New Rules

[spacesailor]

It seems strange to me, that someone with a maintenance cert, can overrule the designer & builder of an aircraft ( see articles 09), even if He/She is completely ignorant of HOW that equipment was made.

 

Each time a Folding wing or detachable wing is assembled, for that one or two bolts per wing, we now have to employ a certified maintenance officer to over-see that installation.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[440032]

It would help if you outlined who is the "we" you are talking about, along with more of the what.

 

 

[spacesailor]

ME = I

 

We/She = the designer/builder.

 

Fitting of optional spats, = two nuts & washers. or removing them if grass is too long.

 

Removal of spinner to torque prop-bolts. & reattachment. even refitting antenna,

 

All to be inspected by a LAME inspector.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[KRviator]

You can remove and replace the landing gear tyres, IAW Schedule 8, that would include the removal of any wheelpants to actually get to the tyres in the first place.

 

Removal of "non structural" components, cover plates and fairings is also permitted as part of lubricating various components if required.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

you can rig a glider from a trailer. This process has been complicated by the need to get an independent inspection, but it only means a second daily inspector to check the job.

 

I also hate creeping bureaucracy, but in the case of the glider rigging, I have to admit that there is quite a history of incidents following faulty rigging.

 

I reckon rigging a glider is more complex than rigging folding wings, but it has the same capacity for stuff-up, so a second pair of eyes is a good idea. The second pair of eyes surely doesn't have to be a LAME though.

 

 

[old man emu]

It's going to neuter Super Pups.

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Removal of "non structural" components"

 

A folding wing "Bolt" is structural.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Isn't this, from the Technical Manual Issue 4, the gospel relating to folding wings?

 

SECTION 12.2 INSPECTION AFTER RE-ASSEMBLY

 

1 APPLICABILITY 1.1

 

This section applies to all aircraft that have been re-assembled after:

 

(a) purchase from new (including LSA and factory built)

 

(b) road or other transport

 

© a period of disassembly

 

Note: (b) and © do not apply to aircraft that normally and routinely have some degree of assembly prior to daily flying.

 

 

[Ryanm]

Spacesailor,

 

Someone with a “Maintenance Certification” has been trained/approved to be knowledgeable in Aircraft Systems/Maintenance. Without being rude, anyone can build an aircraft, and may very well have to get the dictionary out to see what an Aileron is (I’m not saying this is you, just making a point). So the system is built around the worst case.

 

The posts regarding Gliders is a great example.

 

 

[facthunter]

A properly designed Glider or anything else should have no ambiguity in the way controls can be assembled. Different threads or different lengths will fix that. Murphy's law is IF it can be assembled, incorrectly it will be and it's true. If a LAME is called to a phone in the middle of an assembly job it's a bit like a shift change. You get a risky disconnect in a process. Don't casually just have a bit of a chat with someone in the middle of a delicate or even" Tightening a set of plugs" type operation. On an aeroplane, everything is important. Having all the qualifications doesn't make it infallible but if you don't really know what you are doing don't guess it. Get help. There's years of study and practical work to get the real qualifications. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The operative word there is "should" Nev. Some gliders are good and some poor. Take the LS3 for example, it was quite good although the tailplane mount was poor. A little thumb-wheel accessed though a little door in the tailplane had to be tightened. I remember a deep-voiced bloke who took off with his LS3 tailplane not tightened properly. He was speaking contralto on the radio due to his well-placed fear that the tailplane was about to come off. Thank the lord it didn't, he was too low to use the chute he was wearing.

 

Then they built the LS6, which was worse with its wing connection than the LS3. The aileron connection fitting was hard to see and you needed to work by feel. One guy ( a top US competition pilot) took off with an aileron disconnected and crashed.

 

The best-rigging glider would be the Glasflugel Mosquito. It could be said to be foolproof, were it not for that old saying about how fools can be very ingenious.

 

 

[facthunter]

even commercial aircraft have had controls working in the opposite sense put on line That why the "Controls free and in correct sense" is a common check pre flight. Leaving control locks in place has always been a problem. for the quick and rough brigade. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

My Gripe was only about "Home-made" part, that is manufactured for a specific use on an airframe, that's Not as normal as standard aircraft equipment.

 

Point of view is the Hummel canopy lock, Lots of idea's Are going into Hummel aircraft, not all will please a conventionally trained aircraft mechanic, BUT if it does the job why should it just be cast aside because an L2 does Not like it.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

"Approval" should not be taken to mean the bureaucrat likes it, although some of the more stupid ones think this is what it means. It really means " complying with the regulations".

 

So just because some official doesn't like it then that is not sufficient reason to deny "approval".

 

 

[kasper]

Well if it’s RAAus reg and under the tech manual the out for us is the exception to allow non dual inspection if some assembly is required prior to daily use. This covers all wing folds on things like kitfoxes or vampires. Even covers the thrusters that have wings that come off and fold down to ladder. Oh and the weight shift guys n gals not only fully fold the wing and disrupt the entire wing control system but also fold the fuselage in half.

 

All excluded from dual inspection.

 

And i confirmed this with tech office when issue 4 came out.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Thanks Kasper.

 

I and lots more I suspect will be relieved to know, there is exemptions.

 

BUT

 

Do those exemptions have to be in writing ?. For all , or each individual aircraft... ( hate to get caught out ( like not having your driving license on you when busted)).

 

spacesailor

 

 

[440032]

OME posted the answer a while back in post #8.

 

Any mention of "in writing"? - no there is not.

 

Any mention of "for individual aircraft"? - no there is not.

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks Kasper.

 

I and lots more I suspect will be relieved to know, there is exemptions.

 

BUT

 

Do those exemptions have to be in writing ?. For all , or each individual aircraft... ( hate to get caught out ( like not having your driving license on you when busted)).

 

spacesailor

You don’t need it in writing beyond the fact it’s the tech manual. It’s not an aircraft specific exemption or ruling.

 

The fact that the ruling on dual inspections make absolutely no sense when if you design it to come apart it’s not applicable but if you do not it does is just one more conflict between the way RAAus is making GA lite and aligning to ga when existing design features in many older designs are in direct conflict.