Query: Canadian Owner maintenance

[Stealth Pilot]

Guys
searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
I've searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
find it.
can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.

thanks
Stealth pilot
Australia

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:13:14 +0800, Stealth Pilot > wrote:

> Guys
> searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
> I've searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
> find it.
> can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
> maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.

It's not a legislative action, it's a regulatory one. See

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/507s.htm

Google "canada aircraft owner maintenance" for lots of other information.

Ron Wanttaja

[Nemo]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:13:14 +0800, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>
>> Guys
>> searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
>> I've searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
>> find it.
>> can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
>> maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.
>
> It's not a legislative action, it's a regulatory one. See
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/507s.htm
>
> Google "canada aircraft owner maintenance" for lots of other information.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

The OM category has basically been proven to be a disaster for the owner.
The intent was good but
the reality of it sucks. While your maintenance costs do drop so does the
value of the airframe. As soon
as it enter the category it basically becomes a orphan. Say it is a J3 which
is typical of the simple designs
that OM was intended. You can't just recertify and end your problems without
getting each and every part
recertified. And because of restrictions of trans border flight into the US
it has less resale value than say a
amatuerbuilt Cubby. This is the only category that the US does not grant
temp flight permits to. The airplanes are
not certified anymore and they are never inspected under any of the other
categories so in effect they fly at
the whim of the CDN govt. And the FAA just won't whim it. Most responsible
pilot organizations in Canada
(not going to name names on who is being naughty opa) have been actively
recommending NOT to do
anything with this category for the last few years.

Nemo

[M]

The loss of access to US airspace is by far the biggest problem for
Canadian OM category, considering how often Canadian private planes fly
to the states. The loss of resale value stems directly from the fact
that those planes can't legally enter U.S.

I however would love to see FAA creates an equivalance of OM here.
That will be a big boom of GA.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:50:37 GMT, "Nemo" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:13:14 +0800, Stealth Pilot >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys
>>> searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
>>> I've searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
>>> find it.
>>> can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
>>> maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.
>>
>> It's not a legislative action, it's a regulatory one. See
>>
>> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/507s.htm
>>
>> Google "canada aircraft owner maintenance" for lots of other information.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
thanks Ron. Much appreciated. I couldnt find it for looking.


>The OM category has basically been proven to be a disaster for the owner.
>The intent was good but
>the reality of it sucks. While your maintenance costs do drop so does the
>value of the airframe. As soon
>as it enter the category it basically becomes a orphan. Say it is a J3 which
>is typical of the simple designs
>that OM was intended. You can't just recertify and end your problems without
>getting each and every part
>recertified. And because of restrictions of trans border flight into the US
>it has less resale value than say a
>amatuerbuilt Cubby. This is the only category that the US does not grant
>temp flight permits to. The airplanes are
>not certified anymore and they are never inspected under any of the other
>categories so in effect they fly at
>the whim of the CDN govt. And the FAA just won't whim it. Most responsible
>pilot organizations in Canada
>(not going to name names on who is being naughty opa) have been actively
>recommending NOT to do
>anything with this category for the last few years.
>
>Nemo
>

I accept what you say but my correspondence with a canadian owner or
two paints an entirely different picture. They achieve great enjoyment
in maintaining and operating their aircraft, and do it safely without
fuss.

The category is not deficient at all. People do seem to see the FAA
position as a condemnation of the category but this isnt necessarily
the case. For the life of me I cant see why the EAA has never pursued
this category. It makes an amazing amount of sense for homebuilts like
mine built by previous owners where there are no similar aircraft
around.

resale???? who sells an aircraft they love flying.
Stealth pilot

[[email protected]]

There are those who plan to keep their OM airplane, and
for those the resale value is irrelevant. There's a tradeoff between
resale value and OM as well: if you want to keep an old airplane
certified, be prepared to pay more and more money to replace
increasingly scarce parts, or to have them made and certified, or to
have them STC'd onto the airplane. None of that is cheap or quick. Over
the course of a few years the maintenance costs could easily outrun the
loss in resale value.
As an AME I have seen the wrong parts or even uncertified
parts on old certified airplanes. The aircraft isn't legally airworthy
in that case anyway and if an insurance company finds such stuff after
an accident they might refuse to pay out; what's the loss then?
And as an AME, if I owned an old airplane I would put it
on OM just to avoid the often ridiculous parts prices. All of us know
that some of those parts are the same (or close enough) as are found in
older cars, things like alternators or generators, voltage regulators,
belts, wheel bearings, engine instruments, seat belts, bulbs and so on.
Many others are easily fabricated; I spent years in a machine shop and
know just how easy it is to make some of those things. Homebuilders do
it all the time.
The big danger is the OM owner who has no mechanical
aptitude; the guy who puts hardware-store nuts and bolts in his
structure or repairs it with less-than-equivalent materials. He weakens
the airplane and puts himself and others at risk.

Dan

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:50:37 GMT, "Nemo" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:13:14 +0800, Stealth Pilot >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys
>>> searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
>>> I've searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
>>> find it.
>>> can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
>>> maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.
>>
>> It's not a legislative action, it's a regulatory one. See
>>
>> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/507s.htm
>>
>> Google "canada aircraft owner maintenance" for lots of other information.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
>The OM category has basically been proven to be a disaster for the owner.
>The intent was good but
>the reality of it sucks. While your maintenance costs do drop so does the
>value of the airframe. As soon
>as it enter the category it basically becomes a orphan. Say it is a J3 which
>is typical of the simple designs
>that OM was intended. You can't just recertify and end your problems without
>getting each and every part
>recertified. And because of restrictions of trans border flight into the US
>it has less resale value than say a
>amatuerbuilt Cubby. This is the only category that the US does not grant
>temp flight permits to. The airplanes are
>not certified anymore and they are never inspected under any of the other
>categories so in effect they fly at
>the whim of the CDN govt. And the FAA just won't whim it. Most responsible
>pilot organizations in Canada
>(not going to name names on who is being naughty opa) have been actively
>recommending NOT to do
>anything with this category for the last few years.
>
>Nemo
>
>
Most OM owners are planning to have their planes for a long time so
resale isn't much of an issue. The OM planes I've seen advertized are
asking about the same price as certified. I don't know if they're
getting it but it would seem that prices haven't been affected that
much. the big drawback to OM right now is not being able to fly into
the states but to say that it will never happen might not be right
either. Remember how long it took before canadian registered
ultralights were allowed in.

[Nemo]

> Most OM owners are planning to have their planes for a long time so
> resale isn't much of an issue. The OM planes I've seen advertized are
> asking about the same price as certified. I don't know if they're
> getting it but it would seem that prices haven't been affected that
> much. the big drawback to OM right now is not being able to fly into
> the states but to say that it will never happen might not be right
> either. Remember how long it took before canadian registered
> ultralights were allowed in.

The ones that are selling are taking a 30-50% hit on the sale price.
The ones that do benefit from it are the orphaned designs that are not
supported by either the manufacturer or other means. The guys that are
taking their 68 172 into OM are the ones that are throwing away value
and a lot of usefulness. I see a whole lot of Aircoupes being brought into
OM
and they end up looking better than new. That is and was the initial intent
but
other than a few good successes' the category is a disaster.

OM and AULA are different kettles of fish. Aula does not have
a certificate but are supposedly built to a established standard. That
standard
was borrowed in some aspect to create SP in the US. OM has no recognizable
flight authorization which is why they were at first allowed then disallowed
from
entry into the US. Bula sort of slipped through the cracks because of the
licensing
and training required on the Canadian side of the border. Most Bula's don't
have
an equivalent south of the border either but everyone ignores that
(thankfully).

Nemo

[John Halpenny]

Nemo wrote:

> The ones that are selling are taking a 30-50% hit on the sale price.
> The ones that do benefit from it are the orphaned designs that are not
> supported by either the manufacturer or other means. The guys that are
> taking their 68 172 into OM are the ones that are throwing away value
> and a lot of usefulness. I see a whole lot of Aircoupes being brought into
> OM
> and they end up looking better than new. That is and was the initial intent
> but
> other than a few good successes' the category is a disaster.
>
This may be bad for the seller, but if you are a buyer, a 30% lower
price, plus no more certified parts sounds like a bargain. You need to
know how to maintain it, but you wanted to do that anyway, didn't you?

John Halpenny

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:57:58 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:50:37 GMT, "Nemo" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:13:14 +0800, Stealth Pilot >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guys
>>>> searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
>>>> I've searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
>>>> find it.
>>>> can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
>>>> maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.
>>>
>>> It's not a legislative action, it's a regulatory one. See
>>>
>>> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/507s.htm
>>>
>>> Google "canada aircraft owner maintenance" for lots of other information.
>>>
>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>
>>The OM category has basically been proven to be a disaster for the owner.
>>The intent was good but
>>the reality of it sucks. While your maintenance costs do drop so does the
>>value of the airframe. As soon
>>as it enter the category it basically becomes a orphan. Say it is a J3 which
>>is typical of the simple designs
>>that OM was intended. You can't just recertify and end your problems without
>>getting each and every part
>>recertified. And because of restrictions of trans border flight into the US
>>it has less resale value than say a
>>amatuerbuilt Cubby. This is the only category that the US does not grant
>>temp flight permits to. The airplanes are
>>not certified anymore and they are never inspected under any of the other
>>categories so in effect they fly at
>>the whim of the CDN govt. And the FAA just won't whim it. Most responsible
>>pilot organizations in Canada
>>(not going to name names on who is being naughty opa) have been actively
>>recommending NOT to do
>>anything with this category for the last few years.
>>
>>Nemo
>>
>>
>Most OM owners are planning to have their planes for a long time so
>resale isn't much of an issue. The OM planes I've seen advertized are
>asking about the same price as certified. I don't know if they're
>getting it but it would seem that prices haven't been affected that
>much. the big drawback to OM right now is not being able to fly into
>the states but to say that it will never happen might not be right
>either. Remember how long it took before canadian registered
>ultralights were allowed in.


What is going to kill OM in Canada is the rediculous requirement
(currently - and just implemented) that the plane MUST PASS INSPECTION
before being converted to OM. You cannot take a non flying,
non-airworthy plane and place it in OM, then replace the engine with a
non-certified unit.

If you have such a plane, which requires significant repairs, you are
better to have it appraised for 51% and then de-register it and turn
it into a home-built.. Your Cessna 150 is then no longer a Cessna -
but it is a legal flying plane with whatever power-plant you want to
put in it - and it has been inspected by the MDRA to more or less
ensure it is safely modified and "restored".
Much better, in my opinion, than OM.

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Stealth Pilot]

On Wed, 03 May 2006 22:31:35 -0400, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:



>
>
>What is going to kill OM in Canada is the rediculous requirement
>(currently - and just implemented) that the plane MUST PASS INSPECTION
>before being converted to OM. You cannot take a non flying,
>non-airworthy plane and place it in OM, then replace the engine with a
>non-certified unit.
>
>If you have such a plane, which requires significant repairs, you are
>better to have it appraised for 51% and then de-register it and turn
>it into a home-built.. Your Cessna 150 is then no longer a Cessna -
>but it is a legal flying plane with whatever power-plant you want to
>put in it - and it has been inspected by the MDRA to more or less
>ensure it is safely modified and "restored".
>Much better, in my opinion, than OM.
>
>*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

it is amazing the codswallop we go through in the name of
certification. the actual requirement is an aircraft which is
structurally sound and from personal experience it isnt all that hard
to achieve.
I am personally fully in support of owner maintenance.

at the moment in australia I am unable to get a LAME who will sign out
my aircraft with out an extortionate bill and the expectation of
unlimited hours on the job. all the while the aircraft sits in the
hangar in perfectly airworthy condition.
I have decided that this is all crap and to be ignored.
I have the $25,000 investment not the stupid governement agency.

now how do I know that my aircraft is airworthy?
there seems little doubt of the fact while cruising at 121knots....
Stealth :-) Pilot

[[email protected]]

>What is going to kill OM in Canada is the rediculous requirement
>(currently - and just implemented) that the plane MUST PASS INSPECTION
>before being converted to OM. You cannot take a non flying,
>non-airworthy plane and place it in OM, then replace the engine with a
>non-certified unit.

I don't see that in the CARs. I do see, in CAR Std
507.02(3) that an OM airplane, if it's to be put back into certified
condition, will need that inspection. CAR Std 507.03(6) deals with the
OM and it doesn't say anything about needing any certification before
registering as OM. Am I missing something here?

Dan