520n Aca Approval

[Guest Bullet Remington]

Ok, quick overview - I've been asked to do an import on a privately owned 520N. I have done private imports on 500e's for the same individual and he wants me to do the 520. My problem is, I'm NOT sure that I can legally sign a release on this machine.

 

I have held an ACA for and done lots of work on these machines for an Eastern operator with an ACA based upon my 500D/E course endorsement.

 

I have been told by people in the industry that I cannot release this machine nor can I attain an ACA based upon my previous training and Experience, based upon the 500D/E training.

 

I called Transport and they advised me that I needed a differences course, UNLESS I was 'grandfathered" based upon being endorsed / trained PRIOR TO 1999. Now my training was done on the 500D/E PRIOR to 1999 BUt I was given an ACA in 2000 and renewed with the AMO in 2005. At that time there was no "difference"course. I am told that at this time MDHC do run a difference coursem but I haven't checked.

 

I can't find anything on the TCA web site nor can I get anything but an opinion from the TCCA M & M inspectors. So, what authority says that Ii can't obtain an ACA on the 520N based upon the 500D/E training?? And what Authority states that Ii can be grandfathered?? The opinions and intrepretations of an M & M Inspector aside, does anybody have any insight into the ramblings of TCCA on this?? Surely there has to be something concrete other then individual dictates??

 

I would really like to find something in writing, either way .

 

Thoughts? Anyone??

[nutmix]

MD run a 5 day differences course. Here in New Zealand they are not differentiated from the D/E/FF as they are built under the same type certificate. They run the same components and systems as the later E's except for, obviously, the fan and YSAS system. As you will well know the Maintenance Manual (HMI-2) covers the D/E/FF/N as they are basically the same helicopter. I guess its really no different than C to D/E models.

 

nutmix

[Guest Bullet Remington]

MD run a 5 day differences course. Here in New Zealand they are not differentiated from the D/E/FF as they are built under the same type certificate. They run the same components and systems as the later E's except for, obviously, the fan and YSAS system. As you will well know the Maintenance Manual (HMI-2) covers the D/E/FF/N as they are basically the same helicopter. I guess its really no different than C to D/E models.

 

nutmix

 

 

Yes, I'm a aware of all that. AND I can release the C model based upon my D/E type course. From my perspective, there are more differences between the C and D models then there are bewteen the D/E models. AND I am acutely aware of the differences between the machines and well as the type certificate listings etc.

 

While I maintain that , from an engineer point of view, the differences between the machines are inconsequential, TCCA maintain a different stance.

 

As for the 5 day difference course at Mesa, I am aware that MDHC is running such a course. Why beats the crap outa me, MDHC probably needs the money. I don't see a need for it. For the New folks taking the 500 D /E course the differences are minute enough that MDHC could easily include them in the course at the same time!

 

So, without meaning to be rude, is there anybody from Canada that has a take on TCCA's stance on this? Is it different in Quebec and/or Ontario??

[Guest Bullet Remington]

Bump. And just for info, I don't know if it matters, I tool the 500D/E course in 1995.

 

Anybody have anything views / opinions/ info on this??

 

BR

[BAH]

From

 

Part V - Subpart 71 - Aircraft Maintenance Requirements

 

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), no person shall sign a maintenance release in respect of maintenance performed on a transport category aeroplane or a turbine-powered helicopter, unless the person

(amended 2000/12/01; previous version)

 

a. has successfully completed a course of maintenance training that has been approved by the Minister and that is applicable to the type of aircraft, engine or system on which the maintenance is performed, in accordance with Appendix M of Chapter 571 of the Airworthiness Manual; or

(amended 2000/12/01; previous version)

 

b. held a type rating applicable to the type of aircraft, engine or system on which the maintenance is performed, issued by the Minister before August 1, 1999.

(amended 2000/12/01; previous version)

 

 

 

b. is the info you need. That is why I have a ACA for a 407 with only a BH06 endosment from before 1999. Although I do have the C47B engine course.

As I read it, if you had the type rating before 1999, does not matter when you were ACA'd.

[wcobra]

What BAH pulled from the CARs is correct. The only thing I might add is the issue of the ACA is up to the AMO and the wording in the MPM. The evaluation of the candidate and issue of the ACA by the PRM must be clearly defined in the MPM. If the AMO has it in the MPM that they accept a licence with endorsement issued prior to August 1999, they can then issue ACA to a "Grandfathered" individual, as long as evaluation is documented as well.

[justinengineer]

Hey

Just wanted to say that while the machines do look similar and many of the components are the same, there really are as many differences as there are similarities. I wrench the D/Es and was given my 520 endorsement when I took the 600 course due to experience and long time endorsement on the D/E as well as experience and endorsement on the 600. I currently wrench on D/E, 520 and 600 and am glad to have the course. Certainly there was a lot of review but my 600 was a far superior course to the one I took for the 500. The anti torque system on the notar really is like nothing else you will work on and in my opinion you would definately benefit from the course. Hope this helps. All the best!!

[Guest Bullet Remington]

Hey

Just wanted to say that while the machines do look similar and many of the components are the same, there really are as many differences as there are similarities. I wrench the D/Es and was given my 520 endorsement when I took the 600 course due to experience and long time endorsement on the D/E as well as experience and endorsement on the 600. I currently wrench on D/E, 520 and 600 and am glad to have the course. Certainly there was a lot of review but my 600 was a far superior course to the one I took for the 500. The anti torque system on the notar really is like nothing else you will work on and in my opinion you would definately benefit from the course. Hope this helps. All the best!!

 

Justin:

 

Thanks for that, I do appreciate your time and opinion. I don't agree with everything you stated but I do appreciate your thoughts.

 

I agree that the NOTAR system is different then anything else i'll everywork on, primairily because other then the 600 and the 520N there are no other machines operating that system. Having said that, the system it's self is not thought provoking nor complicated. rather it is very straight forward. And i believe you are welll of the mark stating there are more differences between the the 520 and the straight 500. As I stated, I have held AC's on both types, despite having completed only the 500D/E course. Justifing the requirement for a differences course for the 520N would be and is as assinine as insisting on a difference course for the 500F.

 

My question WAS on wether or noty I can leagally release a PRIVATE registered 520N. In this case theri is nobody to authorize an ACA, in that the aircraft will be maintianed by me, under the AME license. And that is legal.

 

Thanks all for your thoughts and opinions. It's been appreciated!

[marc]

Since you are not releasing it under an AMO due to it being private, and you have taken the type course (one that would have been acceptable to TC at that time for the N) before 1999, ACA's and their timing have nothing to do with it.

 

My opinion: you could have done it legally before 1999, so your grandfathered.

 

But, that's just my opinion. Probably ask all the different maintenance inspectors the same question and just retain the favorable answer for your records

[justinengineer]

Thanks for being open to discussion. I also appreciate a good dialogue.

 

Do I think you should be grandfathered through? No, I am sorry but they are (in my opinion) just not the the same beastie.

 

What I do believe, and I think it should be for all endorsements based on the quality of some of the type courses I've had. I believe that for all endorsements we should be able to be signed of by an engineer showing proper training and currency who has shown that he/she has provided us with proper training and a good overall knowledge of the aircraft or part.

 

I have had a few really top notch courses, but I must say I have also had some real terrible courses and you come away with little more than you went in with. In all cases I have learned more from the people around me than I have on course.

 

Any thoughts?