New Vintage Category ???

[Montblack]

From today's AvWeb:
<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/602-full.html#191860>
EAA Proposes New Vintage Category

"Earl Lawrence, EAA's vice president of industry and regulatory affairs,
says too much time and money is spent trying to comply with regulations that
do nothing to improve the safety of aging aircraft, and in fact, the current
rules have become an impediment to safety. "We need a different system," he
told AVweb on Saturday. EAA and the Vintage Aircraft Association have asked
the FAA to create a new category for vintage aircraft, Lawrence said.
"Aircraft flown by private owners in low-stress, personal flying need to be
able to modernize. We need to make it easier for owners to maintain their
aircraft and keep them safe while cutting down on paperwork." The FAA liked
the proposal, he said. It would make their work easier, and enable them to
use their limited resources more efficiently. But that doesn't mean change
will happen overnight. A 10- to 12-year time frame would not surprise
anyone, Lawrence said."

Offering Owners Of Old Airplanes A Choice

"In their proposal for a new vintage category, EAA and the VAA said that
such aircraft would not be limited in size or complexity; Part 43
airworthiness regulations would still apply; the installation of parts and
items that are not PMA- or TSO-compliant would be allowed; and aircraft in
the new category would lose any privileges to carry persons or property for
hire. The owner would have the option to transfer to the new category or
not. No specific age limits were proposed."


[Me again]
It would be nice if at some point (30 years?) the plane would be considered
a homebuilt - it's yours, do what you want with it!

"30 years of oversight, our job is done. Now it's up to the pilot/owner" -
FAA.

Yeah, that'll happen ...in about 30 years! :-)


Montblack

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:02:10 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>From today's AvWeb:
><http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/602-full.html#191860>
>EAA Proposes New Vintage Category
>
>"Earl Lawrence, EAA's vice president of industry and regulatory affairs,
>says too much time and money is spent trying to comply with regulations that
>do nothing to improve the safety of aging aircraft, and in fact, the current
>rules have become an impediment to safety. "We need a different system," he
>told AVweb on Saturday. EAA and the Vintage Aircraft Association have asked
>the FAA to create a new category for vintage aircraft, Lawrence said.
>"Aircraft flown by private owners in low-stress, personal flying need to be
>able to modernize. We need to make it easier for owners to maintain their
>aircraft and keep them safe while cutting down on paperwork." The FAA liked
>the proposal, he said. It would make their work easier, and enable them to
>use their limited resources more efficiently. But that doesn't mean change
>will happen overnight. A 10- to 12-year time frame would not surprise
>anyone, Lawrence said."
>
>Offering Owners Of Old Airplanes A Choice
>
>"In their proposal for a new vintage category, EAA and the VAA said that
>such aircraft would not be limited in size or complexity; Part 43
>airworthiness regulations would still apply; the installation of parts and
>items that are not PMA- or TSO-compliant would be allowed; and aircraft in
>the new category would lose any privileges to carry persons or property for
>hire. The owner would have the option to transfer to the new category or
>not. No specific age limits were proposed."
>
>
>[Me again]
>It would be nice if at some point (30 years?) the plane would be considered
>a homebuilt - it's yours, do what you want with it!
>
>"30 years of oversight, our job is done. Now it's up to the pilot/owner" -
>FAA.
>
>Yeah, that'll happen ...in about 30 years! :-)
>
>
>Montblack
>
well it's already happened in Canada. Most vintage aircraft qualify
for the owner-maintenance category.

[Montblack]

("Drew Dalgleish" wrote)
> well it's already happened in Canada. Most vintage aircraft qualify for
> the owner-maintenance category.


What are the "vintage" years in the Canadian Regs?

Beside owner-maintenance, what can a vintage aircraft owner (in Canada) do
to their plane?

....anything that a 51% homebuilt owner (in the US) can do the theirs?


Montblack

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:45:09 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Drew Dalgleish" wrote)
>> well it's already happened in Canada. Most vintage aircraft qualify for
>> the owner-maintenance category.
>
>
>What are the "vintage" years in the Canadian Regs?
>
>Beside owner-maintenance, what can a vintage aircraft owner (in Canada) do
>to their plane?
>
>...anything that a 51% homebuilt owner (in the US) can do the theirs?
>
>
>Montblack
>
>
well it depends. The aircraft has to be unsupported and less than a
certain percentage in commercial use. It's been a while since I read
up on it but there's lots of info here.

http://www.copanational.org/non-members/index.htm

[Montblack]

("Drew Dalgleish" wrote)
> well it depends. The aircraft has to be unsupported and less than a
> certain percentage in commercial use. It's been a while since I read up on
> it but there's lots of info here.
>
> http://www.copanational.org/non-members/index.htm


[I found this.....]

COPA Guide to the Owner-Maintenance Category - HTML format > MS Word format
> PDF format

This guide explains the background and regulations governing the
Owner-Maintenance Aircraft Category. It includes everything you need to know
to put an aircraft in the O-M category.
COPA Member paper copy price $10.00. Non-member price: $15.00

[........site requires membership and password]


Montblack

[Dave Stadt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> From today's AvWeb:
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/602-full.html#191860>
> EAA Proposes New Vintage Category
>
> "Earl Lawrence, EAA's vice president of industry and regulatory affairs,
> says too much time and money is spent trying to comply with regulations
> that do nothing to improve the safety of aging aircraft, and in fact, the
> current rules have become an impediment to safety. "We need a different
> system," he told AVweb on Saturday. EAA and the Vintage Aircraft
> Association have asked the FAA to create a new category for vintage
> aircraft, Lawrence said. "Aircraft flown by private owners in low-stress,
> personal flying need to be able to modernize. We need to make it easier
> for owners to maintain their aircraft and keep them safe while cutting
> down on paperwork." The FAA liked the proposal, he said. It would make
> their work easier, and enable them to use their limited resources more
> efficiently. But that doesn't mean change will happen overnight. A 10- to
> 12-year time frame would not surprise anyone, Lawrence said."
>
> Offering Owners Of Old Airplanes A Choice
>
> "In their proposal for a new vintage category, EAA and the VAA said that
> such aircraft would not be limited in size or complexity; Part 43
> airworthiness regulations would still apply; the installation of parts and
> items that are not PMA- or TSO-compliant would be allowed; and aircraft in
> the new category would lose any privileges to carry persons or property
> for hire. The owner would have the option to transfer to the new category
> or not. No specific age limits were proposed."
>
>
> [Me again]
> It would be nice if at some point (30 years?) the plane would be
> considered a homebuilt - it's yours, do what you want with it!

This proposal is half way there but be careful what you ask for, you might
get it. Experimental category is not nirvina.

>
> "30 years of oversight, our job is done. Now it's up to the pilot/owner" -
> FAA.
>
> Yeah, that'll happen ...in about 30 years! :-)
>
>
> Montblack

[scott moore]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> From today's AvWeb:
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/602-full.html#191860>
>> EAA Proposes New Vintage Category
>>
>> "Earl Lawrence, EAA's vice president of industry and regulatory affairs,
>> says too much time and money is spent trying to comply with regulations
>> that do nothing to improve the safety of aging aircraft, and in fact, the
>> current rules have become an impediment to safety. "We need a different
>> system," he told AVweb on Saturday. EAA and the Vintage Aircraft
>> Association have asked the FAA to create a new category for vintage
>> aircraft, Lawrence said. "Aircraft flown by private owners in low-stress,
>> personal flying need to be able to modernize. We need to make it easier
>> for owners to maintain their aircraft and keep them safe while cutting
>> down on paperwork." The FAA liked the proposal, he said. It would make
>> their work easier, and enable them to use their limited resources more
>> efficiently. But that doesn't mean change will happen overnight. A 10- to
>> 12-year time frame would not surprise anyone, Lawrence said."
>>
>> Offering Owners Of Old Airplanes A Choice
>>
>> "In their proposal for a new vintage category, EAA and the VAA said that
>> such aircraft would not be limited in size or complexity; Part 43
>> airworthiness regulations would still apply; the installation of parts and
>> items that are not PMA- or TSO-compliant would be allowed; and aircraft in
>> the new category would lose any privileges to carry persons or property
>> for hire. The owner would have the option to transfer to the new category
>> or not. No specific age limits were proposed."
>>
>>
>> [Me again]
>> It would be nice if at some point (30 years?) the plane would be
>> considered a homebuilt - it's yours, do what you want with it!
>
> This proposal is half way there but be careful what you ask for, you might
> get it. Experimental category is not nirvina.
>
>> "30 years of oversight, our job is done. Now it's up to the pilot/owner" -
>> FAA.
>>
>> Yeah, that'll happen ...in about 30 years! :-)
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>
>

It seems like doing that would affect the value of the airplane. It
gives a future buyer the idea that shoddy maintenance was used, and
prevents it from ever going into leaseback service.

Make no mistake, I'd be for it if it meant we could get modern avionics
for a change, such as:

http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/elitemain.php

[Doug]

30 years? That would be everything 1976 and earlier, which is 1/2 the
training fleet!!!

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:03:51 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Drew Dalgleish" wrote)
>> well it depends. The aircraft has to be unsupported and less than a
>> certain percentage in commercial use. It's been a while since I read up on
>> it but there's lots of info here.
>>
>> http://www.copanational.org/non-members/index.htm
>
>
>[I found this.....]
>
>COPA Guide to the Owner-Maintenance Category - HTML format > MS Word format
> > PDF format
>
>This guide explains the background and regulations governing the
>Owner-Maintenance Aircraft Category. It includes everything you need to know
>to put an aircraft in the O-M category.
>COPA Member paper copy price $10.00. Non-member price: $15.00
>
>[........site requires membership and password]
>
>
>Montblack
>
opps I get logged on automatically. try looking here instead

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/NPAs/GOFR/Gaz2-mar02R.htm

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> This proposal is half way there but be careful what you ask for, you might
> get it. Experimental category is not nirvina.

Just curious; what do you see as drawbacks to the proposal?
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
>> This proposal is half way there but be careful what you ask for, you
>> might
>> get it. Experimental category is not nirvina.
>
> Just curious; what do you see as drawbacks to the proposal?
> --
> Jim in NC

Insurance, resale value, A&Ps that don't want to perform maintenance or do
annuals on experimentals, having that dumb EXPERIMENTAL sign plastered on
the plane.

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
>> Insurance,
>
> Has it gone up, in Canada, for owner maintained? I don't believe there
> has
> been a statistical increase in accidents or breakdowns, up north, IIRC.

Insurance for experimental aircraft in the US is higher than for certified
aircraft. Price insurance on a simple Kitfox. Insurance companies like to
know that an IA looks at the plane once a year.

>>resale value
>
> It could *increase* the value, if repairs and updates are done in a
> workman
> like maner, could it not?

I doubt it. At best RTS. If the plane was not maintained in a workmanship
manner while it was certified dropping it to experimental is not going to
change that fact.

>>A&Ps that don't want to perform maintenance or do annuals on
>>experimentals,
> having that dumb >EXPERIMENTAL sign plastered on the plane.
>
> I didn't think that being designated "experimental" was part of the
> designation involved.

No but "experimental" is what the original poster is looking for and to
which I responded.

> They are still the same plane as before, and if work was done on them just
> like before, except for some constraints lifted so things could be done
> even
> better than before, then A&P's should have no problem working on them.

Problem is no one knows what has been done. Granted, there is a bunch of
cobbled certified stuff flying around. Most A&Ps I know run away from
experimental. You could not do your own annuals as you are not the builder
of record.

> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Insurance,

Has it gone up, in Canada, for owner maintained? I don't believe there has
been a statistical increase in accidents or breakdowns, up north, IIRC.

>resale value

It could *increase* the value, if repairs and updates are done in a workman
like maner, could it not?

>A&Ps that don't want to perform maintenance or do annuals on experimentals,
having that dumb >EXPERIMENTAL sign plastered on the plane.

I didn't think that being designated "experimental" was part of the
designation involved.
They are still the same plane as before, and if work was done on them just
like before, except for some constraints lifted so things could be done even
better than before, then A&P's should have no problem working on them.
--
Jim in NC

[Denny]

Most A&Ps I know run away from
experimental.
***************************************
If half the planes on the field changed catagory the mechanics would
sing a different tune...

denny

[Javier]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>>
>>> This proposal is half way there but be careful what you ask for, you
>>> might
>>> get it. Experimental category is not nirvina.
>> Just curious; what do you see as drawbacks to the proposal?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Insurance, resale value, A&Ps that don't want to perform maintenance or do
> annuals on experimentals, having that dumb EXPERIMENTAL sign plastered on
> the plane.

Fine, so keep your plane in the production certificated category, and
let the rest of us do with our planes as we please.

-jav

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Montblack > wrote:

: This guide explains the background and regulations governing the
: Owner-Maintenance Aircraft Category. It includes everything you need to know
: to put an aircraft in the O-M category.
: COPA Member paper copy price $10.00. Non-member price: $15.00

Hi Montblack! The Canadian regs sound pretty good, but there is no
international acceptance of the owner maintained category - at least there
is no US acceptance. Thus, these Canadian aircraft can't be legally flown
in the US. This was written up in the last 2 Osh Notams.
--
Aaron C.

[Dave Stadt]

"Javier" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>>>
>>>> This proposal is half way there but be careful what you ask for, you
>>>> might
>>>> get it. Experimental category is not nirvina.
>>> Just curious; what do you see as drawbacks to the proposal?
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>> Insurance, resale value, A&Ps that don't want to perform maintenance or
>> do annuals on experimentals, having that dumb EXPERIMENTAL sign plastered
>> on the plane.
>
> Fine, so keep your plane in the production certificated category, and let
> the rest of us do with our planes as we please.
>
> -jav

I could care less what you do with your airplane.

[pittss1c]

The other relevant arguement is that we are "wearing them out taking
them apart every year"
There are only so many times you can remove and replace screws into wood
and thin metal before some strip.


Mike

Montblack wrote:
> From today's AvWeb:
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/602-full.html#191860>
> EAA Proposes New Vintage Category
>
> "Earl Lawrence, EAA's vice president of industry and regulatory affairs,
> says too much time and money is spent trying to comply with regulations
> that do nothing to improve the safety of aging aircraft, and in fact,
> the current rules have become an impediment to safety. "We need a
> different system," he told AVweb on Saturday. EAA and the Vintage
> Aircraft Association have asked the FAA to create a new category for
> vintage aircraft, Lawrence said. "Aircraft flown by private owners in
> low-stress, personal flying need to be able to modernize. We need to
> make it easier for owners to maintain their aircraft and keep them safe
> while cutting down on paperwork." The FAA liked the proposal, he said.
> It would make their work easier, and enable them to use their limited
> resources more efficiently. But that doesn't mean change will happen
> overnight. A 10- to 12-year time frame would not surprise anyone,
> Lawrence said."
>
> Offering Owners Of Old Airplanes A Choice
>
> "In their proposal for a new vintage category, EAA and the VAA said that
> such aircraft would not be limited in size or complexity; Part 43
> airworthiness regulations would still apply; the installation of parts
> and items that are not PMA- or TSO-compliant would be allowed; and
> aircraft in the new category would lose any privileges to carry persons
> or property for hire. The owner would have the option to transfer to the
> new category or not. No specific age limits were proposed."
>
>
> [Me again]
> It would be nice if at some point (30 years?) the plane would be
> considered a homebuilt - it's yours, do what you want with it!
>
> "30 years of oversight, our job is done. Now it's up to the pilot/owner"
> - FAA.
>
> Yeah, that'll happen ...in about 30 years! :-)
>
>
> Montblack

[scott moore]

pittss1c wrote:
> The other relevant arguement is that we are "wearing them out taking
> them apart every year"
> There are only so many times you can remove and replace screws into wood
> and thin metal before some strip.

I have an answer for that, after doing my owner assisted annual for 7+
years now. As an engineer, and as someone who formerly worked on cars,
I really appreciate the way my airplane is put together. Virtually every
screw that has any important function has a replaceable insert it screws
into. After performing a few annuals, I started to get the bad ones
replaced. It became clear that it was me who was going to deal with
these stripped and broken fasteners year after year. I also started to
replace the odd assortment of screws various mechanics had put in over
the years with the original screws. In one case, the back seat nut plate
had been stripped and pushed aside, then replaced with a bolt. This
meant putting it together required pulling several floor inspection
plates and contorting my arm to hold the bolt underneath. Thats fixed
now, and it saves time and swearing.

All and all, my airplane is in far better shape than it ever was, and
getting better year by year.

[pittss1c]

I think your comment is right on for modern airplanes (the last 40 or 50
years) when you go past that, there are often no inserts to receive the
screws (wood screws and machine screws). They often go into wood, or
directly into steel/aluminum. As a result they get bigger screws over
the years until you have a mix of #6 #8 and #10 throughout the plane
followd by often more significant action (after #10 is too small) (makes
putting it back together fun :)
Much of this "wear" is from taking apart fairings and panels of
vintage/antique planes for annual that don't fly nearly the hours of
your local airport rental plane, yet the same requirements apply.

Mike

scott moore wrote:
> pittss1c wrote:
>
>> The other relevant arguement is that we are "wearing them out taking
>> them apart every year"
>> There are only so many times you can remove and replace screws into
>> wood and thin metal before some strip.
>
>
> I have an answer for that, after doing my owner assisted annual for 7+
> years now. As an engineer, and as someone who formerly worked on cars,
> I really appreciate the way my airplane is put together. Virtually every
> screw that has any important function has a replaceable insert it screws
> into. After performing a few annuals, I started to get the bad ones
> replaced. It became clear that it was me who was going to deal with
> these stripped and broken fasteners year after year. I also started to
> replace the odd assortment of screws various mechanics had put in over
> the years with the original screws. In one case, the back seat nut plate
> had been stripped and pushed aside, then replaced with a bolt. This
> meant putting it together required pulling several floor inspection
> plates and contorting my arm to hold the bolt underneath. Thats fixed
> now, and it saves time and swearing.
>
> All and all, my airplane is in far better shape than it ever was, and
> getting better year by year.