Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Report on Recommendations for increasing the safety of small GA airplanes

  1. #11
    jjhoneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Port Aransas, TX
    Posts
    103
    Is anyone holding their breath?

    After two decades of waiting, I finally gave up and bought an RV-8.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern IL
    Posts
    128
    The final ruling will probably be a watered down version of the proposal. Buying an RV-8 or any other E-AB makes much sense if that is the route one wants to go. I just do not see that the proposal is going to save much money in the long run. If one has the ability you can work with an A&P/IA and pretty much do what is being proposed and maintain certification. On the other hand, we have all seen certified aircraft that have 'passed' annual but should not be allowed out of the hangar much less in the air. What would make sense is if changes to improve safety of certified aircraft would be streamlined without having to go through the onerous STC process.

  3. #13
    Mike Berg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    83
    Having rebuilt/recovered several light tube and fabric certified planes I am fortunate to have a IA that will work with me. However he happens to be about 60 miles away so it gets to the point where there is a certain amount of waiting for him to make the trip to inspect my work. One would say "why not get your A & P" but there's no local school and I have no desire at my age (+70) to learn about jet and turbine engines, controllable props or heavy electronics ,etc. As a diesel mechanic with over 50 years of experience including 30+ years teaching the subject I've worked on equipment a lot more complex that a 7AC Champ or J-3 Cub. It would seem to me that common sense should take over and offer a path for those of us who only want to maintain older light duty aircraft. Taking my Champ, Taylorcraft or J-3 to the 'big shop up the road' only means they're going to be learning about tube and fabric aircraft on my dollar ($$$$) and I feel much more confident of doing the work myself anyway. I doubt A & P schools even teach tube and fabric anymore. Plus, let's say I've had a couple of bad experiences with annuals by 'certified mechanics'. My suggestion would be that a course (and examination) be offered to those of us who want to maintain our light duty aircraft. Probably not going to happen in the amount of flying time I have left but it's a nice thought.
    If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by jjhoneck View Post
    Is anyone holding their breath?
    Not really, but it is nice to dream.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles KWHP
    Posts
    96
    I would like to add my opinion that an owner-maintenance category or status is a great idea for SOME owners, and a terrible idea for others.

    I happen to have been around long enough, and learned enough, and studied under the right people... to have a fairly good idea of what I can and cannot do safely. I hold two STC approvals and one PMA. I'm also VERY cognizant and vigilant of my limitations, of which there are a lot.

    But there are a lot of pilots and owners who do not know which end of a screwdriver to pick up. There are a lot of people who would substitute a $3 automotive spark plug for a certified one, by trying to re-tap a cylinder head for the different thread, or use JB weld to compensate for the difference in thread.

    There are some really good and experienced pilots who simply should not be working on airplanes. I'm not sure how this "owner maintenance" situation would keep them safe in between annual inspections.

    Please remember that in this age of anti-aviation media, TSA, and lawyers crawling out of the toilet...every time someone makes an emergency landing on a road, or lands in someone's back yard... could be the END of our ability to fly freely in this country.
    EZ Flap is the high performance upgrade for Cessna, Piper, Stinson, Maule and Beech manual flaps.
    More performance - more control - more visibility ! 100% Money Back Guarantee www.ezflaphandle.com

  6. #16
    Matt Gonitzke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Berg View Post
    I doubt A & P schools even teach tube and fabric anymore.
    It's still part of the curriculum and probably will be forever. There's still material about radial engines covered, too...

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Berg View Post
    I doubt A & P schools even teach tube and fabric anymore
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Gonitzke View Post
    It's still part of the curriculum and probably will be forever. There's still material about radial engines covered, too...
    True but for the last 30+ yrs it's been Level 1 in part 147 which means knowledge of general principles but no practical application and no development of manipulative skill. IOW's, the "teaching" can be an instructor pointing to a picture saying "Some planes use fabric covering, this is what it looks like, any questions?" Essentially the same for radial engines. You can graduate from A&P School without ever touching fabric or a radial engine. As it should be, those are now specialized skills.

  8. #18
    I learned to fly in an Ercoupe that had been converted to an 85 hp engine, this engine had the wrong oil tank and the wrong carburetor, but the IA and A&P who had been signing it off for years never caught it, for the person who is going to buy one plane and keep it for life resale isn't a big deal and I trust my work on an airplane than the work that those mechanics did.

  9. #19
    Richard Warner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Covington, LA
    Posts
    83
    For all of you not wanting this change, nobody is twisting your arm requiring you to put your airplane in the non-commercial category. I am an A&P with I.A. The "annual inspection" that would be required, I presume, would be a condition inspection much like is done on amateur built aircraft. I have done these as an A&P. It would take a change in the regulations to allow an A&P to do a real annual inspection versus an annual condition inspection where the aircraft must meet its original type certificate or have been properly altered and only an IA or the FAA can do that. You still couldn't put a VW engine in a Champ like someone suggested because that would require FAA approval just like it would if, say a Wag-Aero Cuby Continental 65 engine was in the plane when its airworthiness certtificate was issued and the builder put a VW engine in it a year or two later. More than likely, the FAA would require the builder to go through a test period again. I think this proposal to change the regulation is a great idea. It might even make an airplane in that new category more easily sold if there is someone out there looking to have a plane he could legally do his own maintenance on. I'm afraid though that this will be met by the FAA just like the "No 3rd Class Medical" proposal was met. They aren't about to give up any control on us in my opinion.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Fort Vermilion Alberta
    Posts
    196
    Best thing ever happened to aviation in Canada.
    I own a Grumman Cheetah and have been having a ball installing Efis, autopilot, different exhaust, electronic mags, etc, etc,. Much improved airplane.
    It can be put back with basically the same conditions in Canada, remove non certified parts and get it signed off by an overhaul mechanic but why would I even consider putting it back.
    Wayyy better this way.
    Resale value, who knows, who cares!

    Ray

Posting Permissions

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