Query: Canadian Owner maintenance

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

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/Re...dards/507s.htm

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

Ron Wanttaja

"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/Re...dards/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

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.

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/Re...dards/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

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

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/Re...dards/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.

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

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

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/Re...dards/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 ***