The End of Mil-Hdbk-5 20

[Aeromark]

Great Link, Nigel.

Kenneth, the FAA currently does not charge for guidance material, unless you want a paper copy of the 14 CFR or something like that. Wouldn't charging for the MMPDS be setting a precedent? I realize with the latest budget cuts the FAA can't even replace engineers that quit or retire, and according to our ACO they are depending on some to do just that so they can make the budget constraints. It makes sense that they would not have the money to support the constant revisions to the handbook.

 

[Kenneth]

It looks like the plans to sell the Handbook extend to non-paper copies, including PDF copies from their website. This would appear to be somewhat of a precedent.


"Current MMPDS secretariat activities cost about $500K per year, and we lack the money to support them all."

"We plan to offset government funding with earnings from the sales of handbook and related products, including printed hardcopies, electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) distributed via website or CD-ROM; electronic databases; and updates. We will use earnings from sales to defray the cost of updating, supplementing and revising the MMPDS. The modest charge for these handbook products will ensure their availability to small business and individuals."

(quoted excerpts from

http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/DraftDoc/Fed Reg NOAMMPDS-final3.doc)

 

[Nigel]

I am under the Seattle ACO. They are suffering like everyone else. I have found that there are some advantages to gained though. I resently got FAA PMA. The MIDO just breezed through everything as they have a budget per company to stick too. So if everything looks ok, they don't really go digging unless they have good reason. Also with the ACO, I am a heavy user of the Seattle ACO and I have found they are very open to streamlining programs. This means I am able to get alot more stuff through at the same same time. I had a meeting with my FAA project engineer, his boss and the ACO manager. We hashed out a program that will really make thigs move. This was done through a MOU.

Give your ACO a hug! It goes a long way.

Nigel Waterhouse
Can-Am Aerospace

http://www.canamaero.com

 

[Kenneth]

Nigel:

Absolutely nothing personal, but aside from making your life easier, and strictly from a safety standpoint (recognizing that many of the people trying to push/rush things through may not have your same level of expertise) I'm not sure the situation you described is generally a good thing, given the regulatory/oversight misssion of the FAA...

 

[Aeromark]

I am getting the same message from the Fort Worth ACO. They are using buzzwords like "maximimum delegation" in the project meetings.

I would have to disagree with Kenneth - I believe that the FAA will have to start using the delegation system to perform what it is supposed to do. Often the DER approved data I submit is reanalyzed at the ACO, resulting in no savings in time for them, and a waste of money to us hiring the designees. I have found over the years that any items found by the ACO are very minor in nature, and the risk vs rewards ratio is extremely low. The FAA is responsible for the safety of the air transportation system, but is immune from penalty for errors. As private companies and individuals, we are open to prosecution and civil penalty for any unsafe conditions that we create.

 

[Nigel]

Knowing what to give the FAA and in what format it is to be presented is sometimes half the battle. Aslo, don't forget the FAA is made up of people. These people are human and respond in human ways with in the rules of the FAA. If you get the reputaion of a FAA time waster, your projects will rarely see the light of day. If you generate and maintain a good working relationship with the FAA and the people you work with producing high quality and reliable documents and be extremely diplomatic, picking your battles carefully the FAA (in my experience) will be as accomodating as possible.

True, the FAA are responsible for safety and regulation, but so are we professionals. We can make it easy for the FAA to do their job or we can be a hinderance to them. Make it easy and reap the rewards. That is all I am saying.

Nigel Waterhouse B Eng (Hon's)
Can-Am Aerospace,LLC, Canadian Aircraft Certification Centre

http://www.canamaero.com

 

[Nigel]

P.s The same applies to Transport Canada.

Nigel Waterhouse B Eng (Hon's)
Can-Am Aerospace,LLC, Canadian Aircraft Certification Centre

http://www.canamaero.com

 

[badpeanut]

Anyone know when MMPDS-02 will be available (the advertised July 2005 date didn't happen)?

 

[rb1957]

has anyone else noticed that the link ...

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar-mmpds-01.pdf

isn't working ? has the FAA decided to restrict access to it ?

... but that's one horse that's bolted !

 

[Aeromark]

You could find out from the horse's mouth...

http://projects.battelle.org/mmpds/8thMtgAnnouncement-FULLp.pdf

Excerpt:
"The 8th MMPDS and 16th ISG meetings will be held October 3-6, 2005 at the Hilton Garden Inn, Chicago (Magnificent Mile). Your attendance and active participation in the upcoming meeting is encouraged!"

Also -

http://projects.battelle.org/mmpds/news.htm

 

[qwertyyuiop]

Hello,

MMPDS-02 is now available for purchase.

See

http://www.mmpds.org/

 

[SWComposites]

Yeah, its now ~$500 !!

And to make matters worse, my understanding from an infromed source within a large aerospace company is that the CD version (and presumably a downloaded PDF) is set up so you cannot print the document!

 

[rb1957]

how about copying the CD ?

 

[Sparweb]

How about ignoring the difference between versions. As an exercise (if you're really bored some day) try comparing several tables of allowables data from different versions of the text. There are 10 versions of Mil-Hdbk-5, 2 now of Armpits, and let's not forget the original ANC-5. See how closely they compare.

Just because there's a new version out, it doesn't mean new batches of every alloy and temper of aluminum, mag and steel have been tested all over again.

There is only one (1) allowable, that I regularly use, that has moved between Mil-Hdbk-5E and Armpits. Its the shear strength of a MS20470AD4 rivet. It changed by 0.3%. Wo-ee.

Steven Fahey, CET

 

[rb1957]

let's hear it for BJ4s ...

obviously we're not boeing (or douglas, or airbus) people

 

[wes616]

hey, that .3% may be huge, when you're hangin on by a head, and have a short grip... hahahaha (I couldn't resist)

Wes C.
------------------------------
There are no engineers in the hottest parts of hell, because the existence of a 'hottest part' implies a temperature difference, and any marginally competent engineer would immediately use this to run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool. This is obviously impossible.

 

[rb1957]

i was just at ...

http://www.mil-hdbk-5.org/

they have MM-PDS-02 for review ...

maybe it's just the version they have online, but when you read the sections, it reads like an addendum to -01 (only 2026 in Al, no Steels, no fasteners)

other opinions ?

 

[rb1957]

forget that ! ...
i was looking at a document called "Preliminary Materails ..." dated 2000, so obviously a work in progress.

still i can't find any link to AR-MMPDS-01 or -02 (tried FAA and Battelle)

any ideas ...

 

[qwertyyuiop]

rb1957

Try,

http://www.airplanedesign.aero/inde...40&func=fileinfo&filecatid=3&parent=category.

You can also find many references at google: "AR-MMPDS-01 pdf"

good luck

 

[rb1957]

thx qwertyuiop,

nice looking link, another to my favourites.

i had yahoo'd AR-MMPDS-01 (and got 40 hits) googled and got 173 ! ... but a quick scan didn't show any going back to the FAA or Battelle (who i thought had taken on this job). pretty much the hits went to copies of -01, or refs to -01 (as in references)