orion
R.I.P.
Although this question could have been posted under one of the other categories, I think the condition is getting serious enough that it warrants another thread.
Basically what I'd like to find out is what experiences other folks have been having with the FAA regarding their airplanes (certified and experimental). Here in the Northwest (Seattle area) the FAA has become very difficult, if not impossible, to work with as they are totally unresponsive to the general aviation field. They do not return phone calls, will not answer questions, and in general are about as helpfull as a rubber crutch.
For example, for the past two years we've been helping a gentleman with a modification project he's been working on. The project is installing a TRS-18 jet engine into a Caproni two place glider. The TRS-18 enigne is man rated and fully certified. The Caproni is also fully certified and has had a version where the jet engine was installed at the factory. The latter was also fully certified.
Our installation is slightly different than the original factory job but the differences in our application are actually superior structurally and from a performance standpoint to the original factory work. Our documetnation shows that the components used in this glider were identical in configuration to the ones used in the factory modified one.
In doing this task, the owners have been trying to work with the FAA and have been attempting to contact them for virtually the entire length of the endeavor, of course to no avail.
Recently we were notified that another branch of the office, one located in Eastern Washington, is much easier to contact and work with. The owner called there and discovered that not only was the rep willing to talk and discuss the program, he also was an avid glider enthusiast and was very excited to see the project.
As part of the documentation effort, I generated a report not only documenting all the changes and installation details, but also submitting a full FEA analysis of the changes, verifying that the modification did not have a significant impact on the structure and that the reinforcement components we used actually made the glider stronger than original.
In a phone conversation, the FAA rep indicated that he was very impressed by the work and that based on the submitted report and accompanying photographs, he would be willing to just go ahead and sign off the work over the phone. However to keep things fully legal, we arranged a meeting with him for an inspection.
Two days before the meeting though, he contacted the owner and told him that he was forced by upper management to cancel the meeting and was not able to discuss the project further. He indicated that this was because the Spokane office has three lawsuits against it and thus they are not willing to work on any general aviation project, certified or experimental. He finally refered us back to the Seattle office, which thus far has made similar statements and is no longer returning phone calls.
Based on recent coversations, I've heard similar stories from folks in Colorado, Alaska and California. The FAA no longer seems to respond to general aviation needs or requests.
What this is resulting in is aircraft owners doing modifications to their airplanes and basically ignoring the FAA. When I went out looking for an airplane for myself, about half of the airframes I examined had some sort of substantial change that was not documented in any way.
Personally, this does not bother me as long as the mods were sound, done well and did not affect the airworthiness of the airframe. However, I know there are those who frown on this type of work so getting an annual or eventually selling the airplane could be a problem.
But in the same breath, if the FAA is no longer going to support general aviation projects, we the owners may not have any other choice.
The question I wish to pose then, is wheter others have had similar experiences, or whether there are still parts of the FAA in other areas where general aviation is still supported.
Basically what I'd like to find out is what experiences other folks have been having with the FAA regarding their airplanes (certified and experimental). Here in the Northwest (Seattle area) the FAA has become very difficult, if not impossible, to work with as they are totally unresponsive to the general aviation field. They do not return phone calls, will not answer questions, and in general are about as helpfull as a rubber crutch.
For example, for the past two years we've been helping a gentleman with a modification project he's been working on. The project is installing a TRS-18 jet engine into a Caproni two place glider. The TRS-18 enigne is man rated and fully certified. The Caproni is also fully certified and has had a version where the jet engine was installed at the factory. The latter was also fully certified.
Our installation is slightly different than the original factory job but the differences in our application are actually superior structurally and from a performance standpoint to the original factory work. Our documetnation shows that the components used in this glider were identical in configuration to the ones used in the factory modified one.
In doing this task, the owners have been trying to work with the FAA and have been attempting to contact them for virtually the entire length of the endeavor, of course to no avail.
Recently we were notified that another branch of the office, one located in Eastern Washington, is much easier to contact and work with. The owner called there and discovered that not only was the rep willing to talk and discuss the program, he also was an avid glider enthusiast and was very excited to see the project.
As part of the documentation effort, I generated a report not only documenting all the changes and installation details, but also submitting a full FEA analysis of the changes, verifying that the modification did not have a significant impact on the structure and that the reinforcement components we used actually made the glider stronger than original.
In a phone conversation, the FAA rep indicated that he was very impressed by the work and that based on the submitted report and accompanying photographs, he would be willing to just go ahead and sign off the work over the phone. However to keep things fully legal, we arranged a meeting with him for an inspection.
Two days before the meeting though, he contacted the owner and told him that he was forced by upper management to cancel the meeting and was not able to discuss the project further. He indicated that this was because the Spokane office has three lawsuits against it and thus they are not willing to work on any general aviation project, certified or experimental. He finally refered us back to the Seattle office, which thus far has made similar statements and is no longer returning phone calls.
Based on recent coversations, I've heard similar stories from folks in Colorado, Alaska and California. The FAA no longer seems to respond to general aviation needs or requests.
What this is resulting in is aircraft owners doing modifications to their airplanes and basically ignoring the FAA. When I went out looking for an airplane for myself, about half of the airframes I examined had some sort of substantial change that was not documented in any way.
Personally, this does not bother me as long as the mods were sound, done well and did not affect the airworthiness of the airframe. However, I know there are those who frown on this type of work so getting an annual or eventually selling the airplane could be a problem.
But in the same breath, if the FAA is no longer going to support general aviation projects, we the owners may not have any other choice.
The question I wish to pose then, is wheter others have had similar experiences, or whether there are still parts of the FAA in other areas where general aviation is still supported.
