Printable View
The new Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, which is now Law, is likely to create a new category where owners can take a certificated aircraft older than 20 years and essentially turn it into an Experimental. This proposed new category is called Primary Non-Commercial Aircraft catagory.
What is Vintage doing to embrace this?
See my post in the Hangar Talk forum at http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...erimental-quot
Embrace what? I'm sure many are all for the new category. But if you're asking if they're going to let you park in vintage with an 1993 aircraft? Ain't no way.
20 years is just some regulation. 18 years for the statute of repose didn't make any difference. The EAA has crept forward the judging eligibility on contemporary classic slowly (in 92 when I joined it was 1965, now it's 1970).
What does one have to do with the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by TedK
Gentlemen- I'm not proposing an early pass to park in Vintage Parking, but I think this is a proposal that VAA should embrace and endorse. It will help owners to maintain their aircraft as they age, revitalize the value of middle age factory produced aircraft, and provide latitude to owners to modify and maintain.
If not Vintage, then who?
You still haven't answered - what does embracing (or not) this new proposal have to do with the definition of Vintage being 20 years old?
I would not buy a plane that has been maintained by someone without credentials. I would not convert my plane to the proposed certification. Might save money short term but resale is likely to suffer. Can't see how this would affect how Vintage would categorize planes.
The Study considered that situation. Unlike an E-AB, but like LSA, an owner would be required to train and obtain a Repairmans Certificatw to do anything beyond what they can do today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Stadt
Further, with the idea of long term resale, the study recommendations would permit you to reconvert a PNC back to Normal Category by removal of non PMA/TSO mods, and a regular ANNUAL by an IA.
VAA should be interested in these airplanes because they are going to be Vintage Airplanes at some point. I am a Vintage member, and although my airplane is not yet eligible for Vintage parking, it sports a VAA decal, and will be a Vintage airplane in 2016, so expect my PNC airplane to show up in Vintage parking in 2016.
But, this isn't about stealing parking spots, it is about life, safety and modifications on mid-life airplanes. Isn't that what Vintage is about?
I just wonder when my 68 year old airplanes will be antiques? Technically, my Cub is since it was designed before World War II. My Swift, actually a few months older is considered a classic. Funny, back in the 50s, a 25 year old airplane was an antique but today, a 68 year old plane is not.
As far as judging criteria, I doubt that will ever change (and to my knowledge it hasn't). WWII and earlier will remain it's own category. Frankly, if they do jump ahead by a decade or so on the recent end of eligibility I would think it would be better to make a fourth category. Again the vintage "eligibility" are all judging categories so don't expect them to bollix up the natural historical divisions.
While you can seek to define Vintage as the "old aircraft club," I'm not sure that's how the EAA sees it.
Ted,
VAA as well as EAA are very much in support of the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, and actively worked for its passage. Right now the FAA feels that this is a Part 23 issue and does not extend to Part 21. Meaning that this only applies to new production aircraft, but it does allow operators of vintage aircraft to install AOAs, autopilots, and the like in their aircraft. Expanding this policy to include vintage aircraft is a high priority for EAA and VAA Government Advocacy. We are currently working to get this hangup in the legislation resolved and make SARA much more useful to those operating vintage aircraft.
-Max Platts
VAA Administrator
Max- thank you for the update. I find it interesting that the FAA commissioned the study as a Part 23 study, the study group included FAA participants and made recommendations outside of Part 23, the Law directs implementation of the Recommendations, and the FAA is pushing back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Platts
Do you have sufficient congressional support to get a letter to FAA that says "what part of implement the study recommendations...all the study recommendation...don't you understand?" I would hope so since this is the only thing lately that has unanimously passed in the House.
What can the membership do to help get the PNC portion into the initial NPRM?
thanks!
Ted
Ted and all,
EAA participated in the Part 23 ARC and is in large part responsible for the inclusion of the Primary Non-Commercial Category recommendation in its final report. Unfortunately, as you may know the implementation of the report was stymied in the rulemaking process, forcing the industry to resort to legislation.
The legislation, however, does not force the FAA to adopt the ARC recommendations, only specific ones related to new production (read the full text here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1848/text). It is also very broad, giving significant discretion to the FAA over how to implement it. While they have jumped on this to allow the quick and simplified installation of non-required safety equipment such as AoA, the full recommendation of the Primary Non-Commercial category (owner maintenance, non-PMA parts, etc...) is currently not being implemented (part of the Agency's argument, as Max stated, is that what we want actually concerns Part 21, not Part 23).
We're obviously not very happy about this. Owner maintenance and keeping vintage aircraft flying has long been a major goal of ours, and we're not there yet. We're currently addressing the "low hanging fruit" of safety equipment installations before moving onto what we (and I'm sure you) see as the big prize of an owner maintenance category. I would say that behind medical reform this is our next most important advocacy priority. While progress up till now has been tough, the ARC report got the conversation turned up a few notches, and we'll find a way to get it done. And yes, as soon as there is a way for the community to help, we'll absolutely let you know.
Ok, so what is your Strategy for getting to PNC and Owner Maintenance?
SARA is Law. Passed unanimously in the House. When are you ever going to get that kind of political capital again? If you let FAA do it solely as a Part 23 rewrite, you will never ever get the issued opened again.
Let GAMA carry the freight for the Part 23 rewrite, EAA and AOPA ought to be busting their humps to ensure that the appendix G (PNC) portions are in the NRPM.
There is a way for the community to help now, we can write Congress requesting that they clarify that we they tell something they mean all of something.
Or alternatively, you could wait for the NRPM and have the members carpet bomb it with comments to get the Appendix G comments put back it.
It appears you are doing what you individually can, but can't you get more traction and leverage by getting the membership involved?
PS: Is AOPA involved and helping?