Vintage in MOSAIC

I have emailed Amy Lemke for the past few years on the subject of MOSAIC and vintage aircraft maintenance.


With the release of MOSAIC to NPRM, I see nothing that help’s maintenance of our CAR3 vintage aircraft. It seems the push was moving airframes into LSA but that does nothing to help add safer products to our aging fleet.


CAR3 aircraft are certified, but they are not Part 23 aircraft. Sure there were STCs originally started in the 1960s, 1970s and such, but they are no longer supported as the original STC holders have passed. Also no one will invest the $100,000+ to start a new STC.


CAR3 aircraft had to comply with CAM18 to be determined airworthy. There was not A TSO standard in 1946 when my Stinson 108 was contrstructed.


Now with MOSAIC, eLSA can install experimental avionics but guess what, not in my CAR3 certified aircraft.


It’s just PLANE Unfair and I expected the vintage department of EAA to fight harder to help us with a new certification class for vintage to more easily add safer equipment similar to how Canada allows vintage.


I would like to receive and email back from Amy to discuss more. I plan to organize a larger group of like minded vintage points of contact to reply to the NPRM and I would expect her support as well.


Thank you


Will Ware
ROCKWALL Texas
ATP / A&P

Anyone have any comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J3cubcapt

Now with MOSAIC, eLSA can install experimental avionics but guess what, not in my CAR3 certified aircraft.

---

Before I address your overall message, I have to correct you here: MOSAIC does not grant permission to install experimental avionics in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA). That permission was already there; the fact that the aircraft were in the Experimental category permitted owners to replace avionics/engines/etc. at will. It's not part of MOSAIC.

The overall point you bring up, about the need to ease support for CAR3 aircraft, is a valid one. The trouble is, MOSAIC wasn't the right structure to bring about the required changes. MOSAIC is an acronym for "Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification". For aircraft operating under Special Airworthiness Certificates, not the Standard certification of the old CAR3 aircraft.

The MOSAIC proposal doesn't address seat pitch in commercial airliners, or frequency standards for aircraft radios, or any number of aviation-related functions because they're not related to Special Airworthiness.

EAA has put a lot of effort into MOSAIC. Now, with the light in that particular tunnel in sight, it's hoped they can turn to the important subject of keeping our older airplanes in operation. Canada, for instance, has its Owner Maintenance category, which allows owners to apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate that basically allows the airplane to be treated the same as an Amateur-Built aircraft.

We certainly need that. But changes like that don't happen overnight.

Let's look at the past 20 years. The FAA bowed to EAA, AOPA, and industry requests and instituted the Light Sport and Sport Pilot programs in 2005. Ten years of experience with Sport Pilot showed that the onerous medical restrictions weren't really necessary, and Basic Med was the example. Now, less than ten years later, the FAA has come to the realization that people without Class III medicals CAN fly larger, higher-performance aircraft without significant impact on aviation safety.

Like any historical event, it's a pain to live through...but things are heading in the right direction.

It would have been nice if an Owner Maintenance category would have been included in MOSAIC. But we've got years of debate in store for reform of Standard certifications. And when you put too many provisions into a given proposal, it induces more argument and holds up progress. If an Owner Maintenance-like category had been added to MOSAIC, it would likely have taken several more years for anything to come to fruition.

It's baby steps, but that's how reforms happen.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks Ron that was a well thought our reply and I appreciate the education on a few of your points where I was off base.

I was reading though the NPRM last night and in sections 1, 2 and 3 there was a lot of "History" review as you mentioned and aligning regulations on the "Safety continuum". Where do we start pushing now to make changes for Vintage? Do we show that CAR3 certified aircraft are falling behind that curve and change is needed?

Does the leadership at EAA vintage have a PLAN? Are they communicating that plan and executing it?

I have been involved with Electronic Flight Bag Policy for over 12 years and I LUV pushing hard for change and I have helped much change in AC120-76 and AC20-173 over the years.

As an owner of a vintage CAR3 aircraft I want to see meaningful change to allow more freedom in making modifications for safer components and products for my aircraft.

Right now I'm 100% moving the Stinson to Experimental Exhibition which is cheap and easy to do with a DAR and very little impact on operation as proven by as many as 17,000 aircraft as reported by Kyle Bushman of Ragwood Refactory https://youtu.be/SSGv5ixPV5A

Certainly, we can wave our hands and say, "I wish EAA would help push through some relief for vintage aircraft owners."

But I think we should help by defining what we're looking for!

It's been quite a few years since my specification-writing days, but this is what I think the new category should look like. It's a cross between Experimental Amateur-Built and Light Sport regulations. I've injected some of my reasoning for some of the aspects of the proposed rules:
-------------------------------------------------------------
21.196 Experimental Certificates: Experimental Owner Maintenance (Suggested)
(a) Purpose: The FAA issues a special airworthiness certificate in the Experimental Owner Maintenance category to enable continued operation of aircraft certified under obsolete regulations

(b) Eligibility: To be eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the Experimental Owner Maintenance category

(1) The aircraft must possess a valid Standard airworthiness certificate

(2) The aircraft must have been certified under regulations proceeding the creation of 14CFR Part 21.

I didn't want to just say "CAR3"; wanted to ensure any older standards were included.

(3) The aircraft must have been manufactured prior to 1980.

Don't know if any aircraft were still manufactured in 1980 that had been original certified under CAR3, but 1980 is the approximate "cusp" in light aircraft production.

(4) The aircraft must have completed an Annual Inspection in accordance to 14CFR Part 43 within a year of the application date.

Doesn't help the restorers, of course. But I think the FAA might be more likely to accept it if aircraft transitioning to E/O-M were shown to be airworthy at the time of application.

(5) The aircraft must conform to the 14CFR Part 1 definition of Light Sport Aircraft, as modified by the MOSAIC program.

Pure sneaky on my part. I'm hoping to be able to tie this to the changed Light Sport definition that results from the MOSAIC changes. Just saying, "La, la, la, just some more light sport stuff, nothing to worry about...."

(c) Application

(1) The owner of the aircraft must submit an FAA form 8130-6 to request the aircraft be granted a Experimental Owner Maintenance capability.

(i) Form 8130-6 must be updated to include the new category

(ii) In the interim, pen-and-ink changes are permitted on the existing forms

(d) Implementation

(1) Upon being granted a certificate in the Experimental Owner Maintenance category

(i) The Standard category airworthiness certificate shall be returned to the FAA

(ii) A set of operating limitations shall be issued to the aircraft, including the following provisions:

(A) To be valid for operations, the aircraft shall have undergone a Condition Inspection to the scope and breadth of 14 CFR Part 43 Appendix D in the past twelve calendar months

(B) The Condition Inspection may be performed by

(1) FAA certified mechanics holding an Airframe and Powerplant ratings, or

(2) An individual holding a Light Sport – Maintenance Repairman Certificate

Why listing the LS-M repairman certificate as able to do the Condition Inspection? Because the LS-M certificate can be earned in a two-week course. That would allow the owners of E/O-M aircraft to get the appropriate license to perform their own Condition Inspection.

By the way, by having an Experimental certificate, Part 43 doesn't apply...just like Experimental Amateur-Built or Experimental Light Sport aircraft. So anyone can do the maintenance or modification.

(3) The person performing the Condition Inspection must note its successful completion in the aircraft logbooks. In addition, the current owner is required to sign the entry.

This is an Owner Maintenance category. I think the owner needs to acknowledge the completion of the Condition Inspection, too.

(C) Modifications

(1) Any major change to the aircraft, as defined in 14CFR Part 21.93, will invalidate the current Operating Limitations.

(2) Prior to such major changes, the owner shall contact the FAA and receive temporary Flight Test Operating Limitations permitting the testing of the changes

(3) The temporary Operating Limitations

(i) Will require at least five hours of in-flight testing
(ii) Will prohibit the carriage of passengers during the testing

(iii) Will define a geographic limit to be used during testing.

(iv) Will expire after completion of the test period upon logbook entry. At that point the original Operating Limitations will again be valid.

(e) Limitations

(1) Granting an Experimental Owner Maintenance Airworthiness Certificate to an aircraft is permanent; it cannot be restored the Standard category

This is a sop to the FAA allay any fears that owners will toggle the plane back and forth between Standard and Special categories.

(2) The aircraft cannot be operated for hire or reward.

(3) The aircraft must comply with Airworthiness Directives applicable to the airframe, engine, or accessories.

(i) The owner may perform an alternate method of compliance

(ii) This alternate method must be fully documented in the aircraft records

(iii) The aircraft shall not carry passengers for five hours after completing the alternate compliance method.

Currently, the FAA's interpretation of whether ADs apply to homebuilts or not depends on the wording of the AD. If an engine AD, for example, says "All Aircraft," then it indeed DOES apply to homebuilts. So I figure the same process will be in play here.

My thought for the "alternate methods of compliance" is to give the owner of an E/O-M aircraft a bit of leeway.

(iv) Upon sale of the aircraft, the purchaser must sign a statement acknowledging that the aircraft is in the Experimental Owner Maintenance category.

I see this as a bit of a legal safety net for people who take their planes E/O-M. Don't want someone coming back later claiming they didn't know that the airplane was other than Standard airworthiness.


Ron Wanttaja

That is fantastic, you are definitely showing your experience. This is something I could get behind. Thanks for taking the time to construct this.

How can we socialize and begin a conversation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J3cubcapt

That is fantastic, you are definitely showing your experience. This is something I could get behind. Thanks for taking the time to construct this.

How can we socialize and begin a conversation?

---

Two things to remember: First, EAA just got done with AirVenture. In the past, I've noticed the EAA staff is a bit shell-shocked at this point. They start working the fly-in well in advance, and it's an all-hands effort for two months or more. They're probably mostly on vacation this week, maybe longer. So I wouldn't expect a lot of activity in the short term.

Second, the MOSAIC NPRM is out, but it *is* only the proposed rule! The FAA will be accepting comments over the next several months, and then altering the draft (or not...) based on their assessment of the validity of the comments. You can bet that EAA and AOPA will be seriously involved in that. Not many available cycles for the Vintage aircraft problems.

Tom Charpentier is EAA's Government Relations Director. He occasionally chimes in, here. Maybe we'll see some comments from him once his post-AirVenture-stare ratchets down from a thousand yards. If nothing else, give him a couple of weeks, then call the EAA switchboard and ask to talk to him.

Ron Wanttaja

Do you think You/I (we) could add your proposed 21.196 to the comments section of the NPRM? Might as well be on the radar, and since you essentially wrote the rule above, then maybe it's really just them discussing internally?

I really do appreciate your engagement. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J3cubcapt

Do you think You/I (we) could add your proposed 21.196 to the comments section of the NPRM? Might as well be on the radar, and since you essentially wrote the rule above, then maybe it's really just them discussing internally?

I really do appreciate your engagement. Thanks

---

The E/O-M proposal doesn't fit the MOSAIC NPRM...it's an aircraft certification issue, not related to pilot certification. Best case, they'd just reject it as beyond the scope of MOSAIC. Worst case, they'd decide to try to incorporate it, and it would open enough a whole slew of getting industry comment, re-releasing another draft in one or two years, opening a new period for NPRM comment, etc.

I'd leave it for now. Start bugging Tom when MOSAIC gets implemented.

Ron Wanttaja

Amy Lemke emailed me back today and suggested reaching out to Tom Charpentier, but your suggested way forward is to wait until MOSIC is in place and then hit up Tom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J3cubcapt

Amy Lemke emailed me back today and suggested reaching out to Tom Charpentier, but your suggested way forward is to wait until MOSIC is in place and then hit up Tom?

---

Doesn't matter, really, but I suspect Tom is pretty busy with the MOSAIC stuff. Think he might have more cycles available later.

Ron Wanttaja