Tony R
 

I am pleased that you think that my attitude sucks !. Perhaps if GA had a few more people like me about with this dreadfull attitude then a bit more common sence would be the order of the day and we would all not be chasing bits of expencive paper over what is a very small issue.

Right now we have an aircraft grounded over a bank holiday weekend waiting for a bit of paper when flying without this bit of kit has been "custom and practice" with glider tugs ( with or without hoffman ) for so long that no one seems to know where the DDA came from.

It is high time that this aviation "one rule fitts all" attitude was put in its box , the GA industry simply can't be administered in exactily the same way as if it is an airliner that you are dealing with before we all vannish under a mountain of paper that costs more than the aircraft !.

But if you all want to go down that road letts get it clear , the CAA CANT issue you authority to fly the aircraft without some bit of kit for that you have to go to the design authority and get a "design deviation authority" or DDA ( the JAA may have changed the terms ) but it is my guess that Robin are going to be astonished to recive this request !.

TonyR once more may I thank you for your kind words.

Sorry A&C but my view is still the same,

In this business the regulations do not accommodate a "well the boys up the road do it this way" excuse.

After seing how insurance companies react to such things any other advice would be reckless IMOP.

Tony R

Tony r
 

Accusing me of being "reckless" is something that I do take exception to.

I can assue you that flying a Robin without a spinner is not in the least bit of a problem and will not put the aircraft in danger.

The glider tugs in question are checked by licenced engineers and I can only suppose that you consider these guys "reckless" as well !.

Flying robins without a spinner has been going on for to long for the authoritys to have not put a stop to it if any danger was involved however finding the paperwork on a ( French) bank holiday weekend is another thing entirly.

I wont do "reckless" in any way shape or form and certantly would not endanger an aircraft and I dont think that the other engineers who cover the glider tugs do either so I sugest that you keep your comments about acting recklesly to yourself.

A&C Did I accuse YOU of being reckless??

You and I both know that a Robin will fly perfectly well without a spinner.

I have flown a C150 in Peru without doors and various other aircraft with get me home repairs in strange parts of the world.

BUT we are not out in the bush here and I just dont know if Robin or the CAA will approve flight without a spinner.

I know some Pipers are approved for flight without one.

All I am saying is let the manufacture and the CAA decide.

I also know often the CAA will say "NO, now what is the question" and I hate the unnecessary paperwork but thats life in the UK. We just cant do what we like.

Tony

Doc 400,

I dont know about the UK, but here in France last year I (and virtually everyone else in the club) flew our club DR400-140B sans spinner for a month while waiting for another, with no ill effects bar the proviso to check the temps more often and cruise at a slightly lower RPM than normal.

Cheers, SD..

So wile the French fly on Doc400 and his not so merry band are grounded untill the spinner or the paperwork shows up if the advice from Tony R is heeded !.

And by the way Tony if you want a DDA it is the design authority ( Robin in this case ) not the CAA that you go to.

"From Robin's perspective, you CAN fly without the spinner, PROVIDED that the part is on order with them, AND all such flying complies with strict engine temperature control (the spinner being key to engine cooling). If flying does not comply with this, engine damage may result. Guy spoke of constant monitoring of gauges, ensuring good airflow by maintaining revs., taking it very easy etc. etc. "

Thanx for your feedback, all of you -and for goodness sake, loosen up!!

DOC