Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
So? You get people here in the USA saying the same thing about EAB aircraft.
Experimental AB a Thing Of The Past?
- Thread starter Geico266
- Start date
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Certainly, and the buyer applies price accordingly.
The uncertainty of the builder or maintainer is a big factor in price.
From past posts here we often see the buyers attitude in this.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
The population you used for statistics is also faulty- aside from being small, they came down here for a plane they knew wasn't maintained by the owner with using automotive parts, yet they wanted an inexpensive plane, so they came here.
The US dollar and the canadian dollar are almost at parity 1USD = 0.9921 CAD as of this writing. I't been like that for awhile now- for the past two years or longer- high was 1.07 USD for one CAD.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
The market on FAA/PMAed parts is narrow, any loss in market share with uncertified parts will effect the manufacturers and may cause them to drop the line, which will have a bad effect on the whole industry.
the Part 135 operators would be devastated by higher prices caused by manufacturers loosing interest in supplying the market that narrow.
I am all for a owner maintained aircraft, but I believe this is a bad way to do it. altering part 43.3 to allow owners to return their aircraft to service is easier, safer, and more likely to succeed. simply because the aircraft will remain in an airworthy condition as they are now. I don't care who turns the wrench, an owner could supervise any one, who cares.
but to allow the owner to make modifications with out approval, simply will not pass FAA scrutiny IMHO.
So we will end up with another bastardized FAA lawyerized regulation we really didn't want.
There's no doubt of any of that and that's why it will also spur new aircraft purchase to some small regards at least. However as to cash value, 5 years ago I would have agreed that it would knock prices in the dirt, but anymore, how much lower you want an airframe to go? I think it may actually help the value of old planes, especially those still on standard certificates since it opens up a much lower cost of operations and upgrade.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
All any owner needs to do is subtract the labor off their last 2 years op costs, see how much they would have saved if they had ability and method of returning the aircraft to service them selves.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
agreed with Henning - and I think this would make twin ownership more viable.
You're missing it Tom, that's not where the typical owner is looking to save money, they are looking at realistic parts costs.
If we can, could we add a poll as to how owners would use this; 'Not', 'Cert Parts/Self Serve', 'Uncert Parts/A&P Service', & 'Uncert Parts/Self Serve'? Might be telling to you. Most people do not trust their mechanical ability to work on their plane more than they currently do. We may add people to ownership and A&Ps may only gain a smaller fraction of those, but they will still see a net positive; especially when upgrades and mods become affordable.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
that's only 1 aspect
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
How many buyers do you believe will buy the equipment, tools, and manuals that required to maintain a twin? Even if the rule allows eliminating CFR43 requirements, you still must buy the jacks and ground handling support equipment.
I understand, thing is it is the over riding aspect. It alone has the ability to revive GA. You may lose 3 clients, but you'll gain 12 because this brings things into the realm of affordability. You can take aged but solid airframes that are selling for next to nothing, put in a new SVT panel and autopilot for <$15k. Then put in FADEC version of the current engine at substantial savings or even upgrade to a Diesel for less than the cost of overhauling their current engine.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
affordable for who? doing what you suggest will take the price out of question for most new buyers.
Labor and these parts are not cheap, even with out certification.
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,873
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
Here's the dope on the Owner-Maintenance category. It's not as broad as some Americans think, and there are relatively few in this category so far. The fact remains that there are few folks willing to try to keep their aircraft airworthy by maintaining it themselves, recognizing two things: It decreases the resale value, and their mechanical skills are not up to the task.
In my case as a Canadian Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, I would probably register an older airplane that I owned in the OM category simply to escape the insane parts prices and the fact that many parts aren't available at any price for some of these old craft. I can machine and fabricate parts, I can weld, I can find parts at auto supply shops that will work just fine. The tradeoff is OK for the guy who buys a $25K airplane and takes a look at what he will probably spend in the time he owns it: he can pay the AME another $25K over the next 15 or 20 years to maintain it, or he can do it himself and take a $25K resale loss when he lets it go. So what if it loses value, if he plans to own it for a long time and can't afford to own it any other way?
The list of eligible aircraft is listed as Appendix H in the following excerpt from the Regulations. Clicking on it will reveal the aircraft that qualify, and that list is pretty restrictive. Most of you will never have heard of some of these airplanes.
Here's the stuff:
(6) Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version) (a) A Special C of A in the owner-maintenance classification is issued for recreational purposes only.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)
Information Note:
Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance are listed in Appendix H of this Standard.
(b) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, is marked on the side of the fuselage, in a position that is readily visible to persons entering the aircraft, in letters at least 10 mm (3/8 in.) high and of a colour contrasting with the background, with a placard containing the following statement:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)
WARNING
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS - OWNER-MAINTENANCE
THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS
AVIS
CERTIFICAT SPÉCIAL DE NAVIGABILITÉ - MAINTENANCE PAR LE PROPRIÉTAIRE
CET AÉRONEF N’EST PAS CONFORME AUX NORMES DE NAVIGABILITÉ
INTERNATIONALES RECONNUES
(c) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, and each engine, propeller and life-limited part installed on such an aircraft, has the letter “X”; permanently etched, engraved or stamped at the end of the model designation and serial number on the identification plate required by CAR 201.01.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)
(d) A person may have an aircraft type added to the list of aircraft eligible for a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance, by submitting a written request to the Minister, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)
Information Note:
A written request must be submitted to the Director, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, Ottawa, Canada, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).
(e) An aircraft type and model may be included in Appendix H of this Standard, Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance”, where:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)
(i) the aircraft is of a type certified in accordance with Chapters 522 or 523 of the Airworthiness Manual, or an equivalent foreign standard;
(ii) the aircraft type certificate does not authorize more than four occupants;
(iii) the maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) of the aircraft does not exceed 1,814 kg (4,000 pounds);
(iv) the aircraft is of a type and model that has not been manufactured during the 60 months preceding the date of application;
(v) fewer than 10% of Canadian aircraft of the type and model concerned are operating in Canadian commercial air service at the time of application;
(vi) the aircraft type and model is powered by a single, normally aspirated, piston engine, and is unpressurized; and
(vii) except for gliders, powered gliders or aircraft with airframes of wooden construction, the aircraft type and model has a fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller.
End of quote.
There are a few constant-speed-prop airplanes in the list, but as the last item says, they are made largely of wood. The Bellanca 14 series have wooden wings, for example. The Bellancas also have retracts.
Dan
It makes a fresh 182 cost $75k (Diesel <$100k), that's what an old panel mid time engine 182 cost 5-6 years ago. What could Petersen sell me Katmai kit for under those conditions? Can I mod my own 206 with it? Right now we have an entire generation of aircraft at the end of their economic viability, there's papers full of cheap planes that won't be sold because it's not currently economically feasible to revive them especially in the face of the next gen requirements coming. If people are not enslaved to the overpriced parts network and inefficient old crap they will be much more willing to get involved.
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wonder if there will be any liability to the seller, who used non-original or non-pma parts during repairs - when the buyer crashes.
Sort of like the fabricator of an AB a/c seems to have liability when they sell.
Sort of like the fabricator of an AB a/c seems to have liability when they sell.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
denverpilot
Tied Down
Martino's already $2-$4M in debt over his failed real estate deals, depending on if you ask him or his creditors.
The house is in his wife's name to keep it from being seized as an Asset.
That guy won't see a dime.
The house is in his wife's name to keep it from being seized as an Asset.
That guy won't see a dime.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Maybe not in this case but the question was if someone might be opening themselves up to possible liability.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
By using the "File" -> "Properties" menu selection under Adobe Reader, it says "scott fohrman" is the author.
A google search for various word sequences in the document didn't yield any hits at all for me, suggesting the document is still being privately distributed.
Would be helpful if the author(s) would sign and date the document.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Much like auto repair shops have all gone belly up because anyone is allowed to do their own maintenance and repair on their own cars?
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Tom, pull your head out of the sand! The market for "turnkey" renovations would be unlimited! It is not uncommon for a buyer of a used RV to spend $50,000 - $250,000 on an E-AB. How much would it cost to rehab a nice straight 172 with the latest and greatest and sell it for $75k?
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
There has never been a successful lawsuit by a buyer or their heirs for building or selling an experimental aircraft. Ever.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
It seems that the overwhelming majority think this is a good idea
It's not only a good idea, it's a requirement for the future of GA. Most people don't complain about the labor side of their plane bill too much, most A&Ps are cheaper than a dealer shop for their car; it's the parts that are insane and we just don't need that level of provenance for non commercial use parts since strict liability doesn't apply. The main reason for the parts cost is because airlines have Strict Liability attached to them and the insurance companies require all the documentation so they have the evidence they need in court to collect from.
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 5,907
- Display Name
Display name:
Quit with the negative waves, man.
How would this affect IFR ops in aircraft using non-certified glass or auto pilots? Would we end up with a lot of nice panels placarded "not for IFR"?
If there would be no such restriction, then if this goes through then it's time to open an avionics shop. If a single engine fixed gear owner could install a full-dress trutrak Gemini or equivalent and actually use it IFR at AB prices, they will be lined up around the block.
If there would be no such restriction, then if this goes through then it's time to open an avionics shop. If a single engine fixed gear owner could install a full-dress trutrak Gemini or equivalent and actually use it IFR at AB prices, they will be lined up around the block.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
Anyone that sells the parts have "strict liability" attached to them. All "strict liability" means is that the claimant proves that the tort occurred and the defendant is responsible. Every automobile manufacturer is subject to "strict liability".
Right, the parts do, however in aviation, the airlines insurer is strictly liable for those parts, every last one of them since they hold strict liability for the entire operation.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
well if my plane had to go VFR only I guess it would stay certified. That would defeat the point for some of us.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
There has never been a successful lawsuit by a buyer or their heirs for building or selling an experimental aircraft. Ever.
So all you would have to worry about is maybe....$30K in legal fees to defend yourself? Not as bad as it could be. Maybe you can get insurance for that.
Why would that happen? Ex/AB is fine for IFR with all that equipment, why would they change that?
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
Indirectly. The airline has strict liability, as does the companies that manufactured the parts and the manufacturer of the plane. But yes, insurance covers them all.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,765
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Thanks Jack, He sent it to me to post too (I offered), but I just now saw it! Sorry Larry!
Exactly, and what this does is simplifies and streamlines the process of spreading the liability as well as removing potentially further defective parts from the same run. With GA you just don't need all that; the costs aren't great enough and insurance does a reasonable job of regulating the industry.
Chip Sylverne
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 5,907
- Display Name
Display name:
Quit with the negative waves, man.
Don't know, just looking for the potential fly in the ointment. The proposal as it is just seems too....reasonable.
airbornejohnny
Line Up and Wait
The way I see it, this translates to creating growth and competition. When there is something a lot of people want, and they can all afford it, it becomes simple supply and demand, and every company worth their salt will want a piece of the pie.
Like Henning touched on, with new technological advances coming out, this would make it more attainable by Joe (or Jane) Pilot. Suppose said pilot wants a glass panel and diesel in their old 182 they take the family around in, it becomes less of a pipe dream. Having the same, meticulous and knowledgeable A&P handle all the changes should have no effect on the pilot's confidence in the changes.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
That's probably why it won't get beyond the proposal stage.
That was my first reaction, too.
This has all been in plan for decades, it's just slow in implementation.