Experimental AB a Thing Of The Past?

[Geico266]

There is a proposal in the Aircraft Rule Making Committee to create a new "Non Type Certified Class" for small aircraft to allow them to use non TSOed or PMAed parts to save costs. We have seen this in the experimental world for decades. Starters that cost $1,500 for a Cessna cost an experimental aircraft owner $300, and it is the exact same starter, as an example. Garmin panel upgrades cost certified aircraft owners $50,000?, experimental panel upgrades $12,000, and on and on. The purpose of this new class would be to reduce operating expenses for small A/C owners.

Another proposal is to do away with the often confusing and misunderstood ( by the public and most pilots) Experimental AB class and rename it to "Non Commercial AB", doing away with the word "Experimental".

Both of these changes are welcome benifits to small aircraft owners.

I do not know how to post a PDF. If you do and will post it to this thread let me know I will send it to you and you can post it. Thanks!

 

[Challenged]

I would love to be able to install both an auto-pilot (TruTrak) and glass (Dynon). As it currently stands, the certified versions of these products are so expensive that I can't justify their purchase. It's ironic that, as of today, due to the cost of the certification process itself, I'm not able to make my airplane safer for IFR flying.

 

[dmccormack]

Use of Non-TSO arts on otherwise certificated aircraft would be good for the current owners... (we sorta have that already with the 'owner-produced part" rule).

As much as I like it, it will be a real nutroll for buyers.

 

[Henning]

Use of Non-TSO arts on otherwise certificated aircraft would be good for the current owners... (we sorta have that already with the 'owner-produced part" rule).

As much as I like it, it will be a real nutroll for buyers.

Not really because aircraft prices will drop through the floor if it happens. It'll make buying a used plane like a used car, you won't know what someones done to it.

 

[flyingron]

Are they going to let you recertify existing certificated aircraft in the new class?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Are they going to let you recertify existing certificated aircraft in the new class?

I think it will be called "non-commercial". I was just looking for the pdf to post. I think it's just a proposal right now.

 

[Geico266]

Being a home builder I am most excited about losing the "Experimental" name. The public is not accepting of the word "experimental" and aircraft in the same sentence. Actually, there is nothing experimental about the kits we are building today. The Vans series has thousands of planes flying for each model. In fact, the Vans E-LSA RV-12 kit only requires a 5 hour fly off.

 

[Henning]

Are they going to let you recertify existing certificated aircraft in the new class?

I personally think the Canadians have it pretty well. They have an "owner maint" certification that takes an owners airframe on a one way certification trip to Owner Maint. Not exactly clear on all the details. That would be optimal.

 

[dmccormack]

Not really because aircraft prices will drop through the floor if it happens. It'll make buying a used plane like a used car, you won't know what someones done to it.

That's the current situation...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Here's the PDF that Larry mentioned

 

[Henning]

That's the current situation...

True, however your odds under the current system of the person doing the work to proper and safe standards as per the manufacturers recommendations are pretty solid.

 

[Jim_R]

Henning, from the PDF: "Secondly, this class follows International Precedent by emulating the Canadian Owner Maintenance Category."

The proposal is to create a new class like Canada's. If an owner wanted to keep his/her plane certificated, he/she could choose to do so, but if they wanted to go the "non-commercial" route, they could do that, too.

Does the Canadian resale market reflect a price premium on certificated aircraft?

 

[TMetzinger]

Seems like if you're going to be a "fly it 'til it dies" owner, and you're not worried about resale, then the ability to take the airplane to the new category is a good thing.

And if you want to buy a 172 that may no longer comply with the type certificate for less money, that could be good too.

For folks doing personal flying (no for-hire of any type) this could be a very good thing. I don't see how it increases risk for the general public much.

 

[Tom-D]

IMHO, it's the wrong approach, all we really need to accomplish the same thing is to change CFR 43.3 to add owners as a person that can return to service on their personal aircraft.

 

[Tom-D]

Does the Canadian resale market reflect a price premium on certificated aircraft?

Yes ... very much so.

 

[Tom-D]

I believe it would be a death blow to many FBOs and repair shops in this struggling industry. and the A&P-IAs would be basically unemployed.

 

[N801BH]

I believe it would be a death blow to many FBOs and repair shops in this struggling industry. and the A&P-IAs would be basically unemployed.

It is a double edged sword... The industry is dying from insane resale prices of certified planes... Mostly caused by the certification process and the resulting liability issues. I think the whole experimental market proves owner maintenance is a workable option.

 

[Tom-D]

It is a double edged sword... The industry is dying from insane resale prices of certified planes... Mostly caused by the certification process and the resulting liability issues. I think the whole experimental market proves owner maintenance is a workable option.

All aircraft prior to 1930 were owner maintained, the accident rate was off the scale, thus the CAA and regulations.

as written John Travota could maintain his 707 him self, as could any small jet owner. and any of the military jet owners.

I really doubt that this gets out of the proposal state as any thing we would recognize.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Who is making the proposal? I do not see any identification on the pdf. Just wondering where it is coming from.

 

[N801BH]

All aircraft prior to 1930 were owner maintained, the accident rate was off the scale, thus the CAA and regulations.

as written John Travota could maintain his 707 him self, as could any small jet owner. and any of the military jet owners.

I really doubt that this gets out of the proposal state as any thing we would recognize.

Tom..............

Using pre 1930 stats to bolster your case is weak,,,, at best,,

 

[Cap'n Jack]

All aircraft prior to 1930 were owner maintained, the accident rate was off the scale, thus the CAA and regulations.

Owner maintenance was only part of the reason for the accident rate.

 

[Henning]

Henning, from the PDF: "Secondly, this class follows International Precedent by emulating the Canadian Owner Maintenance Category."

The proposal is to create a new class like Canada's. If an owner wanted to keep his/her plane certificated, he/she could choose to do so, but if they wanted to go the "non-commercial" route, they could do that, too.

Does the Canadian resale market reflect a price premium on certificated aircraft?

Kinda figured that's where they were going since they had positive supporting data for that model. I like it, it works for a lot of people.

I really don't follow the Canadian market so I have no idea, it could go either way or neutral really.

 

[Tom-D]

Owner maintenance was only part of the reason for the accident rate.

As written, it opens the door to the same practices.

As written, it allows the owner to modify the aircraft any way they please, I really don't see the FAA allowing that to happen.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Does the Canadian resale market reflect a price premium on certificated aircraft?

Yes ... very much so.

Tom- got any citations for this, or is it just what you think it is (like too many of your posts involving chemistry)?

 

[Geico266]

Tom, with all due respect, you are part of the problem by not seeing the big picture. Instead of keeping a dying system the way it was for 50 years, new and innovative ways need to be implemented to get the cost out of flying. This is a step in the right direction.


I don't see the down side as now you will be able to offer your customers non tsoed pmaed equipment at 1/4 the price. Once a guy is able to buy a plane for $10k and upgrade it for pennies on the dollar you will get more business.

Another example of the rediculous prices paid by certified aircraft owners is a voltage regulator for Cessna. The certified one is $350, or you can go to NAPA and buy the exact same regulator $15. The difference? One has a spray coating of plastic on the coils. I know of Cessna drivers that put the NAPA parts on by their A&PS. It is rediculous to charge your customers exorbitant prices for parts and expect them to keep coming back or stay in aviation.

How about being able to install electronic ignition on one side of your customer's engines? Saving fuel, increasing performance, improving reliability, and being able to use $2 spark plugs?

Old dogs can learn new tricks.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

As written, it opens the door to the same practices.

As written, it allows the owner to modify the aircraft any way they please, I really don't see the FAA allowing that to happen.

What same practices? How many crashes then were due to shoddy maintenance?

If the proposal were enacted it would enable me to purchase a non-certificated (but equivelent) part, such as a radio, and let a shop that has the right tools and experience properly install it.

 

[Henning]

As written, it opens the door to the same practices.

As written, it allows the owner to modify the aircraft any way they please, I really don't see the FAA allowing that to happen.

I do, Ex/AB doesn't have a particularly bad track record of people choosing shoddy parts and workmanship, as long as the plane never goes back into commercial service without something like a DAR conformance inspection, I think they'll be ok with it.

 

[airbornejohnny]

Tom, with all due respect, you are part of the problem by not seeing the big picture. Instead of keeping a dying system the way it was for 50 years, new and innovative ways need to be implemented to get the cost out of flying. This is a step in the right direction.


I don't see the down side as now you will be able to offer your customers non tsoed pmaed equipment at 1/4 the price. Once a guy is able to buy a plane for $10k and upgrade it for pennies on the dollar you will get more business.

Another example of the rediculous prices paid by certified aircraft owners is a voltage regulator for Cessna. The certified one is $350, or you can go to NAPA and buy the exact same regulator $15. The difference? One has a spray coating of plastic on the coils. I know of Cessna drivers that put the NAPA parts on by their A&PS. It is rediculous to charge your customers exorbitant prices for parts and expect them to keep coming back or stay in aviation.

How about being able to install electronic ignition on one side of your customer's engines? Saving fuel, increasing performance, improving reliability, and being able to use $2 spark plugs?

Old dogs can learn new tricks.

I don't see how this would make A&P's unemployed. The aircraft owner can opt out of certain things, and CAN do their own mx, but that does not mean they can't have their A&P do the mx under the "new" system. It means less expensive upkeep and upgrades are financially more approachable. Since it would apply to private personal use aircraft and not for hire, the proposed change is also "at your own risk."

 

[DavidWhite]

I would leave my plane in the non commercial category and still have my A&P maintain it. Id imagine alot of folks would do the same, too.

 

[Geico266]

I don't see how this would make A&P's unemployed. The aircraft owner can opt out of certain things, and CAN do their own mx, but that does not mean they can't have their A&P do the mx under the "new" system. It means less expensive upkeep and upgrades are financially more approachable. Since it would apply to private personal use aircraft and not for hire, the proposed change is also "at your own risk."

I would leave my plane in the non commercial category and still have my A&P maintain it. Id imagine alot of folks would do the same, too.

Absolutely! One can only imagine the great products that have been shelved because the production numbers were limited to what can be sold to experimental aircraft market only. Hopefully, if this goes through (and it does what I think it will do) there will be new and better products for all of us to buy, and TomD can install them! Certainly, not everyone will wantr to do the work themselves.

Want to hard wire a GPS into your panel? How about install one of those new round digital radios into a dead gage hole? Dynon Skyview? Garmin stuff?

Take a 172 with an outdated panel, add a Dynon, and an auto pilot for $5K. Now you have a "nice" panel upgrade that was impossible to do before this. Why not?

http://dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html (scroll down after opening)


The glass is half full!

 

[wanttaja]

I do, Ex/AB doesn't have a particularly bad track record of people choosing shoddy parts and workmanship, as long as the plane never goes back into commercial service without something like a DAR conformance inspection, I think they'll be ok with it.

Surprisingly, the Maintenance Error rate of homebuilt accidents is nearly identical to that of my "control group" of Cessna 172 and 210 non-instruction accidents (4.3% homebuilts, 4.1% control group). About five percent of homebuilt accidents are directly attributable to errors made during construction. Part quality issues are very low...out of ~2000 homebuilt accidents, only 7 were attributed to the use of inadequate materials, though an additional ~20 were design changes that may have involved bad part selection.

Just because an owner "can" do maintenance doesn't mean he or she will. This is to the advantage of an ordinary A&P, since having the ability to use non-commercial parts and an effective "roll back" to the good old days of field approvals means a price drop for customers. They do lose their mark-up on higher-priced aviation parts, and having an IA will be less useful.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I would leave my plane in the non commercial category and still have my A&P maintain it. Id imagine alot of folks would do the same, too.

Same here, if I had a plane.

My opinion is that the only A&Ps that should worry about going out of business are those that are incompetent A&Ps.

 

[Geico266]

Same here, if I had a plane.

My opinion is that the only A&Ps that should worry about going out of business are those that are incompetent A&Ps.

Or greedy, lazy, A&P's.

Several I know refuse to work on Rotax engines. Okay, they just lost revenue by not adapting to a newer engine that is being fitted to more new aircraft than any other aircraft engine in history. Good call.

Why not become a Rotax certified repair station for light maintenance and make money?

Want to make more money? Offer MOGAS on your fields and put it in AIRNAV.

 

[airbornejohnny]

Surprisingly, the Maintenance Error rate of homebuilt accidents is nearly identical to that of my "control group" of Cessna 172 and 210 non-instruction accidents (4.3% homebuilts, 4.1% control group). About five percent of homebuilt accidents are directly attributable to errors made during construction. Part quality issues are very low...out of ~2000 homebuilt accidents, only 7 were attributed to the use of inadequate materials, though an additional ~20 were design changes that may have involved bad part selection.

Just because an owner "can" do maintenance doesn't mean he or she will. This is to the advantage of an ordinary A&P, since having the ability to use non-commercial parts and an effective "roll back" to the good old days of field approvals means a price drop for customers. They do lose their mark-up on higher-priced aviation parts, and having an IA will be less useful.

Ron Wanttaja

Not to seem in disagreement, but I think the IA might be less common at smaller airfields with little commercial GA aircraft. That does not mean it would be useless, but that it would be more commonly used by A&P's employed by or for a commercial enterprise. For an IA, this could mean a more competitive market as the need for IA's could be reduced dramatically depending on weekend warriors' acceptance of the new rules, which potentially could mean better pay for IA rated folks. Of course the future is not written yet, I could also see some folks being hesitant to potentially devalue their aircraft or "lower their standards."

 

[zaitcev]

It'll make buying a used plane like a used car, you won't know what someones done to it.

And you know it now? Do you? Actually I think you might, given your experience. So let's ask, does an average buyer know?

Here's a small anecdote. Renter R. flew with FBO "F" for a while, and shot the breese with the owner O.. R. mentioned that airplane X always flies a little crooked, is it out of rig? O. said: "Well, it was pranged at some point, so the previous owner had it repaired. But when they were almost finished, they dropped it off the jacks in the shop and bent the spar. At that point the owner was disheartened and we were able to swoop in and buy it for basically salvage value. So X was a little crooked ever since." Coincidentially R. flew his checkride in X and examined maintenance records, never noticed anything about it.

Even with cars, being an experienced buyer gives an enormous advantage and makes shopping beaten jalopies much safer.

 

[DavidWhite]

Absolutely! One can only imagine the great products that have been shelved because the production numbers were limited to what can be sold to experimental aircraft market only. Hopefully, if this goes through (and it does what I think it will do) there will be new and better products for all of us to buy, and TomD can install them! Certainly, not everyone will wantr to do the work themselves.

Want to hard wire a GPS into your panel? How about install one of those new round digital radios into a dead gage hole? Dynon Skyview? Garmin stuff?

Take a 172 with an outdated panel, add a Dynon, and an auto pilot for $5K. Now you have a "nice" panel upgrade that was impossible to do before this. Why not?

http://dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html (scroll down after opening)


The glass is half full!

I'd get a Dynon and a Trutrak AP

 

[Henning]

I would leave my plane in the non commercial category and still have my A&P maintain it. Id imagine alot of folks would do the same, too.

I think you're probably right. As to A&Ps doing the maint I don't see there being a large change. Most people aren't mechanics and take their cars to a pro mechanic and those like me do the work anyway under supervision of an A&P which historically I haven't paid a heck of a lot for over the years, mostly donuts, coffee, and beer lol. I think most GA pilots will choose this option for the most part to gain access to the aftermarket parts available. Much lower cost engines. I will be able to hang a pair of Delta Hawks on my 310.

 

[DavidWhite]

I do oil changes owner assisted, and helped with my last annual and saved a few $$, but everything else my mechanic does.

 

[Henning]

I'd get a Dynon and a Trutrak AP

Being able to put in a Trutrak for a few thousand would make getting an AP worthwhile.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom- got any citations for this, or is it just what you think it is (like too many of your posts involving chemistry)?

The value of the Canadian dollar has reversed the trend of American pilots going to Canada and buying aircraft, this year I have helped 3 Canadian pilots in buying US registered aircraft. They all told me, they would not buy a Canadian owner maintained aircraft. their reasons were they didn't trust their families in them.