Turbine powered rotorcraft

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....

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
...
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.

Couldn't they use an existing inspection program that's used for certified
designs, appropriately modified of couse?
Just wondering! :-)

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.

Sounds like a typical government operation to me. Experimental builders
"finally" find an engine that powerful, relatively light, and about a dirt
reliable as it's possible to get and "then" the government starts worrying
about reliability issues! :-/

Gee I wish we had more government intervention helping to keep me safe....


Oh, Stu, "please" be careful what you wish for, even in jest. With the
government we've got these days..........the possibilities are frightening!
;-)

"Steve R." wrote in message
...
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
...
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.

Couldn't they use an existing inspection program that's used for certified
designs, appropriately modified of couse?
Just wondering! :-)

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.

Sounds like a typical government operation to me. Experimental builders
"finally" find an engine that powerful, relatively light, and about a dirt
reliable as it's possible to get and "then" the government starts worrying
about reliability issues! :-/

Gee I wish we had more government intervention helping to keep me
safe....


Oh, Stu, "please" be careful what you wish for, even in jest. With the
government we've got these days..........the possibilities are
frightening! ;-)

Steve: Glad to see someone out there. Looking at my list of posts, it was
looking like I was now talking to myself using the internet as well as
verbally.
Big difference between the certified engines in terms of componetry and
design. Even then, it becomes a contest of individual FSDO people and
whether their sex lives are ok, or whatever causes their whims.

A friend told me it took him 6 months of back and forth. It seems as soon
as they find something to reject, they don't read any further, reject it and
send it back. If there is something on the next page that they don't like,
you don't get to hear about it until the next rejection phase. Another
individual got his inspection program approved and loaned to another guy who
had the same aircraft and same engine, different FSDO.......You guessed it.
Rejected.

Some Aussie commented on our 51% rule and said: You ain't measuring
anything important with that rule. The safety of the aircraft is paramount,
not what the name was on the driver's license that assembled that piece.
(ignoring of course the individual's competence).
We of course have figured out that acheiving control is all important. It
is not necessary to have a goal for the controlled in mind. Just control it.
I watched the Army with people who didn't know which end of a soldering iron
to pick up trying to control MIT in their operation of a highely
sophisticated radar facility. It would have been high comedy if it hadn't
been US taxpayers picking up the bill.
It has been said that the New Americans are lusting after more government
control, not less, and because of that we are powerless to stop the oncoming
changes.

Sorry about the political blow but my BS bucket is overflowing.

Stu