20 years or older? Why? It should apply to all personal aircraft including new manufacture or this industry is doomed.
20 years or older? Why? It should apply to all personal aircraft including new manufacture or this industry is doomed.
The 20 years or older cutoff is likely due to liability for the manufacturers. Here in the US the legal profession has gotten a lot of money out of aircraft manufacturers. Burt Rutan stopped selling Eze plans due to the lawyers.
But I have to say that aircraft maintenance and annual inspections, at least in the US do not have to be expensive. My annuals go well because I always bring my IA a perfectly working airplane, or an airplane where I already know what to fix. In between annuals I find any issues that pop up, pull out the parts book, the service manual(s), and AC43.13 and fix it. I give my mechanic a couple of $$ to look at it, maybe tell me what to do, and make the log book entry. Surprises are expensive so I spend quality time with my machine and my mechanic and the bills are relatively low. I LIKE having the second set of eyes looking at my work since even though I have been at this for many years, I have a non-aviation day job and my mechanic looks at broken airplanes all day. Sometimes he has a better idea, some days I do. In the US, anyone's hands can do the work so long as they have a good working relationship with a certificated mechanic who will provide consultation, supervision where needed, and make the log book entry. Its really not that hard or expensive if you are willing to find a mechanic that will work with you and you respect and pay for their advice. My experience is the the longer we have worked together, the less mechanic time I have to buy. But I buy all I am asked to.
Certificated airplanes don't have to be expensive to maintain.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
"This is different from the annual inspection required for standard category airplanes. An annual is intended to confirm that the airplane conforms in every respect to its type certificate. The condition inspection confirms only that the airplane is airworthy."Originally Posted by TedK
lol..... Gee Mac, what exactly is the definition of "airworthy?"
Wes, Except as I posted above. There is or will be a shortage of mechanics that know tube and fabric, wooden wings type aircraft......Champs, Chiefs, J-3, Taylorcraft, etc. I doubt if it's even taught in A & P school any more (it may be touched upon but I'd be willing to bet that's about it). Another set of eyes is fine but it doesn't have to be a IA or A & P. Sloppy work can be done by the owner but in 30+ years of aircraft ownership I've also seen sloppy work by aircraft mechanics, too. Just like I'm not going to take the aircraft up unless I'm 'fit to fly' physically I'm not going to take the aircraft up if it's not 'fit to fly'.
If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!
Wes, yes, the 20 years number might be based on liability. But why should the FAA make rules on that basis?
On the other hand, I think if an owner takes over the airworthiness choices, that might relieve the original manufacturer of the liability burden. The government can decree that. (Not likely, but possible)
At least give the manufacturer the option to offer these perks that now go only to Kitplanes.
This 20 years cutoff surely has no basis related to safety.
Marty with all do respect, a condition inspection does NOT state an experimental is airworthy. It states an experimental is in a condition for safe operation. Airworthy is reserved for certified airplanes. Nothing about an experimental airplane is airworthy.
Tony
Tony, click on the link. The quoted statement is from Mac's blog, not me.
Yes I see now.
I do not mean to piss in anyone's Wheaties. But Why not take this group of airplanes and just make them experimental for what is being proposed is an experimental type of certificate but with Certified type of regulations or rules.
Also by reading this I see the author does not understand the difference in the type certificates between a Certified airplane and a experimental airplane or the wording there of between the two.
Tony
"Also by reading this I see the author does not understand the difference in the type certificates between a Certified airplane and a experimental airplane or the wording there of between the two."
Considering the source, I do not know why you would be surprised.
20 years - welcome to the committee process. A committee process brings in the views of each self-interested parties. Since builders of certificated airplanes get a voice, they propose a number that will appeal to the antique classic folks, but also push back their own liability horizon. Please understand that moving from a system of bureaucrats making rules to a committee system is not better, just different. We can push for a better result, but that is not guaranteed.
Now the FAA, being chartered to keep airplanes from falling out of the sky on the heads of the general public, is NOT going to change the rules so that anyone can work on their airplane without oversight. It is completely unrealistic to expect that each airplane will no longer have to pass the scrutiny of an FAA certificated individual on an annual basis. It you have had any contact with the FAA at all you should realize that the FAA will not waive that.
As to the coming shortage of mechanics that know old airplanes, you can influence that. If you make friends with your local small shop, take your steel tube and fabric airplane there, they will see that you are good business. They will WANT their staff to come up to speed on those arts since it will be a money maker for them. They are not in this for charity, its their livelihood and if no one wants to pay them for those skills, they will abandon them. Its a death spiral if we do not bring them that business. If I had a maintenance business and I saw one group of potential customers telling me that I do too much maintenance, am too concerned about making a ship "airworthy", and continually tell me that charge too much, as I try to pay for the mortgage, heat, and tools, and I had another group of potential customers who wanted their airplanes to be 100% reliable, wanted every part 100% airworthy, and was willing to pay for that, I would go with group #2.
As I have noted previously, I work with my mechanics to take care of every issue as soon as I see it. I understand that my mechanic has a mortgage and aspires to have a decent 401K retirement plan, that he does not set his supplier's parts prices, and that we will show our work to the FAA on a regular basis (I do 337 Field Approvals on my aircraft), and that I will be the first one to the scene of the crash if we do not get it right. Plus the mechanics I know are good guys, good to talk to over a beer, and every one of them could make more money working at the Toyota dealer. Mechanics work on airplanes because of a genetic defect that makes them feel good when they see another airplane fixed and back in the air, rather than another Ford roll out of the service bay. I personally believe that while every owner should become as knowledgeable and skilled at working on the innards of their ship as possible, this recurring theme of "we don't need no steenkin' mechanics!" is part of the death march of recreational aviation.
Just my view.
Wes
N78PS
Precisely my point and no offense taken.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote