New Vintage Category ???

"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.

"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

"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

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

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.