Should All Certified Airplane Default to the Experimental Category After 20 Years?

[unsafervguy]

How much more expensive is liability insurance for experimental planes vs comparatively priced certified aircraft? The insurance industry is pretty good at crunching numbers to make sure their financial asses are covered.




As far as STCs becoming public domain after a long period of time? I'm in favor. Why do they get more protection than other patent types agreements? Same thing happens to drug makers.

the liability on my RV-4 is 275 a year, its 180 a year for my warrior. now how much is due to speed difference, if any, i dont know.

bob

 

[Tom-D]

The FAA is forbidden to allow you to use another's intellectual property with out written permission. The statement of this STC copy is for aircraft "N number"is on all STCs now.

There is a list of STCs in public domain Your FSDO PMI will have it.
Just because the original owner is dead, doesn't mean some one is not supporting the DATA.

 

[denverpilot]

Just curious. What are some of the better ways to certify an aircraft in your opinion?

The assumption that they need certification in the first place is broken.

Have built all sorts of really expensive things for people that weren’t certified by anyone that lasted as long as they were intended to, did what they were supposed to, and cost what the person wanted to pay.

There were, of course, written plans and people keeping track of things getting done and getting done right, but no overlying certification needed.

Certainly nothing that added three or four times the cost to the end product and produced no measurably better end result in performance, longevity, and definitely not budget, than ones built without it.

Part of this is specialization. Anyone here really think FAA or any agency could stand up a team of people who could truly lecture Garmin on how to make a GPS? Or Boeing how to build an airplane? Maybe in the 50s. But not today.

The “certifiers” are usually outclassed nowadays. Not always. But more often than not. Thus, lots of paperwork and hoops but little substance.

See: ELT AD. Paperwork. Hoops. No substance.

 

[SbestCFII]

The biggest advantage a certifed aircraft has, especially for pilot advancement, is the ability to take a checkride in one. That's something that simply can't be done in an experimental aircraft. If every aircraft 20 years old was re-classified as experimental, the cost of flight training would skyrocket.

 

[Bell206]

The assumption that they need certification in the first place is broken.

but no overlying certification needed.

The “certifiers” are usually outclassed nowadays. Not always. But more often than not. Thus, lots of paperwork and hoops but little substance.

I have no doubt there is a better way to do things in todays world. However, the one controlling aspect to your logic is that changing the current FAA system is not a "local" issue. Two aviation agreements were signed in the '40s that established the ICAO and put the US CAA/FAA and the UK CAA in the driver seat. Prior to the JAA/EASA days every civilian aviation system in the world copied either the FARs or the BCARs. Fast forward to today and every aviation regulation/certification is based on those "antiquated" rules. They are also the basis for every aviation bilateral agreement in existence so that countries can build, operate, maintain, and convalidate each others aircraft/regulations is some fashion so that air commerce can flourish worldwide.

While it may seem possible to get rid of certifications on a "local" level and develop/build expensive aircraft for people in your manner in the US, it is not that easy. The question follows how will you apply that rationale globally? I agree Boeing or Garmin can build a 1st rate product without the FAA's assistance. But how will the UK accept that, or Germany, or Australia since we are all part of ICAO/Chicago Convention/ETC.? Or should we say f' it, follow your suggestion, dump the FARs and the "outclassed" aircraft certifications and streamline the US aviation system? I don't think Boeing or Garmin would financially last if they needed to comply with every certification requirement in every country they wanted to sell their products.

For a more recent example, look at the consensus standard used for LSA aircraft. Yes another standard. It took several years for the FAA and EASA to agree on it. Otherwise LSA from the EU couldn't be used in the States and the reverse.

So while you make a very good argument on issues with the current system, short of stopping global aviation in its tracks, it is the system we're stuck with and one I've worked through with decent success both here and overseas. It is what it is.

 

[FastEddieB]

The biggest advantage a certifed aircraft has, especially for pilot advancement, is the ability to take a checkride in one. That's something that simply can't be done in an experimental aircraft.

Where does it say that?

Just curious.

 

[Paulie]

I don't understand why you guys pooped all over a thoughtful, rational proposal. With some modifications it's got a lot of merit.

Maybe it's not 20 years, maybe it's longer (peak production of pistons ended 40 almost years ago.)

Airplanes on 135 or 121 certs can be excluded, for example.

Parts that can only be obtained from the airplane manufacturer (if it's available at all) at insane prices are a major killer of aircraft and GA in general.

• Why does it cost $15000 for a IFR approach "certified" GPS in my "certified" airplane but a fraction of that for an "experimental?

• Why does it cost hundreds for an alternator when the exact same article can be obtained from Advanced Auto Parts for $50?

I hazard a guess, maybe because they are certified?

 

[Paulie]

I think the OP identifies one of many problems about the current structure of the FAA and the FARs, but his resolution is flawed. I've always been of the opinion that the FAA does not belong in private aviation at all. (Part 91) I keep my plane safe to fly, and keep myself competent and safe as an aviator because I don't wish to die, kill anyone else, or be sued for all I'm worth. I believe most aviators and/or aircraft owners have similar motivations.

I think we need the FAA and the FARs, but only to provide common rules by which to certify aviators, regulate the airspace, and provide operating regulations to ensure safe operations when sharing the skies with one another. But beyond that, they are not needed. They belong in commercial operations without a doubt, as profit is a dangerous enemy to safety, as has been demonstrated many times throughout history. But Part 91 ops? Forget it.

Automobile manufacturers only have to prove that the vehicles they design, build, and sell are safe to operate. Once sold, it becomes the owner's responsibility to maintain and operate them in a safe manner. And we are required to have insurance, so that if we screw up, the other guy is financially covered. Requiring private, non-commercial aviators/owners to have annual airworthiness inspections that cost thousands of dollars is counter-productive, as it just takes money away from routine maintenance and upgrades, both of which would likely do far more for the safety of that aircraft than paying some guy to tear it apart and inspect it each year. The manufacturers of aircraft have their recommendations of what should be checked, how often it should be checked, and what it should be checked for. If an aircraft owner/operator fails to maintain his aircraft in a safe fashion, and a post-incident investigation reveals that to be the cause, the owner/operator would be liable for damages to those negatively affected. Just like with your private vehicle.

It makes me angry when I think of all the improvements that could easily, and inexpensively be made to my aircraft, were the FAA not so heavily involved in the process. Imagine how much more efficient and inexpensive inspecting every nook and cranny of your aircraft would be, if the FAA wasn't involved? Imagine the number of new aircraft types there would be, and how much less expensive they would be? Imagine how many more new pilots there would be, with less expensive planes to own and fly? There goes your pilot shortage.

The FAA is literally the idiot sawing away at the tree branch he is sitting on, between himself and the tree.

Imagine all the stuff that would be built by people who don't have a clue about what they're doing. Want to save some money? Get a airplane built by monkeys, they work for bananas.

 

[denverpilot]

So while you make a very good argument on issues with the current system, short of stopping global aviation in its tracks, it is the system we're stuck with and one I've worked through with decent success both here and overseas. It is what it is.

You asked, I answered. I never argued that it was going to change. Bureaucracies hate change. Even individuals inside them who want change rarely can effect real changes.

Big changes in aviation would have to come with a societal change where people in large quantity want to fly.

I don’t see that happening. Not with society idolizing who they idolize these days. Most want automated cars.

 

[Kritchlow]

The biggest advantage a certifed aircraft has, especially for pilot advancement, is the ability to take a checkride in one. That's something that simply can't be done in an experimental aircraft. If every aircraft 20 years old was re-classified as experimental, the cost of flight training would skyrocket.

That’s a good point that I bet very few here (if any), thought about.

 

[Bell206]

I don’t see that happening. Not with society idolizing who they idolize these days.

Agreed. But I think if enough pilots got together to push an owner-maintained category like Canada that would provide a much needed punch to GA as it is slowing dying on the vine by the current numbers. The Sport pilot/LSA was an attempt to increase GA but it didn't reach the numbers everybody was thought it would. I believe owner-maintained would get the young blood reengaged as the aircraft and support system are already in place and more affordable than LSA, plus it would provide an alternative to E-AB which some steer away from. I also believe it would stimulate the A&P side as pilot-assisted would move to a totally new level. I just think it would be a win-win all around.

 

[GRG55]

Agreed. But I think if enough pilots got together to push an owner-maintained category like Canada that would provide a much needed punch to GA as it is slowing dying on the vine by the current numbers. The Sport pilot/LSA was an attempt to increase GA but it didn't reach the numbers everybody was thought it would. I believe owner-maintained would get the young blood reengaged as the aircraft and support system are already in place and more affordable than LSA, plus it would provide an alternative to E-AB which some steer away from. I also believe it would stimulate the A&P side as pilot-assisted would move to a totally new level. I just think it would be a win-win all around.

The Owner Maintained in Canada has not had the uptake or success in numbers expected. Some things that may be holding it back: a) it's a one way trip, once it is OM the airplane can never go back, 2) an OM aircraft cannot be flown in the USA, 3) an OM aircraft can never be registered in the USA, so it can never be sold into the US market.

 

[paflyer]

Agreed. But I think if enough pilots got together to push an owner-maintained category like Canada that would provide a much needed punch to GA as it is slowing dying on the vine by the current numbers. The Sport pilot/LSA was an attempt to increase GA but it didn't reach the numbers everybody was thought it would. I believe owner-maintained would get the young blood reengaged as the aircraft and support system are already in place and more affordable than LSA, plus it would provide an alternative to E-AB which some steer away from. I also believe it would stimulate the A&P side as pilot-assisted would move to a totally new level. I just think it would be a win-win all around.

The LSA "eligible" aircraft were either legacy slowpokes with minimal UL, or very expensive purpose-builts that cost more than a similar sized 70's certified.

 

[ChiefPilot]

The biggest advantage a certifed aircraft has, especially for pilot advancement, is the ability to take a checkride in one. That's something that simply can't be done in an experimental aircraft. If every aircraft 20 years old was re-classified as experimental, the cost of flight training would skyrocket.

You can absolutely take a check ride in one. I know CFIIs who took their CFII rides in RVs, for example, and I know DPEs ("Iron Mike" in Mpls is one) who have given checkrides for various certificates and ratings in RVs. If there is a FAR to the contrary, I'd sure be interested in seeing it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The Owner Maintained in Canada has not had the uptake or success in numbers expected. Some things that may be holding it back: a) it's a one way trip, once it is OM the airplane can never go back, 2) an OM aircraft cannot be flown in the USA, 3) an OM aircraft can never be registered in the USA, so it can never be sold into the US market.

I would also expect 4) young people today are generally more into fixing things by rewriting computer code than by turning wrenches. Hence the fact that my younger brother always can find work as an equipment maintenance guy regardless of his employment history, etc.

 

[Bell206]

The Owner Maintained in Canada has not had the uptake or success in numbers expected. Some things that may be holding it back: a) it's a one way trip, once it is OM the airplane can never go back, 2) an OM aircraft cannot be flown in the USA, 3) an OM aircraft can never be registered in the USA, so it can never be sold into the US market.

That's what I had heard also. But on this side of the border there had been several interesting conversations about this over the years but never made it out the gate. I think for lack of organization. This was also before social media platforms, etc. Since the EAA/AOPA were invested in the Primary Aircraft/LSA moves I would think with the right emphasis today, across a digital platform, there might be a better avenue to pursue.

Several of the discussions that I recall, addressed the issues of reversibility back to a Normal Category aircraft. There was also some talk of this around the time the Feds looked to write Part 66 that split A&P privileges based on gross weight. The discussion was about increasing the preventative maintenance list but still keeping the A&P/IA involved in the airworthiness process. There is even a faint memory that the existing repairman process to be used for certain maintenance privileges by PPLs.

I don't know what the best path would be as I've been out of the mainstream for a few years, but I think if pilots could organize and get a written proposal out to the aviation public web for comment/input, I would think it would gain some traction. Especially if you could get a trade organization behind it to fund the public comment/survey period. Unless something happens, as I mentioned above, GA will be pushed out slowly by commercial/business ops and land grabs. I also think that this current generation is that last hope to rebuild the GA industry as the next group coming up will expect any aircraft they get into have Uber on the side or is flown by their phone. But if you can get them into a 172 with synthetic vision/HUD now and call it the ultimate GA virtual reality simulator..........

 

[Tom-D]

I believe that the original poster, has a very poor understanding of the GA maintenance rules or how they work.

 

[Tom-D]

so it can never be sold into the US market.

This part of you message is wrong,,, there is a fool born every minute.

these aircraft can be used as parts in the US because the installer declares airworthiness

 

[N3368K]

If you're talking about the Type Certification--Primary Category it's in the same place since it came out in the early '90s. Look in Part 21 as Part 23 is for Normal Category aircraft only. Primary Category was an optional method but most companies pursued Normal Category certification instead. The EAA and AOPA were heavily involved in it as it was the first attempt at a "Sport Pilot" class like the current LSA.

My hastily written post didn't explain it well. I was not talking about the Sport Pilot license/privilege, just aircraft certification. It was a suggestion, by EAA IIRC, to allow previously Standard Certificate aircraft to be moved to Primary category for solely non-commerical flying AND to allow pilot/owners to perform and maintain along the lines of an Exp-AB. Owner could do maintenance and not be required to have FAA-PMA or original parts and could make limited modifications, but still need an A&P to perform a Condition Inspection. The original proposal made it a permanent move so an a/c so changed could never be placed back into Standard Category. Later, the proposal was changed to allow a conformity inspection to return to Standard Category. This was applicable to CAR 4, CAR 3 and Part 23 a/c of a certain age. I don't know if it even made it to the FAA, but was discussed around 2003-2005 IIRC and revived a handful of times over the intervening years. Point is moot as it never happened. I don't know it ever will. Were it to happen though, I'd move my J-3 immediately. Fortunately, I have a good old school IA who lets me work while he watches. Of course, I haven't made any modification, just do recurring maintenance. I get to exercise that privilege with my RV-4 already.

 

[Bell206]

just aircraft certification

I think I remember reading a white paper or something on that now that you explain it. But as I mentioned above I believe the ticket to get to that point is through a different airworthiness category and rather than through a certification change/move. Too much luggage with changing type certifications.

Aircraft can operate through different airworthiness categories: from Public Use where there is no regulatory oversight of aircraft to include TC'd aircraft, through Restricted and Experimental for example. Each category with their own process to return the aircraft back to the Normal category. Plus a number of aircraft currently operate with multiple airworthiness certificates in the pouch.

So for example, if there was a "OWNER" category you could apply for the AWC for your J3, maintain it per the applicable rules as a PPL or with a OWNER Repairman. Maybe there's a requirement to have an A&P perform an inspection on it every 2 or 3 years? But say once your tired of the OWNER AWC it might take a full Annual signed by an IA to bring it back to Normal Category just like after Public Use. Who knows.

 

[hindsight2020]

Again, the implementation got shelved even after POTUS signed into law (SARA) as recently as 2013 (with the usual derelict delay by the FAA). It doesn't get any better than that. Which means it's never gonna happen as long as the FAA has hands in that cookie jar. Maybe if the reasons why primary non-commercial got shelved were made public (why isn't that answer legally required to be public in the first place is what I want to know) maybe we could have a fighting chance at attacking the position and flanking the FAA. But until we know what was the nature of that drug deal, it will be very difficult to make headway.

 

[N3368K]

I think I remember reading a white paper or something on that now that you explain it.

My memory of the details are a bit fuzzy as to applicable regs. Heck the proposal was a bit fuzzy as I recall. I would love to be able to maintain my J3 by an owner maintenance category. It's been in my family since 1969 and I grew up with it and my brother's Cub. I know them both inside out quite well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edo2000]

I never got why they stopped listening for 21.5, I mean does it cost that much? And secondly with how much we all pay in taxes, I really don't care, go fire some mid level management to make up for the costs if you have to

I was told the main reason they stopped listening to 121.5 ELTs was that 90+% of the activations were bogus but they had to be tracked down anyway. And tracking them down was much more difficult because ELT owner information was not available and the location had to be determined by triangulation instead of being supplied by the device.

 

[James331]

I was told the main reason they stopped listening to 121.5 ELTs was that 90+% of the activations were bogus but they had to be tracked down anyway. And tracking them down was much more difficult because ELT owner information was not available and the location had to be determined by triangulation instead of being supplied by the device.

Not seeing a valid reason there, so it was too much work for my overpriced government?

 

[denverpilot]

I was told the main reason they stopped listening to 121.5 ELTs was that 90+% of the activations were bogus but they had to be tracked down anyway. And tracking them down was much more difficult because ELT owner information was not available and the location had to be determined by triangulation instead of being supplied by the device.

Pretty sure that’s an OWT.

The majority of false alarms are hunted down by volunteer CAP members in cars. It doesn’t get any cheaper than that at the Federal government level.

But beside that, the satellites degrading on orbit is a known thing with satellites and well documented.

Oh, and there’s been plenty of 406 activations where the owner never bothered to register the stupid thing so no owner info on those, either. PLBs even worse, same tech.

One guy here turned the nice new “avalanche beacon” his wife bought him for Christmas every time he left the house to go backcountry skiing.

You’d have thought the warnings in the box about registering it and the manual that clearly stated what it was, a PLB, would have been a hint that she bought the wrong device.

 

[edo2000]

Not seeing a valid reason there, so it was too much work for my overpriced government?

Pretty sure that’s an OWT.

The majority of false alarms are hunted down by volunteer CAP members in cars. It doesn’t get any cheaper than that at the Federal government level.

But beside that, the satellites degrading on orbit is a known thing with satellites and well documented.

Oh, and there’s been plenty of 406 activations where the owner never bothered to register the stupid thing so no owner info on those, either. PLBs even worse, same tech? ...

I don't doubt there are glitches in the 406 system but I'm sure it is orders of magnitude more efficient than the 121.5 approach. Just being able to glance at an activation on a map and see it is located at an airport (or not) would greatly help with prioritizing response. And there is a name/phone number to call.

 

[denverpilot]

I don't doubt there are glitches in the 406 system but I'm sure it is orders of magnitude more efficient than the 121.5 approach. Just being able to glance at an activation on a map and see it is located at an airport (or not) would greatly help with prioritizing response. And there is a name/phone number to call.

Often no location is transmitted, and often there’s no name/number to call.

Location: Not a required feature of a 406 ELT.

Name/number: Only shows up or is accurate if the ELT owner keeps the registration up to date.

The location thing isn’t a “glitch” and the system must be prepared to DF the signals to their source still today. That never changes.

 

[Tantalum]

Late to this party, but I couldn't resist given these low hanging fruit

In my opinion, after 20 Years all Certified Airplanes should be placed under the FAA experimental category.

As others have said taking a 20 year old airframe and making it experimental by decree effectively kills that plane. There are enthusiasts out there who like the experimental market, and sure some costs are lower... but by and large this would absolutely kill a TON of planes and businesses by turning them all into hobbyists toys.

These legacy aircraft have fallen significantly behind on common safety measures, modern day electronics that the experimental aircraft all have.

How so? The 1970s Archer I fly has a JPI engine monitor, GTN750, and is lovingly well taken care of. How has that plane "fallen way behind" on safety measures and modern day electronics? Surely, purchasing a new GPS unit for $5K-$20K (depending on model) is cheaper than turning the Archer into an experimental and requiring an owner to buy a new one for $400K so he can rent it out and use it for instruction?

What do you think the advantages of a 20 year old certified aircraft holds over an experimental aircraft?

That at one point in time it was built by a team of engineers and experts who tested it, certified it, and ensured it adhered to a set of mandated standards for commercial operation. Joe McDuncan building an RV7 in the hangar next door may be a smart guy who loves flying, but personally I'd feel safer in just about any rental certified plane than a homebuilt.. unless it was something I built or I personally knew the owner well. Didn't some guy kill himself (and others) because he used the wrong glue somewhere? I doubt you'll find a mistake like that in a 1967 (51 years old ) Mooney that's flying around

Other than personal opinion and conjecture, do you have any data or actual evidence to back up the notions put forth here? There are some limited areas where the costs are lower in an experimental, but by and large I think you would effectively put the final nail in the coffin for killing GA if a rule like this was passed

 

[Tantalum]

How many spamcans in the fleet are "earners"?

Rentals don't have to go under the proposal.

For the non rentals you may save some costs here and there, but I doubt it would do anything positive for safety. I get EAB missions tend to be different so accident rates can be higher, but I just can't see us making all 20+ year old planes experimental and letting owners have a field day with the maintenance on them as being good for GAs reputation with the non flying public, and ultimately be a good thing for GA. This idea by the OP would absolutely kill GA and potential the majority of people flying older planes who are not interested in being homebuilder experimental enthusiasts who would no longer be maintaining their planes to any kind of standard

I do think people should have the choice to more easily move their GA planes to the experimental side of the house.

Sure, I agree there.. just don't require it. That would be terrible for GA