Merry Christmas and Happy blogging

[Scott]

Just posted my last update for 2016 for your fireside viewing pleasure.

http://c-fclr.blogspot.ca/

As always, comments and questions appreciated.

Best of the Season to all
S

[Garry Crookham]

Re: Merry Christmas and Happy blogging

Thanks for posting the update to your blog. I've been following it since you first put it up. Your workmanship and attention to detail is fantastic.
Merry Christmas

[Robert Lees]

Re: Merry Christmas and Happy blogging

I've been following it too, not least because since I wrote mine (I started in 2001 and it took me 6 years), tech advances in photography have been dramatic (the digital age at affordable cost). Scott's photos are much better than mine, and the "blog" layout is better than my setup. I could change mine, but I'm not going to.

I have an empathy with Scott's rebuild, because (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Scott) the Canadian Taylorcraft fleet are largely run on an "owner-maintenance" programme, which is similar to how we in the UK operate our Taylorcraft here (Permit to Fly). Both are non-ICAO compliant.
So there is a certain shall we say "flexibility" when it comes to doing things, that might not (and do not need to be) in accordance with the TCDS. There are pros and cons to both systems of course.

Merry Christmas to all, and here's hoping for a prosperous New Year.
Rob

[Scott]

Re: Merry Christmas and Happy blogging

Thanks Garry, comment much appreciated.

Rob - The owner maintenance option has not been widely adopted in Canada. I don't have a number but owner maintained represents a minority of private aircraft. The reasons are straightforward enough.... there is a kind of "poison pill" that comes with opting to owner maintain that bites in three ways:
1. the aircraft can never again attain a CofA, even if it were to be completely overhauled/restored
2. Cannot fly to the US (the by-lateral between Canada and USA no longer applies), which also means its value plummets, and
3. the aircraft still must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations (though there appears to be little enforcement).

CF-CLR (then CF-DEP) had a valid CofA when I took it out of service in the 1980's and there was no such thing as owner maintained at that time. As with many aircraft of this type, it had not had the best of care by the time I got it in 1984. Lack of knowledge and lack of willingness to part with money are the typical causes as I'm sure you're aware (it seems to be a global problem).

The aircraft had been In Canada for about 11 years, but its last recover was done in the US. I did what was required at the time to make it airworthy and flew it 150 hours. Knowing what I know now, I would not have flown it! Which is to say there were a number of issues that were well hidden. But I think what has made the project more challenging than I anticipated is that I have not been able, for the most part, to rely on the accuracy of the various parts that I've had to make. The cowlings for example, duplicating a cowling from a reasonable salvaged part is one thing, making it from scratch because what you have is worthless as a pattern, is quite a bit more difficult as I'm sure you know.

Anyway, I maintain my Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licence (Canada's version of A&P). My 172 has a CofA, Altimeter/mode C/static system certification etc. I do all the maintenance and fly it IFR (and trans Lake Superior!) so it needs to be right. When CF-CLR flies again it will have a release and work report signed by me, dual inspection of flight and engine controls by a second AME , and major work, like the spars, certified (already signed off) by an Approved Maintenance Organization (AMO), and a CofA issued by Transport Canada.

I understand the motivation behind the owner maintenance concept, and there are no doubt very well maintained examples. However, being an "owner" of an aircraft provides none of the skills and Knowledge necessary to adequately maintain an aircraft. Contrary to popular assumption, light aircraft are more difficult to maintain than larger aircraft. The manuals, drawings and support are sparse and often wrong, things need to be actually fixed as opposed to changing out components, as mentioned the aircraft are often neglected and left idle for long periods of time, and parts are often fragile and scarce.

It's odd that in Canada as in many parts of the world, elevators and escalators are not allowed to be used unless they are maintained by properly trained mechanics working for an approved organization. Why we would allow any dude (who has a few Gs to buy an aircraft) to attempt to maintain it and then fly passengers over those same buildings is puzzling to say the least. But then rational thought and aviation seem to be like oil and water.

I'm well aware that there many cons to the CofA system and too many AME/A&Ps out there who, because of ignorance or other reasons do less than acceptable work. But I cannot think of a single "pro" for the owner maintenance concept. It seems to be motivated by the notion of cost savings but I think that's a false economy. I have not problem with owners or anyone else that want to learn about and work on their aircraft, but at the very least there should be mandatory oversight.