EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

[Richard Boyer]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I am leery of the new category. I know some don't like it because of what they perceive as poor maintenance, but that isn't a concern to me. People that do poor maintenance are going to do it anyways. Those of us that care about quality work will make sure it is done right (in my case, checked by others that are A&p's or IA's). My concern of the new category is what it will do to the value of my plane.

Richard Boyer
N95791
N5227B

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

This is a most interesting set of issues. Right now I'm suing a IA for putting on auto parts, not logging things properly, and other things too numerous to mention. Even Forrest has been giving opinions and advice to all parties. Basically the mis-logging appears to be a cover-up. So regarding my plane the IA did three things wrong. He (1)put on bad/incorrect parts (2) didn't log it. (3) and signed off the airplane airworthy on it's annual. Kevin Mayes had to put it down fast to keep it from falling apart after about 12 hours of ferrying. Good work Kevin!

When I talked to the FAA I couldn't believe the hoops they put me through, FSDO not wanting to be a consumer complaint dept. By my estimations the FAA is not ready to work these things out and must be staffed up. I'm doubtful this will happen. So I see trouble. They have trouble handeling the regular issues. This change will make them even more burdened. That said, once the FAA got all the information (it took 6 months and it was something that I had to pay dearly for) -- They've done their job well.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[crispy critter]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

All in a days work Ed.....I just wish you could have got your money's worth to start with from the guy...it really was a bad deal.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

Kevin you're much too modest. Basically the issue comes down to self-policing. Can we trust each other? While there are mostly good pilots and mechanics, a few can cause huge problems. In my case $35K worth of lawyers and investigation to resolve a problem on a plane worth $25K.
After this, I still don't have an operating plane and must wait for the legal system to resolve the issue.

My point about all of this is -- Trust. Given the occasional slip-shod, worse than shade tree mechanic and owner...
The FAA will require so much detail before it will get involved and until the price of the Taylorcrafts rise to the level of it's similar breeds -- Piper Cubs for instance. The chances of a corner-cutter running a scam on an oldy and not too goody Taylorcraft seem probable. In this case the FAA is your friend but not your partner. And as all friends do, they feel sorry for you but clueless as to direct help. They'd much prefer to find a problem with a 707 that involves more money and lives. It's an economic thing as most things are. Our only defense is hoping that these little bird get rather expensive since they'll never also carry
200 paying customers. So for us, I think this proposal is not a good idea for the fleet as whole but only for the owner/operator looking to save a few dollars on their cost of upkeep. With regards; Ed O'Brien

[dedrekon]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I just received the new issue of Sport Aviation, the EAA magazine, which contains another article about the Vintage Aircraft Proposal. My reading indicates very clearly that owners would NOT be allowed to maintain their airplanes by themselves. Airplanes converted to this category would still require annuals by properly certified mechanics and would have to adhere to all other airworthiness guidelines for certificated aircraft.
The exception would only be that "the owner/operator and his mechanic may complete maintenance, repairs and alterations based on general safety standards in the form of acceptable data, as opposed to FAA-approved type certificate data."
Their reasoning is that approved type certificate data is simply not available because it's either non-existent (lost over the years), or in the hands of someone who is reluctant to share it for fear of liability (a valid concern in this sue happy land). The other point was that today's "acceptable data" products and engineering is, in most cases, superior to the engineering and products available 60 years ago. The example they give is the relatively simple and safe change to hydraulic brakes from the cable actuated calipers common to older birds.
This is not a new Experimental category; Part 43 airworthiness regulations would still apply. There would still be a certified mechanic responsible for the airworthiness of these airplanes.

[Marv]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

As long as there is inspectors A&P s IA s oir any other person with authority who will determine quality of parts and how there put on there will also be graph,
whether it is goverment controled or not. Money talks and things will be oked whether they are or not. Rules are made to break and the controlers of the rules to make money. I think the ordinary pilot owner is going to make his aircraft as safe as he can. The ones to look out for is the ones buying , fixing and selling the airplanes all of the time. Marv

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I think that my point is two-fold:
(1) Vague and ambiguious liability for work performed by an owner and checked by a mechanic. Some of which can not easily be examined by an otherwise trusting IA. In my plane's case there were many such issues. Fortunately for my lawsuit the former owner/mechanic/rebuilder/IA/ and signer of the annual are all the same guy. That makes my lawsuit straight-forward. In almost all other cases everybody will either take the 5th, or point the finger at the other guy. The FAA will be confused and perplexed. So unless the IA checks every screw, fitting, bolt, and wire... in my case there are so many of these little things... So many that the entire plane needs to be stripped down to the ninth detail, that my advice here is -- (and please pardon the rhyme) trouble will ensue and lawsuits without resolution will too.
(2) We know how the current system works. We know who is right and who is responsible. The mechanic and IA are not so much partners working toward the same goal. But, a sometimes adversary's -- each protecting their own turf, liability, livelyhoods, and lives. This slightly adversial system, reinforces and butresses the FAA rules and regs. Changing the system will lead to unintended consequences and particularly if the plane is to be sold off -- corner cutting by the greedy former owner and will cause deaths and destruction while operated by the new owner. I can think of many other examples but consequences in the air are seldom happy experiences. This kind of thing happens all the time with cars that are unsafely restored by owners, I expect the same here.
With regards;
Ed O'Brien

[dedrekon]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

I guess I just don't see how having an airplane in this new category would change any of the issues presented here. There will always be slip shop work and money will always get things by that shouldn't get by. In the words of the song: "same as it ever was".
Factually. much of the work signed off by IA's right now is actually done by the owners.....especially in the case of Taylorcrafts. If your IA DID check every screw, it would cost so much most of us couldn't fly. In my mind, the only significant change under this proposal is the ability to use "acceptable data" for modifications or repair. Other than that, it's the same set up as we have right now.
I do share concerns over the effect on value of the airplane and the cost of insurance, but only time will answer those questions. I also greatly sympathize with Ed and his problems with someone who clearly should not be a certified IA and I applaud your resolve in going after them.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: EAA Vintage Aircraft Proposal

Not to argue this issue for I'm quite at peace that all matters will eventually resolve themselves. But... the
owner/rebuilder/IA/seller that caused my suffering is more akin to the new proposed system than it is the old or shall we say current system.
One greedy guy can take advantage of anybody. Best to have checks and double checks, all the way around. So an owner, mechanic, IA, and maybe shop owner too all looking over each other shoulders seems to work, if in a messy way. One guy with a black heart, may not.

Also, if a shop takes care of several Taylorcrafts, knows the airplanes, has the shop manuals, parts suppliers, etc.and are up to date and ready to go and make say $400 per annual. Then it's both a rare place, as in Forrest's shop, and a place worth paying. For the rest of us. If the IA/shop can only make say $100 per year off one old T-Craft on the field -- and they can make $400 plus off a Bonanza, let's say. How much investment in proper tools, knowledge, equipment, and paperwork are the shops going to make? How much are they going to care about your little darling. I don't run a shop so this is just an unlucky owner's perspective.

As Taylorcrafts are discovered as the great machines they are. As people realize the factory will back them up with parts. As values rise... there will be a temptation to take an old broken down pig and put some lipstick on her for a price. To buy real low and sell real high and do it real fast. I saw it happen with Bonanzas and C-182s, in the 1980s. Luckily I avoided buying any of those. And, since I think I'm the first lip-sticked pig owner on the board... I thought I'd raise the concern.

I thank you for your well wishes. I wish you well in return, as I do all members of the well mannered, well meaning, and knowledgable board.
With regards;
Ed O'Brien