What's new
Van's Air Force

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

CARs 549 and the exemption

Bevan

Well Known Member
In Canada, CARs Chapter 549 describes the rules for the Amateur-built category. It?s been a while and I?m tying to refresh my memory of 549 and the 549 exemption. Perhaps a thread dedicated to this exemption business would be good to have here for the future so its all in one place. Would anyone like to start off with the history of 549 and how/why the exemption came along and what it means exactly?

Further, it would seem to me the wording of the paragraph titled ?Cancellation? at the bottom of the page (see the following link) is flawed. It says...

?The exemption from section 549.01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness Manual - Airworthiness Standards - Amateur-built aircraft, issued to persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification, on August 30, 2006 at Ottawa, Ontario by the Director General Civil Aviation on behalf of the Minister of Transport, is hereby canceled because it is the opinion of the Minister that it is no longer in the public interest or is likely to affect aviation safety.?

In short, it says ?The exemption... is hereby cancelled?. Say what!??? See...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/exemptions/docs/en/1963.htm

I welcome your thoughts.

Bevan
 
Jamie Alexander said he wasn't aware of any exemption being approved for many years. Does anyone know anyone who was granted one? Maybe it's been dispensed with altogether now.
 
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts

Further, it would seem to me the wording of the paragraph titled ?Cancellation? at the bottom of the page (see the following link) is flawed. It says...

?The exemption from section 549.01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness Manual - Airworthiness Standards - Amateur-built aircraft, issued to persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification, on August 30, 2006 at Ottawa, Ontario by the Director General Civil Aviation on behalf of the Minister of Transport, is hereby canceled because it is the opinion of the Minister that it is no longer in the public interest or is likely to affect aviation safety.?

In short, it says ?The exemption... is hereby cancelled?. Say what!??? See...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/exemptions/docs/en/1963.htm

I welcome your thoughts.

Bevan

Hi.

The Exemption document actually does make sense in that THE CURRENT VERSION was issued in 2009. The current version also contains a cancellation notice for the version issued in 2006. Without the cancellation, there would be two versions in force concurrently.

Cheers

Les
 
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts

Jamie Alexander said he wasn't aware of any exemption being approved for many years. Does anyone know anyone who was granted one? Maybe it's been dispensed with altogether now.

Ross

I am wondering if the word "exemption" is misleading. are you referring to an exemption to one or more requirements of the EXEMPTION TO CARS 549?

If that is the case, I think it likely that MDRA has never approved a departure from the CARS 549 EXEMPTION. That is, as I understand it, beyond their authority. Any relief from the requirements of the CARS (of any nature) would require approval from Transport Canada. And that, as I understand it, could take a long time to get (if at all).

Cheers

Les
 
The exemption has been used many times in the last 10 years to import amateur-built aircraft from the US. I imported mine in 2010, and have counselled others since then on importing their own using the same process.
 
Interesting. All US planes imported around here needed to have gascolators fitted before the inspection process could be completed if that's what we are talking about here.
 
Ross, that is my understanding as well. Mine thankfully was built with one, so I didn't have to add it.
 
Just to clarify - there are 3 documents here :

A) Canadian Aviation Regulations Section 549
This is a very small text saying that you need to do a letter of intent, follow the AWM Chapter 549, do most of the work (major portion) and have inspections during construction and before the first flight.

B) Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness Manual
Not to be confused with the one above. Happens to have the same number but is an exhaustive list of mandated equipment, max wing load, minimum engine power, log books, maintenance, etc.

C) Exemption of Section 549.01 of the CARs and Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness Manual

When dealing with MD-RA, we now have 2 choices stating that the project :
1) Will meet the requirements as specified in Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness Manual, (AWM).
or
2) Will meet the requirements as specified in the "Exemption from Section 549.01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, (CAR’s) and Chapter 549 of the AWM"

So you need to pick :
1)You can use CARs 549.01 + AWM Chapter 549 (A+B)
2)Exemption of both documents (C which replaces A & B)

My current understanding of the differences :
  1. Placards + identification plates aren't the same
  2. Max number of seats (AWM = max 4)
  3. Builder assistance (not allowed with AWM)
  4. Minimum equipment list isn't the same (AWM mandates a Gascolator)

In fact, there's a "purpose" section in the Exemption that states :

The purpose of this exemption is to permit persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification:

-to contract for professional assistance in the construction or assembly of parts of the aircraft, provided the work is subject to the builder’s overall control;
-to import, register and operate in Canada foreign-built amateur-aircraft, subject to a Transport Canada inspection of the aircraft; and
-to not have to comply with the maximum permissible take-off mass (weight) and the maximum number of passenger seats requirements.

Importing an amateur build aircraft? Using professional help? Have a 6 seater? You NEED to use option C because you aren't compliant to A+B.

If I understand everything correctly, it means that my -12iS project built exactly to plan (by myself) except for the addition of a gascolator can be built and get a CofA-AB (Certificate of Airworthiness, Amateur-Built) with either one of the 2 "rules".

It would comply with Section 549.01 of the CARs, Chapter 549 of the AWM and also comply with the single document that is the exemption to both of those. So basically "A+B+C".

Which one should I pick? very good question, I'll need to read every document exhaustively, do the wing loading, weight and HP calculation then pick my "favorite" I guess?

I think I need a call with MD-RA :D
 
Last edited:
Ross


If that is the case, I think it likely that MDRA has never approved a departure from the CARS 549 EXEMPTION. That is, as I understand it, beyond their authority. Any relief from the requirements of the CARS (of any nature) would require approval from Transport Canada. And that, as I understand it, could take a long time to get (if at all).

Cheers

Les

I believe this is what Jaime was referring to. Let's remember that MDRA does the majority of all initial inspections for new builds and that while there is a checklist to follow, some latitude of interpretation for compliance of each point is in the hands of each inspector. Jaime specifically said that certain things that follow the intent of the regs have been approved if not right to the letter of the law. TC doesn't care much about the homebuilt world until something goes wrong and they maybe see then that something wasn't complied with in their eyes.
 
In fact, there's a "purpose" section in the Exemption...
The purpose of this exemption is to permit persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification:

-to contract for professional assistance in the construction or assembly of parts of the aircraft, provided the work is subject to the builder?s overall control;
-to import, register and operate in Canada foreign-built amateur-aircraft, subject to a Transport Canada inspection of the aircraft; and
-to not have to comply with the maximum permissible take-off mass (weight) and the maximum number of passenger seats requirements.

Which one should I pick? very good question, I'll need to read every document exhaustively, do the wing loading, weight and HP calculation then pick my "favorite" I guess?

Go back and read the "purpose" again. You're not contracting outside work, importing from the US, or changing number of seats or GW. The *intent* of the exemption is clear, it doesn't apply to someone building a stock kit.

That said, I know people are claiming the exemption to build stock kits, and MD-RA is going with it. I don't know why, it seems like a fair bit of paperwork just to be allowed to use small letters on your warning placards.
 
That said, I know people are claiming the exemption to build stock kits, and MD-RA is going with it. I don't know why, it seems like a fair bit of paperwork just to be allowed to use small letters on your warning placards.

If I'm not mistaken, using the Exemption was the only option with MD-RA before. In fact, the MD-RA told me (last week) that right now, there is only one individual in Canada building against CARs 549.01 + AWM Chapter 549. Everyone else is building it using the Exemption.
 
When I was going through final inspection there was a strong insistence from MD-RA that I go with the exception, even though there was no significant technical driver for this, other than that's what MD-RA was comfortable doing.
 
Jaime sent me an email outlining the filter/ gascolator requirements for iS engines from straight from Rotax.

I think you're not in the right thread - you probably wanted to post that in the "gascolator requirement for Canada" thread.
 
If I'm not mistaken, using the Exemption was the only option with MD-RA before. In fact, the MD-RA told me (last week) that right now, there is only one individual in Canada building against CARs 549.01 + AWM Chapter 549. Everyone else is building it using the Exemption.
Phillipe

Until March of 2017, the only option was the exemption. After that MD-RA was allowed by TC to inspect using CARS 549. This was the result of a request I made to Transport Canada.

If there is only one person building under CARS 549 today, then that would be me.

Cheers

Les

RV10 - C-GCWZ sold
RV10 - C-GROK nearing completion
 
Just did an extensive review of the 2 options :
Option #1 : Going with CARs 549.01 + AWM Chapter 549
Option #2 : Going with the exemption to CARs 549.01 and AWM Chapter 549

What is the same?
-Letter or intent
-Pre-close inspection
-Maintenance requirements (log book and such)
-Max empty mass calculation
-Minimum rated horsepower calculation
-Minimum rate of climb
-Max wing load calculation
-Placards for baggage area
-Most of the minimum equipment list (belts, firewall, carb heat if required, airspeed, altimeter, magnetic compas, tach, oil pressure, engine temp, fuel quantity, manifold pressure if force induction or constant speed)


What is different :
-CARs+AWM has a max gross weight of 1800kg/3968lbs. No such limit for the exemption
-Number of pax seats : CARs+AWM : max 1. exemption : no limits
-Exemption specifically calls out for a gascolator, CARs + AWM don't have anything specific to this
-Exemption requires the installation of a max g-meter if doing acro
-Identification plate isn't the same. Both have Name of builder, model and serial number but CARs + AWM adds 2 things : Date of Manufacture + Nationality & Registration marks
-Placards aren't the same :
--CARs+AWM : 3/8in letters on the fuselage : "Notice : this aircraft is operating with SCofA A-B"
--Exem : Readable by pax in cockpit OR 3/8in letters on fuselage : "You fly in this a/c at your own risk, this A/C does not comply with blablabla"

So, regarding RVs : unless you are building a -10 or getting professional help, you can go either way.
 
Last edited:
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts

Hi

I have speaking to Transport Canada regarding 549 / Exemption to 549 and the fuel system requirements as noted in MD-RA document C52E. I received the following from my contact at Transport Canada:

================================

I have received a response from Transport Canada Operational Airworthiness (Standards) and they have confirmed that an easily serviceably filter, in addition to a drain in the lowest point of the fuel system, is acceptable for aircraft built to either the exemption or to Standard 549.

================================

Cheers

Les

RV10 - C-GCWZ : sold
RV10 - C-GROK : nearing completion
 
Just the facts ma?am, just the facts.

Hi

Yes I do.

Cheers

Les

RV10 : C-GCWZ sold
RV10 : C-GROK nearing completion
 
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts

Randy

Yes they do as they are the lowest point in the -10 fuel system.

Based on the info from TC, for the need for a gascolator with or without the exemption is dead as long as you have a serviceable fuel filter and a drain at the low point of the fuel system. In the case of my -10 I will have filters in each wing root as well as one after the fuel pumps. All all easily serviceable.

My fuel tank drains are the low point in the fuel system.

Cheers

Les

RV10 C-GCWZ - Sold
RV10 C-GROK - Nearing completion
 
Thanks for doing all of the heavy lifting on this with TC Les. I know tha MDRA never asked me to specify which CAR was to apply. Hopefully it will be seamless by the time I’m ready for final sign off thanks to your agitation on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Just wondering if there is any additional information on this matter.

Any -10 or -14's approved without a gascolator?
 
Best to inquire with MD-RA to see if they got an official ruling from TC, or are still handling it as an exception case by case. I don't think Les heard boo back from them after his approval.
The last SDS system I installed was an upgrade from mechanical FI & mags so I was dealing direct with TC. This plane was set up with a gascolator between the fuel selector and fuel pumps (awkward location but original for this F-1) so they (TC) had no issues in adding the new equipment to the CofA.
 
Steve and I along with a 14 builder in British Columbia have made some prototypes of Andair wing root gascolators with shutoff valves at the tanks. Valves in place to enable servicing the gascolators withour draining the tanks, and a potential fire/explosion hazzard. We also did a mock up of a Aerolabs gacolator in the 14 wing root. Pretty complicated, but will work.

On a side note---for all of you RV14 builders using either the SDS or EFii32 duplex systems, we did the same thing but mounted a Holley filter in each root. NOT accepted by rule anyway by the Canadian Transport Dept because of the no drain thing, but for the US clients, it will work. Some minor fine tuning once they are actually installed in the roots, but looks like it will be fine. WE plan on making our duplex kit compatible with these. Also will include the shutoff valves at the tanks.
Thanks to Kriegler LeRoux for making the root mockup for us!

Tom
 
Glenn

My -10 which was inspected by MD-RA in April 2019 does not have a gascolator. It was inspected under CAR 549 and not the exemption.

My -10 has Holley billet filters in the wing roots and another Holley filter on the firewall. My tank drains serve as sump drains. I went this route as my -10 has dual electric fuel pumps in the tunnel and no mechanical fuel pump. Therefore all fuel north of the firewall is pressurized. This makes, IMHO, a FWF gascolator unsafe as they are not designed to be pressurized. Also, they provide no value to a low wing a/c when mounted on the firewall.

I need this arrangement as I use the SDSEFI.COM electronic ignition (no mags) and electronic fuel injection.

MD-RA was quite intransigent when doing my inspection - it took an appeal to TC to get them to relent. I believe they are now applying the CARs as written and not based on how they want them to be.

FWIW, the MD-RA document C52E is riddled with errors and misquotes CAR 423 which does not apply to amateur built aircraft.

Cheers

Les
 
Tom

You mentioned that the "Canadian Transport Department" not accepting the wing root filters. For clarity was that Transport Canada or MD-RA? Also, when was this. If it was before April 2019, then it occurred before my in section where this issue was finally resolved.
 
Les---as I recall it was MD-RA, and prior to your dealing with them. WE were told that by a Canadian client that was dealing with a no gascolator applications. He was told no filters in the roots.
Since then, and I guess credit is due to you, seems they have relented and will accept tank drains as lowest point servicing, and root filters.
We are just going by what we are told, and asked by our Canadian clients.
Kriegler LeRoux deal with this for quite a while on his 14, then came back to us to plumb his Andair Gascolators in the roots.

Tom
 
Les & Tom,

If I understand what your saying correctly TC has backed off their position of the gascolator but only for CAR 549 and not the exemption. Is this correct? If so how does it make sense to be required for aircraft that chose to go with the exemption? It still should be just as unsafe or unnecessary.

Les by going with the CAR 549 did you have to go with the large letters on the side of the fuselage for the passenger warning?
 
Glenn

MD-RA did back off on the gascolator issue for CAR 549. I have heard that they will also allow "other acceptable means of compliance" for the exemption as well, but I have no first hand knowledge.

I do have the large placard on the side. Personally I don't find it to be an issue. Also the placard wording is quite benign compared to what you would have to pout on the panel. Anyway, there are not too many times that I get out to read the placard while flying. :):)
 
I have an Andair gascolator (with integral serviceable filter and sampling drain slightly poking out of the lower root fairing) in each wing root blessed by MDRA in 2015. I sample for water before the first flight of the day. Never found any. So in case anyone is wondering, this all fits in the wing root of an RV7A.

Bevan



Les---as I recall it was MD-RA, and prior to your dealing with them. WE were told that by a Canadian client that was dealing with a no gascolator applications. He was told no filters in the roots.
Since then, and I guess credit is due to you, seems they have relented and will accept tank drains as lowest point servicing, and root filters.
We are just going by what we are told, and asked by our Canadian clients.
Kriegler LeRoux deal with this for quite a while on his 14, then came back to us to plumb his Andair Gascolators in the roots.

Tom
 
Last edited:
I have an Andair gascolator (with integral serviceable filter and sampling drain slightly poking out of the lower root fairing) in each wing root blessed by MDRA in 2015. I sample for water before the first flight of the day. Never found any. So in case anyone is wondering, this all fits in the wing root of an RV7A.

Bevan

Were you inspected under CAR 549 or the exemption?
Would you have any pictures?
 
Back
Top