EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

[Dano"T"]

EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal What do you guys think of this? What, If any, input has been collected from this group? I am glad that the EAA is trying to help us...but If I read this correctly....an owner would be able to re-classify his ship to this catergory....good, bad, or otherwise it cannot be placed back under the original Type certificate afterwards...this decision would be made by the present owner...what about if he/she sells it? The fate and future of the plane is decided and cannot be changed back. I have'nt decided if this is all good or not. Although some of the ATC's for some aircraft are outdated. What's your involvement Forrest?

[Dano"T"]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I read this again and I think that this will make life easier for a lot of vintage aircraft restorers/flyers. I wonder if this will help allow the addition of higher HP motors without GW increase to our beloved T-Craft's? That would be nice. The only negative I see at all is the "One Way" street. You cannot go back once re-classified. But.....Does it really Matter??? Not if you are keeping your bird forever...and not if you do not fly it for hire. All in all...A good thing I think. We'll see.

[Len Petterson]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

This sound like the Canadian Owner Maintinence category.
Once the plane is in it, it's there. No more commersial operation.
If you sell it the new owner takes over, your maintinece, and ALL.
It is good in the sence what work requireing lots off costly laubour you can now do it self, and you dont have have anyone looking over your shoulder.
I Canada we have to follow all stc' 337 's or other approved methods.
Far 45 ???? the big white book!
And if we can codrorinate the poletichans to use the same name and standards, I can fly into USA agin! and the Vintage Aircrafts can come into Canada!
Len Petterson
Ps I have written about in this forum before.

[VictorBravo]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

When an airplane goes out of the country on export, and comes back to the USA, the owner can do what is called a "conformity inspection" and re-issue a standard airworthiness certificate. Why would this owner maintenance category be any different?

Conformity inspections can be a long road with an angry FAA inspector, but we're talking about whether it is possible first, then whether it is easy.

I am once again NOT sure that this is the best idea for safety with old airplanes or any airplanes. Some jackass can do something that is unsafe and never have anyone know about it. Then, the FIRST time a Taylorcraft or Luscombe crashes in a schoolyard , the FAA comes in with a smile and asks for the airworthiness certificates of ALL the airplanes in that owner maintenance category... for the interest of public safety. And then the "one-way" clause means you have no cards left to play.

Perhaps the FAA is looking at this as a long term plan to "relieve" itself of the burden of dealing with old airplanes once and for all. Wouldn't be the first time that our ability to fly has been threatened.

[Dano"T"]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

Part 43 airworthiness regs still apply.....This work must be known safe practices in all cases. I don't think it allows any Joe blow to just do whatever he wants. That's not at all the way I read it

[VictorBravo]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

OK, I'll break down and read it carefully. If I'm wrong I apologize... but the overtones of the FAA using an "owner maintenance" accident to wreak havoc is still looming large in my mind. The local FAA FSDO here in Van Nuys, CA just attempted to put an end to experimental airplanes flying out of the area, just because one microscopic bureaucrat thought she would reduce the workload at the expense of hundreds of airplane owners who had played by the rules and flown off their 40 hours. Intervention by EAA and AOPA are putting out that fire already, but the problem is that the FAA would attempt such a move in the fir5st place.

Vigilance is the price of freedom...

[VictorBravo]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I just read it. It sounds like a good idea in many areas, but there is nothing in the proposal as written that addresses how the airplane is inspected or wh can inspect it.

So, I can owner-certify that the work has been performed in accordance with AC 43.13, but does that mean I can sign it off? I can owner-certify that my idea for a small automotive alternator is a good idea, but who looks at it and determines it will not fall off over the White House and bonk W over the head?

I have to agree that moving away from type certificated data SHOULD make it so that I can't operate it as an airliner. But what about using an owner-certified Taylorcraft to give instruction for new Sport Pilot candidates for hire?

Most Taylorcraft owners are not interested in using it for commercial passenger operation, granted. I'd give up that option to gain more owner maintenance and upgrades. But why would they take away the ability to do a conformity inspection and go back to standard TC???

The FAA has just gone to great lengths to create categories for Light Sport Airplane mechanics and inspectors... perhaps this should be extended to cover owner-maintenance airplanes as well?

I also am interested to hear how this worked out in Canada, how the Canadian owners like it, how the MOT likes it, and how the insurance companies feel about it.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

EAA has been pushing this for several years now. I heard about it about 4 years ago at an Aging Aircraft meeting the FAA put on in KC, MO. It follows the same guidelines as the Canadian law. Under this law the owner would have the same basic rules as an experimental aircraft builder. The worst part about this is the "one-way" street for the airplane. Once you give up the paperwork, it will be no different than owning an experimental airplane. My opinion, it is more overlapping regulations this industry does not need. If you don't want to deal with the FAA anymore, go build an experimental and leave the antiques alone. There is nothing that can't be done to our airplanes that the current regulations do not allow.

Mike

[alwaysoar]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

A limitation to not carry persons for hire would not extend to instructing, if I read that correctly. So that in an LSA category TCraft, you could be in the vintage category, and continue to instruct which is about all TCrafts are used for anyway. Right?

[mulwyk]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

Well it sounds just great to me. After all you don't HAVE TO do it. So the Antique elite can continue to "deal with the FAA" and the folks that want to build an experimental can do that and the folks that just want to fly an economical old airplane can go the vintage aircraft route. Everyone wins.

And think about the combination of sport pilot and owner maintenance...there's going to be a bunch of people who want to buy a little gem like our beloved Taylorcraft. Just what the long ignored T-craft needs.

I can see where the folks that make a nice living on vintage aircraft maintenance would be afraid of owner-maintenance, but for the owners it a win/win/win situation.

Bob Gustafson

[robbie]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I agree with mulwyk. I've owned my plane for 24 years. I've recoverd it 22 years ago and rebuild the engine in 1986 or 1015 hours ago. I know this plane better than my AI. I tell him how much play is normal in the trim tab, ect.
I hope it comes about.
For you out there that don't like it, don't do it!!
If I can't sell my plane when I'm done with it, I'll part it out.
I only paid $2800 for it in 1981, and sold the ski that I got with it for $500.
Hell, I might give it away. It owns me nothing.
So don't screw it up for us poor guys on fixed income.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I have mentioned this many times. I sit in on the meetings of the Small Aircraft Directorate (dealing with Aging Aircraft)both at OSH , KC and any place they need a representative from the Type Clubs. I remind everyone that way back when EAA pushed to get "experimential- homebuilt" certified .IT was for the purpose of a person building an aircraft for his own recreation and enjoyment. THEN guys & gals decided to sell them. AT THAT point they lost airworthiness certification. they had to be given A " condition inspection" by the original builder or an A&P. That has now changed ( I think) . The "conformity inspection" is usually quite a joke as few FAA inspectors know what to look for after a ship has been under the Canada rules, or out of service here. I recall the 40 ft wingspan ship with a big Lycoming, homemade floats, flaps, etc.. trying to make it back into this country. The butchered up F-19 also comes to mind. The local FSDO calls me a lot and lately I just tell them to call the factory!! WE do have a factory , and the FAA should put their feet to the fire to make sure they supply "approved data" on each Type Certificate that they own ;OR give up that type certificate to someone who can supply the data needed by the present Owners.
IF you indeed want to keep it till you die, then put her into owner-maintenance and take your chances. I DO AGREE that a few of these ships will be far better maintained than some " certified" ones being signed off by I.A.'s . BUT look at some of the questions and replys we get on the discussion group, some owners just don't know or care....This forumn is not the place to get an A&P rating. Go to school for it.
Ahhhhh I feel a lot better, I may not respond for a while as I have to go to the Cleveland NASA auditorium ALL day tomorrow for my own Inspection Authorization renewal. Might learn a lot. OR they might! Or I might flunk the test. I will copy & read this Vintage stuff tomorrow. Well that did not take long to read , it is copy of a draft that I had sent to us back in Dec..; it is pretty straight forward. I guess we can use this thread for discussion and then I will post a new one for official comments . There will be a comment period by the FAA later on after public hearings. Good night Bob, back to the Torino show.

[flyguy]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

It's pretty much what I am doing already as most of the older AI's out here can tell right off whether I know what I am doing. I'm not into building spars or stuff lke that, but I usually catch the failing things and the safety problems before they do. I just keep making mine better, with the A.I.'s checking me out as I go. Sometimes sharp guys will buy off on something that the FAA would have apoplexy over because of what the "book" says, but the experienced ones know it isn't a problem. Sounds like it might be a good system for certain situations.
Darryl

[Jim Herpst]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

No suprise on this one at all. The FAA will be relieved of the type Cert liability and its attendent paperwork nightmare created by them and the owner becomes responsible.(Kind of like the medical self certification ala sport pilot umm?) I knew this was next.

This is progress folks (kinda like the building of a new subdivision going in the woods next door to you)... some win some loose... sorry to you AP and IA guys but we will win on this one as owners. Forrest, the clubs can help by not fighting this but instead embrase (sp?) it . This forum is a great tool to those who need to find out how where what etc.

Yes in Canada the planes that fall under this appear not to bring the same value ....on occasions SOMETIMES... but like any thing else if you keep you ship up and "clean" ie, un-molested and true to the orginal you will not suffer in the market place either.

Sorrry Forrest but I will be the first to put ol 24085 in this catagory when she is airworthy. After spending the time to re-build her it should be no other way. BRAVO EAA !!!!!!!!!!!

[Forrest Barber]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

No need to be sorry , I totally agree it is the way to go for some folks, I just feel we have far too many Taylorcraft aircraft out there at present to go over to Owner-maintenance.
For the fellows with Fairchilds, Waco's , Fleets , etc.. you know the ones! It will be good, I guess around here the Taylorcraft Owners are lucky to have IA's that know the ships ( not just me) and it is very simple to have the Annual done. By the way the 2 year Annual ( Bi-Annual?) is being looked at again for older ships. The FAA would be glad to get some of this stuff off their plate. For real confusion lets look at Light-Sport, I spent Sat. with Edsel Ford, head of that program. Anybody going to become a repairman should look at the restrictions on that program too!