100HP T-Craft Floatplane

[Dano"T"]

100hp BC12D Floatplane For Sale Someone was looking for one of these I think. Looks nice. Don't know about the owner maint cat. in Canada Though.

[Grant S. Bailey]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

It appears that this plane is registered as an experimental/amateur built in Canada which I think can be sold into the US? If it was in the new "owner maintenance" category in Canada, it can not even be flown into the US as this category is still not recognized by the FAA. This is the one big drawback of the Canadian "owner maintenance" category. However the category allows the owner/pilot to do pretty much everything (including rebuilds) on his own airplane which is nice if you are competent mechanically and intend to keep the airplane over the longer term.

[mulwyk]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

Hooray for Canada! What a great idea. Why not "owner maintenance" in the USA? I'll bet it would do more to revive general aviation than even the wonderful "light sport" rule.

Bob Gustafson

[zero.one.victor]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

If you're an EAA member, and maybe even if you're not, why not email the EAA and urge them to lobby for an owner-maintenance category like Canada has? I did just that, and the EAA told me that they did suggest that very thing a few times in the past. What kinda killed it was all the type clubs' imput, they didn't like the idea that you'd have to give up your original standard category airworthiness certificate and get a special "amateur maintained" one instead-- just like Canada. Thanks a lot, type clubs!
The EAA's big push now is the FAA-approved courses for people to get their LSA maintenance and inspection certificates. But if enough people agitated for an owner-maintenance category here it just might happen. I think it'd be great, for GA as well as for me personally, and that it would be a natural follow-on to the LSA maintenance/inspection issue. BTW the EAA guy who explained this to me is a regular participant on the supercub.org site.

Eric

[Forrest Barber]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

I sit on that Type Club Board. Whenever we can show that these "owners" know WHAT they are doing, THEN I would be in favor. I agree that the ships that have only a few left, then there is always a group of owners who get together and work out the maintenance problems. There are too many Taylorcrafts out there for this system. I would like the factory to offer a lot more support on release of "approved data".
It is a good idea ( owner maintenence)`IF that person keeps it for the rest of his life. Beat me up if you want BUT there is a lot of shoddy work done by owners and then passed along to the next owner. Some of the things WE find on the walk arounds at the Fly-In are proof positive.

I do completely agree that a whole lot of owners know far more about their ships than a lot of A&Ps & I.A.,s ......Canada is a whole different world. The headache is trying to bring that ship back into the States under Standard Category.

[Jim Herpst]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

There is a lot of shoddy work that has been done on Taylorcrafts (I am sure other old planes also in the fleet) BY A&Ps too. I have seen a bunch of crap done on at least 4 or 5 Taylorcrafts that I have torn down. Work was often documented in the Logs (Can not believe anyone would put their name next to some really crude stuff)

Anyway As the A&P s out there get further away from ourtype of fine fabric birds I do believe that Type clubs should be stepping up to the plate to endorse owner maint and indeed some self police work of the clubs working with the owners AND the FAA (Quick get my pills ..sigh I know) But point being the type clubs could help here greatly as can the factory.

I will say it again.. We have far too many Taylorcrafts still flying that are just crying out for restoration(Nothing more than flying projects... many of them.

[mulwyk]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

Following Forrest's logic it's amazing that all those experimental planes manage to fly. I've looked at quite a few experimentals and they ALL look to be very well built and extremely well maintained...better, in fact, than our beloved T-crafts that have seen 60 years of "professional" maintenance.

I don't want to make you feel bad, Forrest, but you are wrong on this one. You should ask yourself if you are representing the best interests of T-craft owners or are you representing your own interests.

I'm an A&P too and I know there's no special magic involved in maintaining these old birds. It just takes a lot of time.

Oh well, sounds like another case of our Canadian brothers leading the way. We'll see if there is a rash of owner maintained planes falling out of the sky in the next few years in the North.

Bob Gustafson

[Forrest Barber]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

Well gosh Bob where were you when I asked for input to this question over the past five years. WE sit in conference with the EAA & the Small Aircraft Directorate two times each year. I too do "condition" inspections on Experimential aircraft after their "owner-builders" abandon them to the next owner and still maintain that a lot of shoddy hidden work is done.
I TOTALLY agree that this is done by certified mechanics too! I do not have any "interests" other than seeing that airplanes fly safely.
Take a big deep breath out there and lets collect data that will support your points. I really depend upon the owners to do the 'maintenance" then I do the "inspection" for the "annuals"
The one thing that I do support strongly is a maintenance category that will allow the "insection" to be every two or three years depending upon hours flown. You may recall if you have been around a while when the DAMI's did a "periodic" inspection.

[Grant S. Bailey]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

The "Owner Maintenance" category in Canada was enacted in March 2002. Since then, airplanes have not been falling out of the sky, in fact the category has proven to be quite successful from a safety point of view. There are definate benefits, and definate drawbacks, and that is why there hasn't been a huge changeover of aircraft into the "owner maintenance" category since it was enacted. Under the "owner maintenance" category, a pilot/owner is eligible to:
- maintain an airplane
- refurbish all or part of an airplane
- overhaul all or part of an airplane
- install certified and uncertified parts
- install or replace any instruments or avionics
- modify an airplane
- rebuild an airplane that is out of service
- sign the maintenance release

The pilot/owner can sign the maintenance release for a major repair or overhaul on an OM aircraft and only needs to show that the repair conforms to the requirements of acceptable data. Pilot/Owners may devise their own data, which need not be approved, but must be subject to an appropriate level of review or analysis, or be shown to comply with recognized industry standards, or commonly accepted practice.

The drawback of "owner maintenance" is the aircraft becomes licensed with a Special Certificate of Airworthiness which is not recognized in the US. An airplane licensed in this category may not fly into the US. The category also obviously reduces the market for resale as many prospective purchasers shy away from an owner maintained aircraft. Transport Canada (the regulatory body) also makes it very difficult to convert backwards to a regular Certificate of Airworthiness. It can be done, but basically any life limited item must be overhauled by a recognized shop and the rest of the aircraft signed off by an AME.

The "owner maintenance" category is not for everyone, but it is sure a nice option to have.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

Thank you for the great explanation. WE have the "preventative maintenance" thing down here and I sure do wish that more owners would do these items to their own aircraft on a regular basis, that way the dreaded "annual" is merely an inspection to see that the proper maintenance is being done.

[jany77]

Re: 100HP T-Craft Floatplane

"owner maintenance" exist in usa but just if you build your own experimental or lsa you can aplly for it and because you build that plane you pretty much know anything about it so that why you can do it just under lsa or experimental