New Idea from the Feds on "experimental" parts

[johncuyle]

This sounds a lot like the feds saying, "We aren't actually up to the task of certifying anything efficiently enough that it's possible to bring it to the certified market, so to cover our manifest failure to do what you pay your taxes to have us do, we'll let you run the stuff everyone else runs safely, but with a bag of restrictions and possibly a hit to your plane's value and possibly you won't be able to fly outside the country.  Now praise us for our innovative and flexible new program!"

[cliffy]

First I think we all can agree that the Feds work under archaic rules. Its like trying to move a mountain. Things are advancing so fast they don't have the manpower or budget to effectively check all the new stuff out. 

The new NOSEE rules were  shot at making somethings easier to use under the archaic rules. 

They can't change the old rules for a variety of reasons, liability being a big one. 

In order to get things out from under the old rules and new certificate was bantied about where new rules could be put in place. I'm betting there are enough old sticks in the mud that made enough noise that they had to put some restrictions on any new rules in order to get it out of the preliminary setting. Just like only one Senator required us to have a physical by a doctor under Basic Med (instead of just a driver's license) in order to get it passed. One stick in the mud.  

The new way "could" go a long way to help us with older, less value airplanes move into a safer and more affordable arena - even if it has some restrictions. How many here actually fly to Canada? What percentage of the vintage fleet flies to Mexico or the Carib.? Even now the rules have changed allowing Basic Med in the Carib. Remember also everything across a border is done through ICAO, You want to go across a border? ICAO has to sign off on it. They have to accept what you are doing for licensing. It ain't just the FAA. 

I don't have any interest in flying to Mexico anymore, never had any for Canada just because its easier to go airline (yes I have flown 91 and 121 to both). If I can look at installing something that stays less than 15% of my hull value I'm going to do it. If I go the big "G" its 50-75% of my hull value. Not worth it on a 50K airplane. And if I'm restricted to not going beyond the confines of the lower 48 so what. It don't affect me at all. 

If someone wants to work on their own airplane, so what. They take the hit, if there is any, there by choice, You don't have to. Buy something else. 

Planes falling out of the sky? Have you ever looked at how many planes actually  fold up like a cheap suit every week in the USA? Even when worked on by licensed A&Ps? The vast majority by bad decision making between the ears but I've seen a lot of A&P work that I would ground because it was so bad. Having an A&P doesn't guarantee good or safe work. And we do wreck'm faster than we build'm! 

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by cliffy
spelling

[Sabremech]

4 hours ago, cliffy said:

First I think we all can agree that the Feds work under archaic rules. Its like trying to move a mountain. Things are advancing so fast they don't have the manpower or budget to effectively check all the new stuff out. 

The new NOSEE rules were  shot at making somethings easier to use under the archaic rules. 

They can't change the old rules for a variety of reasons, liability being a big one. 

In order to get things out from under the old rules and new certificate was bantied about where new rules could be put in place. I'm betting there are enough old sticks in the mud that made enough noise that they had to put some restrictions on any new rules in order to get it out of the preliminary setting. Just like only one Senator required us to have a physical by a doctor under Basic Med (instead of just a driver's license) in order to get it passed. One stick in the mud.  

The new way "could" go a long way to help us with older, less value airplanes move into a safer and more affordable arena - even if it has some restrictions. How many here actually fly to Canada? What percentage of the vintage fleet flies to Mexico or the Carib.? Even now the rules have changed allowing Basic Med in the Carib. Remember also everything across a border is done through ICAO, You want to go across a border? ICAO has to sign off on it. They have to accept what you are doing for licensing. It ain't just the FAA. 

I don't have any interest in flying to Mexico anymore, never had any for Canada just because its easier to go airline (yes I have flown 91 and 121 to both). If I can look at installing something that stays less that 15% of my hull value I'm going to do it. If I go the big "G" its 50-75% of my hull value. Not worth it on a 50K airplane. And if I'm restricted to not going beyond the confines of the lower 48 so what. It don't affect me at all. 

If someone wants to work on their own airplane, so what. They take the hit, if there is any, there by choice, You don't have to. Buy something else. 

Planes falling out of the sky? Have you ever looked at how many planes actually  fold up like a cheap suit every week in the USA? Even when worked on by licensed A&Ps? The vast majority by bad decision making between the ears but I've seen a lot of A&P work that I would ground because it was so bad. Having an A&P doesn't guarantee good or safe work. And we do wreck'm faster than we build'm! 

 

Hi Cliff, 

I’m not so sure you’re seeing bad work from A&P’s necessarily. I’m seeing bad and undocumented work from owners who shouldn’t be working on their airplane and the A&P’s are getting the blame later on down the road. 

I don’t know if I’m for this change or not yet if it ever makes it to reality.

David

[aviatoreb]

Good.  I think I’ll install the eps aero 8 cylinder 450hp Diesel engine when my tsio520 wears out.

https://eps.aero/the-eps-engine/

ill beef up the landing gear and add some structural gussets in the from to take the new load and strengthen the frame for higher vne.

yeah baby!

[cliffy]

David   I understand where you are coming from but I have seen several instances of poor work by A&Ps even in the last 2 years with airplanes going through the local shop. I usually get called over when they see me and they say "hey come look at this".

Like you I also see lots of suspected owner mx issues. I even see them trying to work on the ramp as a transient. Some of it is comical. 

I'm for the new rules if they come out and I'll just wait and see if the mx issues rise up to bite me :-)  Done correctly it would/will be good for many legacy airplanes. Flip of the coin?

[Guest]

I wonder if anyone has ever reviewed homebuilt accident rates when maintained by builders versus certified airframes when maintained by certified maintainers?  

There are good builders who are good maintainers, and there are some who are not so good, just as there are in the certified maintenance world.

Clarence

[Tom]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I wonder if anyone has ever reviewed homebuilt accident rates when maintained by builders versus certified airframes when maintained by certified maintainers?  

There are good builders who are good maintainers, and there are some who are not so good, just as there are in the certified maintenance world.

Clarence

NTSB did in 2012.  Full PDF report here.  Executive summary here.

From the executive summary: 
" Experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total-and 21 percent of the fatal-U.S. general aviation (GA) accidents in 2011. Experimental amateur-built aircraft represent a growing segment of the United States' general aviation fleet-a segment that now numbers nearly 33,000 aircraft."

[mike_elliott]

I am surprised the fatality rate is so low for experimental amateur built aircraft when I see things like this at OSH

 

[Hank]

6 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I wonder if anyone has ever reviewed homebuilt accident rates when maintained by builders versus certified airframes when maintained by certified maintainers?  

Ron Wattanja over on Pilots of America tracks accident data with an amazing breadth of analysis variables. The only problem that I have with the NTSB report referenced by @Tom above is that is tries to draw a correlation between the number of aircraft and the number of accidents. So I can build a hundred planes that never fly and have a superior accident rating! Until the first takeoff and crash . . . because it's a poor design. If the NTSB tried to correlate estimated hours versus number of accidents, that would be a horse of a completely different color, and that might not be shrugged off so easily.

[bradp]

Anyone have the data that the riskiest time for experimental amateur build is during flight testing...? 

[Austintatious]

58 minutes ago, Hank said:

Ron Wattanja over on Pilots of America tracks accident data with an amazing breadth of analysis variables. The only problem that I have with the NTSB report referenced by @Tom above is that is tries to draw a correlation between the number of aircraft and the number of accidents. So I can build a hundred planes that never fly and have a superior accident rating! Until the first takeoff and crash . . . because it's a poor design. If the NTSB tried to correlate estimated hours versus number of accidents, that would be a horse of a completely different color, and that might not be shrugged off so easily.

The other thing I would want to know, is what % of those accidents are because of builder/ maintenance issues vs Pilot error.  If a Perfectly built RV8 gets smoked into the ground because the pilot was doing LL aerobatics.... that has absolutely no bearing on how safe the airframe was.

[kris_adams]

Pretty sure I would go with this new airworthiness category as well.

[Skates97]

2 hours ago, Kris_Adams said:

Pretty sure I would go with this new airworthiness category as well.

I would jump on this as well. As it is, I have a great relationship with my AP/IA and he lets me do a lot of things that he just looks over and gives me a logbook entry. I also know my limitations and happily pay him to do those things I'm not comfortable doing. If the new airworthiness category came into affect it really wouldn't change how I do maintenance, it would just change the signature that goes in the log book. I would still pay him to do those things that are past my skill set. It would allow me to put in some less expensive but equally capable avionics...

To @cliffy's point above, there are good shops and bad shops. My AP/IA at KFUL has had to fix a number of things that the previous AP/IA at my former home either did not do correctly or did not do well. I can say he hasn't had to fix anything that I have done. That is not bragging about my skills, like I said, if it is something that is beyond my skill set I don't do it. However, as @Sabremech said, there are owners that shouldn't be working on their airplanes but are anyway. This would just encourage more of that behavior.

[Andy95W]

I wonder what it will do to selling price.

[Tom]

3 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I wonder what it will do to selling price.

A quick-build 2-seat RV kit currently sells for $39k; to that a builder adds an engine, prop, panel, plus 1000+ hours of work.  Not too long ago the 10,000th RV was completed.

Hard to imagine a corrosion-free Mooney in annual/airworthy condition going for less than $40-50K when the PNC-type thing becomes reality. 

[NJMac]

Anyone have the data that the riskiest time for experimental amateur build is during flight testing...? 

Isn't every flight a test flight?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Yetti]

21 hours ago, Tom said:

NTSB did in 2012.  Full PDF report here.  Executive summary here.

From the executive summary: 
" Experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total-and 21 percent of the fatal-U.S. general aviation (GA) accidents in 2011. Experimental amateur-built aircraft represent a growing segment of the United States' general aviation fleet-a segment that now numbers nearly 33,000 aircraft."

the report was about better build and about better training for pilots.  so both the pilot and the plane was responsible.

[1964-M20E]

13 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I wonder what it will do to selling price.

IMHO anything built before the 80s or 90s very little drop in value.  Newer models it might cause more of a price dip.

[Yetti]

13 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I wonder what it will do to selling price.

Funny thing when I was looking for mine I had a rule that the wiring behind the panel could not be butchered.   one C177 I looked at was a freaking rat nest.  Several others got turned down for the same reason.

 

[McMooney]

Just now, Yetti said:

Funny thing when I was looking for mine I had a rule that the wiring behind the panel could not be butchered.   one C177 I looked at was a freaking rat nest.  Several others got turned down for the same reason.

 

you know, compared to the experimentals, certified ac wiring all looks butchered.  atleast from the experimentals I've seen

[mike_elliott]

Most 66 E models wiring has been butchered and is easy to understand why you have that opinion when you compare it to a freshly built experimental. You might be well served to look at a new plane with modern avionics' wiring to compare.

[aviatoreb]

In the experimental world. I wonder regarding the bulk statistics based on number of airplanes vs number of crashes in experimental vs certified.

As already said - the phrasing that leads to the crash rate per airplane registered in experimental is twice as high as experimental.  But only per hour flown is really relevant since the first way of stating this may hide other factors most notably the experimental could well hold a much higher level of hangar queens that rarely or never fly.  I don't know.

But separate - someone mentioned that some of the xperimentals are flown in a different way, say the RV8 being flown acrobatically by a non acrobatically trained pilot.  Is this enough to swing the stats?

But not mentioned....some experimental like the vans most notably are wonderfully designed airplanes comparable to any certified airplane.  Follow the plans and build it well and maintain it well and I am sure you have a great airplane.  Some designs are inherently less quality - I remember looking once at the Cozy and noticing how there is no inherent crash protection.

However that is not what really worries me.  It is that within the experimental rules, you can do whatever you want.  shorten the wings.  Put a too big engine on it.  Etc.  And beyond that, you could even build an airplane from designs, not a kit (the kits are clearly a safer category than design only builds) and then beyond that - home made designs.   I wonder how many crashes are due to deliberate but unwittingly stupid aerodynamic designs.  There was a fellow around here a few years ago who died on a maiden voyage in a lawn mower powered ultra light thing of his own design that simply fell apart about 15 min into its maiden voyage.  Oh, and the guy also had no pilot training whatsoever.

Edited August 16, 2019 by aviatoreb

[Yetti]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

Most 66 E models wiring has been butchered and is easy to understand why you have that opinion when you compare it to a freshly built experimental. You might be well served to look at a new plane with modern avionics' wiring to compare.

I agree from the factory wiring it kind of looks like they just threw it all back up there against the firewall.  The one I got was relativity unmolested.   From someone that used to go through hundreds of tie wraps a day to wire up radios in a couple mixer trucks it concerns me that my bundles up there are not neat.    Oh and the positive light wire to the compass is not neat.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Yetti

[Andy95W]

3 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

IMHO anything built before the 80s or 90s very little drop in value.  Newer models it might cause more of a price dip.

I think that's probably right, but the difference will come when comparing 2 otherwise comparable airplanes- one with a "Primary-Noncommercial" certificate, and one that was maintained to the original Airworthiness Certificate.  I'll take bets on which will be worth more...

[cliffy]

A lot of resale jitters may vary according to just what was done to an amateur  maintained airplane. If only new "unapproved radios" were installed and all the maintenance was "certified" then maybe not much impact. If Joe Dirt wrenched the plane using a pair of water pump pliers then prices would drop. Comes down to the PPI and the PERCEPTION  of quality.  No different than purchasing any homebuilt airplane today. Also I agree with Andy above. Not many newer airplanes would go this route as it would impact their value more than a $50K 50 year old airframe. 

Frankly we don't even know what form the legislation will take so its all pie in the sky speculation at this point.