Building EAB vs. Restoring Certificated?

[thisadviceisworthles]

Like many EAA members, I have a desire to one day fly a plane that I have brought to life. By default, I always assumed that this would come to fruition in the form a kit-built aircraft like an RV, Whitman Tailwind or a Kitfox.

But browsing Barnstormers yesterday, I came across a Mooney airframe without engine or avionics for $8500. I have no intention of buying that plane (I want to focus on flying for now), but it did get me thinking about restoring a plane rather than starting from scratch. The appeal of EAB is not needing to work with an A&P to do the repairs needed, but talking to some more experienced EAA members suggested that finding an A&P to supervise may not be difficult.

I feel like the value of the end result is also something worth comparing. With the EAB you get a repairman certificate and never need to have someone else touch your plane unless you want them to, but the end result is worth less than the cost of the parts (often before you even add in labor). With a certificated plane, there seems a clear appreciation from project to finish that seems to at least parallel the cost of the inputs, but you will still need to hire out annuals and perform repairs under an A&P's supervision, even after being so involved in the restoration.

What are your thoughts? What are the advantages and disadvantages of building vs restoring?

[FlyingRon]

Most older Mooney airframes without engine and avionics aren't worth reassembling. By the time you get an engine and radios, you could have bought an equivalent plane put together.

What you need to get a handle on (and that means spending sometime researching the type, the type clubs are often useful sources) about what you will have to do to get some old basket case put back in the air. There are often good reason these things are derelicts.

[Dana]

It's not just about the building vs. restoration. Down the line when it's flying, you still need an A&P to sign off any repairs, and you're limited on what changes you can make, to a standard certificated plane.

OTOH, if you restore an experimental, even if you aren't the original builder and so don't have the repairman certificate, you're free to make any repairs or modifications you want at any time, you only need an A&P for the annual condition inspection.

[martymayes]

Depends on what kind of Mooney.

If you restore an airplane be sure it's something you want to fly for a long time cause if it's a generic GA airplane, it's hard to get you money back out of it.

[Kyle Boatright]

My experience (with a Champ) is that restoring an airplane is (in many ways) harder than building one. First, in restoration, you're trying to get new or repaired parts to fit into an existing assembly. Second, you'll find that many of the legacy parts are no longer available or the remanufactured ones really don't fit like the old ones did. On the Champ, for instance, the original wing ribs were stamped from a variety of very thin (0.016-0.025) aluminum and didn't have holes in the flanges. For about $100 each, I can buy new ribs from thicker (heavier) material that have 1/8" holes punched in their flanges for rivets like Citabrias use to secure fabric. So my first move with the new ribs is to find a way to patch them to accept the PK screws specified for Champs (unless I want to buy 20 something new ribs and convert the whole thing to pop rivet fabric attachment).

With homebuilding, you avoid much of that... Everything is nice and new, and things generally fit fairly well out of the box. Even better, if you mess up a part, the manufacturer can supply you a replacement at a relatively small cost compared to certified parts.

[Bill Berson]

Nothing wrong with restoring a certified airplane if you have a local A&P-IA to supervise and sign off.
I would never buy another airplane that is missing parts.
You might want to work at a repair shop part time to see how things are done first.

[geraldmorrissey]

I would say build. I would never decide what to keep and what to scrap. Corrosion concerns kept me up at night. Do I keep a wing attach fitting with pits in it or fab a new one. When are the pits too numerous or too deep to be airworthy. Ask a A&P and you'll often get a shoulder shrug. Too much pressure for me. I like new structure.
Gerry

[PJZajkowski]

Just remember that your A&P-IA can disappear at any time. The fellow I used for my work on my certified airplane died in a plane crash in October. Now I need to find another mechanic who will work with me. Usually this means that he (or she) must learn to trust my work. It's not easy. I would recommend that the project be signed off as the work progressed, not at the end. If you wait till the end, you could be in big trouble!

[raytoews]

BLOWING MY HORN,,,,,again.

Move to Canada where we have the OM category. A friend of mine just acquired a derelict Aeronca Sedan. He is deciding weather to rebuild it as an OM or sell it to some fellas in Alaska.

Maybe if the increase the weight of of EAB this will loosen up the regs a bit.

[FlyingRon]

There's no weight limit in EAB. Perhaps you mean Light SPort?

[PJZajkowski]

There's no weight limit in EAB. Perhaps you mean Light SPort?

I don't know what the reference to "weight limit in EAB" has to do with the problem of this post, but I think raytoews is describing Canadian "Owner Maintenance". Many, many years ago I went to a seminar at Airventure with the subject "Special Flight Permit, Owner Maintenance" that was available in Canada. It may have been changed since then, but at the time it was limited to certified airplanes of the size that we now call Light Sport. There was a specific list of exactly what airplanes were allowed to enter OM. It was like putting a certified airplane into the EAB category. You could do ANYTHING you wanted to do to the airplane. One of the warnings was, you can NEVER go back to certified from OM.

I would be interested to learn how this works for Canadian airplane owners.

At the time I was hoping that the FAA may allow something like that, but apparently not. In fact, the Airventure Notam in the last several years has this mention for Canadian Pilots:
"Canadian pilots flying aircraft issued a Canadian 'Flight Permit-Owner Maintenance' are prohibited from flying in the U.S."
I guess the FAA does not want anything to do with the idea.

[FlyingRon]

There's no weight limit on OM either. OM is approved on an aircraft by aircraft basis (there is a list of previously approved models in the docs but that's not a requirement to apply). I'm pretty sure ray was referring to light sport rather than EAB in his comment.

The COPA has a pretty good document on Owner-Maintenance. You have to be a member to download it from your site, but (older) copies are kicking around on the internet. One of the biggest downsides is they aren't legal to fly into the US. It's also a long and expensive process to return back into original category. Also, by default OM aircraft are Day VFR only, but you can petition to get those restrictions lifted. Note that while the owner is allowed to perform (or certify) maintenance himself, that doesn't really change the rules for doing the maintenance (it's not the zoo EAB is in the US).

[martymayes]

Canadian "Owner Maintenance". Many, many years ago I went to a seminar at Airventure with the subject "Special Flight Permit, Owner Maintenance" that was available in Canada. It may have been changed since then, but at the time it was limited to certified airplanes of the size that we now call Light Sport. There was a specific list of exactly what airplanes were allowed to enter OM. It was like putting a certified airplane into the EAB category. You could do ANYTHING you wanted to do to the airplane. One of the warnings was, you can NEVER go back to certified from OM.

I would be interested to learn how this works for Canadian airplane owners.

There is a path from OM back to certificated status, I doubt it's ever been used or ever will be used. And you can't do ANYTHING you want to the aircraft, there are limits. It's intended to be a method of operating airplanes that are orphaned or mostly unsupported with scarce or no spare parts.

Otherwise, it works like this: (This is a neat article)

Owner-Maintenance
by Brian Clarke, Civil Aviation Safety Inspector, Operational Airworthiness, Standards, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada

Aircraft owners can apply to have their aircraft’s ‘normal’ certificate of airworthiness replaced by a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance. When an aircraft is in the owner-maintenance classification the aircraft owner—if they are a pilot—can perform and release maintenance on their own aircraft.

The first Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance was issued in 2002 and there are now about 550 owner-maintenance aircraft registered, out of a Canadian non-commercial fleet of over 20 000 aircraft. The program is clearly not wildly popular, perhaps because owner-maintenance aircraft are not allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fly in the United States. Nevertheless, questions to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) related to owner-maintenance are frequent. The purpose of this article is to review some of the significant specifics on the subject of the owner-maintenance classification.

Under Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR) Standard 507.03(6), the Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance was established to allow the non-commercial use and enjoyment of relatively simple, generally older aircraft for which certified parts were scarce and support from the manufacturer limited. After the classification had been in place for a few years, owners of owner-maintenance aircraft were granted a Ministerial Exemption to CAR 605.03(1)(a), (b) and (c)—the requirement to have and carry a Certificate of Airworthiness. The exemption has the effect of allowing flight of an owner-maintenance aircraft that is no longer in conformity with its type certificate, and thus allows some degree of modification of the aircraft and the installation of equipment that was not specified by the manufacturer. The letter of exemption is carried aboard the aircraft and effectively becomes the aircraft’s airworthiness certificate. We refer to aircraft with a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance and those flying under the Exemption as “owner-maintenance classification” aircraft.

Owner-maintenance aircraft, just like other aircraft, have to be continuously maintained in accordance with a maintenance schedule conforming to CAR 605.86. Some maintenance tasks required by the schedule may require skills or equipment that the owner/pilot does not have; when the owner/pilot is not qualified or equipped to perform a required task, he or she can and should contract the work to a qualified person or organisation. In these instances, an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) or Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO) can and should perform and release work on owner-maintenance classification aircraft.

Maintenance on owner-maintenance aircraft has to be performed in accordance with CAR 571.02, which calls for proper practices and use of the correct tools, manuals and instruments; records have to be kept in accordance with CAR 507.03 and 605.92. All modifications and repairs to owner-maintenance aircraft must be performed in accordance with at least “acceptable data”, as defined in CAR Standard 571.06. This may seem a lower bar than the “approved data” or “specified data” required for major modifications to aircraft maintained to a “non-Special” Certificate of Airworthiness, but it does not allow the unfettered installation of inappropriate parts or radical modifications.

CAR Standard 507.03(6)(e) lists the eligibility conditions for the owner-maintenance classification. An owner-maintenance aircraft cannot be modified beyond those limits. For instance, a constant speed propeller or amphibious floats cannot be installed on an owner-maintenance or “Exemption” aircraft, because the aforementioned standard limits eligibility to, among other things, aircraft with fixed pitch props and fixed landing gear. Significant modifications that affect the structural strength, performance, power plant operation, or flight characteristics of the aircraft have to be reported to TCCA before flight.

A Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (CASI) who is asked to consider the issue of the letter of exemption, or indeed any flight authority, has to verify that the aircraft is safe for flight. The determination that the aircraft is safe for flight is made by examining records and documents provided by the owner, but the CARs (and normal prudence) do not require that a CASI accept the owner’s declarations without review or confirmation. As a delegate of the Minister of Transport, the CASI has the authority to personally inspect or cause to be inspected any aircraft for which an application for flight authority has been made. Any personal inspection by a CASI of an owner-maintenance aircraft will be to the extent necessary to verify that the aircraft is as described in the documentation and is free of obvious defects.

In the simplest case of an aircraft having a valid Canadian Certificate of Airworthiness transitioning to owner-maintenance, a CASI’s inspection is very rarely required.

CASI Inspection

A CASI’s inspection will normally be conducted subsequent to unsatisfactory document review or if the aircraft is being imported, has not been operated in the last five years, or does not conform to its type design.

Aircraft can be imported directly into the owner-maintenance classification and an aircraft intended for owner-maintenance that does not meet its type design on import may be issued with the Ministerial Exemption mentioned above. Well-meaning people have come to the mistaken conclusion that the classification and exemption together allow the straightforward import and registration of disassembled aircraft, damaged aircraft and aircraft with incomplete technical records as well as heavily modified aircraft. This is not the case.

Consistent with the import requirements for other aircraft, it is reasonable for the Minister to require that an inspection up to equivalent-to-annual of the imported aircraft be carried out and if necessary that it be carried out by an AME. The CASI may require that a defect list be compiled and cleared, followed by inspecting the aircraft him or herself.

Lastly, it is important to note that while reversal of the owner-maintenance registration is possible it will not be easy or cheap.

Web links:

Lists of aircraft that have been determined to be eligible for owner-maintenance classification:
www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm and
www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/maintenance-aarpe-recreational-classification-2752.htm


Not sure when this article was written but it's interesting to note that less than 3% of the non-commercial Canadian fleet was operating under the OM rules. At present, the FAA does not recognize canadian owner maintained aircraft and therefore operation in the US is prohibited. There is something similar being discussed in the US. Nothing published yet.

[raytoews]

I would question that 3% must be quite old.
For me it has been a godsend. I don't think I would have kept my Cheetah if it weren't for OM.
The fear is it will devalue an airplane. If I was selling maybe but that isn't going to happen.
I have done a lot of minor modifications to make it an easier airplane to maintain.
One restriction is we cant violate the original type certificate ,,,,without the permission of the minister.
I assume anything could be done with the appropriate paperwork (engineering).