Revitalising General Aviation.

[baronbeeza]

I just saw a comment on another thread here about the depressed market for the Tiger Moths. It is not just them of course but there will be many owners on here bemoaning their investment as it stands in the current climate.

Well things may just be on the mend.

I have had my attention drawn to moves in the States to get some 'revitalizing' going.
Part of it includes a new category, rather than Standard they could opt for Primary-Non Commercial.

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Part.23.Reorganization.ARC.FINAL.Report.pdf

eaaforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3795&d=1396402710

Recommendation: Create a Primary Non-Commercial Category under 14 CFR Part 21


The Primary Non-Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate his or her aircraft in a substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of compliance to FAA maintenance and alteration requirements to a level more appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.

Owners of standard category aircraft that are more than twenty years old could elect to redesignate their aircraft as “Non Commercial” use. This would enable owners to maintain their aircraft in a manner similar to a Light Sport or amateur built aircraft. This would include owner maintenance privileges (once a FAA accepted class is passed) and use of non PMA / TSO parts.

Aircraft would be subject to a yearly “condition inspection” by an A&P mechanic which certifies the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, identical to the requirements for Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft.

Someone sitting on a Tomahawk or Cherokee may want to keep an ear to the ground. There would be a good chance our CAA would follow down a similar path if the FAA gave it the go-ahead..

[baronbeeza]

And the Canadian version of it. I didn't see a Tomahawk on that list.

www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm

*** EDIT ***

I see it now. I had a deeper look and the 152 is not there either.
If you look at the 172's they only go up to the 'H' model and the list for that series was last amended in 2004.
Presumably they have an age cut-off and some off those aircraft were simply 'too new' back then.

Even the Tomahawks are not 40 years old....... yet !

[baz62]

Do the CAA look to the FAA or UK CAA for rule changes to follow? Or just use whatever seems the best fit? Yes sounds like a good plan to me/

[baronbeeza]

To answer the question they probably don't follow anyone. That said though, our current rules are very closely aligned to the FAA system and it would be a huge factor. What I would expect would be for pressure to come from owners and the industry and the CAA would establish a working group.

We have agreements with the Canadians, Australians and the FAA for things such as supply of parts and that section of the Rules is also under review in the States.
Basically it could mean something like an old Cherokee 140 could become more like a homebuilt. I don't see how it could revert back to a certified category easily but if someone was to buy an old Cessna they could perhaps take a gamble.

A SID's failed 172 could possibly be resurrected as a 'homebuilt' and gain another lease of life.
It would be very difficult to source a good 4 place homebuilt for the price that a Cherokee or 172 is fetching at the moment. I have heard of $10,000 deals and indeed I know of flying examples selling for little more that that.

It has the potential to make flying more affordable.

There is going to be a downside but I do see a clause to allow the owner to train in the machine, there will be other limitations on operations though.

*** EDIT ***

I liked up the Canadian regs to see how they were worded and why many aircraft types are missing off their list.


www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-507s-1804.htm

(6) Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(a) A Special C of A in the owner-maintenance classification is issued for recreational purposes only.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

Information Note:

Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance are listed in Appendix H of this Standard.

(b) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, is marked on the side of the fuselage, in a position that is readily visible to persons entering the aircraft, in letters at least 10 mm (3/8 in.) high and of a colour contrasting with the background, with a placard containing the following statement:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

WARNING
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS - OWNER-MAINTENANCE
THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS

AVIS
CERTIFICAT SPÉCIAL DE NAVIGABILITÉ - MAINTENANCE PAR LE PROPRIÉTAIRE
CET AÉRONEF N’EST PAS CONFORME AUX NORMES DE NAVIGABILITÉ
INTERNATIONALES RECONNUES

(c) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, and each engine, propeller and life-limited part installed on such an aircraft, has the letter “X”; permanently etched, engraved or stamped at the end of the model designation and serial number on the identification plate required by CAR 201.01.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(d) A person may have an aircraft type added to the list of aircraft eligible for a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance, by submitting a written request to the Minister, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

Information Note:

A written request must be submitted to the Director, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, Ottawa, Canada, certifying that the aircraft type and model meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (6)(e).

(e) An aircraft type and model may be included in Appendix H of this Standard, Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance”, where:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(i) the aircraft is of a type certified in accordance with Chapters 522 or 523 of the Airworthiness Manual, or an equivalent foreign standard;

(ii) the aircraft type certificate does not authorize more than four occupants;

(iii) the maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) of the aircraft does not exceed 1,814 kg (4,000 pounds);

(iv) the aircraft is of a type and model that has not been manufactured during the 60 months preceding the date of application;

(v) fewer than 10% of Canadian aircraft of the type and model concerned are operating in Canadian commercial air service at the time of application;

(vi) the aircraft type and model is powered by a single, normally aspirated, piston engine, and is unpressurized; and

(vii) except for gliders, powered gliders or aircraft with airframes of wooden construction, the aircraft type and model has a fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller.

[baz62]

I suppose things like engines and props would be a different story? As in would still need to be certified under current regs?

[baronbeeza]

I think there is provision for them now. The Lycoming's installed in a homebuilt would have the data plate and log book modified to show it was not being maintained iaw Standard rules. The O-235 engine removed from a homebuilt cannot easily be released for service to a Tomahawk for example.
I am a little vague on the requirements but I could easily see a full overhaul featuring. Bruce may know the answer there.
On the IA course we cover the altering of the dataplate for homebuilts. There may even be an option for the builder to keep it as a certified engine but again I have never encountered that.
I was thinking that this option would normally be a one way street. I would prefer that if it made the implementation of the proposed system any easier or quicker.

[Bruce]

once a certified engine has been on a homebuilt, it cant go back. Essentially it has been "Contaminated" by operation in a less controlled environment. In our SAA maintenance courses we talk about "Homebuilt Germs"

[baronbeeza]

Goodbye vacuum driven AI !!

This appears to be another major development in this proposed programme.

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/6a24902ae5f1aeac86257ec1005b2fbc/$FILE/PS-ACE-23-08.pdf

The way I am reading it indicates a vacuum powered Attitude Indicator is no longer required if you have an electrically powered one.

The vacuum system has never been really reliable with the pump often being the weak link. None-the-less we have persevered and kept the vacuum system as a major component of the instrument panel installation in most light aircraft.



I think this will mean that in future a modern avionics fit is going to become more affordable across the board.
The FAA AC is spelling out the ease which they expect instruments to be replaced, they are removing the obstacles and drama from the process.

It is certainly a step in the right direction and I am more optimistic now that the FAA are serious about leveling the playing field.
Interesting times indeed.

*** EDIT ***
Some articles

www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/instrumentaccessories/08ZtgIOoZzGPXsa5.14

www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/September/23/New-policy-makes-upgrading-attitude-indicators-easier