What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

MD-RA Dispute Resolution Process

kearney

Well Known Member
Hi

When I went through my inspection with MD-RA last year I had a serious problem with their misapplication of the CARS. I ended up appealing to Transport Canada. When I was done, I also noted to Transport that MD-RA was entirely unhelpful in resolving the dispute. The good news is that MD-RA has now published a dispute resolution process that allows builders to appeal MD-RA decisions. There is a link on the MD-RA home page. Here is what it says:

RESOLUTION OF BUILDER DISPUTES:

In the event that a builder does not agree with a delegate's assessment of the aircraft project, the matter shall be referred to the Regional Representative who, in consultation with the General Manager, shall attempt to resolve the problem. If the problem still cannot be resolved, the General Manager shall forward the matter to the appropriate regional Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (CASI) - Airworthiness for resolution. The Organization will inform Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) within ten (10) business days of the situation. The organization will supply all supporting documentation regarding the project. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) may advise, consult or intercede as deemed necessary.
When a delegate determines that the issue of a certificate is not advisable the delegate will document the determination and inform the organization. The Organization will inform the regional Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (CASI) - Airworthiness within ten (10) business days.
 
Les, this is good news. I've never had any issues with MD-RA, but I can see it happening. Any regulatory organization is well served by a dispute resolution mechanism.

Part of the problem is Transport Canada's way of revising the CARS. Amendments are issued by completely reprinting the previous version, followed by the amended version in one document. Good luck figuring out which is which with a casual glance.

Builders would often cite the wrong versions because of this confusion.

And, of course, there are the belligerent clients. Mostly folks who buy an aircraft and have to import it, or those who want to increase the gross weight, or both! The MDRA is not authorized to approve ‘whim and fancy’ changes to a design without solid engineering data. I've personally met pilots who were outraged that they couldn't increase the gross weight of their freshly bought IFR-equipped IO-360/CS RV-6 to 1800 lbs.

The MDRA is caught in the middle of this. Thankless (volunteer) job.

V
 
Last edited:
Les, this is good news. I've never had any issues with MD-RA, but I can see it happening. Any regulatory organization is well served by a dispute resolution mechanism.

Part of the problem is Transport Canada's way of revising the CARS. Amendments are issued by completely reprinting the previous version, followed by the amended version in one document. Good luck figuring out which is which with a casual glance.

Builders would often cite the wrong versions because of this confusion.

And, of course, there are the belligerent clients. Mostly folks who buy an aircraft and have to import it, or those who want to increase the gross weight, or both! The MDRA is not authorized to approve ?whim and fancy? changes to a design without solid engineering data. I've personally met pilots who were outraged that they couldn't increase the gross weight of their freshly bought IFR-equipped IO-360/CS RV-6 to 1800 lbs.

The MDRA is caught in the middle of this. Thankless (vounteer) job.

V

Vern, I agree with your comments. However, while MD-RA inspectors may be "volunteers", MD-RA is an agent of TC and cannot exercise authorities that are not based on law. Just as the CARs bind builders, they also bind MD-RA.

Effectively, MD-RA does not get to "make the rules".
 
Back
Top