turbine powered rotorcraft and the FAA

[Stu Fields]

FAR 91.409 involves itself with requiring some sort of special inspection
program for turbine powered rotorcraft. Builders of Amateur Built turbine
powered rotorcraft are being forced to generate some inspection program
documentation to get the airworthiness certificate. Nearly all of these
aircraft use Auxillary Power Unit engints. To my knowledge there are no
component time lives listed by the engine manufacturer for these engines.
This forces the Amateur builder into just fabricating some paper work to
satisfy the 91.409.
With all the "Wisdom" of the FAA, all the two stroke engine installations
did not have any special inspection requirements. Those little buggers have
a terrible reliability history. Evidently the 91.409 is not about engine
reliability since the higher failure frequency of the two strokes has been
ignored.
Gee I wish we had more government intervention helping to keep me safe....

[Jim Logajan]

"Stu Fields" > wrote:
> FAR 91.409 involves itself with requiring some sort of special
> inspection program for turbine powered rotorcraft. Builders of
> Amateur Built turbine powered rotorcraft are being forced to generate
> some inspection program documentation to get the airworthiness
> certificate.

91.409(e) (and 91.409(b)(4)) specifically state that the owner or operator
of turbine powered rotorcraft may elect to use the inspection provisions of
91.409(a), (b), (c), or (d). Given that, I would think the amateur builders
only need to assert they are exercising the option given to them in (e) and
declare they are operating and certifying under (c), wherein it states that
(a) and (b) do not apply to aircraft with experimental certificates.

So either the FAA (or maybe me!) appears to be misreading 91.409 or the FAA
may simply be cherry picking from 91.409(e) for supporting
reasons/rationale for such an inspect program demand prior to issuance of
an A.C. rather than using it as a regulatory requirement.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Stu Fields" > wrote:
>> FAR 91.409 involves itself with requiring some sort of special
>> inspection program for turbine powered rotorcraft. Builders of
>> Amateur Built turbine powered rotorcraft are being forced to generate
>> some inspection program documentation to get the airworthiness
>> certificate.
>
> 91.409(e) (and 91.409(b)(4)) specifically state that the owner or

Nevermind what I just wrote... 91.409 isn't the whole story.

While 91.409 essentially states that it does not apply to experimental
aircraft, the requirements the FAA uses in issuance of ACs for AB aircraft
are in another document: Order 8130.2f, specifically section 9.

Unfortunately, in Section 9, paragraphs (23), (24), and (25) of page 165
it requires the inspection program of 91.409(e), (f), (g), and (h).

Not sure this link will work, but here it is:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1ba6ee60e8779bd7862572c90063c0ac/$FILE/Order%208130.2f%20incorp%20with%20chg%203.pdf

I feel your pain.

[Stu Fields]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "Stu Fields" > wrote:
>>> FAR 91.409 involves itself with requiring some sort of special
>>> inspection program for turbine powered rotorcraft. Builders of
>>> Amateur Built turbine powered rotorcraft are being forced to generate
>>> some inspection program documentation to get the airworthiness
>>> certificate.
>>
>> 91.409(e) (and 91.409(b)(4)) specifically state that the owner or
>
> Nevermind what I just wrote... 91.409 isn't the whole story.
>
> While 91.409 essentially states that it does not apply to experimental
> aircraft, the requirements the FAA uses in issuance of ACs for AB aircraft
> are in another document: Order 8130.2f, specifically section 9.
>
> Unfortunately, in Section 9, paragraphs (23), (24), and (25) of page 165
> it requires the inspection program of 91.409(e), (f), (g), and (h).
>
> Not sure this link will work, but here it is:
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1ba6ee60e8779bd7862572c90063c0ac/$FILE/Order%208130.2f%20incorp%20with%20chg%203.pdf
>
> I feel your pain.

Jim: It gets better. A friend replaced an underpowered, un-reliable two
stroke in his Mini-500 with a Solar turbine engine. It required about 6
months of steady repeated submissions to obtain final approval. The worst
was that if they rejected the sentence on page one, they never even looked
at page two. You correct their objection only to find that they now have an
objection on page two. On and On. Another acquaintenance finally got his
inspection plan approved and loaned to another guy with the same aircraft
and the same engine. Different FSDO rejected the same plan approved by the
first FSDO.
I've left phone msgs and sent e-mails to local FSDO to discuss this issue.
No response. Maybe they shut down??

Lord I'm looking forward to the government managed health care....

Stu Fields

[rv7charlie]

On Sep 23, 4:51*pm, "Stu Fields" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> "Stu Fields" > wrote:
> >>> FAR 91.409 involves itself with requiring some sort of special
> >>> inspection program for turbine powered rotorcraft. *Builders of
> >>> Amateur Built turbine powered rotorcraft are being forced to generate
> >>> some inspection program documentation to get the airworthiness
> >>> certificate.
>
> >> 91.409(e) (and 91.409(b)(4)) specifically state that the owner or
>
> > Nevermind what I just wrote... 91.409 isn't the whole story.
>
> > While 91.409 essentially states that it does not apply to experimental
> > aircraft, the requirements the FAA uses in issuance of ACs for AB aircraft
> > are in another document: Order 8130.2f, specifically section 9.
>
> > Unfortunately, in Section 9, paragraphs (23), (24), and (25) of page 165
> > it requires the inspection program of 91.409(e), (f), (g), and (h).
>
> > Not sure this link will work, but here it is:
> >http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1ba...
>
> > I feel your pain.
>
> Jim: *It gets better. *A friend replaced an underpowered, un-reliable two
> stroke in his Mini-500 with a Solar turbine engine. *It required about 6
> months of steady repeated submissions to obtain final approval. *The worst
> was that if they rejected the sentence on page one, they never even looked
> at page two. *You correct their objection only to find that they now have an
> objection on page two. *On and On. *Another acquaintenance finally got his
> inspection plan approved and loaned to another guy with the same aircraft
> and the same engine. *Different FSDO rejected the same plan approved by the
> first FSDO.
> I've left phone msgs and sent e-mails to local FSDO to discuss this issue..
> No response. *Maybe they shut down??
>
> Lord I'm looking forward to the government managed health care....
>
> Stu Fields

Welll....That's kind of a half empty/half full thing, isn't it? What
if all the FSDO's were like the 2nd one?

And if you like the industry/Insurance company-run health quote-care-
unquote we've got now, I've got a feeling you've either never been
sick or you own some stock in health care companies. Have a read (the
info is verifiable everywhere except Faux News):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html?referrer=emailarticle

Having said that, odds are that the changes we will finally get after
our 'representatives' finish porking it up will probably just make
things worse.

Charlie

[cavelamb[_2_]]

rv7charlie wrote:

> Having said that, odds are that the changes we will finally get after
> our 'representatives' finish porking it up will probably just make
> things worse.
>
> Charlie


You mean these guys?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=700646

[Stu Fields]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
m...
> rv7charlie wrote:
>
>> Having said that, odds are that the changes we will finally get after
>> our 'representatives' finish porking it up will probably just make
>> things worse.
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
> You mean these guys?
> http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=700646

It amazes me that we expect the government agencies whose continued
existence does not depend on competency to do anything other thatn work on
propogating itself.

Stu