New E prop not approved ???

[procharger]

Oksana Glushik (oksana.glushik@flightdesign.com)To:you + 2 more Details

Dear Ronnie,

Thank you for your email,

We regret to say but e-prop number DUR-3-170-C4-T not approved for CTSW.

For detailed information please contact our Dealer in USA  Airtime Aviation Inc. - Tom Gutmann Jr, he is in copy of this email.

[Tom Baker]

I have a MRA that was issued two months ago. 

 

[Madhatter]

I just wonder if there is a lot of pressure from Neuform. The E-Prop smokes them. The first US MRA was granted based on my original data (according to Tom Peghiny) and I've been told a lot of these props are now being used on CT's. At the time I bought mine I was told by E-Props that about 85 CT's in Europe were using this prop. Probably just need to follow the money.

[GlennM]

I have an MRA, also.

[procharger]

Tom sent the MRA form and I sent it back with $75.00 not sure

what this person is saying just wanted to throw this out there FYI.

I already ordered the prop anyway.

[Tom Baker]

It seems like they went through this earlier this year. Stopped doing MRA's for a little bit, then started back up again.

[Jim Meade]

5 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

It seems like they went through this earlier this year. Stopped doing MRA's for a little bit, then started back up again.

E-PROPS MRAs?  All MRAs?  Only new MRAs (never been done on that appliance before)?  It seems curious FD would stop issuing an MRA that had multiple previous issuances, and then slide the explanation off on the Gutmans.  I haven't heard of any accidents associated with E-PROPS.  Well maybe we'll never know.

[Anticept]

They stopped the E-PROP MRA for a short time because flight design germany didn't finish the approval process. I couldn't get it until recently.

[Tom Baker]

10 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

E-PROPS MRAs?  All MRAs?  Only new MRAs (never been done on that appliance before)?  It seems curious FD would stop issuing an MRA that had multiple previous issuances, and then slide the explanation off on the Gutmans.  I haven't heard of any accidents associated with E-PROPS.  Well maybe we'll never know.

E-Prop MRA's. The sent the explanation off to the Gutmanns because they are now the USA point of contact for Flight Design, and where new MRA's are sent.

[Jim Meade]

I just talked with Tom Jr.  He has queried FD on this issue as he was surprised by it since he's processed many MRAs for the E-PROPS.  He thinks, and in talking with Tom Peghiny found Tom also thinks that there is a translation - in other words communication - glitch and all will be resolved rapidly and satisfactorily (that last is my summation, not Tom's).  Sounds like there will be clarification shortly.  Hopefully Procharger will update the thread.

I had not understood the FD process for MRA submission and Tom confirmed Tom's note that they go through FDUSA.  (I've had MRA on other SLSA European aircraft so was only familiar with that instance which was not the same as FD.)

 

 

[Anticept]

Just so that it's clear, FDUSA doesn't approve major modifications without FD Germany's approval first. FDUSA was giving MRAs for a short time due to a misunderstanding from FD Germany, in that the process had not finished yet for retrofit. That was earlier this year.

[Tip]

Oksana Glushik Is from Kherson, Ukraine.

[Anticept]

Right, but FD Germany is the manufacturer from a legal perspective.

[Jim Meade]

2 hours ago, Tip said:

Oksana Glushik Is from Kherson, Ukraine.

I believe you.  I bet she is not IN Kherson as we speak.

[Jim Meade]

8 hours ago, Anticept said:

Just so that it's clear, FDUSA doesn't approve major modifications without FD Germany's approval first. FDUSA was giving MRAs for a short time due to a misunderstanding from FD Germany, in that the process had not finished yet for retrofit. That was earlier this year.

Well, you have me totally confused, Corey.  What do you mean when you say FSUSA doesn't approve major modification without FD Germany's approval first?

1.  By "major" do you mean MRA, or are there "major" modifications that are not MRA, and if so, can I have an example?  I'm ignorant of the definitions on this.

2. When you say FDUSA (I assume your "FSUSA" is actually FDUSA) doesn't approve without FD Germany's approval first, I get confused again.  If FD Germany has to approve the MRA first, then FDUSA doesn't seem to me to have any role at all in approving.  They simply pass on the approved MRA from FD Germany.  Or do you mean FD Germany gives blanket approval for FDUSA to act as primary agent for some range of products?  For example, does FD Germany delegate to FDUSA the authority to act on certain appliances?  That would make FDUSA like an ODA in the US MRA procedure, it would seem to me.

I am not nitpicking, I am confused.  You obviously have access to information the rest of us don't have and I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

[Anticept]

FDUSA has authorization to do approvals for the US market. That's why you see Tom's stamp and signature on the MRA forms, even though FDUSA is not the manufacturer. That was Tom's personal business and they were functioning as an importer. I've been told manufacturers can delegate many authorities but I haven't looked too much into it.

However, it's NOT a blanket approval to do whatever they want. Again, I don't know the specifics, but I do know there are things like vortex generators which I can't get any approvals for. I also can't get an approval to replace the voltage regulator with a different unit. It's always "It's not approved by FD Germany, so I can't give that to you". This was the roadblock to getting my E-prop and I had to wait months before those started back up again.

Major changes: this isn't a word I am using from the FAA perspective, but rather one that just means significance. I could get an MRA to use a different hose brand and a different fittings system for example. They won't give me anything for Vortex Generators. Madhatter had the same experience. I tried going the "work with a university aeronautical department to generate engineering data" route and still got a "no".

[Madhatter]

I never requested any approval for vg's because I did not know if they would work on a CT. I also knew FD would never approve them. As it turned out they were the best modification I ever did on the CT. They completely changed the landing characteristics in the flare by not dropping out when slow.

[Anticept]

I thought you told me on the phone that you asked about em.

Anyways, this is one of the downsides to the manufacturer responsible airworthiness system. Certified/certificated has its downsides in red tape, but we can still do modifications like this without being at the mercy of a manufacurer without switching to experimental.