Importing Canadien used aircraft

[Tom Downey]

CAR 507.03(6)(c) Remember, putting it into O-M is a Canadian thing. It "becomes" a different model. Trucking it back over the border doesn't change it back.

Even the Canadian owner can't change it back with out the overhauls. CAR 507.02(3)(a) Has to be done by an approved shop too - no field overhauls.

Realistically, a helpful person at FAA can look at the regs and what happened and try to reverse the dataplate issue. Problem is, the FAA wants nothing to do with O-M planes and wish they didn't exist. As well, when was the last time anyone was helpful at the FAA?

I will give you part that you can't fly it down here to get it imported, the rule changed in 2009, but the OM canada thing started in 2002, and many did fly in the US airspace until 2009.

You keep quoting the Canadian regs, when in reality we would be making the aircraft airworthy under the US FARs. and the X behind the S/N means nothing here.

And to further confuse things, who declares airworthiness during the import process? the A&P-IA doing the required annual inspection or the FAA ASI or DER who actually writes out the AWC?

and about the data tag issue for the engine, the engine is not required to have a data to be airworthy.

[turtle]

It all comes down to convincing someone of authority that the plane you bought is really a PA-22 (or whatever) when all the paperwork and dataplates say otherwise. Well, that, and the no traceability of parts problem. The S/N does mean something here because that is the number you imported it with.

An A&P-IA can declare airworthiness, but he won't unless he can prove traceability which he can't. (CYA)

The data tag on the engine will have an X added to the model. That exact model will not be listed on the TC as an acceptable engine for the conformity check.

[Dennis Long]

What is O M?

[Tom Downey]

O owner M maintained

[Tom Downey]

Most Canadian owners using the program keep their records and logs in much better condition than the US owners, and they have traceability the same way you do. their parts are made and tracked by the same people that manufacture and ship parts to you.

I live 60 miles from Canada, and have imported 6 aircraft from Canada when their dollar was weak, but now the aircraft are going the other way, and the Canadian officials are having problems gaining approval on our aircraft to meet their rules.

I'd not buy any junk no matter which country it was in, but just because the canadian owner has been in O M category and care, doesn't mean the aircraft isn't in pristine condition.

[Bill]

the FAA wants nothing to do with O-M planes and wish they didn't exist.

And what is your reference for this assertion? Who at the FAA said this?

[Canada1]

A word from Canada. The owner maintenance category solves a number of problems. As long as you don't want to use the aircraft commercially, you can do anything in OM that you can with a hombuilt. the only serious restriction is no repositionable landing gear. For instance if my 150 were to cough the engine, i can put the aircraft, engine and propellor into owner mtc and rebuild the engine myself, same as for a homebuilt. I can also then do all of my own mtc. I remember a large problem from a few years ago with getting information from the FAA on antique aircraft parts so that they could be reproduced. In owner mtc it is the owner/pilot (you must be both) who signs off the part replacement. There are limits as to what you can do without asking TC for approval. For instance you can make a 150/150 as long as you have an STC to follow. It also allows the rebuilding of old aircraft, (must be on the list from Transport Canada) and then getting them licensed as in the OM category. Think rebuild your tri-pacer, putting it on conventioal gear, increasing the length of the fuselage, putting two bays in each wing, and then treating the formerly certified aircraft as a homebuilt. What we have lost is the ability to take a certified aircraft and make so many changes that it can become a homebuilt. that has been discontinued, but allow for really interesting aircraft, like seabees with v8 chevs. Now we just put them into OM. Cheers

[Garth Elliot]

The original OM presentation to seek this category of licensing was intended to alleviate a development in which increasingly few mechanics wanted to work on older aircraft. Another consideration was that parts were becoming scarce. We wanted a way out of the perceived "developing blind alley" in this matter. Homebuilts were becoming more sophisticated and therefore we submitted that owner maintenance of simpler older aircraft was not an unreasonable concept.