Jump to content

Notice: Effective July 1, 2024, Vertical Forums will be officially shut down. As a result, all forum activity will be permanently removed. We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, but we would like to thank everyone for being a part of our community for so many years.

If you are interested in taking over this Forum, please contact us prior to July 1.

Holding Fixtures

Guest Bullet Remington

Recommended Posts

Guest Bullet Remington

I would have called them "jigs" but it seems Transport has a phobia about this term! Has anybody run into difficulty with Transport concerning their acceptance of "meeting" manufacturer''s specifications?


This seems to be a big concern for them right now. I''ve run into situations where they have been most adamant that these fixtures are NOT suitable, even after one shows them that the critera used to make them meets the specs AND the manufacturer''s standards were used to not only build them, but are used to verify them PRIOR to use. I assume it''s because they don''t look like the manufacturer''s "jigs"


Any of you had this experience?


For example, I buit a set of fuselage and wing "holding fixtures" using the Cessna specs. At this juncture, they are waffling on approving them. I can''t get a concrete reson for the waffling!


How about the rest of you people? Anything similair happen to you??


Resolutions agreed upon??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The term "meeting" manufacturer's specifications? is the key...they have to be inspected and/or approved by the man..it's a copyright/plagerism issue now..


after all you would not be kind to airbus if they duplicated boeing's fixture's and fabed some ailerons...

the fixtures I've dealt with, we normally set them up and the man's QA insp'ed them for "correctness" ..1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bullet Remington



I don''t agree it''s a plagarism issue. Without trying to emulate one of our other resident CARS specialist, I refer to CARS 573.08(6) and CARS 571.02 (Information Notes) and I para phrase.." Manufacturers specifications OR Equivlant standards... or something to that effect. Feel free to look it up at www.tc.gc.ca. 571.02 also states, " any other maintenance practise, even if it''s not recorded, as long as it''s commonly accepted practice in the Canadian aviation industry"... (Para Phrasing again.)


So tell me again what it is the TCCA dude OR I''m missing?? I just don''t get their stance!!))(*&^^%%$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bullet Remington

Charles (aka Padre)


Thanks I needed that!!


I still doing the song and dance routine. I think I''ve must''ve given TC a curve! They gave me a new inspector, and despite NOT approving the AMO,YET, I do have an AMO number. The new guy seems to be a little more on the ball. I just received a letter from him, as well as having met with him. Seems flexible enough.


Of course he''s NOT a conehead, but a real AME mechanical/Structures guy.


He is familiar with the Fuselage and wing holding fixtures I have and states he doesn''t see a problem. Especially since I provided him with the manufacturer''s hardpoint measurements.


I shall let ya know how it goes.


Thanks again.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Bullet:


When you get a good TC inspector you treasure him / her like it is diamonds, because a good one allows you to earn a living without suffering for weeks or months waiting for correct paper work ( in both official languages of course. )


We are in the short strokes now with a PBY here in Nanaimo just finishing up some major mods under the LSTC route through a DAR.


Seems we have a good team to work with so maybe, maybe I will get this one out of my hair soon, unless I kill myslf trying to figure out how to do the test flight.


Anyhow all the best with your new Inspector.....if he is really good get some of his DNA and send it to the Pacific Region M&M at 800 Burrard so they can clone him and give us a chance to.


The right reverend Charles....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullet me ole trout...

Don't go on the defensive..I can't stand the cars either...Your query is kinda vague though,are you talkin manufactured,"made" or repaired/majored parts?



On anoder tought..It's been my experience that C.E. aka.. sweet pea ( newfie's gif to da world since Joey,mind you) is trying to bilk aviation out of existance..Me thinks old Chuckie should be on the ground in Iraq swapin spit wit Xena warrior belly dancer...maybe he's werkin wit da mainland cia??.. sorry bud tinkin out loud agin ............

pby is that the one from Cumus or Rolheiser??


ps b'y: it's mister cause I tangled up me email ting!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bullet Remington



Weren''t my intention to assume a defensive posture, Won''t do much good wit ya anyway would it!


As for you question,)?) I''m not interested in getting into "manufacturing". However, should I assume a "literal" interpretation of CARs, in essence assuming I have at least one original part, I can totally rebuild complete wing using "made" parts, as long as I meet the requirements of CARS with respect to "manufacturer''s" specifications of equivalency. Having stated that, I do believe anyone assuming this position is a little out in left field.


While I have no hesitation in making a rib, skin doubler/s etc. I have found that in the long run, purchacing spars and fittings from the manufacturer or from PMA sources much cheaper and faster.


I do intend on pursuing my present course. At this juncture I have chatted with people in the Head Shed in Ottawa, and they cannot find a violation of CARs nor a reason why I can''t do what I have described in the MPM.


I''ll wait and see how it goes.


As for your reference to THE PADRE, I can see no reason to dispute his position nor posture. I''ve been in this business long enough to appreciate that one can expect the unexpected from TCCA.


Until things are proven otherwise, my position with respect to his position is to adopt a hard line position with reference to his position compared to TCCA''s position!


Shoot, now I''ve given myself a headache!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...