Turning Certificated Acft into "Experimental"

[BTBFlyboy]

Scott F, Thanks for the heads up as to what actually happened within the ARC. I do find it a bit curious as to why the National Ar Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) was involved in an ARC concerning Airworthiness Standards (Part 23) ?? Be that as it may, the approach used per your statement; "So, what was needed was an angle here. We came up with was that we would not invent anything new, everything proposed in the ANV category was a rule already in use today with a proven safety record. Obviously maintenance came from Experimental AB, the conversion back and forth to standard category from restricted category, the repairman’s certificate from LSA." while novel, is akin to the old axiom about; A camel is what you get when you design a horse by committee !!

Any way a question or two. Wouldn't deregulating aircraft carrying a Standard Airworthiness certificate take a whole new section of the FAR's to accommodate and administrate? Will companies (Cessna, Beech and Piper for example) still holding many ATC's of PNC eligible aircraft, support those conversions with approved data such as drawings etc ? If not, how will the PNC owner assure airworthiness as approved data, not acceptable data, must be used when attempting issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate? Ergo, how can that conversion back to Standard Airworthiness be accomplished without a conformity inspection to it's ATC ?

All that (and more) being said, if you, TedK and other supporters believe it's pertinent expending so much of what little political capital private aviation has, on an idea that has proven elsewhere to be of little success (1.7 % of all aircraft in Canada are in the OM category), I wish you well in your efforts.

[tspear]

Scott F, Thanks for the heads up as to what actually happened within the ARC. I do find it a bit curious as to why the National Ar Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) was involved in an ARC concerning Airworthiness Standards (Part 23) ?? Be that as it may, the approach used per your statement; "So, what was needed was an angle here. We came up with was that we would not invent anything new, everything proposed in the ANV category was a rule already in use today with a proven safety record. Obviously maintenance came from Experimental AB, the conversion back and forth to standard category from restricted category, the repairman’s certificate from LSA." while novel, is akin to the old axiom about; A camel is what you get when you design a horse by committee !!

Any way a question or two. Wouldn't deregulating aircraft carrying a Standard Airworthiness certificate take a whole new section of the FAR's to accommodate and administrate? Will companies (Cessna, Beech and Piper for example) still holding many ATC's of PNC eligible aircraft, support those conversions with approved data such as drawings etc ? If not, how will the PNC owner assure airworthiness as approved data, not acceptable data, must be used when attempting issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate? Ergo, how can that conversion back to Standard Airworthiness be accomplished without a conformity inspection to it's ATC ?

All that (and more) being said, if you, TedK and other supporters believe it's pertinent expending so much of what little political capital private aviation has, on an idea that has proven elsewhere to be of little success (1.7 % of all aircraft in Canada are in the OM category), I wish you well in your efforts.

If I had any political capital besides writing and calling my congressional representatives, I would think this might be the way to lower the cost of GA to the point it survives. Just think of the number of planes for sale now which are approaching salvage value. Within a few years more and more of the fleet will end up in the dust bin of history. For many aspiring pilots these planes and this category can be the metaphorical salvation to ownership and flight.

Tim

[martymayes]

I have seen quite a few gliders in the experimental exhibition category that require only a condition inspection performed by a normal A&P. Your mileage may vary...

did they ever hold a standard airworthiness certificate?

[scott f]

BTB, here is my best Sunday morning shot at answering your questions.


I do find it a bit curious as to why the National Ar Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) was involved in an ARC concerning Airworthiness Standards (Part 23) ??

NATCA is the union the represents the Certification Aerospace Engineers for the FAA.


while novel, is akin to the old axiom about; A camel is what you get when you design a horse by committee !!

Think of it this way… I accept certain operating limitations for my experimental airplane and in exchange for that I get many privileges in terms of owner maintenance, use of non PMA but airworthy parts, flexibility in addressing ADs etc. Now if a person with a certified airplane accepts those same limitations, shouldn’t he get the same privileges? My Friend, how would it be in the least bit fair to deny them the same opportunities I get? The ANV Rec is simply an attempt to make things fair and create a level playing field.

I am sorry that you feel that this is such a white elephant. But again, this was designed as a voluntary program, so if you hate it – don’t do it. But if your neighbor likes it, why try and prevent them from having the same privileges you do? Part of the problem with general aviation is that there is not enough flexibility; we are constantly requiring people to do things that may or may not fit their particular situation or needs.


Any way a question or two. Wouldn't deregulating aircraft carrying a Standard Airworthiness certificate take a whole new section of the FAR's to accommodate and administrate?

Not a new section, but several new and revised regulations and a host of changed orders. See the ANV rec a few posts up for a list of these and recommended language.


Will companies (Cessna, Beech and Piper for example) still holding many ATC's of PNC eligible aircraft, support those conversions with approved data such as drawings etc ? If not, how will the PNC owner assure airworthiness as approved data, not acceptable data, must be used when attempting issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate?

I believe that they will. However, not being the great carnack I can not say for sure J



Ergo, how can that conversion back to Standard Airworthiness be accomplished without a conformity inspection to it's ATC ?

Yes, the ANV rec does not require a full or formal conformity for conversion back, just an annual and log book audit Excerpt from page two of ANV rec below, also the draft regulation and order references are included.


Conversion Back to Standard Category
· Aircraft operated under a Primary Non Commercial Airworthiness Certificate would be dual certificated in both the Normal and Non Commercial categories, as is common place for Restricted Category aircraft. (see draft regulation 21.184)
·  Aircraft in the Primary Non-Commercial category can be operated in the Standard category, provided the aircraft meets it type design data including compliance with all ADs, removal of all Non PMA / TSO parts and replacement with certified units and the removal of all non-certifiedalterations (see draft 21.24, draft Order 8130.2)
·  The conversion can be accomplished by an IA mechanic with a complete and thorough annual inspection and log book audit. Upon successful completion the aircraft could be operated under it’s Standard Airworthiness Certificate. The Procedure is very common with Restricted Category aircraft and has proven both safe and successful. (see draft Order 8130.2)






All that (and more) being said, if you, TedK and other supporters believe it's pertinent expending so much of what little political capital private aviation has, on an idea that has proven elsewhere to be of little success (1.7 % of all aircraft in Canada are in the OM category), I wish you well in your efforts.

Dude, part of the problem is General Aviation apparently has no political capitol. I wish we did but the FAA constantly runs over us and our organizations. I wish our organizations would start acting more like the NRA then the cowering victims of bullying.


All of the above is strictly my opinion in my role as NATCA representative to the PART 23 ARC.

[TedK]

When you look at the membership in the ARC, it doesn't look to be a cast of revolutionaries...at least not given their employers. There are very few organizations participating in the ARC that would stand to benefit by the creation of PNC. So, perhaps their motives in creating PNC were pure, if counterintuitive.

[scott f]

That is not necessarily true. It depends on how the operating limitations are written. I have seen quite a few gliders in the experimental exhibition category that require only a condition inspection performed by a normal A&P. Your mileage may vary...

I hear you Matt. In fact when we first started this Rec we wrote it as a new type of experimental certificate rather than a new category. However, we quickly abandoned that and went with the new ANV category for fear operating limitations "creep." The FAA controls experimental through operating limitations and these do not require public comment to change. My fear here was that even if were were successful, the FAA would simply change the operating limitations and kick us back to square one - heck they have been doing that to the warbird owners for the last few years.

The advantage of the new category is we wrote the limits into the FARs (like LSA) therefore it takes the regulatory process to change them. It effectively sets them in stone.

So, now with your gliders.. there are a few possibilities of how they got these;
1. Most probably, the ops limits predate the requirement of ex standard aircraft still being maintained per part 43.
2. Someone screwed up when writing them - this is god awfull common
3. Possibly they never held a standard certificate.

One way or the other, if you know someone that has op limits like that, tell them to play their cards close to the vest!

[scott f]

ScottF - Thank you for the background!

I have to do a fair bit of "working the hill" in my day job and asked some of my Lobbyist colleagues how best to proceed here. They reviewed the Bills and legislative history and were unanimous in their opinions and recommended strategy. To paraphrase the spaghetti sauce commercial, "Prego -Its in there". They all cautioned me not to give any public credence to the FAA's arguments.

Politically, we can sabotage ourselves by wringing our hands and giving the impression that the FAA might be justified in not putting it in the NPRM.

Our attitude should be that the ARC and its recommendations are legitimate. Congress recognized that and SARA is for ALL of the recommendations.

We need to prepare to have the Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee write a diplomatic letter to FAA politely pointing out that SARA is for all of the recommendations. That will mean political shoe leather getting the whole of the committee onboard.

But your background info on the voting rules strengthens our case.

But most importantly, we must believe and act like we are going to get PNC. We have to act like anything less than PNC is theft.

EAA, when are you going to start scheduling those PNC Repairman classes?

Ted

The operative word that was inserted into SARA is "certification" - the argument is going to be that the putting an airplane into ANV is not certifying it, just like when we put an aircraft into experimental. But obviously the intent of SARA was all the recs, not just the industry standard portion.

But.. I like your thinking. That is certainly a easier and more logical first step then what I suggested. Have you called Sean to start the ball rolling on this?

All of the above is strictly my opinion in my role as NATCA representative to the PART 23 ARC.

[TedK]

From SARA (I've taken the liberty of placing and annotating the language in SARA that supports PNC)

2. Congress makes the following finds: ...

(8) General aviation safety can be improved by modernizing and revamping the regulations relating to small airplanes to clear the path for technology adoption and cost-effective means to retrofit the existing fleet with new safety technologies.

3.
Safety and regulatory improvements for general aviation

...

(b)
Objectives described
The objectives described in this subsection are based on the recommendations of the Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee: (TK's note: this doesn’t say “some of the recommendations”)

[BTBFlyboy]

Scott f

NATCA is the union the represents the Certification Aerospace Engineers for the FAA.
I did not know that but now that I do it makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

I am sorry that you feel that this is such a white elephant. But again, this was designed as a voluntary program, so if you hate it – don’t do it
Apparently you missed where I stated; "I wish you well in your efforts"

[scott f]

I have been getting tons of emails on this since Mac devoted one of his Blogs to the ANV recommendation.I am doing my best to keep up, but there has been a lot! (Mac called it PNC, but whats in a name anyway)

So let me try and paraphrase what the Part 23 Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommended (and thereby get ahead on some of the emails). The Part 23 ARC came up with something we called the ANV category recommendation.(ANV is for Antique – Non Commercial- Vintage)

Without belaboring all the details, this is how the ANV recommendation is described in the ARC report:

The Primary Non-Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate his or her aircraft in a substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of compliance to FAA maintenance and alteration requirements to a level more appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.
Owners of standard category aircraft that are more than twenty years old could elect to redesignate their aircraft as“Non Commercial” use. This would enable owners to maintain their aircraft in a manner similar to a Light Sport or amateur built aircraft. This would include owner maintenance privileges (once a FAA accepted class is passed) and use of non PMA / TSO parts. Aircraft would be subject to a yearly “condition inspection” by an A&P mechanic which certifies the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, identical to the requirements for Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft.

So in a nutshell the ANV boils down to is that if the owner of a standard category aircraft is willing to accept the same operating limits as an Amateur Built Experimental (EAB) , then he/she should also be allowed the same privileges. (i.e. parts,alterations, owner MX etc)

It really is about fairness – we don’t limit those privileges to the builder of an EAB, the 2nd,3rd, 4th etc owners get the same (save for a repairman’s certificate). So, if a 2nd owner of any EAB can get this, why can’t the owner of a standard category aircraft do the same?

For you detail oriented types, I have attached the entire text of the rec. for your reading pleasure. It is only 26 pages – but most of the detail is in the first 3.

It appears that alot o f people are intrigued by the prospect. This is going to take a lot of work and time to advance this concept, so please post and let people know what you think of the idea. If we are ever going to see something like this it is going to take a grassroots effort – so even if you never posted (maybe like me you hate social media!) please take the time to do so. If you want it – you need to let people know or it ain’t gonna happen.

(to be clear the above is strictly my opinion in my role as NATCA representative to the PART 23 ARC).