Annual Inspections

[MikeB]

Just finished the annual inspection on my L16 last week. There were not any surprises and I didn't expect any with less than 100 hour since restoration but during discussion the question came up. How many A & P schools actually teach tube and fabric, wood spars, etc. anymore? Having taught at the community college level for more than 30 years I know you have to tailor your curriculum to the present job market or your program isn't going to be around very long. Most of these old time airplanes are not necessarily complex but they do require a certain amount of expertise and experience to know wear limits and failure modes (fabric is a good example).
When I was at Oshkosh the gentleman who was camping next to me was from Canada so I asked him about Canada's 'owner maintenance program' for older aircraft (he was flying a Cessna 150 and had owned it for over 25 years). His reaction was pretty negative as he said it lowered the value of the aircraft and once it went on owner maintenance you couldn't get it back to certified status again. Gave me a whole different perspective on the program although I believe if you take a certified aircraft here and put it on experiemental (install a uncertified engine for example) it would amount to the same thing.

Mike

[EDGEFLY]

But mikeB,

What if I purchased that aircraft from you, replaced the disallowed engine with whatever was on the original TCDS for an engine and assuming no other changes had been made; couldn't it be registered as whatever it was originally ?

Dale

[MikeB]

My understanding is (by "N" number or serial number) not as it's been registered experimental. Like if someone put a Rotex or Corvair engine in a Champ (crossed my mind once or twice) and registered as 'experimental' but I could be wrong. Lot's of stories flying around by airport loafers at times. Someone may jump in here with more information.
Mike

[rkittine]

I tried to get one of the easiest field office around this neck of the woods to approve the removal of the No Bounce Gear on an Aeronca 7DC with a return to 1,300 MGW from the 1,350 it was elected to have and was told I couldn't so I would doubt that a change that had been completed and documented, could go back. I will have to look through my log books as my 7CCM went to Canada for a while, had an engine change there, came back and was recertified, but as I remember, all was done under the correct Service Letters and Type Certificate effective for the USA.

[MikeB]

I know of one J-3 that came from Canada (in pieces) and was rebuilt but it took an inspection by a FAA type to get the airworthiness certificate. Unsure what it had for paperwork but I doubt a whole lot.
Mike

[EDGEFLY]

MikeB,

I have to change my initial response. Bob Kittines' post brought to mind the LSA problem wherein I believe the definition of LSA and re registering them says something to the effect that if the aircraft is modified so as to disqualify it for LSA and registered as such, it cannot subsequently be re registered as an LSA. Jus my memory which may be incorrect.

This is not maybe a problem if it were a bonanza or something which could never have been an LSA to start with. I also remember that when LSA's began, there was much discussion of reconfiguring Cessna 150s and that was shot down on the basis that they had been registered for various non-LSA compliant
specifications.

Dale

[Paul Agaliotis]

Mike,
A few years back the EAA wanted all of these little planes to be put in an owner maintained category. Only the AAA and AOPA stood up and said no. It would require to re-register the planes and they couldn't go back, the EAA was offering to be the regulatory branch for this category. That was about the time I lost interest in the EAA. They do what's good for the EAA not what's good for aviation.
The FAA was wrong in not allowing the change to a lower gross weight, if the equipment was removed. A standard category aircraft can be modified to increase gross weight, with approved data, or reduced if the items are removed. Only the LSA certified aircraft cannot be returned if modified. And the manufacturer is the only one that can approve the increase in gross weight. This keeps the manufacturer from building a LSA and later increasing the weight without building the plane to the required FAR's.
Paul

[Richard Murray]

Paul,

Good answer that I'm sure will re-energise an LSA discussion. Get ready

Richard

[Paul Agaliotis]

Richard,
I just don't understand where the confusion sets in. When talking about the LSA aircraft it's pretty clear what is allowed. Same with the Standard category aircraft, they're always Standard category, whether flown as a LSA or not.
Paul

[Richard Murray]

Paul,

Thank you it is just that simple. The confusion seems to be the misunderstanding a 60+ year old aircraft is being certificated as an LSA when in fact it is not Your previous explanation of the point was excellent.

Richard

[Paul Agaliotis]

Richard,
I always try to refer to each aircraft just as the FAA does. Either a LSA certified aircraft or a Sport Pilot eligible aircraft ( standard catagory).
Paul

[Richard Murray]

Paul,

Let me impose upon your wisdom with a hypothetical problem.

A Standard category aircraft is modified by STC and is eligible for an increase in the maximum gross takeoff weight. The aircraft is weighed and a new W+B prepared and the 337 is filed and approved.

Some period later the aircraft is being repaired and the owner at the time elects to repair it to the original configuration with the STC no longer modifying the aircraft. The aircraft is again weighed and a new W+B prepared and a 337 is prepared and approved. The maximum gross takeoff weight should return to what the TC originally specified, correct?

Thanks,

Richard

PS Enjoy the NEW bridge...

[Paul Agaliotis]

Richard,
That is correct. If you continue to operate at the higher gross weight you are in violation as owner/operator. If you are the pilot of this aircraft and not the owner/operator you could have a chance of clearing yourself of this violation. But, you would have to plead ignorance if the information was not available to you. It would depend how hard nosed the ASI wanted to be. The pilot is responsible for the preflight condition and not much else, in regards to maintenance.
Paul