Scott, what is EAA's opinion on owner maintenance? Is EAA working on an owner maintenance proposal? Folks that want owner maintenance rules should stand around and wait for EAA to make such a proposal? Good luck, that's not the way to get things done.Originally Posted by scott f
Marty, my wording must have been a bit clumsy as the above was not my intended meaning at all. I am simply agreeing with WLIU that it is always beneficial to have a group behind any such endeavor. As for how EAA stands on this, well I know about as much as you do on that subject.
All I know for sure at this point is that while there maybe bugs in what was presented in the pdf, I am in very much in favor of the concept. There is absolutely no reason in my mind that if one can have an owner mx class in Canada, that we should not do it here. I know that the FAA allowed owner maintenance under the primary category, so this is not new to the FAA. To top it off though, I see no safety related reason why owners of factory airplanes should not be able to operate under the same rules as homebuilts if they are willing to accept the same restrictions -that is just equal and fair treatment under the law.
Marty, I guess the question I would ask is if you don’t think people should wait for the EAA on this, what do you think they should do?
I guess step one is finding out if EAA has any interest in the subject. I don't know where they stand. My point was that those content to wait for EAA or any alphabet club to take the inititive might be waiting a long time. Too bad we don't have any background on whoever authored the .pdf. Perhaps one could find out what the motivation is/was and find out if this has actually been proposed to the FAA or ARC. Sure, it's not perfect but gotta start somewhere.
I'll support an owner maintenance proposal as well but as an A&P, not much benefit for me. Some issues I see off the bat are: Yes, Canada has owner maintenance but the FAA doesn't recognize Canada's "owner maintained category" and does not allow those aircraft to operate in the US. I know EAA has tried to get the restrictions relaxed with no luck. Need progressive culture change at Independence Ave. and that's a tough order with the sitting Transportation Secretary. There's more involved than just doing it because it's permitted for other airplane categories.I am in very much in favor of the concept. There is absolutely no reason in my mind that if one can have an owner mx class in Canada, that we should not do it here. I know that the FAA allowed owner maintenance under the primary category, so this is not new to the FAA. To top it off though, I see no safety related reason why owners of factory airplanes should not be able to operate under the same rules as homebuilts if they are willing to accept the same restrictions -that is just equal and fair treatment under the law.
.
Guys,
You might be missing the big point. EAA is a volunteer organization. Talking about this stuff on an internet forum creates no progress but sending an e-mail to Rod Hightower and asking how you might volunteer energy and time might create a small bit of progress. Maybe more. Step up, ask the movers and shakers questions, and volunteer to do what needs to be done.
My perspective is one of a guy who was persuaded to be an EAA/IAC chapter president for five and one half years. I am the benificiary of guys who stepped up before me. I think that I left the chapter in better shape than I found it, but I can affirmatively say that I did something. I invite you to get your hands involved also.
As for who submitted the proposal that is being discussed, that info should be part of the public record. You might have to dig a little deeper.
And almost all of my maintenance is owner done. I buy A&P and IA time to look over my shoulder, take advantage of their experience, do the work to their satisfaction, and get their logbook signoff. Another set of eyes is always good, I learn from their experience, and it adds to the social element of aviation. You can to it too - today, with the current FARs. Get dirty. Its half the fun.
Best of luck,
Wes
N89PS
One of the saleability points missing in the proposal (unless I misse it) is defining which GA aircraft would be included.
It might get more traction if the option were tied to aircraft that fall within the Recreational Pilot category - single 180 hp engines, non-retractable gear, etc.
The mindset of the people making the rule is of the safety of people on the ground more than in the air - they're worried about what a poorly maintained aircraft will damage when it crashes.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Frank
There is a spot talks about that, if memory serves they say any Part 23 airplane that is not carrying people for hire.
On the subject of A&Ps losing money over this, speaking as an A&P / IA I think I actually will gain by this. Most of my customers will not be doing the type of maintenance I actually make money on. They may try to do some of the petty stuff that I can't charge the time it takes anyway, but the heavy billable stuff will still be brought in - the difference being is that I won't be required to sign it off as an A&P anymore, the owner will sign it - just the unloading of both liability and FAA issues will far outweigh the moderate discount I give them for not signing it. Plus I won't be stuck buying expensive parts which eat into what I can charge for labor.
I really am hoping this or something like it goes through.
Actually, you'd be quite surprised insofar as that attitude is not all that prevalent at the FAA since the vast majority of folks realize that a light aircraft hitting the ground is not prone to causing large numbers of casualties except in a very narrow set of circumstances. The concern is more towards preventing any mortality associated with crashes.The mindset of the people making the rule is of the safety of people on the ground more than in the air - they're worried about what a poorly maintained aircraft will damage when it crashes.
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.
I agree with Beechboy. I'm also an A&P but not an IA and do not perform work for other people due to the liability issues. Since the owner would be doing the sign off, I would be much more likely to assist other owners. Currently I tell people to just take their airplane to XYZ maintenance shop and remind them that mechanical things never fix themselves.
The second part is the "expensive parts" issue. After reading the proposal it is apparent that under the proposed "non-commercial" category, the requirement for PMA'd parts goes away. This opens the door for the use of parts from the experimental market, which are generally much less expensive. This also means leveraging technology for spiral upgrades becomes a far easier task due to less government regulation. If this proposal becomes reality, the first thing I would do is develop installation kits for Dynon glass cockpit displays in Cessna 100 series and the Piper PA-28 series aircraft.
Where is the EAA on this? Have they been looking at? Are they all on vacation?
We have been talking about this for the better part of 3 weeks, have like 80 posts - do we need to start personally attacking each other or use naughty words to get our moderator to at least chime in?? lol
As someone pointed out: where did this come from? I don't recall seeing an answer on that.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote