Tcds a-696

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Well Dave, per the FAA, if the tailwheel is an option in the TCDS, then its a minor and just requires a Log book entry if it originally did not come with it from the factory. IE a Scott 3-24b, Lang, etc. If you want to put a 3200, Maule Bushwheel, on then it could be considered a Major, if there is no PMA, I know that the Maule had a PMA for the BC series and I think the Scott 3200 does as well. The pain gets when you have a BC12-65 and the PMA says BC-12D, then its a Major unless you have some other approval. Its just like my argument about the 4 ply vs. 6 ply tires. The TCDS specifically calls out a 4 ply and a 6 ply would then be a Major and requires a 337. People have been violated for it...and a lot of others will have an opinion that they can not back up with paperwork. This information has been put out in previous IA seminars so I know it has not changed since then. Tim

Tim,

I think that you misunderstand, read carefully what I wrote.

I never said it was a major or needed a 337.

I said this is the post just above "Check out the definition of a major alteration in part 1 and it says that alterations not listed in the TCDS are major alterations thereby ones that are listed are merely alterations".

In an earlier post "it is certain that an alteration that is listed in the TCDS specs is not a major alteration see the definition in part 1 or 43 appendix A."

Read the definition of a major alteration, it makes clear that any thing listed in the TCDS is not a major and that is what I quoted in each post.

Just because an alteration is not listed in the TCDS items does not make it a major alteration (I hate double negatives), that goes back to the definition as well.

Dave

[Garry Crookham]

Re: Tcds a-696

Mark
Thanks for your comments from the manufacturing and internal certification side. I agree that with ACA-309 and several Taylorcraft parts manuals I could show that my
Taylorcraft was delivered from the factory with a tail wheel. I also believe that no BC12-D airplanes were mfgd with tail skids. One of my concerns is that most owners
and most A&P/IA's don't have access to a Taylorcraft parts manual and most don't know that ACA-309 exists. ACA-309 can usually be found on the FAA CD containing
the records of the aircraft but I've seen a couple of them that the form wasn't there.
There are 7 Taylorcraft models listed on A-696. The first five show item 203 (tail skid)
as required equipment and the last two (85 hp models) show item 206-tail wheel as required equipment.
I wish we knew why it's written that way.

Garry

[3Dreaming]

Re: Tcds a-696

It may be simply that by the time the 85hp airplane were added to the TC that skids were no longer available, or that the were not deemed suitable for the 85HP application.

[astjp2]

Re: Tcds a-696

Each airplane was a new model, just not enough changes to require a new certificate. Kinda like the Cessna 150 series starts with the O-200 and ends with the O-235-L2C, they are major changes to the model, not to the type design.

Sorry for misinterpreting Dave, it was 4 am when I was reading it. Tim

[Mark Bowden]

Re: Tcds a-696

Yeah, exactly on model evolution, how 696 was written could be a blend of two possible paths. One is engineering based. First airplane had a skid and in the original release of 696 a skid probably was not even on the required list at all. It got added when tailwheels became engineered because now there is released engineering drawing for a skid AND a tailwheel, a choice must be made during manufacture.

The other is sales driven. The required equipment is the cheapest option. You are always trying to sell upgrades for a premium over the base model. Now the sales situation becomes, the skid is standard but you want a tailwheel-great and you need wheel streamlines for the summer! You have a rough strip, I've got these 4 ply tires that are awesome. Now that will be $500 extra, thank you. Now let's talk radios…and are you flying at night, you need lights…all our wings are prewired it will be only $$.

For the 85 HP, not available or just no market demand or the time honored, "option is now standard" and so tailwheel gets labeled as the new baseline. The tail skid drawings get labeled obsolete, spares only. Or the dreaded NOLA, giving Univair something to do. Thus the factory and engineering don’t have to worry about the overhead of supporting two configurations one of which never sells.

[Mark Bowden]

Re: Tcds a-696

Dave, where did you find the copy of your 696-R14 with the Conti spec in it? Dad had a set of documents that I think he got in 1970. A Service Manual was one of them that as part of it had the 696 and Conti spec together like what you posted. Just don't know where it came from.

I'll try and get this stuff scanned and posted, its in pretty good shape.

Thanks, Mark

[PA1195]

Re: Tcds a-696

No such thing as a minor 337, if its minor, log book only

Thanks Tim for the correction...learning more all the time.

Gary

[Guest]

Re: Tcds a-696

Dave, where did you find the copy of your 696-R14 with the Conti spec in it? Dad had a set of documents that I think he got in 1970. A Service Manual was one of them that as part of it had the 696 and Conti spec together like what you posted. Just don't know where it came from.

I'll try and get this stuff scanned and posted, its in pretty good shape.

Thanks, Mark

Mark,

It came from a service manual that was about the same vintage as you mentioned.

Dave