Vintage Aircraft Category

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:36 pm

A new "Vintage Aircraft Category" is being proposed. Sounds interesting.

http://www.vintageaircraft.org/news/200 ... Month.html

Key points of the EAA proposal include:

Aircraft would not be limited in size or complexity.
This is not a new Experimental category; Part 43 airworthiness regulations would still apply.
The installation of parts and items that are not PMA or TSO compliant would be allowed.
Transfer to the new category would mean the loss of any privileges to carry persons or property for hire.
Transfer to the new category would be a one-way process; the aircraft would not be eligible for type re-certification via a conformity inspection or any other means. Because of this, it would be essential that the decision to change the certification category be made carefully by the owner/operator.
Transfer to this new category would not be mandatory. The owner would have the opportunity either to continue to operate under the current regulations governing type certificated products, or to â€œop-outâ€ and choose to have the aircraft maintained within the regulations of the new category. Subsequent owners of the aircraft transferred into the new category would be required to maintain the airplane in that vintage aircraft category.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:48 am

It doesn't sound as good to me as being able to go "Experimental", but it sounds better than the present system.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:43 pm

I'd be able to install those dual puck brakes that are sitting in my hangar waiting now almost three months for a field approval.

4-Shipp · Post by **4-Shipp** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:45 pm

This sounds somewhat like the "owner maintenance" option in Canada. The main drawback to that program, from what I understand, is a reduction in aircraft value. Perhaps some of our Canadian members who are more familiar with owner maintenance can enlighten us.

It will be interesting to see how these new rules affect resale value and insurance. Can anyone think of any immediate, significant advantages to taking a 170 into this category? From what I have seen we are still very well supported.

Would this be a way to get around the new field approval challenges or would the field approval process remain unchanged?

Bruce

CraigH · Post by **CraigH** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 pm

4-Shipp wrote:This sounds somewhat like the "owner maintenance" option in Canada. The main drawback to that program, from what I understand, is a reduction in aircraft value.

That was my thougt as well. Maybe a little more restrictive than the Canadian version, but certainly not something I'd want to do with my bird. Maybe if I was planning on flying/keeping it for the rest of my life, but not on something where I'd be concerned with future resale value.

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:03 pm

It does say "Part 43 airworthiness regulations would still apply" which require an AP/AI, so it doesn't sound like owner maintenance is on the table.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:34 pm

I bought this airplane to to fly for the fun of it and to keep me out of the local pool rooms. I look upon it as one of my toys for personal enjoyment and do not consider it as an investment. Anything to make it easier than some of the rules we now operate under would be an improvement. The comment about the double puck brakes is a typical example.It's been done hundreds of times before, so why the hold up.
Like Bill Lear said, "The FAA has set aviation back at least twenty years".

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:51 am

If FAR 43 still applies,... then the only advantage would be SOME parts being cheaper. It wouldn't change the requirement to obtain approvals for major alterations like double-puck brakes. It'd just let someone down the street take some brake lining material and make you a set that could be installed on the brake system you already have approved. (I.E. - he could make you some Goodyear pucks for your crosswind gear.) It might allow an automotive voltage regulator, or starter brushes, etc. It doesn't seem to allow un-authorized modifications that would affect airworthiness.
I think this is for the owner of the World War I S.E. Scout who can't find a certified camshaft, but some company says they make 'em in their machine shop. They wouldn't have to have a PMA in order to sell it to you as an airplane part.
Reading between the lines, ... I'm guessing some folks with friends in influential places want to make some airplane parts but don't want to have to meet certification requirements.
From what I've seen so far, I'm not interested in it.

Tom Downey · Post by **Tom Downey** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:19 am

I would suggest that each and every one go to the (EAA.com) and read the proposal.

To me every thing they are trying to obtain would be easy, if the FAA would just place a short statement in the AC43,13 saying this AC is approved data for repairs to aircraft built by these methods. Or words to that effect.

In doing so would allow you the 170 owners to do major repairs to your aircraft by the methods that are advisory in nature now, but would become the data necessary for the A&P-IA to use as return to service with out FAA approval.

Your shoulder harness just became a minor mod.

Repairs to skin, gear boxes, etc, could be returned to service by any A&P.

Changing what is acceptable data, and what is APPROVED data makes a world of difference in who can do what.

Think about this, suspose some fruit cake runs a dozer over your 170, all parts to repair could be manufactured IAW the 43,13, by any A&P, and returned to service as a major repair by any A&P-IA, no FAA involvement other than to file the 337.

One simple statement would solve the whole mess.

Will it happen? Hell no, the FAA wrote the 43,13 (Bill O'Brien by the way) so the FAA lawyers will never allow the US gubment to be the deep pocket.

Sorry for the editorial.

Want to make a statement that gets to the MAN e-mail Bill at

bill.o'brien@faa.gov

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:32 pm

Tom, if I'm not mistaken, a bulldozer can run over a 170 NOW and it can be completely rebuilt by an AP/IA and returned to service by the owner, with nothing more submitted than Form 337's. There's nothing preventing that as things now exist under the "owner produced parts" rule, and the airplane does not lose it's standard airworthiness certificate either. (No loss of investment value in the sense being discussed.)
I understand the difference under the proposed rule would be whether someone else's homemade parts, not specified/controlled by the owner, could be utilized in the restoration.

Tom Downey · Post by **Tom Downey** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:43 am

gahorn wrote:Tom, if I'm not mistaken, a bulldozer can run over a 170 NOW and it can be completely rebuilt by an AP/IA and returned to service by the owner, with nothing more submitted than Form 337's.

It is a matter of who approves the data to return to service on the 337, An A&P can build the parts to repair now, IF they have approved data to make the repairs, such as the cessna structural repair manual. If they don't the repairs must be approved by FSDO and they will no longer do that with out DAR engineering. (think money) the EAA wants to get away from that.

gahorn wrote: I understand the difference under the proposed rule would be whether someone else's homemade parts, not specified/controlled by the owner, could be utilized in the restoration.

I didn't read that as being the point of the proposal. I didn't think the 170s were the aircraft that EAA is thinking of when they proposed this new type class. Manufacturing parts for cessnas is pretty bland when it comes to manufacturing parts for a one of a kind antique. Making sheet stock parts for skin is pretty simple, but manufacturing rocker arms for a Franklin 150 horse requires way too much paper work in todays FAA, that is what I read the proposal to be intended for. parts such as the hard to find Franklin parts and things like the OX5 pistons and Warner cylinders.

The ability to manufacturer a part under the existing Form, Fit, and function, policy of the FAA requires the FAA to shoulder the responsibility of liability. And in my humble opinion their lawyers will never allow that to happen.

I will not place my F-24 in this new class due to the restrictions in the usage. That is what would be the show stopper for me.

c170b53 · Post by **c170b53** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:12 pm

I don't see an advantage to be in the owner- maintenance catagory either
in Canada, due restrictions such as not being allowed to enter the states.

bsdunek · Post by **bsdunek** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Did anyone note that under the proposal you can't carry passengers? That is enough to stop me from considering it!
As stated above, the 170 doesn't need this anyway, we have enough parts and information to keep them maintained under standard certification.
I think this proposal is like the Sport Pilot rule, it's so restricting that it takes all the utility out of flying.

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:18 pm

The way I read it you can carry passengers, you just can't carry passengers for hire.

bsdunek · Post by **bsdunek** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:35 pm

You're right, lowNslow. Guess I misread that part. Otherwise, this may be a good deal for owning old orphen aircraft.