If Canada can do it, why can't we?

[Wildhorsesracing]

Great article about Canadian owner maintenance:

http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/05/24/frugal-pilots-imagine-full-owner-maintenance/

[carusoam]

Remind me again...

What it would take to learn and earn the A&P/IA ratings?

The reason I got a Mooney was to travel. IFR is an essential part of that...

The Candian rules are certainly in the right direction. They include four seaters in a weight category larger than my O.

Unfortunately, they stopped short of allowing IFR use of the owner maintained planes...

Best regards,

-a-

[Guest]

Here is the link to the list of Owner Maintenance eligible aircraft.

There are very few aircraft which have made the switch. It's a one way trip, applicable to many older classic aircraft with no or limited support. Even a few Mooney models made the list.

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

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

Remind me again...

What it would take to learn and earn the A&P/IA ratings?

The reason I got a Mooney was to travel. IFR is an essential part of that...

The Candian rules are certainly in the right direction. They include four seaters in a weight category larger than my O.

Unfortunately, they stopped short of allowing IFR use of the owner maintained planes...

Best regards,

-a-

 

I m all for such a rule - but as for me - I would never fly in an airplane that I maintained - I'm just not as mechanically skilled as some and I am smart enough to know it.

[1964-M20E]

I m all for such a rule - but as for me - I would never fly in an airplane that I maintained - I'm just not as mechanically skilled as some and I am smart enough to know it.

Eric

 

This goes for many occupations and skill sets and makes for good pilots and mechanics who admit what they don't know. 

 

However, I am in the camp of it's my plane and I should be able to maintain it just as the experimental folks do which would mean having an IA do the annual if you did not build the plane.  There are experimental aircraft that are maintained by A&P/IAs for the same reasons you mention above.  I also think there should be an expedited path to get your license to work on and inspect your own plane certified or experimental.  I should have the final say over what avionics or accessories are installed in my plane.

 

I have participated deeply in 5 annual inspections of my Mooney.  While I am far from being an expert and have more to learn I think i could do a decent job inspecting and maintaining my plane in the future. I would at least every few years go to an IA just to make sure I did not miss anything major.

[Cyril Gibb]

The article referenced is incorrect in one aspect (based on my understanding).  Once an aircraft in Canada is designated OM, it can never ever be recertified.

Never.

No matter what reinspections are done.

The only reason I can think of to do the OM thing is if you expect you will junk your plane when you're done with it.

[Guest]

Eric

 

This goes for many occupations and skill sets and makes for good pilots and mechanics who admit what they don't know. 

 

However, I am in the camp of it's my plane and I should be able to maintain it just as the experimental folks do which would mean having an IA do the annual if you did not build the plane.  There are experimental aircraft that are maintained by A&P/IAs for the same reasons you mention above.  I also think there should be an expedited path to get your license to work on and inspect your own plane certified or experimental.  I should have the final say over what avionics or accessories are installed in my plane.

 

I have participated deeply in 5 annual inspections of my Mooney.  While I am far from being an expert and have more to learn I think i could do a decent job inspecting and maintaining my plane in the future. I would at least every few years go to an IA just to make sure I did not miss anything major.

I'm curious to know what qualifications as a pilot should allow an expedited A&P licence? It already takes less time in the U.S. Than most other countries. Conversely should an A&P get a fast tracked pilots licence and with what ratings.

Clarence

[Wildhorsesracing]

I have fully participated in every one of my annuals and am fairly mechanically inclined. I enjoy working on all things mechanical and am not afraid to seek help/expert advice/extra pair of eyes when I am not sure about what I am looking at.  

 

My '62 C is a mechanically sound but ugly (butt ugly?) old Mooney.  According to the calculators she is worth roughly $19k, I paid $29k cash for her years ago and have loved every minute in her.  I am not worried about the value lost since I lose more than double that every time I buy a new truck/car.  I doubt I'll ever sell her, but who knows, I might get tired of her someday.  

 

There is a Mooney literally rotting away at a local airport (8A6 - Wilgrove) that is probably going to waste because the owner can no longer afford the costs of a "certified" aircraft and probably can't sell it for 1/2 of what he/she has in it.  There are two very active local EAA chapters with members literally building and selling aircraft as fast as humanly possible.  I have no qualms with converting my Mooney to "Experimental" status and seriously think it might even increase in value based on what I have seen the local EAA members sell their planes for.

 

Experimental aircraft still require annual inspections, it just means you can use non certified parts and do much of the work yourself.

 

I think many older aircraft would benefit from going to an experimental status and you'll see a whole new market of restored older ex-certified now experimental aircraft.

[aviatoreb]

Again I fully appreciate those craftsmen who can maintain their own.  I am an unusual sort - I fully understand everything I am looking at in my airplane (well lots) and I talk extensively with my shop during maintenance and what I want - but I just have crummy workmanship - I wouldn't dare do work on my house for the same reason.  When I try - it always comes out looking like a third grader did the work.  I do sometimes do work on my bicycles....

 

I wish we could convert our airplanes to experimental since I crave for lots of the experimental equipment.  Dynon or Garmin G3x avionics and autopilots, wing tips, etc - but if I got stuff like that - I would have an avionics shop install it since the shiver goes up my spine when I see the rats nest of wires behind my panel.  A FADEC engine would be nice.  Or maybe Gami prism.

 

If an experimental airplane can fly IFR, then surely a factory built OM airplane should be allowed, or one with a few experimental parts.

[N601RX]

I think a reasonable solution would be to require the owner to go through some sort of training before them being authorized to work on their plane.  This could be provided by type clubs such as MAPA where they concentrate the training on the same type aircraft that the owner would be maintaining. Lycoming already offers classes on maintaining and repairing their engines.

 

This is very similar to what light sport is currently doing.

[DaV8or]

I'm curious to know what qualifications as a pilot should allow an expedited A&P licence? It already takes less time in the U.S. Than most other countries. Conversely should an A&P get a fast tracked pilots licence and with what ratings.

Clarence

 

I think a program could be created so that you would be licensed to work on your plane and not for hire. In other words, you would learn all the skills and techniques to properly maintain your airplane and not all airplanes. A Mooney owner doesn't need to know how to do fabric repairs, or wood repairs. (most of us anyhow) This limited training should take less time than the entire course.

 

However, I'm much more in favor and in fact enthusiastic about an Experimental / Factory Built category. I'd like somebody to explain to me why it's perfectly fine for me to buy a used kit plane somebody else completed and I can do all the work and do any modifications I desire, but I buy a used certified plane that somebody else built and I can only work on it with conditions and I can not modify it as I see fit.

 

The OM category in Canada is not what I want. I want to have all the same rights and privileges as well as restrictions as the guy who buys a completed Lancair IV-P does today. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[ryoder]

Experimental ELSA owners can take a three day course and can then qualify to repair and annual their own airplane. They can also fly it IFR with the pitostatic tests.

[jetdriven]

The OM category in Canada is not what I want. I want to have all the same rights and privileges as well as restrictions as the guy who buys a completed Lancair IV-P does today. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

That guy if he is not an A&P, must have a conditional inspection done by an A&P once per year. He does not hold the repairman certificate for that airplane. The EAA got an interpretation that he can do all the work during the year but the A&P must sign to it for the conditional. Is that what you want?

[Wildhorsesracing]

That guy if he is not an A&P, must have a conditional inspection done by an A&P once per year. He does not hold the repairman certificate for that airplane. The EAA got an interpretation that he can do all the work during the year but the A&P must sign to it for the conditional. Is that what you want?

 

I would be happy with this as well.

[DaV8or]

That guy if he is not an A&P, must have a conditional inspection done by an A&P once per year. He does not hold the repairman certificate for that airplane. The EAA got an interpretation that he can do all the work during the year but the A&P must sign to it for the conditional. Is that what you want?

 

YES! I'm not trying to "avoid"an annual by a professional. I'm fine with that.

 

What I want is, during the year when crap breaks, I just take care of it myself. What I want is, when the factory certified components are either badly designed, unavailable, or incredibly expensive, I'd like to come up with alternatives. What I want is, when I would like a state of the art avionics package, or a new and improved cowling, to be able to get it at a reasonable price. What I want is, when my engine takes a dive and needs a rebuild, to be able to replace it with either a lower cost option, or maybe even a change to something new like a diesel. I'd like to be able to replace my lighting to safer LEDs without a government blessing.

 

It's more than just the annual, which by the way I could still do owner assist.

[cliffy]

There are many experimental builders who build fantastic high quality airplanes. There are also those who don't come up to that standard. I've always said-"some Doctor graduated at the bottom of his class, is he the one you are going to?" 

As an A&P I've seen lots of sub-standard work by both owners AND other A&Ps. Being 'licensed" is not a guarantee of quality work.

That aside, GA is going downhill and if something doesn't change its going Bye Bye in the future. There are only so many out there who can afford to go buy an $500,000 airplane.

Why couldn't we have something like a "student mechanic" license, like a student pilot where every move is OK'd by an A&P. Sort of a mentor program. Say by the end of a couple of years he could get signed off for non-scheduled items and could do the annual with IA oversight. Pilot/owners can already do many items under Preventive Maintenance, why not most items if taught how, Even a licensed A&Ps can't do items they haven't been trained on.

Secondly, I can see keeping standards as is for certified aircraft for the structure of the airplane (unless one wanted to move to experimental forever, which I can also see as an option). BUT, there is no reason in the world why non-certified electronics couldn't be owner installed, looked at by a license holder and labeled in the cockpit "This aircraft uses non-approved electronics". Much like the "Experimental" tag on all those airplanes.   The experimental electronics market is mature enough to handle this as below standard avionics would be weeded out real quick in a knowledgeable market place.

[ryoder]

People will just fly experimentals if the faa doesn't loosen this up. The thing that bothers me about experimentals is the fit and finish. i just can't dly something that looks like a soap box racer with a prop. The Sonex comes to mind. Some of the newer LSAs are very nice inside even when kit built.