MODs once again.

[jangiolini]

Hi folks I have had a MOD3 in engineering now for 4 weeks and so far apart from acknowledgement not a lot else. I was wondering if we need to employ more staff for engineering or something as it appears to be a common complaint the amount of time taken. I understand that some mods are very complex and need a lot of research, but my particular one appears straight forward. As a member of the LAA I intend to bring it up at the AGM.
I have had my aircraft for 5 months and not been able to fly it and now getting grief from the BOSS!! I am seriously considering removing the mod and reverting back to the old leaky tanks which would allow me to fly. Appears drastic but the frustration builds.

[SteveSlater]

Sorry to hear to your frustration John, but you must appreciate this is the busiest time of year with around 300 mods in process, and around 30 permit renewal applications every day! I don't know what Mod approval you are seeking, but often applicants don't realise the amount of work which is required to satisfy the requirements, not just of our own system, but of the CAA and above should, heaven forbid, something catastrophic happy in the future.

So saying we are looking at potentially expanding and restructuring some areas of our engineering resource, as the workload is excessively high for the four engineers on our staff. I am also working on ways you can better review the progress of the mod, as I don't think the feedback we give is good enough.. The challenge is I don't want to distract the team from the key job - getting your mod fully evaluated and approved.

Steve Slater

[josher]

Steve

My recollection is that when the mod scheme was last publicised [ a piece in the mag with a view to speeding it up!] the number per annum was far less than the 300 now in review so it sounds like the process needs some attention. I assume that there is a process? - I couldn't find it on the website.

A first step might be to publish a process so that all those makeing mod applications know the process they are faced with. Timeline targets [ which would not include time waiting for a response to questions from applicants] would be a good thing and all applicants should be able to see where they are in the process at any time via their aircraft data page

[Brian Hope]

Josher, the number of mods dealt with per annum has run at around 300 or so for some years, far less than that are outstanding, and less than that are outstanding because of any delay by Engineering, tens or less as a general rule. The process has had a great deal of attention over the past couple of years and waiting times have come down as a result.
You say the process should be published - it is. If you look under Aircraft and Technical and hit Modifying and repairing aircraft you have chapter on verse on the various types of modification and the links to the appropriate Technical Leaflet giving you the procedure and appropriate Mod Form you need to fill out.
The status of an outstanding mod is already included on the aircraft's data page for the owner to see.
We must have read your mind!
I am not aware of the situation re jangiolini's mod but if he has had the aircraft five months and if the leaking tanks were a known issue, perhaps the mod could have been put in earlier. It is a regular occurrence that mods are put in long after a decision has been made to incorporate a mod during the build, repair or restoration; forward planning of the paperwork can certainly alleviate the stress of delays.
I hope the matter gets resolved very soon.

[josher]

Brian
I could find the the classification of mods and the requisite forms and how to submit them before I posted but that is not a PROCESS. A process would define how a mod was received, classified, allocated and reviewd and in what time frames. For each type of mod there would be a target review time with the clock stopping if additional information was requested. If there is such process document why isn't that on the website if there isn't there should be. If the status - received/allocated to/awaiting review/under review/awaiting futher informatio/approved - is that what you mean? - is on the data page all well and good - it wasn't when I last did one.

The numbers you cite don't quite jive with Steve's and whatever the numbers are surely jangiolini shouldn't be waiting a month to get beyond acknowledgement.

Were back to the same old story here - the Association needs some transparency around its activities. If a process document was available, real status data was on the relevant data page and performance figures were published on the website quarterly then the management and the members would be able to see whether improvement was taking place, satifaction was justified or remedial action was necessary.

[Chris Martyr]

I have had my aircraft for 5 months and not been able to fly it and now getting grief from the BOSS!! I am seriously considering removing the mod and reverting back to the old leaky tanks which would allow me to fly.

Not legally it wouldn't ! Forget the bit about modifications , to comply with your PtF the aircraft must be fully serviceable. Sorry mate , but Rule no.1 , Don't fly outside of the conditions of your PtF !
Addendum to Rule no.1 , never bury yourself on a forum , especially if it that forum happens to be administered by the same people who administer your PtF !
Sorry John ,
I hate to sound like a creepy, boring dullard , but if you acquire an aircraft in the latter part of the winter , which you believe requires modification and expect to be flying it for the Summer ,then you could be in for something of a shock.
What does your Inspector reckon of all this ? Does he agree that your aircraft needs grounding ! There are actually several definitions of leaks which are applied to aircraft flying in a professional context in the commercial world , all of which have differing implications as to the aircraft's state of airworthiness .

It can either be a stain , a seep , or a running leak . Obviously a PtF type aircraft doesn't have the legal protection of the AMM/MEL , but a little bit of quality time with your Inspector could possibly reveal a third angle on all of this.
As for the old chestnut with modifications,,,, Modifications to an approved design are modifications and a lot of people can't quite get their heads around the fact that any mod. however straightforward, will take time. The legal ramifications involved with aircraft mods are bloody horrific ! and if you reckon the LAA are a nightmare,,,,try getting one past the CAA,,,you'll find yourself on suicide watch.

How many times have I said this on here. Oh well,,,it makes a change from taking pot-shots at the PCS or TC-T.

[Brian Hope]

Intrigued by jangiolini's complaint I decided to look into it further. The mod was originally submitted by the previous owner in Feb 2014 and in March 14 Engineering sought more information. A reminder for the outstanding information was sent in August 2014 and a reply received that it would be supplied in due course. Then nothing else was heard until June 2016 when, as the new owner, jangiolini sent the outstanding paperwork.
The go ahead to fly was emailed at 6:13 on Friday so he could make use of the weekend if the wx was OK.
I'll leave it to members to decide whether they believe jangiolini has been hard done by, personally I don't think he has anything to complain about.
As my mum used to say, miracles we can manage, the impossible takes a little longer.