Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 99

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

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    I'm with Steve on this one! I have done only very basic maintenance that is allowed under the current rules, and am comfortable with oil changes, replacing a battery or light bulb and I've assisted an A&P doing an annual by removing inspection plates and the cowling and cleaning spark plugs. I would not be comfortable using anything but a screw driver on an airplane. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of some new non-STC'd avionics and save some $. If this comes to pass on wonder how the courts will treat "owner" maintained aircraft in accident lawsuits? Be careful what you wish for on this issue!

    Joe

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1
    I think the idea has a lot of merit. It would allow people to maintain their aircraft in the manner they chose and in which they are comfortable, each person has there own level of risk and risk management. I do not agree that just because something is experimental it is not "safe". A walk around the local airport has many examples of certified aircraft, Cessnas and Pipers and the like that are in less than ideal condition, are they safer just because they are "certified". I have seen experimental aircraft being built and maintained with incredible workmanship and skill. I am willing to bet most pilots will still have their local mechanic do most of the work, but now you have the opportunity to use non-std parts especially avionics. The proposal may not be perfect but I think it has many good points that are worthy of discussion.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    400
    First issue for Airworthiness of any aircraft?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    Shari,

    I agree, this does have a lot of positives and I hope it goes through, I think my cautions echo Steve's concerns that it could have some down side if people don't use good judgement in trying to save a buck. Aviation is loaded with the need for good judgement and the penalty for a misstep can be bad news for those involved.

    Joe

  5. #25
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    My take on it is why remove the need for a certified mechanic if the primary selling point for the average pilot is to allow use of non-certified parts? I mean to me, certain things really don't "need" to be certified (glass cockpits with steam gauges to back them up as an example).
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    I am split, I know A&P mechanics I wouldn't let change my oil and homebulders that could rebuild the space shuttle and visa versa.. I guess then it comes down to liability. Doesn't Canda have some rules regarding owner maintenance? Maybe someone from up North could give some insight!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Barrington, IL
    Posts
    121
    Very interesting proposal. Let's look at the pros and cons:

    PROS:
    Reduced MX costs
    Increased availability of (non-certified) replacement parts
    Easy to incorporate technology upgrades (like glass cockpits)
    Will increase importance of type clubs
    Non-commercial status may have potential to shield user fees
    Ability to return to standard category

    CONS
    Untrained MX by owners who probably don't own manuals
    Increased insurance costs - at least initially
    Certified shops and A&Ps may decline to perform MX

    If you step back and look at this objectively, this is similar to the current state for experimental aircraft. This is an idea definitely worth exploring more!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Very interesting proposal.
    If you step back and look at this objectively,
    This is an idea definitely worth exploring more!
    Agree. When you step back and look at the big picture, the purpose of the proposal is to bolster the shrinking lightplane/pilot population. Make airplanes more affordable with relaxed 'maintainability' rules. Sounds good on the surface, but:

    Will a new a/c classification accomplish that? Wasn't primary category and LSA supposed to do that?

    Since O-M became reality in Canada, their plane and pilot population has apparently continued to shrink. I don't know how many total aircraft are registered in Canada but the unofficial information I found says ~700-800 O-M airplanes. Less than 100 switching over every year. I'm thinking that's not a very large slice of the pie. How many US owners will jump over to O-M with it's pro's and con's? 1 for every 10? 1:100? 1:1000? Is that going to make a difference? Under the present system airplanes orphaned since WWII can still be maintained on a reasonable budget. We have a good system in place, much better than Canada's.

    I think there's some real serious issues facing aviation. This one doesn't rank very high on the scale. But press on, I'm listening.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details", and I haven't read this proposal, never even heard of it before now.
    But I sure have my doubts. It sounds like a chance for someone who has an airplane to skip maintenance or take shortcuts just because it is in experimental or homebuilt category.
    Let's say I have an Lyc IO-360 in my Mooney 201, as I did for 10 years, and due to problems reported by I As at annuals and over the years there is an AD issued on the ignition, or fuel injection. I would and should follow this in the Mooney. Now if you have the same engine in your homebuilt experimental category Pitts, or whatever world beater you have, is the engine and it's need for safety any different? Can you ignore it, or get some good parts at Target that might fit in? Maybe get your neighbor who rides a Harley to listen to your engine and say, "she seems go to go to me"?
    Obviously there may be few places where there may be room for some savings, but I don't like to take too many chances with safety, and leave too many things to doubt.

    I am probably missing something in the translation, am I ?

    And it seems that the person who is most likely to shortcut safe maintenance is the same one who will take too many other chances.
    If there is some lower level of safety that is going to be allowed, then perhaps the plane need some designation on it that tells any passenger that he is riding in something that is "amateur maintained" or similar.
    Experimentals have to have a placard that says that now, but this would be something more.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    As for resale value, most of the people that I know who have expensive planes, try to get top maintenance. Bargain basement and warbird don't go well together. If you are buying a T-6 or P-51 or similar, the price will reflect not only what the plane looks like, but who and how it has been repaired or rebuilt.

    And if there is an accident, the opposing lawyer would likely love to go into court and tell a jury of average folks like housewives that the reason behind the fire in the panel was unaproved instruments , or the engine stoppage was because that the maintenance was done by a person who did not have a & p or I A training.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •