Non-Commercial Standard Category Aircraft - Would you?

[NotarPilot]

If this proposal has to pass congressional approval it might be a good thing to call your congressman (or woman) and urge them to pass this new rule when the time comes.

[FlyDave]

Another effect would be the price of new planes - specifically new Mooney airplanes. Anyone have an idea if this would affect production costs in addition to savings in avionics? I think the new airplane would have to be sold in the non-commercial class and I doubt if it could subsequently be converted to standard category if desired.

Another question - if someone registers their plane as owned by a corporation for tax purposes, and only uses the plane for business transportation (not, aerial photography or transporting goods for sale), could it still be registered under the non-commercial category?

[aerohawk]

I've been eyeing a Stinson 108-3 project where it would need a full up restoration. Does anyone know if something like this allow me to perform the restoration without the watchful eyes of an IA? If so, I can see how this would really help get some old birds flying again.

No, because as the regulation is written it must be inspected by and IA and in a airworthy condition before it can be placed into this new category.

[mike_elliott]

$4.25?!!!  I have avgas envy....  I am paying $5.99 at my homefield and generally from $5.75-$7.00 regionally.

 

They just raised it to 4.50, darned it (sorry it was x23, not x25)! I was at Avon park once when they were out of 100 LL because the airboat guys bought it all up, and there was a line of guys in pickups wanting to fill 5 gal jugs. Apparently, it was cheaper than the non ethanol car gas. I do agree, the lead sludge is bad stuff, TCP additive helps.

[aerohawk]

I would be all for this rule change. Nothing would be better then to take a quality airframe like mooney and pack it with the latest avionics gear around for a reasonable price.

 

I am not worried about losing money on the airplane, simply fact my current airplane is worth 60k with mostly original steam gauges.  If you had to pay 60k for a airplane which one you buy?Certified original 1969  certified or same 1969 airplane with modern safety and glass cockpit upgrades.

 

I don't see a huge safety hit for people making random engine combinations  swaps. One mounting a different engine then were original on there is no simply task. Two it would require 50 hours of phase 1 flight testing just like experimental.

 

The other part of this part 23 rewrite everyone is forgetting is the faa is going to make the process of getting parts tso a lot cheaper and faster. For instance if these experimental avionics get put into aircraft and they prove to dependable the FAA is looking at being able to take all that in flight data and make getting the TSO that much cheaper and easier for the company.

 

I also think it will allow many company's with good ideas to get into the aviation with the millions of dollars in time and research before a product is ready for market. Diesel engine mooneys anyone?

 

Huge savings on aircraft parts.  Anyone look at the difference in price for new Lycoming engines. Same exact engine certified is around 30 thousand new experimental cost around 20 thousand new.  Only difference between the two is certified comes with a few more sheets of paper.  If that alone is not worth it then I don't know what is.

[NotarPilot]

Another effect would be the price of new planes - specifically new Mooney airplanes. Anyone have an idea if this would affect production costs in addition to savings in avionics? I think the new airplane would have to be sold in the non-commercial class and I doubt if it could subsequently be converted to standard category if desired.

Another question - if someone registers their plane as owned by a corporation for tax purposes, and only uses the plane for business transportation (not, aerial photography or transporting goods for sale), could it still be registered under the non-commercial category?

 

I would think that you could.  The proposed regs say it cannot be used to carry persons for hire.  I think as long as no one is paying you to carry someone or something then you would be fine.  I also think you would still be able to split the cost of fuel with passengers but I think this will need some clarification from the FAA.  

 

BTW, the profile picture looks just like you.  

[aaronk25]

Keeping fingers crossed! Imagine what this will bring!

For a m20j driver wanting a turbo with a electric waste gate GAMI already has this designed for a cardinal and it could most likely be modified slightly to work on a J.

De icing solutions would be cheaper and I could put the delta hawk diesel on the front. Seems to good to be true?????

[ghovey]

I'm with you. So many upgrades already in use just not "blessed".

[chrisk]

I was just reading how Toyota's unintended acceleration problems have been tied to bad software.  http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm?Sourcecode=20131104tbc&_t=Software+bugs+found+to+be+cause+of+Toyota+acceleration+death#.Un66PuKK6zs Just imagine this was your auto pilot!  And based on all the exploding cell phones and Tesla autos that are catching fire, who wants a L Ion battery for their plane?

 

My issue is that I want certified avionics, engines, airframes, etc.   The problem seems to be the certification process is overly cumbersome.  LED landing lights and position lights are an example.  Why are these hard to certify?  Maybe this is what should be fixed.

[flyboy]

1. Would you take advantage of it?

 

2. Why would you take advantage of it?

 

3. Do you think it would devalue your airplane being that it could not be used for a commercial purpose unless you converted it back to Standard Category?

 

4. Do you think these changes would make aviation safer?  More affordable?  Better for GA?  More dangerous?

 

Yes, sign me up

 

$, I am already an airframe mechanic, and would add on my powerplant rating for this. I could do inspections for myself and others. Not only saving money on my own aircraft but making money on other aircraft.

 

Yes, I think it would devalue the airplane, slightly. Most Mooneys and other airplanes in this class do not fly for hire. For many of us the upgrades that would be done would likely outweigh the value lost to the new category.

 

safer? not really, at least not in a measurable sense. Of course better landing and recognition lights make an airplane safer, but that is difficult to measure when you never had a collision or dinged an airplane with the original equipment. Better avionics can make you safer as well, but there again, how do you really measure it?

 

more affordable? for me YES

 

Better for GA? I could make an argument both ways, better for some, not better for an A.I.

 

more dangerous? could be, I mean if some folks start putting junkyard auto engines on airplanes and wheelbarrow tires on airplanes, and outboard gas cans for "long range tanks" etc.,...well,...it could get ugly, people could die, airplanes scuffed up, and ruin a good thing for the rest of us.

 

Like most have said, certification is overly difficult. The FAA is wonderful, but sometimes it seems to me that GA is trying to regulate itself out of existence.

[carusoam]

Unfortunately it would get ugly. As you have described...

In the automotive world our choice is to buy new vs buying in an unknown condition.

In aviation buying new is too much of a challenge for me.

Buying in airworthy condition has a known condition, but not new.

Best regards,

-a-

[NotarPilot]

more dangerous? could be, I mean if some folks start putting junkyard auto engines on airplanes and wheelbarrow tires on airplanes, and outboard gas cans for "long range tanks" etc.,...well,...it could get ugly, people could die, airplanes scuffed up, and ruin a good thing for the rest of us.

Not so sure about that being that our "experimental" counterparts in the GA world have this freedom and by in most part I don't think most airplane owners want to put junkyard engines or wheelbarrow tires on their airplanes. I, for one, wouldn't. I would buy the same certified Goodyear tires I bought last year. The only thing I could see taking advantage of are the avionics and maybe getting the same factory new IO-360 engine without the certified "blessing" paperwork that adds thousands of dollars for the same thing.

[flyboy]

The vast majority of owners would do the right thing, using airworthy parts. My point is, there are always a few out there who push the envelope. We all know how quickly the media can give a black eye to the "rich folks with those dangerous little airplanes" Automobile related deaths may get a 20 second clip on the evening news, or perhaps not make it on the news. An aviation related death however, gets considerably more attention.

[piperpainter]

So the fine print says it can have a weight of 2700lbs and only 4 seats including the pilot. It doesn't say if that's empty weight or gross weight though....so if they dont define that in the reg should it ever happen then that could be questionable as to which weight.

[aaronk25]

So the fine print says it can have a weight of 2700lbs and only 4 seats including the pilot. It doesn't say if that's empty weight or gross weight though....so if they dont define that in the reg should it ever happen then that could be questionable as to which weight.

Where are you finding this info?

[N601RX]

Its on page 313 draft 21.24 ii I would hope that means empty weight. Otherwise a lot of planes are left out.

[N601RX]

I see they made an allowance for seaplanes, does my 1pc fiberglass belly count? I could extend it a little if needed.

[Dave Marten]

1. Would you take advantage of it?

 

Two words - HELL YES!

 

2. Why would you take advantage of it?

 

Vast array of avionics combinations, electronic ignition, available to EAB now open to Non-Com. Safety gear - better autopilots, airbags, standby attitude info.

 

3. Do you think it would devalue your airplane being that it could not be used for a commercial purpose unless you converted it back to Standard Category?

 

NO - especially the Vintage fleet. very small portion used for comm operations. Properly documented modifications/alternations do not frighten me. I've seen just as much garbage/shoddy practices from certified aircraft owners/mechanics as experimental category. 

 

4. Do you think these changes would make aviation safer?  More affordable?  Better for GA?

 

I'll go so far as to say that in the coming years/decades these changes could be VITAL to the continued utility of the legacy GA fleet (all our planes). As with the EAB aircraft a thriving 'after-market' supply chain could emerge. Just surf around all the kits/combos/mods available to the RV series builders (engines/ignitions/exhaust/avionics/airframe parts/etc).

 

The ruling could open a whole market: Lets look at an example -

 

I'll call it the "Mooney M20_-SX (Super X)". Company buys run out C/E/F/J's, mounts up LyCon 360s ported/polished/flowmatched/tuned exhaust with electronic ignition, LoPresti style cowlings, carve out the whole panel and ALL wiring, install a new kit panel complete with plug and play harnesess, install non-TSO MFDs (blue mountain/G6X/dynon/etc) driven by the nav/com suite of your choice. Diesel engine? Why the hell not. Its a lot easier to develop/market an engine for EAB. Aircraft is sold as Non-Comm.

 

Its analogous to the classic car industry - a whole industry sprung up to support classic car restorations and MODIFICATIONS. Non-Comm could do a similar thing for GA.

 

Affordable - definitely. Who pays for the TSO certification? WE DO, the customer. As the legacy GA fleet dwindles in the out years so will suppliers unless more flexibility and responsibility is allowed to be transferred to the owner/operator. 

 

Want to revitalize GA? Allow owners of certified aircraft some of the flexibility afforded to EAB. Choose not to and the legacy GA fleet will decline while pilots continue to shift to EAB aircraft.

[Lionudakis]

Sign me up !!!!!!!!!!!!!. I dont care how much the value of my 62 C will drop compared to the value drop of the one (and only) new car I've ever bought, that will be worth less than half in a few years. I'd feel safer with a few ipads, adsb units, and an AHRS module than the old gyros and a vacuum pump. My buddy has lost his second "certified" Adahrs in a 5 year old Pilatus in months, each occurance is some bucks, He has commented that his ipad is turning out to be pretty reliable piece of equipment by comparison.. The non-certified avionics/engine guys rely on quality and performance, service and innovation of their products to stick around, not a corner on the market. The decrease in cost of the upgrading of our old planes with non certifed would have to drive the price down of the certified stuff too I'd think for those who must have, or demand certified gear. Theres a lot of decked out RV's out there that are experimental, and fetch a whole lot more $ than my bird ever will. There is no reason I should not be able to install shoulder harness's in the rear seats with common at a reasonable cost because It hasn't been stc'd/engineered/ and priced out of reach. Safety would without a doubt increase, I haven't seen to many short cuts taken, even in the experimental market, possibly because doing things correctly is affordable ?? I have however walked away from many annual inspections because I'd seen enough to know I don't want my name on the p.o.s.

[garytex]

I have looked through the Nall Report for a few years now. EXP accidents dropped dramatically in the last report that came out. However, mechanical accidents in EXP are as common as landing and takeoff accidents in type certificated aircraft. If you know the Report, that is pretty bad.

No thanks.

[garytex]

I have looked through the Nall Report for a few years now. EXP accidents dropped dramatically in the last report that came out. However, mechanical accidents in EXP are as common as landing and takeoff accidents in type certificated aircraft. If you know the Report, that is pretty bad.

No thanks.

[garytex]

Julian Seth is got a real point. The motors quit for a myriad of reasons and the airplanes fall out of the sky with depressing regularity

[Mooneymite]

I fly both a certified Mooney and an experimental.  Taking my Mooney into the "non-commercial" would be terrific!

 

Sign me up!

[aaronk25]

Certified = antiquated old junk. Can't wait for the new non-commercial standard.

[Jamie]

I would totally do this, and invent my own classification.

 

I'd continue to maintain the airplane to the old certified standards. Annuals by an MSC, only do the currently allowed owner maintanence, etc. Spotless, professional maintenance. All ADs complied with, etc.

 

BUT.

 

I'd start upgrading the avionics and other "plug replaceable" items (strobelights, landing lights, dash lights, etc) with the stuff I want but can't currently afford under the TSO rules.  Modern panel, here I come!!

 

If I were a potential buyer, what would spook me is maintenance of an unknown quality, NOT parts of non-TSO origin. So, by documenting what was done and by who, I'd be comfortable buying a "Mooney+".