aircraft
> structural AME. By trade.
> Yesterday upon having completed the final inspection process of my
> RV6-a he had to inform me of the following; It has been decided that
> the maximum gross weight during the 25 hr. flight test period will be
> set by the MDRA at the kit manufacturers stated (in my case1650 lb.)
> regardless of the applicant's requested weight.
>
> It is as yet unclear to me and the inspector exactly how this will
> effect my intention to maintain the previously applied for and
> accepted 1775 maximum gross weight.
>
> Is this little more than a mild shifting of weight by the MDRA with
> little or no effect on the builders?
>
> Will I have to re-test the aircraft for some as yet undetermined
> additional flight period?.
>
> It might mean that I have to re-do the gross weight climb test at the
> requested 1775 lb. weight.
>
> Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime to
> prove the airframe is up to the task.
>
> The first three options can be complied with, the later would of
> course be out of the question.
>
> I have no word from the MDRA administration or the local provincial
> rep. as to the why's and how's this rule change was arrived at. No
> advance warning. No background or explanations offered to the local
> inspector. No word as to where this will leave me in dealing with the
> MOT ? I was informed that after the 25 hr. test period I will be on my
> own with the MOT. in this regard.
> No opportunity at all to have input on the matter!
>
> My bet is that after turning over one or two rocks in this pile,, a
> lawyer will be found !?
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> P.S. I almost put the sealed envelope containing the paper work re-
> the inpection into the mailbox without checking the amount of postage
> that was on it.
> Upon doing so I went to the post office and had the postage increased
> to the required $1.xx additional amount.
> Had I not done so the affixed return address was to the head office
> in Ontario instead of here in Kelowna. With the incorrect postage it
> would have been returned or sent to Ontario then back to B.C. to be
> scrutinized By Terry Elgood before arriving back here. Who knows how
> long that would take?. This might explain some of the gripes I have
> heard about the paperwork turn around time? If by chance you are given
> the wrong envelope, a small error will have a fairly big effect.
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|