New small airplane laws may allow owner Owner Maintenance!!!

[beechboyA36]

Bill

No expert here, but many of the things you listed it covers, such a placard requirement to warn passengers. You should read it, you might actually like it. How often do we see an FAA proposal that actually REDUCES regulations? I think this is a blessing no matter what form it is!


I guess what I like about it the most is that it allows choices. If you want to stay standard category, you can. If you want to maintain it yourself, you can. If you want to go back and forth - you can.

As it says in the text, this approach has proven safe for experimetal airplanes now for like 50 years. While would it not be safe then for a factory airplane? Or are we saying here that experimentals are dangerous and the practice should be stopped?

My own feelings, as little as they count for, is that I want GA to grow again. This is one approach that MAY make things better. There must be a reason that experimetal aircraft are the only sector that is growing, so copying that stuff over to factory airplanes may make an impact. Most of all though, I want flexibility - this gives me and other like me that without forcing other owners to do anything.

On another note I showed this at my Chapter meeting. Many of the homebuilders loved it also because they said it removed the operating limitations from experimentals.

[scott f]

I agree with the Beechboy

Bill, as you said most people you know would continue to get top notch maintenance - that’s Great. But it is also a perfect example of why this approach would work. Most warbirds are experimentals and can be worked on by the owners requiring only a yearly A&P condition inspection. (unless of course they are limited category like the airplanes you cite) These are Safe - So most warbirds already have this privilege and people are still getting top notch MX. I think this actually is an example for this type of approach.

If an owner is willing to accept the same operating limitations as an experimental, then it is certianly both logical and fair that they can have the same maintenance program.

Plus like the Beechboy said - are we really arguing against a proposal that vastly reduces regulations?

Bill, on a side note - as a warbird guy I am SURE you know everything going on with operating limitations. There is some interesting stuff in this thing you might like about that too.

[steveinindy]

How often do we see an FAA proposal that actually REDUCES regulations? I think this is a blessing no matter what form it is!

You might look at the so-called "law of unintended consequences". Such a move might, directly or indirectly, lead to more regulation if sufficient numbers of people start doing their own maintenance and having operational problems (read as: "crashes") as a result. That old joke about "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of their fellow man" is a good one to apply to situations. You don't write regulations for the smartest pilot or the pilot/builder who has all the skills necessary to fix any mechanical issue. You write them for the one you wouldn't fly with or the one that if they touched a plane you wouldn't reposition it on the apron let alone take off in it.

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions and the easiest person to hang is the one who asks you to hand them the rope.....

Plus like the Beechboy said - are we really arguing against a proposal

No, just remembering that you never take a regulation or operational measure at face value. What seems like a good idea at the time often in hindsight seems like one of those "What the hell were they thinking?" scenario.

that vastly reduces regulations?

So you perceive it...most likely because you wish it to be so. Don't let a confirmation bias allow you to think without hard and fast operational proof that a government agency is going to do something to reduce it's hold on it's respective "turf".

[Dana]

Doesn't the existing Primary category allow for an increased amount of owner maintenance? AFAIK there's only one aircraft model (Quicksilver GT-500) ever certificated in that category, but it's possible to convert a normal or utility category registration to primary and get the benefits (and, yes, restrictions). I was thinking of doing that with my Taylorcraft, but as I recall there was no way to revert back to standard registration, which could have affected resale value.

Seems analogous to the procedure for converting an existing SLSA to ELSA, after which anybody can work on it.

[martymayes]

Doesn't the existing Primary category allow for an increased amount of owner maintenance? AFAIK there's only one aircraft model (Quicksilver GT-500) ever certificated in that category,

Yes, with proper training. From Rev. Jim memory, I think RANs has/had a model certificated in the primary category, so there should be at least 2. Primary category was a complete flop and part of the reason was there wasn't any interest despite the number of people who claim they want an aircraft they can maintain themselves.

but it's possible to convert a normal or utility category registration to primary and get the benefits (and, yes, restrictions). I was thinking of doing that with my Taylorcraft, but as I recall there was no way to revert back to standard registration, which could have affected resale value.

If you do it with the STC process I would think you could convert it back to standard registration unless the FAA requires some language otherwise. Guess we could ask an STC holder about that.

The proposal seems to seek the freedom to convert back and forth but I'm not holding my breath on that one. They tried the same thing in Canada with the O-M category but the final rule intentionally makes it very difficult (re: completely impractical) to convert back to standard. In fact the guidance specifically says if there is any chance that an owner might want to convert back to normal, they should not seek O-M classification.

[Frank Giger]

I guess I'm missing a lot about what is required to be done by an A&P/IA and what can be done by the owner - or maybe I'm just involved with the wrong sorts of aircraft?

Looking at a Champ, there's gobs of stuff the owner can do himself and save a bunch of money, from recovering the aircraft (follow the STC and get a sign-off) to repacking the gear bearings right down to the mundane stuff of changing the oil.

Heck, one can restore a factory built aircraft from the dataplate up by one's self if it's all documented and inspected properly, as our vintage folks can attest.

Engine overhauls are beyond most people's skills nowadays (tools and machines notwithstanding) as is airframe repair, so that wouldn't really change anything.

OTOH, if one wants to seriously modify the design and function of an aircraft the option exists for almost carte blanch path to owner/operators, where one gets Repairman Authority from spinner to rudder. It's called homebuilding. Want to convert from gas to electric powerplants? Go ahead! Put in the paperwork and return it to test flight status. Want to change out the instruments by type and layout? No paperwork required other than annotation in the aircraft logs.

And this, btw, is why Experimental isn't a bad or onerous label in the least bit.

[steveinindy]

And this, btw, is why Experimental isn't a bad or onerous label in the least bit.

Because then I can't use that 32% of my larger design's MTOW that's fuel to serve as a tanker above the holding pattern at Oshkosh. *Vincent Price laugh*

[rawheels]

there's gobs of stuff the owner can do himself and save a bunch of money, from recovering the aircraft (follow the STC and get a sign-off) to repacking the gear bearings right down to the mundane stuff of changing the oil.

There are a lot of maintenance items that pilots can perform, but you need to be aware of which items you can do on your own (a lot more than you think) and which require oversight by an A&P; Recovering an aircraft is definitely a supervison item. Here is a old article, but still very useful one, describing the different tasks that can be performed: http://www.watsonvillepilots.org/articles/DIYmaint.htm

[Dana]

...there's gobs of stuff the owner can do himself and save a bunch of money, from recovering the aircraft (follow the STC and get a sign-off) to repacking the gear bearings right down to the mundane stuff of changing the oil.

Heck, one can restore a factory built aircraft from the dataplate up by one's self if it's all documented and inspected properly, as our vintage folks can attest...

Yes, but none of that (except for repacking wheel bearings) is legal owner maintenance, as it all has to be signed off by an A&P. You can do any work on any airplane if you have an A&P willing to sign it off, which is not what we're talking about here.

Years ago, the engine in my T-Craft lost a valve seat. The shop at the field where I was stuck had a deal, the owner could do the work (in my case removing the jug, taking it elsewhere for repair, and putting it all back together again), in their shop, with their tools, under their supervision, and the A&P would sign it off, for half of their standard hourly rate. I took advantage of it... realizing afterwards that it cost me just as much since it no doubt took me twice as long to complete the job as the experienced A&P would have... but it was worth it as I learned a lot in the process.

[aosunaiv]

Hello everyone, new guy here. The file was an interesting read, but I have to agree with the folks that believe the ability to blow off an AD is a bad thing. Additionally, I think most of us know it, but it wasn't stated here that the reason that EAB builders have expanded maintenance privileges, is because they BUILT the airplane. If they didn't build the airplane, then they'd have to seek competent technical personnel to perform anything other than minor maintenance, unless they received additional training. Finally, how many times have we read about non A&P personnel performing unauthorized maintenance, that cost them their lives? Thanks for listening.

BTW, I know there are sub-par A&Ps out there, as well.