What would deregulated maintenence do to used aircraft price?

kontiki

kontiki

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
1,198
Display Name
Kontiki
What would deregulated maintenance do to used aircraft price?

I see a lot of comm from folks that think there should be relaxed or no FAA oversight on aircraft maintenence.

Ever think about what that might do to used aircraft prices?

I've personally seen what corrupt people can do to airplanes. I've seen what untrained people can do to airplanes.

I also know that significant accomplishment as a pilot, in medicine, or academia do not directly translate into aircraft maint skills and knowledge, despite the bump in social status.

I personally believe, the only way to know for sure that a person has accomplished the necessary training and has the necessary skills for a task if for them to go through a training program and demonstrate competency.

Even then, retention, recollection and creativity are still areas there could be drop outs.

Would you buy a used aircraft if anybody could work on it? Ever wonder how useful would the maintenence records and log book be?
 
Last edited:
The stuff I hear from people is not so much allow anyone to work on planes as much as it is to relax the parts problems. We have all heard horror stories about parts that costs orders of magnitude more then similar parts from other automotive applications. Why does a nav/comm/gps from Garmin cost 15K when a similar unit for the experimental market cost 3-4k? I can certainly understand the need for that level of trust in parts for commercial operation but I think the record from the experimental market shows that using non-aviation only parts does not cause a rain of aircraft from the sky.
 
kontiki said:
I've personally seen what corrupt people can do to airplanes. I've seen what untrained people can do to airplanes.
Click to expand...

I've also seen what "trained" people can do to airplanes...my airplanes...and that's ugly enough thanks.
 
The "slippery slope" begins. If you allow uncertified parts in certified aircraft, even if it's like the avionics sample in the post above, then what's next?

People being what they are will then begin circumventing other items and standard practices.

I agree with the OP. Given what I have seen in "owner maintenance" I would be hesitant to buy some of those planes.

I do agree that some parts pricing is outrages but that boils down to a scale of market.
 
I'm just an owner, having owned my one and only airplane since 1994.

It cost me a few AMUs to fix what was done previously by supposedly qualified mechanics.

But given where used aircraft prices are right now, could they actually go lower? :-/
 
kontiki said:
Would you buy a used aircraft if anybody could work on it? Ever wonder how useful would the maintenence records and log book be?
Click to expand...

Would I?

Yes.

Absolutly.

I did just that.

I wasn't impressed with some aspects of the previous work, so I just fixed it. But I've seen work on certificated aircraft that I wasn't impressed with either.

Would I pay more to reduce the FAA hassle? Yes.

Log book and mantainance records? Whatever.
 
Total BS thread. Experimentals have been around a long time and they get fixed by their owners. They crash more frequently than certificated aircraft, but mostly from dumb pilot tricks, and not poor maintenance.
 
I'm not up to speed on Experimentals. Can the owner just fix it, I thought it had to be the builder (who is technically the manufacturer)?
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Total BS thread. Experimentals have been around a long time and they get fixed by their owners. They crash more frequently than certificated aircraft, but mostly from dumb pilot tricks, and not poor maintenance.
Click to expand...

Not entirely BS. Experimentals are often owned by people who have an interest in mechanical stuff. Many people who never touch a screwdriver can't tell the difference between pristine and corroded aluminum. Well, maybe they can tell, they just ignore it or don't look or don't understand the difference.

OTOH, a 1157 lightbulb is an 1157 lightbulb no matter which way you look at it. One just has a different label and a higher price on it much like designer jeans that are the same as what wallyworld sells with a different label on the back. It's not quite the same with everything but you get the idea...
 
steingar said:
Total BS thread. Experimentals have been around a long time and they get fixed by their owners. They crash more frequently than certificated aircraft, but mostly from dumb pilot tricks, and not poor maintenance.
Click to expand...

Has anyone done a look up north where there is the Owner Maintained category?

It would be tough, because Owner Maintained aircraft have a smaller market (can't be sold to the US), but may be a worthwhile analysis.
 
I do believe we need an owner maintained category of aircraft, that must be maintained to type certificate standards, and pass an annual each 12 months, just like now, It really doesn't matter who turns the wrench when the aircraft must remain airworthy by today's standards.
 
JeffDG said:
Has anyone done a look up north where there is the Owner Maintained category?

It would be tough, because Owner Maintained aircraft have a smaller market (can't be sold to the US), but may be a worthwhile analysis.
Click to expand...

Why can't they be sold in the US?
 
Tom-D said:
Why can't they be sold in the US?
Click to expand...

Once an aircraft is put into the Owner Maintained category in Canada, it can't get a US airworthiness certificate.

For example, if the owner does anything to the engine, it would need a complete rebuild before being eligible for standard category again. You get to etch an X on either the front or the back of the serial number showing that it has the taint of owner-maintained.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3435584/COPA-Guide-to-the-Owner-maintenance-Category
 
Last edited:
kontiki said:
I'm not up to speed on Experimentals. Can the owner just fix it, I thought it had to be the builder (who is technically the manuifacturer)?
Click to expand...

Anyone can fix it. Only the builder (who gets a repairmans certificate ) or an A&P (doesn't have to be an AI) can sign off on the conditoin inspection that is required every 12 months.
 
Anyone can fix it. Only the builder (who gets a repairmans certificate ) or an A&P (doesn't have to be an AI) can sign off on the conditoin inspection that is required every 12 months.
Click to expand...

Is builder's the repairman certificate limited to a specific model aircraft or for the specific S/N aircraft he built?
 
kontiki said:
Is builder's the repairman certificate limited to a specific model aircraft or for the specific S/N aircraft he built?
Click to expand...

Signing off the annual condition inspection is S/N limited, plus it's not transferred with ownership, only the original builder gets the privilege.
 
Tom-D said:
I do believe we need an owner maintained category of aircraft, that must be maintained to type certificate standards, and pass an annual each 12 months, just like now, It really doesn't matter who turns the wrench when the aircraft must remain airworthy by today's standards.
Click to expand...

There ya go!
 
If your company has to go through a complete IRS audit, it is your responsibility to provide the IRS agents with a code compliant office, with all needed equipment, such as copy machines, fax machines, your computers, desks, chairs, and so on. I'm not sure about this part, but I think you must also pay the auditors salary as well.

Since we are still in the early stages of aviation, if you consider the "big" picture, it is possible that in a few years, each aircraft will, from time to time, go through it's own FAA "audit". You will have to provide the same as above, including transportation for the agents, a clean, well equipped inspection hanger, an office with all the equipment needed, so that your government can be assured, your C-172 is a safe, airworthy aircraft.

Bureaucracies and regulations only grow in size, they never, ever, shrink. Every bit of what could be coming we be justifiable by all the "experts".

John
 
JeffDG said:
Once an aircraft is put into the Owner Maintained category in Canada, it can't get a US airworthiness certificate.

For example, if the owner does anything to the engine, it would need a complete rebuild before being eligible for standard category again. You get to etch an X on either the front or the back of the serial number showing that it has the taint of owner-maintained.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3435584/COPA-Guide-to-the-Owner-maintenance-Category
Click to expand...

The reference you quoted is for returning the aircraft to Canadian standards not the US standards.

During the import inspection the Aircraft must meet its type design and be in an airworthy condition IAW US standards.

There is no rule that I know of that forbids the importation of Canadian O-M aircraft to the US. That said doesn't mean the FAA isn't going to have a fit with it.
 
John Baker said:
If your company has to go through a complete IRS audit, it is your responsibility to provide the IRS agents with a code compliant office, with all needed equipment, such as copy machines, fax machines, your computers, desks, chairs, and so on. I'm not sure about this part, but I think you must also pay the auditors salary as well.

Since we are still in the early stages of aviation, if you consider the "big" picture, it is possible that in a few years, each aircraft will, from time to time, go through it's own FAA "audit". You will have to provide the same as above, including transportation for the agents, a clean, well equipped inspection hanger, an office with all the equipment needed, so that your government can be assured, your C-172 is a safe, airworthy aircraft.

Bureaucracies and regulations only grow in size, they never, ever, shrink. Every bit of what could be coming we be justifiable by all the "experts".

John
Click to expand...

John, are you smoking sumptin this early?

The FAA already does inspections on any aircraft that a FAA pilot examiner is going to ride in. and many are on the ramps just like a ramp check, only with logs in hand.
 
It might raise used aircraft prices. After all, it's a matter of supply and demand, and with deregulated maintenance, the supply might go down as more airplanes are lost, thus sending up the price of the remaining flyable airplanes.
 
Ron Levy said:
It might raise used aircraft prices. After all, it's a matter of supply and demand, and with deregulated maintenance, the supply might go down as more airplanes are lost, thus sending up the price of the remaining flyable airplanes.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, prices may go up because maintenance costs go down.

If it costs you X for a plane, plus Y per year for maintenance, then if Y goes down because you can do the work yourself, then X can go up without the total cost of ownership would remain.
 
steingar said:
Total BS thread. Experimentals have been around a long time and they get fixed by their owners. They crash more frequently than certificated aircraft, but mostly from dumb pilot tricks, and not poor maintenance.
Click to expand...

While there are a fair share of pilot accidents, there is also a high rate of accidents related to maintenance.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
While there are a fair share of pilot accidents, there is also a high rate of accidents related to maintenance.
Click to expand...

The rate is higher to be certain, but not by all that much, at least according to the analyses Ron Wattanja has published. Most experimentals crash for the same reasons as certificated aircraft.
 
JeffDG said:
Alternatively, prices may go up because maintenance costs go down.

If it costs you X for a plane, plus Y per year for maintenance, then if Y goes down because you can do the work yourself, then X can go up without the total cost of ownership would remain.
Click to expand...
Exactly. One of the many reasons that there are a TON of airplanes on the market at ridiculously cheap prices is that their owners can no longer afford to maintain them and no one else wants to buy them at previous values knowing how much it is going to cost to maintain.
 
kontiki said:
I've personally seen what corrupt people can do to airplanes. I've seen what untrained people can do to airplanes.
Click to expand...
Problem is, that stuff happens now under the regulated system.....even in the 121 world.

kontiki said:
Would you buy a used aircraft if anybody could work on it? Ever wonder how useful would the maintenence records and log book be?
Click to expand...
That's why you do a pre-buy and have an independent A&P IA look through the records. By a thorough inspection of the aircraft and review of its records, you can get a good idea of how well it has been maintained. Yes, some owners who perform and document shoddy maintenance are going to have a tough time selling, but overall, I don't think it will be a problem.
 
steingar said:
The rate is higher to be certain, but not by all that much, at least according to the analyses Ron Wattanja has published. Most experimentals crash for the same reasons as certificated aircraft.
Click to expand...

For some interesting reading, go to ntsb.gov, do a search. Search "experimental" as well as "maintenance".

Remember, these are only the accidents that get reported.
 
I haven't read all of the comments yet, but my knee-jerk reaction as someone with an economics degree is that the result would be an increase in used aircraft prices that almost equally offsets the reduced maintenance cost to an average pilot flying an average airplane an average number of hours per year.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Remember, these are only the accidents that get reported.
Click to expand...

No kidding.....I don't remember what periodical it was in, but I was reading a story recently about a guy in an EAB who during a fuel stop on a long x-country had a prop strike.....he had a new prop sent in within 24 hrs, slapped it on and went on his merry way.
 
dmspilot said:
I haven't read all of the comments yet, but my knee-jerk reaction as someone with an economics degree is that the result would be an increase in used aircraft prices that almost equally offsets the reduced maintenance cost to an average pilot flying an average airplane an average number of hours per year.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I'm thinkin'
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm just an owner, having owned my one and only airplane since 1994.

It cost me a few AMUs to fix what was done previously by supposedly qualified mechanics.

But given where used aircraft prices are right now, could they actually go lower? :-/
Click to expand...

Yes, they can go to "Unsellable at any price", though I doubt it would be that bad. In a down market like this it would reduce the sellability, and in a normal market I would expect a plane in the "Experimental/ Owner Maintenance" category would see a valuation and marketability reduction similar to Ex AB planes.
 
Tom-D said:
John, are you smoking sumptin this early?

The FAA already does inspections on any aircraft that a FAA pilot examiner is going to ride in. and many are on the ramps just like a ramp check, only with logs in hand.
Click to expand...

I can't smoke, I don't drink, if it wasn't for my airplane, my life would suck.

I know they inspect an aircraft the FAA is going to ride in, they put mine through the grinder prior to my SODA. Two FAA guys on the airplane, one on the log books, another on the computer.

My scenario was a hypothetical one of things that are likely to come, wherein every aircraft will at one time or another, have go through a complete FAA shakedown and inspection in order to not only insure the aircraft is safe, but to insure your A&E is all he is cracked up to be. All of this, will probably be at the aircraft owners expense.

As the FAA grows, they will need more things to keep em busy.

John
 
Rotor&Wing said:
While there are a fair share of pilot accidents, there is also a high rate of accidents related to maintenance.
Click to expand...

I believe more to poor systems design in the first place - many of those show up in the first 40 hours.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No kidding.....I don't remember what periodical it was in, but I was reading a story recently about a guy in an EAB who during a fuel stop on a long x-country had a prop strike.....he had a new prop sent in within 24 hrs, slapped it on and went on his merry way.
Click to expand...

I read a story about a guy in a certificated airplane that had a prop strike on a gravel bar, beat it somewhat flat with some big rocks, and went on his merry way.
 
dmspilot said:
I haven't read all of the comments yet, but my knee-jerk reaction as someone with an economics degree is that the result would be an increase in used aircraft prices that almost equally offsets the reduced maintenance cost to an average pilot flying an average airplane an average number of hours per year.
Click to expand...

That would happen to the planes that the owners didn't put on an "Ex/OM" certificate for which the buyer would have to eat if he decided to switch it over.

There will never be a reduction in the current certificate standards IMO, although they may add an Owner Maint category similar to Canada. The rules would stipulate the same as ExAB as far as No Commercial ops and rental and so forth and would be a "one way ticket change" requiring a DAR to do a full certificate compliance check($$$), or possibly as with a Restricted category plane where the pilot has signed the plane off to fly over the manufacturers suggested GW, it will have to be completely rebuilt ($$$$$$) in order to be returned to Normal category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top