both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

[N74DV]

Just when I thought my annual was about to be wrapped up my IA calls to tell me he needs to tear into the wing to replace the right tank. It leaks. And according to the TCDS a BC12-D MUST have the right wing tank. He won't sign off unless the right tank is functional.

is there a way around this? I never use the wing tanks anyway. My flying is always local.

[flyguy]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

IMO not being critical to flight you would normally be able to tag it inop. and fly. But that will not get your inspector to sign it off.
I can't help but say again: if I had an inspector like that I would move out of the state!
Come join us in the central valley in California. Weather's good. Real Estate is reasonable and there are airports and aircraft inspectors all over the place.
Darryl

[VictorBravo]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

Ask your IA how many fuel tanks the BC-12D was certified with. The answer is ONE fuel tank, located just behind the firewall. ANY and ALL other aux tanks are optional, because the airplane was originally certified without ANY of them. Only the one fuel tank was original equipment on a BC-12D (with 65 HP)

If you have a BC-12D-85 or a Model 19, then perhaps one extra fuel tank is needed because the STC's and TC's for those airplanes specify another 6 gallons.

DJ, I think you better drop what you're doing and put your IA in touch with Forrest Barber, right f***ing now. Forrest is an IA and can speak the same language (FAA gibberish) as any other IA.

I will contact a friend of mine in AZ and ask where we can find you a proper IA who knows something about airplanes. You need to get rid of your current IA ASAP.

Bill Berle

[Jim Herpst]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

Bill,
I almost always agree with you. I do agree that I would get rid of this IA . I am not certain that the BC12D was certified with one tank are you certain ? The older ships I would be certain not so with the BC12D

Forrest?

[crispy critter]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

I might be mistaken but the BC12D came out with a right wing tank as an option,not mandatory. It was only mandatory on the BC12D-85(85hp t-craft).Either way it is only an aux tank and not a main. If your mech thinks leaving it functional with a inop sticker is still unsafe,maybe you can simply ask him to put a locking cap on it labeled inop and/or unhooking the lines to it all together. I will research a little bit in the TC but I don't think it is mandatory.

[hangarb7]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

Bill,

If you have any friends in South Western Pennsylvania who know IA's that understand rag n tube and will travel to my airport near Pittsburgh, I would love to hear from them.

My regular guy is so busy that my annuals are grueling and I do all the work. What I mean is that it takes months to get him to come by to sign it off. The only other guy on the airport won't allow you to do ANY work and he is grumpy as hell.

Jack Dernorsek
FWQ
N44057
BC12D (with both wing tanks placarded against use; hope that's legal; so what's the difference if they are good to use but I never put fuel in them?)

[N74DV]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

I've read and re-read the TCDS for a BC12-D and as far as I can tell it was certificated with a wing tank.

Can someone show me paperwork otherwise? if so then this is a non-issue for me but my IA and I both have looked at the TCDS and it looks like he is right.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

TC # 696 ; BC12D : 18 GAL , 12 Gal fuselage tank at (-9) and 6 gal wing tank at (+24). plain english.
However the BC12D1 was 12 gal , no wing tank. I will think on this one.

[N74DV]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

AHAA!

I looked it over further

there is a required equipment line and in that line nowhere does it say a wing tank is required. Only things like wheels, tires, carb heat, etc. No tank. Would this be my "out" ??

edit... nope I don't think a fuel tank is a piece of "equipment" Back to the drawing board.

[VictorBravo]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

TC # 696 ; BC12D : 18 GAL , 12 Gal fuselage tank at (-9) and 6 gal wing tank at (+24). plain english.
However the BC12D1 was 12 gal , no wing tank. I will think on this one.

Then how do you explain the thousands of airplanes built under A-696 that came off the factory with one 12 gallon fuselage tank? What about the pre-war airplanes that were built under A-696 before they even HAD wing tanks?

If the Ace or the Scotsman was certified under the same TC as the BC-12D, then A-696 allows the airplane to be built with one fuel tank.

Furthermore, A-700 and the other non-Continental - engine Taylorcraft TC's probably don't demand 18 gallons, and the factory issued a letter stating that the TC's were interchangeable firewall aft... which is Factory Approved Data, which means it's legal.

The BIG question here, is how many stock 65 horse airplanes were built, certified and sold with just the fuselage tank? Are those airplanes legal and certified or were they not legal?

Let's see how many Forum members own or have owned a legal, certified Taylorcraft with 65 HP and one nose tanks... I'm guessing we should have hundreds of replies to this.

This is getting ridiculous already...

[VictorBravo]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

DJ, here is the first recommendation I got from an old instructor in PHX who I sold my Taylorcraft Auster to many years ago. If this does not work I will find you another IA, I have a call in to another guy in Goodyear or Litchfield.

Bill,

There was a IA at Glendale Aviation buy the name of James who I call with any rag airplane questions that I have. He has a Champ that he flys for his own enjoyment. Can not remember his last name right now but will send that also if I remember it.

Mike

[VictorBravo]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

This is copied directly from the FAA TCDS for A-696:

Fuel Capacity 18 gal. (12 gal. fuselage tank at (-9) and 6 gal. wing tank at (+24).

NOTE 2. Left hand wing tank eligible as 6 gal. auxiliary on all models except BCS-65 and BC12D-85.


I could argue either side of this issue successfully But I would definitely argue that the TCDS clearly calls out the MAXIMUM fuel capacity as being 18 gallons, IF the nose tank and OPTIONAL LEFT wing tank (per note 2) are installed. This and only this interpretation would explain why the end note allows a wing tank as an ELIGIBLE option. If on the other hand a wing tank was mandatory and part of the REQUIRED fuel, it clearly COULD NOT not have been listed further down the page as eligible or optional!

There is no mention of a right wing tank AT ALL on the TCDS. Repeat this over and over whenever your IA tries to mention it. If it ain't on the TCDS, then your IA can't bring it up.

So DJ tell your IA that if he is trying to force you into installing a right wing tank, which is NOT allowed per TCDS, then he himself is trying to break the sacred FAR's, make your airplane a flying coffin, endanger all the little orphans running around in the schoolyard under your airplane, and that this IA should immediately be taken away in leg irons and sent to Siberia... where he can spend the next few winters thinking about how dare he misread the !(#$%& Type Certificate!

So... now DJ can fly and the rest of us can all start removing any starboard tanks from our airplanes

[N74DV]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

I'll try that argument but I suspect he will argue that then I should hook up my left tank (also leaks and full of crusty crap inside). My fear is that he's going to have to rip the covering off the wing and replace a wing tank... probably to the tune of another $3,000.

Behold the $12,000 annual for a plane that I purchased for $21,000 just over a year ago. yeehaw.

I picture a boy at a catholic school that receives a paddling on his rear and then asks the nun, "Thank you. May I please have another?"

I 110% regret ever buying this damn airplane. I almost want to take a cutting torch to it.

[N74DV]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

hmm... look at A696 closer. There is a mention that a BC12-D1 can be certificated as a BC12-D if it has a left door, parking brake and RIGHT wing tank.


back to square one?

[VictorBravo]

Re: both wing tanks inop - not legal to fly?

My fear is that he's going to have to rip the covering off the wing and replace a wing tank... probably to the tune of another $3,000.

Behold the $12,000 annual for a plane that I purchased for $21,000 just over a year ago. yeehaw.

Dude you got the WRONG mechanic, he's trying to retire on the profit from one annual ! Tell him to stop working, you need another opinion and you are NOT going to keep paying until you have another independent mechanic's opinions.

This is the point in the movie where the nice guy realizes he's been buying a fancy girl diamonds for 6 months and not getting any you know what!

Time to put your foot down DJ. Tell this mysterious mechanic to introduce himself on this forum and explain what justifies a $12,000 annual on a Taylorcraft. There's 15 or 20 very highly experienced T-craft owners/mechanics and restorers here who can get to the bottom of this. If the mechanic actually has good reason to be throwing all these obstacles at you then he should be able to say why. If we, or I, owe him an apology he'll get it.