X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6039135 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:54:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=acPjbGUt c=1 sm=0 a=g3L/TDsr+eNLfIieSKfGkw==:17 a=AHkS0RJitIMA:10 a=80LJiy9xitAA:10 a=05ChyHeVI94A:10 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=36H8NcXTG0oA:10 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=g-xgvbNq5WfdqtNc6RwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Wyijt_n5pS_LB68_:21 a=oYk5WchzsRBulWPW:21 a=HZJGGiqLAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=L1T9hQ2ozI5UWL1ImBoA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=HeoGohOdMD0A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=E44-WhUX0SC1vjT4:21 a=g3L/TDsr+eNLfIieSKfGkw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 174.110.170.10 Received: from [174.110.170.10] ([174.110.170.10:50934] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge03.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 3A/40-26261-CDDBA015; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:54:20 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Anatomy of a failed AW inspection Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:54:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01CDFFBA.76D93A00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CDFFBA.76D93A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While I did pass my first inspection, I must admit I was really = embarrassed at the number of missing cotter pins and not tightened to = spec nuts the inspector found - and I didn't have the excuse of a short = time lead. Fortunately all were easily and quickly fixed and the = inspector was nice enough to call the problems out as he went alone, so = I could come along behind him fixing them. =20 By the time he had finished, so had I and I expected he would go back = and check that I had done what I was suppose to, but no, his view was he = had pointed them out to me and felt that should be sufficient - sort of = treated you like an adult - even if a bit dim-witted one {:>) So you'll get there - and besides those inspector guys need to = re-inspect somebody every once in a while - to show they are really = doing their job {:>) Ed From: Ernest Christley=20 Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:04 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Anatomy of a failed AW inspection As many of you know, I called the Greensboro FSDO and scheduled an = Airworthiness=20 Inspection. It was originally scheduled for last Friday, but got = postponed due to inclement weather. Wednesday turned out to be a shirt-sleeve day, = and perfect for an inspection inside a large, open hangar. When I called = for the=20 inspection, I was expecting to get a date a couple months out. The = quickness of the schedule took me by surprise, but being the gung-ho guy I am, I = went for it. Three inspectors showed up. Mike Foster, who I had been working with, = and seemed mostly concerned with paperwork. Tim, who did most of the = hardware inspection. And Mark, who seemed to enjoy looking at airplanes the = most. Don't bother to bring donuts and coffee. Those guys were there for hard line business. Wish I could get my $23 back from Dunkin Donuts. Coffee was crap anyway 8*) They want the airplane in a state where they can write you the AW and = you can immediately taxi it out to fly. Tim seemed to imply that any modifications after issuing the certificate would require contacting the FSDO and flying another 40 hours. I found that a bit drastic, and I'm still not sure how it will work out (If I add a nose wheel fairing, do I have to go back into the test flight area for 40 hours? How about if I change my intercom? Does the simplest of issues requiring correction during flight testing require the clock to reset?). Tim's approach was reasonable, so I'm sure it will all be fine. I had a LOT of cotter pins missing and nylock nuts that weren't = tightened down. Most of this was due to not wanting to waste cotter pins and = nylock nuts on parts that needed to be constantly removed during the building process. I probably would have caught most of them if I'd had two = months between when I called for the inspection appointment and when they came out, which is what I was expecting. "We can be there Friday" took me by surprise, and in retrospect I should have explained my expectation and begged for more time. Then I could have gotten several pre-inspections and have been ready. Recommendation: Get several pre-inspections so = that you are ready. The biggest deficiency, by far, was that I do not have my final = propeller. My "first attempt" prop has some shop rash on it (tow bars are rough on propellers when you don't remove them before cranking), and I was quite open with the fact that I had no intention of flying with it. That was = a clear violation of the "ready to fly" rule, and when I think about it a moment, a clear violation of common sense. The point of the Phase 1 is = to make sure the major parts of the airplane are working properly together. The point of 40hours instead of 25 for non-certified prop/engine combinations is to make sure they work together in particular. How can you test them together, when they obviously haven't been fabricated? = Duh. At the end, Mike was wanting to write the Repairman's Certificate for = me. All the pictures I've taken during the build process running as a slideshow on a laptop whil the inspection was going on made it clear = that I had built this contraption. I could tell that Mike didn't want to = leave me empty handed; but, he needed the airplane's certification date for = that form, so he was blocked. I point that out to say that these guys = actually WANT to give you the legal pass to go fly. My project was simply NOT ready to be called an airplane. I've got a list of fixes to complete. That give me some focus to punch through and git 'er done. It won't be long now. This would have only = taken one visit if I had: 1) Lined up some pre-inspections by people who had been through this = before. 2) Been honest with myself and asked for more time to get things = complete. 3) Understood beforehand that "complete" means "completed". No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6061 - Release Date: = 01/27/13 ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CDFFBA.76D93A00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While I did pass my first inspection, I must = admit I was=20 really embarrassed at the number of missing cotter pins and not = tightened to=20 spec nuts the inspector found - and I didn't have the excuse of a short = time=20 lead.  Fortunately all were easily and quickly fixed and the = inspector was=20 nice enough to call the problems out as he went alone, so I could come = along=20 behind him fixing them. 
 
By the time he had finished, so had I and I = expected he=20 would go back and check that I had done what I was suppose to, but no, = his view=20 was he had pointed them out to me and felt that should be sufficient - = sort of=20 treated you like an adult - even if a bit dim-witted one = {:>)
 
So you'll get there - and besides those = inspector guys=20 need to re-inspect somebody every once in a while - to show they are = really=20 doing their job {:>)
 
Ed

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:04 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Anatomy of a failed AW=20 inspection

As many of you know, I called the = Greensboro=20 FSDO and scheduled an Airworthiness 
Inspection.  It was originally = scheduled=20 for last Friday, but got postponed due
to inclement weather. =  Wednesday turned=20 out to be a shirt-sleeve day, and
perfect for an inspection inside a = large,=20 open hangar.  When I called for the 
inspection, I was expecting to get = a date a=20 couple months out.  The quickness
of the schedule took me by = surprise, but=20 being the gung-ho guy I am, I went
for it.

Three inspectors showed = up.  Mike=20 Foster, who I had been working with, and
seemed mostly concerned with = paperwork. Tim,=20 who did most of the hardware
inspection.  And Mark, = who seemed=20 to enjoy looking at airplanes the most.
Don't bother to bring donuts and=20 coffee.  Those guys were there for hard
line business.  Wish I = could get my=20 $23 back from Dunkin Donuts.  Coffee
was crap anyway 8*)

They want the airplane in a state = where they=20 can write you the AW and you
can immediately taxi it out to=20 fly.  Tim seemed to imply that any
modifications after issuing the = certificate=20 would require contacting the
FSDO and flying another 40=20 hours.  I found that a bit drastic, and I'm
still not sure how it will work out = (If I add=20 a nose wheel fairing, do I
have to go back into the test = flight area for=20 40 hours?  How about if I
change my intercom?  Does = the=20 simplest of issues requiring correction
during flight testing require the = clock to=20 reset?).  Tim's approach was
reasonable, so I'm sure it will all = be=20 fine.

I had a LOT of cotter pins missing = and nylock=20 nuts that weren't tightened
down.  Most of this was = due to not=20 wanting to waste cotter pins and nylock
nuts on parts that needed to be = constantly=20 removed during the building
process.  I probably = would have=20 caught most of them if I'd had two months
between when I called for the = inspection=20 appointment and when they came
out, which is what I was=20 expecting.  "We can be there Friday" took me by
surprise, and in retrospect I = should have=20 explained my expectation and
begged for more = time.  Then I could=20 have gotten several pre-inspections
and have been=20 ready.  Recommendation: Get several pre-inspections so = that
you are ready.

The biggest deficiency, by far, was = that I do=20 not have my final propeller.
My "first attempt" prop has some = shop rash on=20 it (tow bars are rough on
propellers when you don't remove = them before=20 cranking), and I was quite
open with the fact that I had no = intention of=20 flying with it.  That was a
clear violation of the "ready to = fly" rule,=20 and when I think about it a
moment, a clear violation of common = sense.  The point of the Phase 1 is to
make sure the major parts of the = airplane are=20 working properly together.
The point of 40hours instead of 25 = for=20 non-certified prop/engine
combinations is to make sure they = work=20 together in particular.  How can
you test them together, when they = obviously=20 haven't been fabricated?  Duh.

At the end, Mike was wanting to = write the=20 Repairman's Certificate for me.
All the pictures I've taken during = the build=20 process running as a
slideshow on a laptop whil the = inspection was=20 going on made it clear that
I had built this = contraption.  I=20 could tell that Mike didn't want to leave
me empty handed; but, he needed the = airplane's certification date for that
form, so he was = blocked.  I point=20 that out to say that these guys actually
WANT to give you the legal pass to = go=20 fly.  My project was simply NOT
ready to be called an = airplane.

I've got a list of fixes to=20 complete.  That give me some focus to punch
through and git 'er = done.  It won't=20 be long now.  This would have only taken
one visit if I had:
1) Lined up some pre-inspections by = people=20 who had been through this before.
2) Been honest with myself and = asked for more=20 time to get things complete.
3) Understood beforehand that = "complete"=20 means "completed".

No virus found in this=20 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / = Virus=20 Database: 2639/6061 - Release Date: 01/27/13

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CDFFBA.76D93A00--