[Wing] consumer satisfaction - results ?!

[Dennis Voth]

We have thus far only had one inspection done on our RV-7A.  We have had good interactions with MD-RA, both in Ottawa and locally.  No problems whatsoever.  Our local inspector, a member of the RAA, Calgary, is very helpful.

I was interested in all the chatter this question sparked!  I saved several of the emails, hoping they will be helpful in the coming months as we complete our project.

Dennis, in Calgary 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Jewell 
  To: wing at vansairforce.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:12 PM
  Subject: [Wing] consumer satisfaction - results ?!


  In an effort to get a consensus of opinion as to the efficacy of the inspection services currently available to the 'obligated users', Namely the MD-RA., I posted the following email;

  "I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow.
  It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiences and reactions.

  If you are happy say how and why here.

  If you are not happy say how and why here.

  Suggestions?"


  I light of the fact that the MD-RA is 'apparently' our only access to satisfy our need to have inspections done, I expected to get more input from all three categories.

  I received 11 emails with responses to that "consumer satisfaction" title.
  In my opinion there was not enough response to get a truly clear or reliable consensus. 

  My interpretation of them as Follows:

  1/  Problems with Transport Canada from an individual up north ( not covered by MD-RA I assume).
  2/  A response to # 1.
  3/  A compliment re- a specific inspector.
  4/  A response to # 3.
  5/  A clearly satisfied customer.
  6/  An additional response to # 1 by # 2,
  7/  A play by play of problems with MD-RA eventually resolved with inspection done by Transport Canada!
  8/  A suggestion to # 1 re- transport Canada procedures.
  9/  A concern about current delay in communication with MD-RA.
  10/ A complaint not titled "consumer satisfaction" about the MD-RA's system it's fee structures and
          procedures etc.
  11/ A complaint starting with the RAA and resolved with an inspection from an EAA inspector ?!
          I am unsure as to how the final inspection and C of A will work out.
  12/ As you might have guessed I am not so far pleased with services supplied, in the first place with the RAA and to date with the MD-RA. I Have to put myself in as a complainant.

  There Where no "suggestions" offered!

  Due to the small number of responses, the results of this unofficial poll are not very reliable and no very clear outcome emerges.
  The unhappy campers do however outnumber the happy ones. About average for polls in general I suspect.

  I recently sent Terry Elgood (the BC man in charge of The MD-RA inspections) a history of my dealings with both the RAA and the MD-RA up to the present time. I started the letter referring to him as "Tom". If you are reading this Terry, please excuse the use of the wrong name.

  I sent the email to him on the 11th of June and another on the 13th.  I have sent an email again today using his correct name. In the two preceding emails I asked him a series of questions that I felt should go to him first. I have not had any response as yet to my emails to him. At this time of year he could be on holidays or otherwise occupied and I expect a response from him in due time.

  With all the talk that I hear person to person, I did expect to see more input pro and con. It would seem that the silent majority have nothing to say and have once again spoken as eloquently as usual.

  I did try to send the same "poll" to the RAA and the rv-list. I am not at present a Member of the RAA and I'm unsure if it got sent out to that group. If you are one of that group and did not see it on line there, please forward it.

  If you did not take part on the first go around, this is your chance to jump in. 

  Thanks,

  Jim in Kelowna   
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/8e7e8019/attachment-0001.htm