Best Regulatory Proposal Ever

[Bill_H]

Imagine if you could buy any small plane and the regs treated it pretty much like an EAB for maintenance AND MODIFICATION purposes! It is a real proposal! Put a Skyview in your Mooney, no problem!

Details here ...
http://macsblog.com/2014/03/could-yo...lane-be-a-pnc/

[SHIPCHIEF]

This would be fantastic for older aircraft, like Fairchild 24 & 45, Bellanca Cruisairs and Cruisemasters, Cessna Airmasters, 195, 120/140, Aeronca, Old Pipers, Rearwin's, Porterfields etc etc.
You know, the really fun old planes!!
It might be possible to keep them flying for another generation.

[az_gila]

Is that somewhat like the owner maintenance category available in Canada?

[PerfTech]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Is that somewhat like the owner maintenance category available in Canada?

...This would be the biggest shot in the arm of GA possible. I would support this this in its entirety, (Monetarily as well).
Thanks, Allan.....

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Is that somewhat like the owner maintenance category available in Canada?

Yes, it is somewhat similar to the Owner Maintenance category that we have had in Canada since 2000. At first glance the big differences appear to be that our Owner Maintenance category is a bit more restrictive in the aircraft models that are eligible, and Owner Maintenance has no requirement for an annual inspection by an A&P and no required maintenance training for the owner.

Owner Maintenance has been quite successful up here. The big fear that keeps many owners from using it is the concern about the loss in resale value, as it would be prohibitively expensive to do a full conformity inspection to return the aircraft to normal category.

[flyboy1963]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Is that somewhat like the owner maintenance category available in Canada?

types listed for eligibility are included, here, with disclaimers of course.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...507sh-1837.htm

page 19 in this safety letter discussion outlines it about as well as I've found.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/...L_2-2013_E.pdf

the gist of it:

(6) Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(a) A Special C of A in the owner-maintenance classification is issued for recreational purposes only.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

Information Note:

Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance are listed in Appendix H of this Standard.

(b) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, is marked on the side of the fuselage, in a position that is readily visible to persons entering the aircraft, in letters at least 10 mm (3/8 in.) high and of a colour contrasting with the background, with a placard containing the following statement:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

WARNING
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS - OWNER-MAINTENANCE
THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS

AVIS
CERTIFICAT SP?CIAL DE NAVIGABILIT? - MAINTENANCE PAR LE PROPRI?TAIRE
CET A?RONEF N?EST PAS CONFORME AUX NORMES DE NAVIGABILIT?
INTERNATIONALES RECONNUES

(c) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, and each engine, propeller and life-limited part installed on such an aircraft, has the letter ?X?; permanently etched, engraved or stamped at the end of the model designation and serial number on the identification plate required by >CAR 201.01.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(d) A person may have an aircraft type added to the list of aircraft eligible for a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance, by submitting a written request to the Minister, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

Information Note:

A written request must be submitted to the Director, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, Ottawa, Canada, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).

(e) An aircraft type and model may be included in Appendix H of this Standard, Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance?, where:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(i) the aircraft is of a type certified in accordance with Chapters 522 or 523 of the Airworthiness Manual, or an equivalent foreign standard;

(ii) the aircraft type certificate does not authorize more than four occupants;

(iii) the maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) of the aircraft does not exceed 1,814 kg (4,000 pounds);

(iv) the aircraft is of a type and model that has not been manufactured during the 60 months preceding the date of application;

(v) fewer than 10% of Canadian aircraft of the type and model concerned are operating in Canadian commercial air service at the time of application;

(vi) the aircraft type and model is powered by a single, normally aspirated, piston engine, and is unpressurized; and

(vii) except for gliders, powered gliders or aircraft with airframes of wooden construction, the aircraft type and model has a fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller.

[Ironflight]

People who are concerned about the loss of resale value in an airplane probably need to step back and take a look at the big picture. While it was true many decades ago that "the airplane was free" (you could always sell it for what you paid for it, or more), that hasn't been the case for a very long time. Even in the RV world, you can't sell most airplanes for the cost of the parts it took to build them.

No - anyone worried about resale value of their "investment" might be better off looking someplace other than aviation - where the best way to make a small fortune is to start with a big one.

This proposal, however, would be a HUGE step in the right direction of trying to keep GA alive.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

People who are concerned about the loss of resale value in an airplane probably need to step back and take a look at the big picture. While it was true many decades ago that "the airplane was free" (you could always sell it for what you paid for it, or more), that hasn't been the case for a very long time. Even in the RV world, you can't sell most airplanes for the cost of the parts it took to build them.

No - anyone worried about resale value of their "investment" might be better off looking someplace other than aviation - where the best way to make a small fortune is to start with a big one.

This proposal, however, would be a HUGE step in the right direction of trying to keep GA alive.

And a huge step in allowing equipment that would improve safety - such as a full Dynon system - to be installed in older certified aircraft at a reasonable price.

As far as I can tell, the only operational loss would be the lack of use of the plane for commercial purposes.

[Don]

I'm not so sure the value of some older airplanes would decrease and in fact I wonder if the opposite might be the case, if only very modestly. I know I'd opt for an airplane I could maintain and upgrade myself long before I'd buy one that needed a sign-off on just about everything. I'd also sooner buy one with a modern experimental glass cockpit before I'd buy one with a 20+ year old six pack.

My best guess is, if this idea comes to fruition, the price of 20 year old and older airplanes won't change much but if it does, it won't be in favor of the standard certified aircraft.

[YellowJacket RV9]

I think this is a great idea, but wonder how much push-back there will be from both A&P's and OEM's. Or maybe it would encourage more companies to follow Garmin's lead and develop more products for the non-certified (aka "affordable") world...Just seems like it makes too much sense to go anywhere at the FAA...