Tcds a-696

[Garry Crookham]

I'm looking for a copy of TCDS A-696 earlier than Revision 18. The current revision is 25 and and researching the FAA website, Google searches, and a call to the FAA Small Airplane Directorate, I can only get back to Revsion 21. I located an old timer (older than me!): with a copy of Revision 18 but have been unable to find any earlier Revisions.

Garry

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Garry,

Here is r14, let me know if you have trouble reading it. I may be able to fix a page or two.

Dave

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

here is a darker version

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Just because I have revision 14 does not mean that I am old!

[Garry Crookham]

Re: Tcds a-696

Thanks Dave.

I think there is an error in A-696 and am trying to find if it's always been there or was created during one of the revisions ( has to do with required equipment ).

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Garry, did you find an error? Dave

[Garry Crookham]

Re: Tcds a-696

Revision 14 reads the same as the later revisions. What I'm looking at is required equipment item 203 which states that a tail skid is required equipment for the models BC through BC12-D1. We all know that these airplanes as delivered new from the factory had tailwheels, but A-696 as written would require a field approval, STC, etc to install a tailwheel. I've been trying to sort this out for several years, talked to lots of FAA folks, with no success.

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Hi Garry,

I don't agree that a additional approval is needed for a tail wheel. Here is my reasoning, part 43 and part 1 define a major alteration as;

Appendix A to Part 43—Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance

(a) Major alterations—(1) Airframe major alterations. Alterations of the following parts and alterations of the following types, when not listed in the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major alterations: ...

This is the main reason for my statement.

However and additionally tail wheels are listed in the TCDS as are skis.

Item 101 and 102 are required items yet we would not think of using an STC to to put skis on without having wheels on as required by 101. The original TCDS (used to be called aircraft specifications) called for individual inspection by CAA of each airplane so I take the required equipment list in that context.

Hope that helps and I understand the question, I think I understand it.

BTW when I ask the FAA just what wording in the preventative maintenance list in part 43 gives owners the ok to change oil (drain and fill a sump) they tell me common sense is the answer. That is I think that they combine checking sump plugs with topping off sumps to result in an oil change. Similar thinking should apply hear.

Dave

[PA1195]

Re: Tcds a-696

Perhaps the reason for the required tail skid on late '30's and early '40's aircraft was that tailwheels were simply either not invented yet, reliable, or readily available in sufficient numbers at the time of original aircraft certification. This is a question for the historians among us. Patents for early Scott products date to 1943...there may have been others earlier.

Edit: Looking through Chet's book I see early T's with tailwheels, so maybe my speculation is wrong. I'll bet today if an airworthiness inspector noted a tail skid there'd be a discussion with the owner. I did fly a Maule M-5 once on a hunting trip to Alaska's North Slope that required a piece of driftwood taped and wired to the tailspring to get home. They do work when required.

Gary

[Garry Crookham]

Re: Tcds a-696

It would appear that this is really not a problem but since in A-696 a tail skid is listed as required equipment we really have no wiggle room. If you continue to read A-696 you find that the BC12D-85 and the BC12D-4-85 have item 206 as required equipment. Item 206 lists 8 different tail wheel assemblies that can be used. I've been working on this for several years and discussed my findings with quite a few FAA people. Most of the FSDO people really have no understanding of TCDS and how to apply the data. I've come across a couple of ASI's that have extensive general aviation background and who agree that as written a tailskid is required on the 65 hp models and to install a tail wheel would take some type of approval. One local FAA person contacted the head of the FAA Small Aircraft Directorate and discussed this with him. He agreed that this was probably an error, maybe a typo but had no fix for this. I can find no one in the FAA who can tell me where to find the original A-696 document or if the FAA even has the original. One of the more knowledgeable people stated that the holder of the type certificate is responsible for maintaining TCDS. I've tried to contact the "Taylorcraft factory" several times with no success.
It was suggested that I ask for a legal interpretation from the FAA legal staff. I don't want to do this without having some kind of fix in hand since the legal interpretation could ground a couple thousand Taylorcrafts until an approval for a tail wheel is obtained.
I have also discussed CAR04 with the above FAA people and how CAR04 states in section 04.442 that tail wheels may be of any type or model and are not certified. Note that this CAR was written in 1938 so tail wheels were known then. One of the ASI's contacted the FAA Aircraft Certification Division AIR-100 and asked about this. AIR-100 said that the aircraft manufacturer, when designing the aircraft, could use any tail wheel as stated above but in the field we did not have that option and whatever was indicated in the Aircraft Specification Sheet or TCDS was to be used.
If anyone has a copy of earlier revisions of A-696 please post them.

Garry

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Garry,

Given what they are saying to you how do they explain a ski installation without an STC? You have to take the wheels off for that, item 101.

Dave.

[PA1195]

Re: Tcds a-696

At original certification 6/24/41 my ACA Form 309 Aircraft Operation Record (Operating Limitations, Weight&Balance, Equipment List) for N36007 BF12-65 indicates Item 302c Full swivel Firestone Industrial tailwheel was installed. It was later replaced in 1945 with a steerable Heath tailwheel Item 302e. This replaced the Required Equipment. Landplane: Items...102 Tail skid. Items and numbers are from TCDS A-699 for Franklin engined Taylorcrafts.

It appears the factory had the option to install a tailwheel, and if installed that was approved during certification by the Government's airworthiness inspector who signed Form 309 (W.H. Ross in my case).

Those concerned might check their paperwork on file with the FAA.

Gary

[Joe cooper]

Re: Tcds a-696

It would appear that this is really not a problem but since in A-696 a tail skid is listed as required equipment we really have no wiggle room. If you continue to read A-696 you find that the BC12D-85 and the BC12D-4-85 have item 206 as required equipment. Item 206 lists 8 different tail wheel assemblies that can be used. I've been working on this for several years and discussed my findings with quite a few FAA people. Most of the FSDO people really have no understanding of TCDS and how to apply the data. I've come across a couple of ASI's that have extensive general aviation background and who agree that as written a tailskid is required on the 65 hp models and to install a tail wheel would take some type of approval. One local FAA person contacted the head of the FAA Small Aircraft Directorate and discussed this with him. He agreed that this was probably an error, maybe a typo but had no fix for this. I can find no one in the FAA who can tell me where to find the original A-696 document or if the FAA even has the original. One of the more knowledgeable people stated that the holder of the type certificate is responsible for maintaining TCDS. I've tried to contact the "Taylorcraft factory" several times with no success.
It was suggested that I ask for a legal interpretation from the FAA legal staff. I don't want to do this without having some kind of fix in hand since the legal interpretation could ground a couple thousand Taylorcrafts until an approval for a tail wheel is obtained.
I have also discussed CAR04 with the above FAA people and how CAR04 states in section 04.442 that tail wheels may be of any type or model and are not certified. Note that this CAR was written in 1938 so tail wheels were known then. One of the ASI's contacted the FAA Aircraft Certification Division AIR-100 and asked about this. AIR-100 said that the aircraft manufacturer, when designing the aircraft, could use any tail wheel as stated above but in the field we did not have that option and whatever was indicated in the Aircraft Specification Sheet or TCDS was to be used.
If anyone has a copy of earlier revisions of A-696 please post them.

Garry

Hard to imagine anyone spending this amount of time on such a non productive quest. I've flown tail wheel aircraft for fifty years and none ever had a tail skid including a 41 taylorcraft. Skids went out with high button shoes. If your taylorcraft currently has an approved manuf. tailwheel, your wasting time that could be used in a far more productive manner. ( like flying for instance)

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Gary,

Very good idea to look at the original equipment list.

Mine does not have item 101 or 102, no main wheels and no tail skid.

But it does have the 302e tail wheel.

It also has 304 which is the brake assembly that weighs 4 lbs. so that is brake only not wheels.

Obviously it had to have wheels but too Garry's question it seems like these items numbers were used with some liberty.

Dave

[M Towsley]

Re: Tcds a-696

Perhaps an understanding of the government would best be taught here. (I once worked for the enforcement arm of the government, though not this particular brand of government but it is eerily similar).

The government consists of workers, some non-workers, who sometimes really don't care about their job or how it impacts others. There are those that try to do the right thing at the right time for the right reason. However, there are a few who are overzealous in the application of laws and rules who can make everyone's day grim. (I know of one such person in the local FSDO on our very airport).

I am not sure why you want to stir this particular pot but I have to agree that grounding a couple of thousand Taylorcrafts because someone in the government suddenly feels the need to aggressively pursue this issue could have some folks knocking on your door wondering why you did this. I understand your curiosity but I would not be trying to wake the sleeping giant of the FAA to answer a question that probably no one there can answer, nor cares to answer. Talking to folks here and those old mechanics, etc., in-the-know is probably the best way to go. I cannot think of anyone getting dinged on a ramp check for not having a tailskid in-place.