Importing Canadien used aircraft

[EDGEFLY]

I have come across an aircraft which I may be interested in purchasing. Among the many things about the machine is that it is owned by a Canadien citizen and therefore must be brought into the U.S. for registration etc. While I am sure there must be procedures and processes to do this, I decided to ask forum members for any tips/knowledge etc., squares that need to be filled and so on. Among the things which I have thought of to date include:

-Transfer of inspection records, licenses, changes in ratings, compliance with AD's issued by U.S. , admissibility of any STC actions on the aircraft etc. I will, of course, be asking these questions of the FAA and will ask AOPA for its' input. which reminds me, is there an office of the EAA to solicit guidance from ? What is the proper way to handle taxes pertinet to a sale across the borders ?

Mostly, I am asking these questions here in hopes of tapping some personal experience from members who may have been down this path before.

EDGEFLY

[martymayes]

Assuming this is a type certificated and not a homebuilt: Make sure aircraft is eligible for import. A/C has to be deregistered in Canada, FAA requires evidence of such. Apply for n-number, register in the US, give it a fresh annual inspection, and pass a conformity check. Can then get a fresh AW certificate. If there are no paperwork/mechanical issues to bring the a/c to airworthy standards, the import process will only add ~$4k to the purchase price. The FAA has basic info on website:

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/international/

[turtle]

Nice thing about Canadian aircraft is they don't really have such a thing as field approvals. Much easier to pass a conformity check when every mod was done on a STC (US STC most likely). They're maintained to almost US commercial standards and obviously have to comply with US and Canadian AD's. It's a lot easier bringing one south than sending one north.

Unless it's in the owner-maintenance category. Then you're hooped.

[Tom Downey]

Unless it's in the owner-maintenance category. Then you're hooped.

No, that just costs more, when the aircraft meets its airworthy condition IAW the US requirements, you will get a AWC.

[turtle]

Oh, it's possible alright. With engine, prop and primary instruments overhaul, then a conformity check from hell. New data plates too for the airframe and engine because they have an X stamped on them. There isn't a plane on the eligibility list for O-M that would be worth the expense of converting it back. Not to mention that you'd have to trailer it from Canada as O-M is not allowed in US airspace.

[Tom Downey]

Oh, it's possible alright. With engine, prop and primary instruments overhaul, then a conformity check from hell. New data plates too for the airframe and engine because they have an X stamped on them. There isn't a plane on the eligibility list for O-M that would be worth the expense of converting it back. Not to mention that you'd have to trailer it from Canada as O-M is not allowed in US airspace.

A bilateral agreement between Canada and the US says any aircraft that is legally airworthy in either country is legal to fly in both, so, you simply have the Canada owner fly it down and park it.

But this applies,
"Foreign aircraft may fly in the U.S. if they have an airworthiness certificate equivalent to a U.S. standard airworthiness certificate. Otherwise, they require a Special Flight Authorization (SFA) as described in 14 CFR 91.715 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a9cdfcd20c1bd1dea1432f9c0ba4225c&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.8.7.10&idno=14)."

And

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=3CC41679FA0E88428525734F00766 768
(http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=3CC41679FA0E88428525734F00766 768)
note the date on that (


9/13/07


Show me where the issuance of an AWC requires the data tag not have an "X" on it. Serial number does not change, the make and model does not change. Plus the fact that the A&P-IA must sign off an annual saying that this aircraft has been inspected and is in an airworthy condition. why wouldn't the FAA issue the certificate.
Why would the engine/prop/instruments be required to be overhauled ?

[turtle]

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=3CC41679FA0E88428525734F00766 768 (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=3CC41679FA0E88428525734F00766 768) says: "FAA Flight Standards aviation safety inspectors shall not issue SFAs for Canadian Owner-Maintenance category aircraft."

The bilateral agreement doesn't cover aircraft where there is no equal category. O-M aircraft have to be placarded "SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS – OWNER – MAINTENANCE THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS". Experimentals need an SFA but there are similar categories on both sides of the border. Some newer categories such a LSA's and O-M have no equals.

This means not you or anyone else is flying an O-M plane in the US.


To put a plane into O-M requires "Each engine, propeller and life-limited item installed on such an aircraft shall have an “X” permanently etched, engraved or stamped at the end of the model designation and serial number on the identification plate"

This DOES change the model and the serial number. You are no longer importing a Piper PA-22, you are importing a PA-22X which is not in the FAA database. When a brand new vintage 1945 Cub can be assembled with new parts around an old data plate, a defaced data plate is worthless. But feel free to argue with Piper about wanting a new data plate with the old number when all your paperwork agrees with the defaced plate.

Assuming we got the model and serial number straightened out, next we have traceability. Or lack thereof. This is the same as buying a plane with no logs or history in the FAA database. How can you tell if the engine, which also has a defaced data plate, is assembled with the proper, approved parts? Did the altimeter come from a wreck and the owner opened it and fixed it with a little RTV? Does the prop have some gouges that were expertly finished with bondo and paint? It's one thing for an A&P to suspect the owner might have done something, it's another for him to have documented proof an owner has messed with everything.

Once in O-M, the logs are worthless as the entries show work completed by someone who is unauthorized according to the FAA. For an A&P/IA to sign off as airworthy, he has to be able to recreate the logs. This is impossible because he cannot trace the parts without complete disassembly and inspection.

[Tom Downey]

To put a plane into O-M requires "Each engine, propeller and life-limited item installed on such an aircraft shall have an “X” permanently etched, engraved or stamped at the end of the model designation and serial number on the identification plate"

This DOES change the model and the serial number. .

Where do you see this in the regs? or the 8130-2E ?

[turtle]

CAR 507.03(6)(c) Remember, putting it into O-M is a Canadian thing. It "becomes" a different model. Trucking it back over the border doesn't change it back.

Even the Canadian owner can't change it back with out the overhauls. CAR 507.02(3)(a) Has to be done by an approved shop too - no field overhauls.

Realistically, a helpful person at FAA can look at the regs and what happened and try to reverse the dataplate issue. Problem is, the FAA wants nothing to do with O-M planes and wish they didn't exist. As well, when was the last time anyone was helpful at the FAA?

[Bill]

... when was the last time anyone was helpful at the FAA?

Only a few days ago. "Yesterday the FAA said that it is granting a one-time exemption to complete this year's Operation Migration flight and will work with Operation Migration to find a permanent solution for the future."

[Tom Downey]

CAR 507.03(6)(c) Remember, putting it into O-M is a Canadian thing. It "becomes" a different model. Trucking it back over the border doesn't change it back.

Even the Canadian owner can't change it back with out the overhauls. CAR 507.02(3)(a) Has to be done by an approved shop too - no field overhauls.

Realistically, a helpful person at FAA can look at the regs and what happened and try to reverse the dataplate issue. Problem is, the FAA wants nothing to do with O-M planes and wish they didn't exist. As well, when was the last time anyone was helpful at the FAA?

I will give you part that you can't fly it down here to get it imported, the rule changed in 2009, but the OM canada thing started in 2002, and many did fly in the US airspace until 2009.

You keep quoting the Canadian regs, when in reality we would be making the aircraft airworthy under the US FARs. and the X behind the S/N means nothing here.

And to further confuse things, who declares airworthiness during the import process? the A&P-IA doing the required annual inspection or the FAA ASI or DER who actually writes out the AWC?

and about the data tag issue for the engine, the engine is not required to have a data to be airworthy.

[turtle]

It all comes down to convincing someone of authority that the plane you bought is really a PA-22 (or whatever) when all the paperwork and dataplates say otherwise. Well, that, and the no traceability of parts problem. The S/N does mean something here because that is the number you imported it with.

An A&P-IA can declare airworthiness, but he won't unless he can prove traceability which he can't. (CYA)

The data tag on the engine will have an X added to the model. That exact model will not be listed on the TC as an acceptable engine for the conformity check.

[Dennis Long]

What is O M?

[Tom Downey]

O owner M maintained

[Tom Downey]

Most Canadian owners using the program keep their records and logs in much better condition than the US owners, and they have traceability the same way you do. their parts are made and tracked by the same people that manufacture and ship parts to you.

I live 60 miles from Canada, and have imported 6 aircraft from Canada when their dollar was weak, but now the aircraft are going the other way, and the Canadian officials are having problems gaining approval on our aircraft to meet their rules.

I'd not buy any junk no matter which country it was in, but just because the canadian owner has been in O M category and care, doesn't mean the aircraft isn't in pristine condition.

[Bill]

the FAA wants nothing to do with O-M planes and wish they didn't exist.

And what is your reference for this assertion? Who at the FAA said this?

[Canada1]

A word from Canada. The owner maintenance category solves a number of problems. As long as you don't want to use the aircraft commercially, you can do anything in OM that you can with a hombuilt. the only serious restriction is no repositionable landing gear. For instance if my 150 were to cough the engine, i can put the aircraft, engine and propellor into owner mtc and rebuild the engine myself, same as for a homebuilt. I can also then do all of my own mtc. I remember a large problem from a few years ago with getting information from the FAA on antique aircraft parts so that they could be reproduced. In owner mtc it is the owner/pilot (you must be both) who signs off the part replacement. There are limits as to what you can do without asking TC for approval. For instance you can make a 150/150 as long as you have an STC to follow. It also allows the rebuilding of old aircraft, (must be on the list from Transport Canada) and then getting them licensed as in the OM category. Think rebuild your tri-pacer, putting it on conventioal gear, increasing the length of the fuselage, putting two bays in each wing, and then treating the formerly certified aircraft as a homebuilt. What we have lost is the ability to take a certified aircraft and make so many changes that it can become a homebuilt. that has been discontinued, but allow for really interesting aircraft, like seabees with v8 chevs. Now we just put them into OM. Cheers

[Garth Elliot]

The original OM presentation to seek this category of licensing was intended to alleviate a development in which increasingly few mechanics wanted to work on older aircraft. Another consideration was that parts were becoming scarce. We wanted a way out of the perceived "developing blind alley" in this matter. Homebuilts were becoming more sophisticated and therefore we submitted that owner maintenance of simpler older aircraft was not an unreasonable concept.