Shade tree mechanic strikes again

[mondtster]

This usually doesn't bring a welcomed response.....cause A&Ps think this dips into their rice bowel. It really doesn't. They weren't gonna pay anyways to have you do the work.

I can’t speak for others but in my circumstances that is far from the case. Anyone who knows me knows that I’ll bend over backward to help anyone, regardless if there is money in it for me or not. I have enough work to do as it is, I don’t need more. What continually irritates me are the guys who do work behind closed doors who only seem to be capable of whining about how unfair the FAA is and how they deserve to be a mechanic yet can’t ever back it up by producing quality work.

I worked full time at the airport and full time elsewhere when I was learning to be a mechanic (and still do). I have little empathy and no time for those that don’t want to learn to do things the right way.

 

[lsaway]

Would really like to see a similar option for all experimentals, even if it is a fair bit more than a 2 day course. Would not a more knowledgeable pilot make a safer pilot?

I had a friend that would not let any mechanic work on his plane unless the mx was a pilot, and would agree to do a test flight after. The theory being that the person who is going to be flying the airplane is going to be more scrupulous. This might apply to owner performed maintenance.

 

[Magman]

What I would like to see is some movement to allow creative use of phones , iPads etc for a Tech to supervise maintenance. We are living in a time when some medical procedures permit the doctor to be in another room. Or country !

Some mfg and repair stations use videos to document tasks that were accomplished.

I’ve worked with a lot of owners that can perform some tasks very well.
The difference between “ supervise in person “ or “ to the extent necessary “ can be significant. Driving to their hangar can take a lot of time.

One size does not fit all.

 

[Magman]

I will not fly with some owners after mx as they may not possess current credentials. Expired medical or BFR and I’m PIC. Folks appear insulted when I want to see logs, med, etc. Doesn’t matter what seat you’re in either!

Have seen the same in Accident Reports as well.

 

[lsaway]

I will not fly with some owners after mx as they may not possess current credentials. Expired medical or BFR and I’m PIC. Folks appear insulted when I want to see logs, med, etc. Doesn’t matter what seat you’re in either!
.

I didn't say a test flight with the owner. This friend wanted the mechanic to test fly it himself.

 

[Bell206]

I have seen Feds “ lean on” folks to have a log entry for times their aircraft is out of Annual.

Nothing worse than a blue badge making their own rules especially when the official rule states otherwise.

Is there some FAR requirement there?

No. The only time you need a signed annual is when you want to operate the aircraft.

 

[Magman]

Understand. I have done that on aircraft that I’ve done the Annual and have logged time in that type. Of course I will want to be on the Insurance policy as well.

I don’t want to buy an aircraft because of an unknown issue or Bambi wants to spend time on the runway.

 

[Dan Thomas]

When the engine was disassembled for overhaul, there was staining on the cam lobes and lifter bodies indicating previous corrosion, and there was light rust on the non-polished areas of the cam. I imagine that this would have been considered "found rust on the interior surfaces of the engine".

No, it would not have been considered rust. Light staining is normal. You never get all the moisture out. There's always a tiny bit, since there is still some blowby even when the engine is hot. You won't open a high-time engine and find it looking like new unless it was never shut down.

Serious cam corrosion will leave pits. Serious cylinder corrosion will, too, and any mechanic can shine a light into a sparkplug hole and see the cylinder wall.

 

[Dan Thomas]

If the installation had more than one speed, how are they single speed?

Again, if you substitute, the A&P needs to determine that it is a like for like and that nothing else is changed. How hard is if for you to understand that?

In your case, there was more far reaching issues, that constituted a change in design (resistor values). But did you say that CESSNA made this change of part?

Now you're being obtuse. Have you any electrical experience at all? Ever fooled with electric motors of various types? Multi-speed motors typically have several field windings that get various speeds, all at the same voltage input. Series-wound motors have one field winding, and permanent-magnet motors have permanent magnets. These are able to vary their speed if the voltage is varied, but they're "single-speed" motors. They're like your variable-speed drill.

Like-for-like means a part that is functionally the same as the old one. To be PMA'd it has to bolt in exactly, has to have the same performance, the same strength, all the same characteristics. When Cessna issued that Weldon pump in place of the Dukes, they failed to take into account its lower current draw, and after I did the math and sent it to them, their engineers called me and admitted that I was right and they had screwed up.

The circuit:



Numbers 11 and 6 are the adjustable power resistors. Number 3 is the split boost pump manual switch. Number 10 is the throttle microswitch, and #9 is the pump.



#39 is the split boost pump panel switch.

One side of the panel switch feeds the throttle microswitch circuit, which selects either full resistance (both resistors) or partial resistance (one resistor). Both resistors cause the pump to run slow, just one causes it to run at a medium speed. The other side of the split panel switch feeds full system voltage to the pump, giving max speed.

From the manual:






So there it is. Any further arguments you have, please take them up with Cessna. I am done here. I do know that there are others here who will read and learn and understand and be enlightened.

 

[Albany Tom]

As mostly an outsider, it seems to me that most of the problems with cheap owners extends all the way through corporate owners and the airlines, with the exception that corporate owners generally comply with maintenance requirements, not because it's the right thing to do, but to avoid civil or criminal penalties if something goes wrong.

To me, the only thing that regulations do is to is provide backup and justification for those people that want to do it right, and a mechanism to prove liability for those that don't. Or in other words, it's only proactive for those that are at least halfway smart.

Owner maintenance is a different thing, though, in that it's really tough to enforce things like "workmanlike manner" when you have no idea what that means. I think it's a good idea to allow it, though, for personally owned aircraft not used for business, including having non-related business people aboard. Or in other words, I think it's fair to let someone assume the responsibility for themselves and their family and friends, but not subject some employee to it that doesn't know the risks.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Owner maintenance is a different thing, though, in that it's really tough to enforce things like "workmanlike manner" when you have no idea what that means. I think it's a good idea to allow it, though, for personally owned aircraft not used for business, including having non-related business people aboard. Or in other words, I think it's fair to let someone assume the responsibility for themselves and their family and friends, but not subject some employee to it that doesn't know the risks.

Commercially-registered airplanes are held to a higher standard to protect the paying public. Owner-maintained airplanes here in Canada are privately registered, can't carry paying folks, and there's a big sticker near the door that warns the passengers that the aircraft does not meet the standards of airworthiness. It works for the folks that know a bit about mechanical stuff, not so well for the folks that don't. Most of those end up hiring a mechanic anyway.

 

[Bell206]

As mostly an outsider, it seems to me that most of the problems with cheap owners extends all the way through corporate owners and the airlines,

Not really. Cheap owners are cheap owners regardless of the penalty or liability side. In my experience, even when an owner follows all the rules, some crack attorney will still make a case they did something wrong. But when you get to a certain level most owners toe the line. Even in the private 91 side, about 25-30% of the owners toe the same regulatory line. Those owners enjoy no pre-buy requirements, no airworthiness surprises, and other various benefits simply because their aircraft are FAR compliant.

To me, the only thing that regulations do is to is provide backup and justification for those people that want to do it right,

Actually regulations keep everything in line with international aviation conventions and agreements. 80% of the FARs are written to do just that. Without that connection, nothing aviation related could ever leave the US. No airplane or part could leave without going through a certification process in the country it is sent to. For example, if the FAA were to allow a owner maintenance category like Canada, none of those aircraft would be legal to leave the US like regular aircraft. Just like the TCCA program.

Owner maintenance is a different thing, though, in that it's really tough to enforce things like "workmanlike manner" when you have no idea what that means.

Not at all. The current regulations define maintenance performance requirements. There’s no guessing. I’m all for an owner mx category or primary non-commercial as they tried several years ago. I just want assurances those owner maintained aircraft and parts will not be allowed to enter the TC supply chain without specific documentation. Other than that, I see no issue. However, IMO the owner category will be lucky to exceed LSA numbers.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

We already have owner produced parts.....what are you concerned with Bell?

and +90% of GA could never go into a part 135 operation because of age.

And....what is the ratio of home built to factory built aircraft? Darn near close to even...or it soon will be. That's the model we should be going for. The safety record is similar....so maintenance isn't a predominant safety factor.

ASI's and IA's need to be free'd up to bigger and more sophisticated aircraft that has more safety implications to the non-flying public.

And yes.... I'm an A&P I/A, Aerospace Engineer who performs aircraft certification.

 

[Albany Tom]

Not really. Cheap owners are cheap owners regardless of the penalty or liability side. In my experience, even when an owner follows all the rules, some crack attorney will still make a case they did something wrong. But when you get to a certain level most owners toe the line. Even in the private 91 side, about 25-30% of the owners toe the same regulatory line. Those owners enjoy no pre-buy requirements, no airworthiness surprises, and other various benefits simply because their aircraft are FAR compliant.

I probably phrased it poorly, but my point was the other way around. That cheap corporate owners are only more likely to follow the regs because of concern of lawsuit or criminal action. If XYZ airline could hire untrained people to work on their engines, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Actually regulations keep everything in line with international aviation conventions and agreements. 80% of the FARs are written to do just that. Without that connection, nothing aviation related could ever leave the US. No airplane or part could leave without going through a certification process in the country it is sent to. For example, if the FAA were to allow a owner maintenance category like Canada, none of those aircraft would be legal to leave the US like regular aircraft. Just like the TCCA program.

Not at all. The current regulations define maintenance performance requirements. There’s no guessing. I’m all for an owner mx category or primary non-commercial as they tried several years ago. I just want assurances those owner maintained aircraft and parts will not be allowed to enter the TC supply chain without specific documentation. Other than that, I see no issue. However, IMO the owner category will be lucky to exceed LSA numbers.

That makes sense and I agree on both points, except I can't speak to the percentages..and don't know if the US leads or lags most international regs. Other than US/Canada travel I don't know how much difference it would make, and I could see a separate treaty between them to permit owner maintained. I have no idea if it would be popular, but I don't think it would be difficult. Along the lines of few people are going to take their Bonanza to Europe, and those that do can just keep it maintained by certified folks.

 

[Bell206]

We already have owner produced parts.....what are you concerned with Bell?

Owner produced parts require approved data to be made. Owner maintained aircraft would require no data to be maintained similar to E/AB. Its hard enough to keep bogus parts out of the system now by unscrupulous people. This would just give them an easy way to do it. Its my understanding there have been a few issues of Canadian owner parts making their way south.

That cheap corporate owners are only more likely to follow the regs because of concern of lawsuit or criminal action.

Not in my experience. Cheap owners don't give a hoot about consequences and never did regardless of operation type.

and don't know if the US leads or lags most international regs.

Every 180+ members of ICAO meet the same international requirements. The US and most western nations are ICAO council members. Its how the system has worked since 1947. How do you think United or Delta fly to other counties? Or how Boeing or Airbus are able to sell aircraft thoughout the world without additional certification requirements? These agreements allow each member country to accept each others airworthiness processes without question as they all meet the same international conventions. Those countries that are not members or do not meet certain minimums are prohibited from even flying over or into ICAO member countries. From a global standpoint its a big deal.

I could see a separate treaty between them to permit owner maintained.

Doubtful it will happen which is the reason Canadian owner mx aircraft can't leave Canada. E/AB aircraft are similar except a number of member countries allow E/AB as well but you must go through the entire certification when exported.

Along the lines of few people are going to take their Bonanza to Europe,

Few people? There are 100s of N registered aircraft domiciled in the EU and other countries. They enjoy the same regulatory flexibility that you enjoy here. Most go N reg overseas to fly IFR but some prefer the easy maintenance requirements compared to the local rules. There's a lot more to the aviation industry than fly-ins, $100 hamburger runs, and an occasional ramp check. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that make it tick.

 

[Dana]

don't know if the US leads or lags most international regs.

A lot of countries have simply copied the FARs, word for word, right down to the index numbers.

Doubtful it will happen which is the reason Canadian owner mx aircraft can't leave Canada. E/AB aircraft are similar except a number of member countries allow E/AB as well but you must go through the entire certification when exported.

No reason why not. E-AB aircraft don't need to be recertified just to fly in another country, only if permanently imported. A recriprocal agreement when neigboring countries have similar requirements is feasible, just as the Bahamas allows Basicmed even though it's not ICAO compliant; there is a push for that with Canada though it hasn't been worked out yet.

 

[Bell206]

A lot of countries have simply copied the FARs,

FYI: an equal number countries adopted/copied the UK BCARs and French DGAC regs as well with most being slowly updated to EASA regs. The remaining countries have a mixture of everything and can be quite a interesting journey.

No reason why not. E-AB aircraft don't need to be recertified just to fly in another country,

True. But Canadian E/AB operate in the US NAS under an FAA Special Flight Authorization (SFA). There was a similar SFA for TCCA Owner Mx aircraft but it was rescinded shortly thereafter. Could there be a future agreement with TCCA on owner mx aircraft if the US adopts a similar policy. Maybe. But after dropping the Owner mx SFA and the discussion afterwards, IMO various internal changes would be needed for Owner mx to fly in the US. As I mentioned, I’m all for an owner mx category in the US. I thought it would have been an excellent retire gig to consult with owners. However, there are a number of hurdles to get by as shown during the Primary Non-commercial attempt especially for such a small potential group of aircraft.

 

[Dan Thomas]

And....what is the ratio of home built to factory built aircraft? Darn near close to even...or it soon will be. That's the model we should be going for. The safety record is similar....so maintenance isn't a predominant safety factor.

We need Ron Wanttaja to chime in on that. I believe the E-AB safety record is still well behind the certified. Some of it involves poor fuel system design (or the wrong sealants!) or converted auto engines or single ignition. Some of it involves a builder/pilot on his first flight after not having flown for some time. Some of it is the more twitchy handling of some homebuilts. And some of it is letting the airplane deteriorate. I have seen all of those in play. No, I don't think the safety record is similar. And I was a homebuilder, too, as well as Commercial/CFI/IFR/Canadian AME (mechanic/IA).

 

[Bell206]

ASI's and IA's need to be free'd up to bigger and more sophisticated aircraft that has more safety implications to the non-flying public.

I don't think the owner mx category will be that large. So I don't know how that would affect the numbers of ASIs and IAs. Hopefully this category will reduce/eliminate the pencil talented IAs and their $200 annuals as I think the biggest contingent who go owner mx are those who skirt the rules now and no longer need to pay that $200. A close second will be those E/AB owners looking to get into a larger or more advantageous airframes. All in all if you look at the number of pilots who perform every possible preventative mx task under Part 43 vs the numbers of pilots who simply change oil and plugs, I just don't see the numbers going owner mx. Some I talk to think that at the stroke of the pen every private recreational pilot will run to Home Depot, buy a tool box and tools, and start pulling cylinders. However, the pilots I talk to don't see themselves doing that or anything close. Who really knows. But until this topic gets back on the FAA agenda and funded nothing will move forward at all.

 

[Albany Tom]

....
Few people? There are 100s of N registered aircraft domiciled in the EU and other countries. They enjoy the same regulatory flexibility that you enjoy here. Most go N reg overseas to fly IFR but some prefer the easy maintenance requirements compared to the local rules. There's a lot more to the aviation industry than fly-ins, $100 hamburger runs, and an occasional ramp check. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that make it tick.

Yep, that's few. That's what I mean. There are 200k+ US registered aircraft if my google is right. If there are 200 overseas, that's .1%. I'd bet it's higher, but also bet that the number of 20+ year old single engine pistons aircraft that fly overseas is tiny, and all of those could choose to use traditional maintenance and fly that way. Harmless all the way around.

I've always flown with a class-3, but how many people here fly on basic med? I'm betting a lot. Which doesn't work outside the US. But for many people, that's not a big deal. And there's no reason the US and Canada couldn't have treaties to permit whatever.

 

[Bell206]

There are 200k+ US registered aircraft if my google is right

First we need to put your google-foo into context. Owner maintained is only applicable to privately owned, recreational aircraft. Your number represents all aircraft. So to exclude the airline aircraft we'll use a flat 200k to represent GA. While I dont have current data, it was usually considered around 65% of GA aircraft were used for commercial or business. That leaves 70k aircraft except this number also includes E/AB and LSA as well. So to be conservative we'll put E/AB and LSA at 15k each leaving 40k aircraft for possible use under owner mx. And since owner mx doesnt covered helicopters, twins, or turbine aircraft perhaps a good number to settle on would be 30k eligible aircraft which is a far cry from 200k.

As to numbers of N reg overseas, there are over 1200 in the UK alone. So hardly a "few" in the corrected big picture. And the fleet age mix is similar to the US. Regardless, the big question is how many owners will go owner maintained? My guess based on what I've seen, heard, and read is 10% -15% based on the eligible numbers above, or around 3,000-4000 aircraft/owners. So hardly a force to be rekoned with from a policy standpoint. But keep in mind, I'm all for owner maintained and think it is a viable alternative with the right rules/oversight.

And there's no reason the US and Canada couldn't have treaties to permit whatever.

Never said it couldnt happen, just doubtful it will. The US has many aviation agreements with many different countries on top of the ICAO convention. Theres even a FAA website that handles just those agreements. But given the TCCA owner mx started in the 90s, the US dropped the NAS flight authorization for those aircraft, and C reg E/AB (plus ultralights) can fly within the US NAS, its telling that owner mx aircraft are still the red-headed step-child when it comes to acceptance. Time will tell.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Owner produced parts require approved data to be made.

A bit of a diversion, but I have had to get familiar with this as part of my Decathlon restoration. Here is a good summary of the process. Of note, approved data can come from duplication of an existing part, according to Mike Busch.

https://resources.savvyaviation.com...cles_eaa/EAA_2011-08_owner-produced-parts.pdf

 

[Dan Thomas]

A bit of a diversion, but I have had to get familiar with this as part of my Decathlon restoration. Here is a good summary of the process. Of note, approved data can come from duplication of an existing part, according to Mike Busch.

https://resources.savvyaviation.com...cles_eaa/EAA_2011-08_owner-produced-parts.pdf

There's a crucial statement in that article. Here it is:



Canadian law has this:



Now, determining the material, hardness and temper will normally require metallurgical analysis by a lab capable of doing that. One doesn't just assume that this old part is made of 4130 or 2024T-3. There are a lot of those alloys in an airplane, but in some areas different alloys are used to get the necessary strength or flexibility or rigidity or whatever. Using the wrong stuff could be deadly. If the original part was 7075 and you used 2024, you're already weakening the airplane. There are various grades of 4130, too. Companies like McFarlane have done this process to get the PMA certifications on their parts.

Cessna's structural repair information gives the alloys for a lot of their stuff. Just have to read the manuals.

 

[Bell206]

approved data can come from duplication of an existing part,

Technically, duplicating a part does not give you approved data. You have to ensure the duplicated part meets its approved type design by copying it exactly as an OEM part. When it comes to using the duplication route, most (including me in certain situations) will get their duplication data approved via a field approval or a Form 8110 from a DER so there is no question that the duplicated part meets its approved type design. The best article on the subject is by Bill O'Brien a legendary FAA maintenance guy who unfortunately left us far too soon. However, my primary link to that article no longer works. I will look for an alternative and post when I find it. Best to read that article then see what you have for questions.

EDIT: here is the Bill O'Brien article:
https://www.aviationpros.com/home/article/10388083/i-vs-we

 

[Magman]

Bill O’Brien was the best!

No one could provide a better understanding of regs.

 

[Half Fast]

There's a crucial statement in that article. Here it is:

Don’t omit the preceding paragraph.

If the owner-produced part is to be used to effect a major repair—a wing spar or primary control surface or landing gear strut, for example—then the repair must be inspected and signed off by an A&P with inspection authorization (IA) and documented on FAA Form 337.​

i believe that level of data is only needed for a major repair. There’s a difference between an owner produced wing spar and an owner produced glovebox latch.

 

[JAWS]

There's a crucial statement in that article. Here it is:

View attachment 115152

Canadian law has this:

View attachment 115153

Now, determining the material, hardness and temper will normally require metallurgical analysis by a lab capable of doing that. One doesn't just assume that this old part is made of 4130 or 2024T-3. There are a lot of those alloys in an airplane, but in some areas different alloys are used to get the necessary strength or flexibility or rigidity or whatever. Using the wrong stuff could be deadly. If the original part was 7075 and you used 2024, you're already weakening the airplane. There are various grades of 4130, too. Companies like McFarlane have done this process to get the PMA certifications on their parts.

Cessna's structural repair information gives the alloys for a lot of their stuff. Just have to read the manuals.

Or read the alloy specifications printed on the inside skin, like most Cessnas.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Or read the alloy specifications printed on the inside skin, like most Cessnas.

Yes, that works, but for fittings, not so much. The airplane is full of smaller brackets and load-bearing bits that have no markings.

The door hinges for the larger singles like the 180/182/185/206 are obscenely expensive. They're cast aluminum. They crack. Now, making that part would involve knowing the casting alloy, making a mold, casting it, then machining it. I have seen some stuff being made (PMA'd) by machining it from a solid block instead of casting, since with CNC machining now, it can be much faster than casting and then machining. I wonder what the feds might say to an owner machining that hinge from bar stock, say 2024T-3? Some carburetors have appeared that are all machined instead of cast. They're not owner-produced, of course. But I think the 2024 would be stronger than the cast.

Another really expensive part is the "hinge" at the bottom of the trim jacks in the 180/185 and the early 182. Before I retired, those parts from Cessna were around, IIRC, $7000 for a LH hinge and $10,000 for a RH. They're machined from aluminum block and are no bigger than a golf ball. McFarlane makes most of the jack parts, but not that hinge. They crack, they corrode, and if they fail the airplane can become impossible to control. One would really want to know what alloy that is. Machining it would not be difficult. This diagram is not from Cessna; perhaps by someone thinking of PMA'ing it.

 

[Bell206]

I wonder what the feds might say to an owner machining that hinge from bar stock, say 2024T-3?

They'd be good with it. But would probably need a DER review to ensure conformity with the type design. We made similar hinges for different aircraft but the alloy was changed to 7075 I believe, as it was better suited for the use vs 2024. However, still had same operational issues so eventually we went with 4130 welded design and installed as an alteration.

 

[JAWS]

I have made whole skins by using the material information on the inside of the original skin.

Building something else with no information, more would need to be done to ensure compliance with OEM requirements.

 

[Pinecone]

Now you're being obtuse. Have you any electrical experience at all? Ever fooled with electric motors of various types? Multi-speed motors typically have several field windings that get various speeds, all at the same voltage input. Series-wound motors have one field winding, and permanent-magnet motors have permanent magnets. These are able to vary their speed if the voltage is varied, but they're "single-speed" motors. They're like your variable-speed drill.

So there it is. Any further arguments you have, please take them up with Cessna. I am done here. I do know that there are others here who will read and learn and understand and be enlightened.

WHY do you keep coming up with a MANUFACTURER change??????

I am talking about a mechanic determining that a part is FUNCTIONALLY the same and can be substituted.

Cessna seems to have not done this.

 

[Half Fast]

Some I talk to think that at the stroke of the pen every private recreational pilot will run to Home Depot, buy a tool box and tools, and start pulling cylinders. However, the pilots I talk to don't see themselves doing that or anything close.

I think most pilots are pretty reasonable and would use good judgement. There will of course be a few screwballs, but Darwin will weed those out if we give him a chance.

I don't see myself swapping out a jug, but on my simple fixed-prop plane I'd certainly pull the prop to replace an alternator belt. I'd be willing to swap out the vac pump or ignition harness or similar R&R chores. I can do better electronics work than my local avionics shop, so I wouldn't hesitate to add or swap a radio or audio panel, or to rewire headset jacks.

The system we have now makes little sense. A private pilot can perform preventive maintenance (and the Coleal LOI opened that up quite a bit), but there is NOTHING, zero, zip, nada in PP training or testing that addresses the topic or ensures even minimal skill. A sport pilot can do PM on his personal SLSA, but not on a certificated LSA. Why it should be okay for him to wrench on a Skycatcher but not on an Ercoupe is beyond me. He gets the same mechanical training as a PP, after all (which would be nothing, zero, zip, nada). The FAA is consistently inconsistent.

I'm sure there needs to be a line somewhere. As a starting point, maybe we could allow a pilot to perform maintenance on his own planes that are eligible to be flown under Basic Med. That would mostly limit it to reasonably simple, small planes. We could also maybe not allow cracking the engine case or re-rigging the plane without A&P supervision.

I'm sure we could come up with a good approach, but unfortunately I don't think there's any motivation for the FAA to do so.

 

[JAWS]

I am talking about a mechanic determining that a part is FUNCTIONALLY the same and can be substituted.

Because it is beyond the scope of his/her certificate. My AME licence here in Canada does not allow me to willy nilly make changes to a certified aircraft, let alone changes to a fundamental system such as the fuel system.

But I have seen the OEM make changes, much like what Dan is mentioning. An OEM can do all sorts of things and hopefully communicate the changes to the aviation community. If it doesn't, things can get interesting, such as in Dan's example.

 

[Albany Tom]

I'm not going to comment on what's reasonable or not, but I see this as a discussion with at least 4 different levels of change, from least to most:

1 - A non-A&P replacing a part that normally only an A&P is allowed to do, using a certified part.
2 - A non-A&P replacing a part that is believed to be functionally the same, but it's not a certified part.
3 - A non-A&P fabricating a part, using same or different methods than the original.
4 - A non-A&P slightly redesigning the part, to function the same way as the original or better.

To me, it's elevated risk going from 1-4, because you assume the responsibility of mechanic, inspector, manufacturer and designer, as you go.

 

[Bell206]

The FAA is consistently inconsistent.

Not really. They have been very consistent with current aviation conventions when it comes to TC, LSA, E/AB aircraft to include all other aspects. Only Canada has gone this direction and no one else has even discussed it in the last 25 years except the FAA. It’s the wide ranging effects of an owner mx category that is the issue and not the owners themselves. This became quite evident during the Primary Non-commercial attempt.

I don't think there's any motivation for the FAA to do so.

The only thing the FAA can do react to demand. With demand, congress puts money out to make it happen. And the FAA can’t work on motivation without a budget to do so. The AGATE program, which came out the same time the TCCA owner mx program did, failed due to lack of demand by the market, i.e., you. It is what it is.

I think most pilots are pretty reasonable and would use good judgement.

Agree. And even if more owners got involved than my 3000-4000 owner estimates above, there would be new issues to deal with based on past experience and recent discussions. I believe the same issues became noticed with the TCCA program but I have no current data on it.

For example, you decide to only perform the owner mx you are comfortable with and leave the rest to be performed by who? As it stands now a good number of A&Ps do not perform owner-assisted maintenance but why? A similar number do not perform condition checks on E/AB. Why again? Based on my experience, if you moved to an owner category and only performed the work you wanted to, you probably would have a problem finding someone to perform the rest as there is no incentive and increased liability. Just like owner-assist and E/AB.

Regardless, in my circles who think this is a positive move, we think it would be best to first push for a lower level change and expand the existing preventive mx authority and/or include an additional certification level for certain owner mx tasks similar to what you mentioned above. This would keep the existing conventions and standards in place, provide a path under Part 43, and keep the gray area to a minimum. Who knows, maybe even get the ability for an E/AB non-builder to sign off a their own condition check. With the current LSA repairman program and the recent Part 147 rewrite, I think all the basics are there to make an effort, but it falls to you and your fellow owners to make that demand happen. So what is stopping you?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Why aren’t home built aircraft falling out of the sky?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Why aren’t home built aircraft falling out of the sky?

I'm joking, don't take the below too seriously.

It's because the guys that would perform substandard mx never complete the plane enough to get it airborne.

 

[Bell206]

Why aren’t home built aircraft falling out of the sky?

For the simple reason most aircraft designs are inherently very fault tolerant to abuse and mis-use. This also applies to TC aircraft as well. And given the average private, recreational aircraft flies only around 100 hours per year, it takes years even decades before that abuse reaches some sort of failure level. However, there are certain designs/aircraft that will bite you when abused but most get a bad rep quickly which keeps others away. At least the smart ones.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

For the simple reason most aircraft designs are inherently very fault tolerant to abuse and mis-use. This also applies to TC aircraft as well. And given the average private, recreational aircraft flies only around 100 hours per year, it takes years even decades before that abuse reaches some sort of failure level. However, there are certain designs/aircraft that will bite you when abused but most get a bad rep quickly which keeps others away. At least the smart ones.

So....in 50 years we will see the equivalent difference?

 

[Half Fast]

Why aren’t home built aircraft falling out of the sky?

Because John Denver isn’t flying them anymore?