POH for BC-12D

[Winston L.]

Re: POH for BC-12D

I ordered the micro fiche from the FAA for my airplane and it was there. I just printed out a copy from that.

Winston

[1938BF50]

Re: POH for BC-12D

FWIW...I wish I had ordered the paper copies instead of the CD. It was only a few bucks more and I went thru an entire ($40) in cartridge printing the 165 page CD.

[Guest]

Re: POH for BC-12D

This is true.



OK. But are you telling me that little sheet of paper must still be in the airplane even though all the data on it has been superceded or changed and is no longer accurate? Even though that data can be found on other official forms, "placards and markings"?



Maybe that was because all the data was available via the "placards and markings. If it was scrutinized by all those inspectors, I cannot believe they ALL overlooked it.



I have no idea what that means.



While this is definitely true, what Type Certificate Data Sheet do I use for the limits on my airplane? I mean, really? Since it has been "upgraded" and is "equivalent" to the F-19, the ATC 700 under which it was originally certified is no longer valid.

And all of this discussion has not answered one of my original questions.

How do I get an "Official" one of those limitaton forms that was shown in a picture at the top of this thread?

Had a talk with FAA today.

They say;

Get it from the manufacturer if they are in business or a letter stating it is not needed.

If no manufacturer in business marking up your original is good.

Most data is on panel in form of other placards so that MIGHT substitute.

Dave

[Greg Bockelman]

Re: POH for BC-12D

I DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL!!!

And just why isn't 91.9(b)(2) where it says "approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof" sufficient? There is NO REFERENCE to that little piece of paper anywhere in that part of the regulations.

[Guest]

Re: POH for BC-12D

I DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL!!!

And just why isn't 91.9(b)(2) where it says "approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof" sufficient? There is NO REFERENCE to that little piece of paper anywhere in that part of the regulations.

No need to shout.

Just passing on what I heard.

Dave

[Greg Bockelman]

Re: POH for BC-12D

No need to shout.

Just passing on what I heard.

Dave

Sorry Dave. It is just that my message is not getting through. I do not have an original. I do not think I need that piece of paper. I think 91.9(b) covers it.

No one has said how I can get the piece of paper. And no one has come forth with evidence that 91.9(b) does not cover it.

[Garry Crookham]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Greg,
Your message is getting through. It would be nice if your question could be answered with a yes or no. Unfortunately, due to interpretation of the FARs by different individuals, a simple answer is difficult.
Ask several FAA a/w or ops inspectors what is required and you will most likely receive several different, and conflicting, answers (the same with A&P's and IA's).
If you review the Taylorcraft type certificate data sheets you will find under note 1 a statement that : weight and balance report including list of equipment included in certificated empty weight must be provided for each aircraft at time of original certification.
When our Taylorcrafts were manufactured this requirement was met by providing the Operations Limitations form ACA-309, the form addressed in this thread. This form is no longer used so a new one cannot be obtained. A copy of this form will be in your aircraft records on file with the FAA. You can obtain a copy to keep in your aircraft.
You state that you don't think you need that piece of paper. Once again, that depends on how 91.9(b) is viewed by an FAA inspector during your ramp check, incident/accident investigation, etc.
After 40 years messing with this stuff as an A&P, IA, pilot, and CFI, my goal is to make it easy on myself, and my customers. I've got a copy of ACA-309 in my Taylorcraft, along with current weight and balance info and equipment list. When I annual an airplane I make sure the airworthiness and registration certificates are on board and are correct, the POH/AFM, if required, is current including any flight manual supplements for installed equipment, the equipment list and weight and balance data is current, and all required placards are installed.
I hope this helps answer your question.

Garry Crookham
N5112M
Tulsa

[Guest]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Greg and all,

The FAA fellow talked with seemed willing to accept the placards and marked up OPs form. He was not willing to say it was not required in the AC unless the mfg. would say it first.

I used the word "MIGHT" in my post because I couldn't get firm commitment from him on it I think because you don't know what to placard unless you the form or a copy to work from.

I think in the context of the conversaion with the FAA guy "original" meant original data and could be in the form of document copy but I forget to clarify that and we both had other things to do.

Hope that helps, Dave

[Greg Bockelman]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Unfortunately, due to interpretation of the FARs by different individuals, a simple answer is difficult.

It is hard to argue with black and white. But, alas, we are talking about the FAA here.

If you review the Taylorcraft type certificate data sheets you will find under note 1 a statement that : weight and balance report including list of equipment included in certificated empty weight must be provided for each aircraft at time of original certification.

I believe that pretty much applies to all aircraft.

When our Taylorcrafts were manufactured this requirement was met by providing the Operations Limitations form ACA-309, the form addressed in this thread. This form is no longer used so a new one cannot be obtained. A copy of this form will be in your aircraft records on file with the FAA.

I have a "copy".

You state that you don't think you need that piece of paper. Once again, that depends on how 91.9(b) is viewed by an FAA inspector during your ramp check, incident/accident investigation, etc.

To insist that a piece of paper be carried in the airplane that has no basis in reality, due to upgrades and changes over the years is rediculous beyond the pale, even for the FAA. There are other forms of official documentation that provides the same data. But, alas, we are talking about the FAA.

I've got a copy of ACA-309 in my Taylorcraft

Is there anything on it, other than the V speeds that is anywhere close to accurate? I mean, really?

When I annual an airplane I make sure the airworthiness and registration certificates are on board and are correct, the POH/AFM, if required, is current including any flight manual supplements for installed equipment, the equipment list and weight and balance data is current, and all required placards are installed.

Do you insist that the ACA-309 form be on the airplane? If not, why not? If it is require to be there, I find it hard to believe the FAA would have done away with the form. And why do the new airplanes not have it? Not one that I have ever been in since the late 70's has had it in it.

I know I am being a pest about this, but honestly, even though they may be the best available, the answers I am getting are not acceptable.

[Guest]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Greg, Gary and all,

This appears as the classic legal delemna (sp?); what is someone else going to decide when faced with the same info.

That's why lawyers give opinion and precedence but don't know what will happen till judge or jury decide.

Best you can do is prepare for what you can aniticipate. No one is trying to nor has the power to force behavior here, albeit that each has an opinion of what is correct (just like lawyers do).

Use to the 309 form or do not use it is up to you.

There is precedent where it was deemed acceptable and proper to have it.

Maybe there is precedent where it was acceptable to not have it too.

Best you can do is plan ahead and accept what happens based on your decision.

So here's a question- can a t-craft taxi under a 777? I am thinking it may be able to. That's gotta be a switch from t-cart to 777. Wow!

Dave.

[Garry Crookham]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Dave,

You are correct, use it or forget it, as FAR 91.3 states: the pilot in command is directly responsible for and the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft.

Greg,

To answer the questions in your last post: if I were to annual a Taylorcraft and found the ACA-309 to be missing I would obtain the records from the FAA, copy the ACA-309 and add it to the aircraft records. Most aircraft owners are unclear as to what documentation is required in their aircraft and I try to make sure their records are complete and attempt to explain to them the requirements. I deal with this stuff every day and try to make it easy for the owner. You stated that aircraft from the late 70s and on don't have such a document. Starting in 1979 the FAA required all new aircraft to have a POH/AFM. Also, the ACA-309 was only one way the manufacturer could meet the operations limitations requirement. Many aircraft (Beech Bonanzas for example) have always been provided with an AFM and this is reflected in the type certificate data for those aircraft. The original AFM for many airplanes consisits of a single piece of paper about the size of the ACA-309 (an example is the Cessna 195).
The ACA-309 is titled Operation Limitations and that's exactly what it displays: engine and airspeed limits, weight and balance info, equipment list, and operations authorized. Yes, if there are any modifications to the aircraft an amended weight and balance and equipment list will be required but there are a lot of Taylorcrafts flying that will pretty much match their original ACA-309.

I'm glad to see this discussion, paperwork deficiencies are very common, we see them in lots of aircraft from Taylorcrafts to Cessna 421's and Piper Chieftans. In many cases missing or incomplete documents, placards, and markings are ignored for years and if the owner is lucky the problem will be caught and corrected during a routine inspection instead of an accident or incident.

Enough talk, let's go fly.

Garry

[Forrest Barber]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Group II are those approvals prior to Type Certificates being issued.
IF you have a BL #700 converted to an "equivalent" Model 19 with a 0-200 ala F-19, if I were you I would do a complete flight test series to determine V speeds..... however we can come up with stuff from graphs & charts.
What is your empty wt. ; empty wt C.G. ; Gross Wt. & Gross wt C.G. with two 170 lbs. people , full fuel, full baggage and if that does not gross the ship out add more weight to the seats, ( put in heavier people)...

The Model 19 & F-19 limits are the closest you can use.

[Greg Bockelman]

Re: POH for BC-12D

Group II are those approvals prior to Type Certificates being issued.
IF you have a BL #700 converted to an "equivalent" Model 19 with a 0-200 ala F-19, if I were you I would do a complete flight test series to determine V speeds..... however we can come up with stuff from graphs & charts.
What is your empty wt. ; empty wt C.G. ; Gross Wt. & Gross wt C.G. with two 170 lbs. people , full fuel, full baggage and if that does not gross the ship out add more weight to the seats, ( put in heavier people)...

The Model 19 & F-19 limits are the closest you can use.

Isn't that stuff supposed to be part of the STC?

[Greg Bockelman]

Re: POH for BC-12D

So here's a question- can a t-craft taxi under a 777? I am thinking it may be able to. That's gotta be a switch from t-cart to 777. Wow!

Dave.

I am not entirely sure. I kind of think the prop may tickle the belly of a 777. I can reach a height of 8 feet. I estimate the belly of the 777 is about 7 and a half feet. If the engine is running, the prop may hit the belly. If not, then no problem. That would be a picture I would like to see.