Owner restoration

[mike53]

Thinking about purchasing a basket case1941 Taylorcraft The plane was groundlooped and it appears the damage is to the rear lower longerons where they meet the tail wheel on one side.I would have a AME look it over before purchase and was just wondering what an aircraft owner is allowed to do as far as a complete restoration of an old aircraft.Would structural tube repair and replacement be ok.What about engine rebuild say on a cont.65.Does everything you do have to be signed off by an mechanic?

Thanks,
Mike53

[AirFrame]

You can do any work that your AME will sign off afterwards.

[Strega]

put it into owner maintenance


you can do as you wish with respect to repairing it.


S

[Pavese]

put it into owner maintenance you can do as you wish with respect to repairing it.

S

If you do that, befriend an AME who is willing to look in on your progress and offer advice, pay them if you have to, it'll be worth it. While you're at it, find an active EAA or RAA chapter, don't know about the RAA but EAA has Technical Counselors available to provide advice, no charge. Good networking opportunities too. Last up, get a copy of AC 43.13-1b, ACCEPTABLE METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES - AIRCRAFT INSPECTION AND REPAIR, lots of good info in there. Download it from the FAA, all 655 pages.

D

[SeptRepair]

If the repair is considered major then the work will have to be conducted by an appropriately rated AMO. An AME cannot sign off major repairs under the privilege of their license. Like Strega said, put it into the owner maintained category.

[mike53]

put it into owner maintenance


you can do as you wish with respect to repairing it.


S

Would this not lower the value of the plane once it is airworthy again?My understanding is that to reverse this process is quite costly .

[Strega]

Would this not lower the value of the plane once it is airworthy again?My understanding is that to reverse this process is quite costly .

This has been quite the debate since the owner maintenance class was coined by tc... from what I have seen it has no impact on the value...

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you intend flying to the US you should be aware that aircraft which are converted to the owner maintainance catagory are not permitted to fly in US airspace.

[CID]

Placing an aircraft into the owner maintenance classification would indeed lower the value significantly and would severely limit your ability to sell it afterwards.

"Owner Maintenance" aircraft operate under a special flight authority - no C of A - and are therefore not entitled to entry to foreign countries under the reciprocal flight authority that a C of A offers.

It doesn't necessarily mean you can't fly it in to the US, but it does require you to apply for a temporary permit and have it validated by the FAA every time you want to enter the US and.....not only is there no guarantee the FAA would validate the permit, if they did, you would likely have some pretty austere limitations.

Placing an aircraft into the owner maintenance classification isn't a one way street. It's more like a road on a steep incline with no guard rails. And the route to re-classify the airplane to a normal C of A is "up hill" all the way.

All major components would need to be overhauled by a certified facility and the entire airplane would be subject to a conformity inspection (to the type design). The type design is (roughly) all the requirements of the type certificate, all supplemental type certificates, airworthiness directives, service bulletins etc.

Pretty much every modification and repair done by the "owner maintainer" would have to be removed or documented and approved to meet the conformity requirement. I can't speak for everyone but I wouldn't touch an owner maintenance airplane as a buyer, maintainer or overhauler unless I had a very big pile of money up front.

In my opinion, the entire owner maintenance classification is just a bad idea. Transport Canada should have never gone down this road. And from the perspective of the airplane itself, it's a good way to transform it from an aerospace product to a pile of questionable parts.

As for the original question, I highly recommend you find a qualified AME and discuss the project with him/her. There is a great deal that you can do yourself. Much of the work would have to be inspected and signed off by the AME. Some of the work, depending on the seriousness of the damage, may fall in to the "specialized work" category that requires a special rating. Other work to fix serious damage may need to be certified (RDA) if it meets the "major repair" criteria.

An AME would be able to figure all that out for you and inform you of your potential workload and cost.

[mike53]

Placing an aircraft into the owner maintenance classification would indeed lower the value significantly and would severely limit your ability to sell it afterwards.

" And from the perspective of the airplane itself, it's a good way to transform it from an aerospace product to a pile of questionable parts.

As for the original question, I highly recommend you find a qualified AME and discuss the project with him/her. There is a great deal that you can do yourself. Much of the work would have to be inspected and signed off by the AME. Some of the work, depending on the seriousness of the damage, may fall in to the "specialized work" category that requires a special rating. Other work to fix serious damage may need to be certified (RDA) if it meets the "major repair" criteria.

An AME would be able to figure all that out for you and inform you of your potential workload and cost.

Thanks .I have to say your synopsis of what will actually transpire should one put their plane in the Owner Maintenance Catagory (OMC) makes more sense.As a prospective buyer of an OMC plane I would be extremely nervous of said plane unless the owner could show me documents to prove that all maintenance was done to C of A standards including photo's where a repair is hidden.It's far too tempting for some because of cost savings to gerry-rig something so that it "Works ok"

As to one of my original questions.Does cutting out bent longerons and welding new tube in it's place qualify as a repair I can do and then get an AME to sign off on? I can weld aircraft tube.

[Heliian]

As to one of my original questions.Does cutting out bent longerons and welding new tube in it's place qualify as a repair I can do and then get an AME to sign off on? I can weld aircraft tube.

If it's primary structure, NO. Longerons would classify as primary structure. Welding tube, same thing.

[Strega]

Placing an aircraft into the owner maintenance classification would indeed lower the value significantly and would severely limit your ability to sell it afterwards.

Not from what I have seen.

Some old aircraft cannot be maintained properly and or cost effectively when they remain in the certified category.

IE 1942 culver cadet

[CID]

strega, I don't think the issue is being able to maintain an airplane "properly". And cost effectiveness is quite a subjective issue. Some people tell me that they can't maintain their aircraft for under $5 per flight hour. Is that becasue they are truly not getting thier money's worth or that they can't afford to own an airplane? Again, very subjective.

With respect to the 1942 Culver Cadet, there are a few factors to consider. It's not going to be as marketable as say a Cessna 150 so it might be a better candiate for onwer maintenance. However, there are several of these aircraft on the US register that are flying with a normal C of A so I don't really buy the story that it can't be maintained "properly" or "cost effectively" as a normal category airplane with a standard C of A.

So is the owner maintenance classification a common sense means to bypass all that unneccessary oversight and paperwork or is it just a means for cheap people to fly around in cheap airplanes while TC wipes their hands of the whole mess?

[AirFrame]

With respect to the 1942 Culver Cadet, there are a few factors to consider. It's not going to be as marketable as say a Cessna 150 so it might be a better candiate for onwer maintenance. However, there are several of these aircraft on the US register that are flying with a normal C of A so I don't really buy the story that it can't be maintained "properly" or "cost effectively" as a normal category airplane with a standard C of A.

Two Culvers on the ramp in Canada, one with a CofA and the other in OM, all other things being equal, the OM aircraft is worth less on the open market, it's that simple. There may be someone in Canada who never wants to fly to the US, and doesnt' care that he's limited to Canada only... Those customers are a tiny subset of the market (although it may be increasing if EAPIS gets any more ridiculous). The larger market is North-America wide, most people won't want to be restricted by the border.

So is the owner maintenance classification a common sense means to bypass all that unneccessary oversight and paperwork or is it just a means for cheap people to fly around in cheap airplanes while TC wipes their hands of the whole mess?

There's a bit of both. I think the intent was valid, to find a way for someone who owns an airplane that can't effectively be maintained to keep that airplane flying. The reality is that people are stretching the definition of OM quite a bit. Many OM aircraft fly to the US regularly, without any comments by the customs officers at the border, who just see an antique airplane and don't think much of it. The only way to tell would be to find the data plate and look for the "X" stamped at the end of the model number. They're getting wiser though... When I flew to Arlington this year, someone from the FAA walked up after I had cleared customs and asked me if I was flying an "owner-maintained" aircraft. I said "yes," because I was in an RV and didn't understand what he was getting at. I quickly figured it out, and once I explained that it was amateur-built and not owner-maintenance, he backed off.

[c170b53]

amateur-built and not owner-maintenance

Whats the diff? Its all just nonsense. As I see it both sides of the border have little interest in older small planes. We could be talking about owner built and amateur maintenance as well. Why is that o.k.? There's quite a few home built aircraft that appear to have popped out of a mold, their construction, a work of art as well as restorations of older aircraft. Aircraft should be assessed on their airworthiness regardless of their classification. The mechanism needs work.

[mike53]

amateur-built and not owner-maintenance

Whats the diff? We could be talking about owner built and amateur maintenance as well. Why is that o.k.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm quite certain that amateur built must be inspected and given the ok before they can be flown by designated RAA or EAA inspectors at specified times during the build(before covering for example) whereas Owner maintenance do not require any inspection by anyone .I would feel safer in the amateur built personally .

[tyndall]

Whats the diff? We could be talking about owner built and amateur maintenance as well. Why is that o.k.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm quite certain that amateur built must be inspected and given the ok before they can be flown by designated RAA or EAA inspectors at specified times during the build(before covering for example) whereas Owner maintenance do not require any inspection by anyone .I would feel safer in the amateur built personally .

Amateur built do need inspections during the build. Owner maintenance were certified when they were first built too. No difference between the two as far as annuals go. Both are done by the owner. In fact, I'd say that owner maintenance has more restrictions as to what you can modify than amateur built. I'd feel safer in something that was mass produced by a company and had a history of reliable service, than something that was pop riveted together and "looked at" by an inspector that wasn't gonna fly in it.

That aside, the OM category does lower the resale value. Worse yet, it limits the buyers. Even when I was looking for a Tri-Pacer, a very low end, cheap plane, I automatically crossed off any that were OM. When the US border is only 40 minutes away I wasn't going to limit myself to Canada only.

Regarding the FAA's position of OM and flight permits:

FAA Flight Standards aviation safety inspectors shall not issue SFAs for Canadian Owner-Maintenance category aircraft. FAA Flight Standards offices that have issued, or authorized the issuance of, SFAs to Canadian registered Owner-Maintenance aircraft are to review their SFA files for authorizations that are still effective. Those authorizations issued to Canadian Owner-Maintenance category aircraft are to be rescinded as soon as practical.

And when you have to have a placard on the outside that says it doesn't conform to international airworthiness standards, its a little tough to sneak into the US.

Nothing wrong with the OM category if you can live with the restrictions.

[mike53]

Tyndall wrote

Amateur built do need inspections during the build. Owner maintenance were certified when they were first built too. No difference between the two as far as annuals go. Both are done by the owner. In fact, I'd say that owner maintenance has more restrictions as to what you can modify than amateur built. I'd feel safer in something that was mass produced by a company and had a history of reliable service, than something that was pop riveted together and "looked at" by an inspector that wasn't gonna fly in it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half a dozen of one and 6 of the other.
As to which I would feel safer in keep in mind that most planes that are put into the owner maintenance cat. are 60 to 70 year old aircraft.The tailorcraft is a case in point .There is an AD out on the wing struts because a few wings fell of due to corrosion.No way of knowing what is lurking inside 70 year old tubing and you don't want to be the example of how an AD comes into force.I would still have to say I would feel safer in an amateur built all things considered.
Now if it were a 1972 150 or an 72 Citabria
i'll feel safer in them because they are relatively young.

[AirFrame]

Amateur built do need inspections during the build. Owner maintenance were certified when they were first built too. No difference between the two as far as annuals go. Both are done by the owner. In fact, I'd say that owner maintenance has more restrictions as to what you can modify than amateur built. I'd feel safer in something that was mass produced by a company and had a history of reliable service, than something that was pop riveted together and "looked at" by an inspector that wasn't gonna fly in it.

I could agree with your position up to a point. That point would be the point where the certified aircraft becomes an owner maintenance aircraft. Beyond that point, you have no idea what's been done to the O-M aircraft. It's no different than a used A-B, except you can fly your used A-B to the US if you want.

Keep in mind that Certified aircraft were not only inspected, but also riveted together, by people who weren't going to fly in it. They were built by people who had to do it to get a paycheck. A-B aircraft were built by people who wanted to do it, and did it without being paid for it. It's next to trivial to tell the difference in workmanship when you put the two side-by-side... Even a poorly built RV makes a Cessna look like it was banged together with rocks.