Re: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
ellerythompson
value- not from what I,ve seen Ellery
----- Original Message -----
From: "ryanaero" <ryan...@cox.net>
To: <aer...@westmont.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
> I believe the problems with the FAA are the same as problems with any
> other large organizations. You will find some folks who won't take a
> chance because of unfamiliarity, some with more confidence who'll exercise
> some sense and some who think they're the new sheriff in town. Our FSDO
> has some REAL mechanics who want to make safe airplanes and others who
> only know how to say "NO". The challenge is to find the REAL mechanics and
> develope an attitude of mutual trust. I'm doing a Field Approval right now
> to relocate the battery on a 1957 Cessna 172 with a 180 Lycoming to behind
> the baggage compartment. It CAN be done if you make a convincing argument.
> The rule of thumb for Field Approvals is "Don't ask for something to be
> Field Approved if an STC exists to do it"...so, if you want to replace
> wheels...look for a Cleveland conversion etc.
> Certificated airplanes don't "MOVE" into the Light Sport category.
> Pilots are authorized to operate an eligible airplane in accordance with
> Light Sport procedures. Part 43 still applies. The airplane still has to
> get annual inspections by an IA and A.D.s etc still apply.
> Moving an airplane into a "Vintage Aircraft" category to relax the FARs
> sounds like the Canadian "Owner Maintenance" deal that essentially
> destroys the airplane's resale value. So guys....find an IA with the savvy
> to work the system before you make an irreversable decision.
> Gregg
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rodkey" <pooba...@gmail.com>
> To: <aer...@westmont.edu>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
>
>
> I absolutely and totally agree. However, Gregg gives evidence that
> this recalcitrance is not universal.
>
> Jerry, when you said that this would kill the Sport category
> for Aeroncas & similar, did you mean that it would be more desirable
> than moving the Aeronca to Sport so Sport conversions would
> become relatively rare, or did you mean that there is
> a legal mechanism that would make it so you couldn't exercise
> the Sport option ?
>
> John
>
>
> On 3/24/06, cgalley <cga...@qcbc.org> wrote:
>> This all stems from the FAA failure to issue even the simplest of STC or
>> 337. Why some one be expected to "give up" so little when the solution is
>> readily available if the FAA would only cooperate.
>>
>> Cy Galley - Aeronca Aviators Club
>> Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
>> www.aeronca.org
>> Actively supporting Aeroncas every day
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jerry Eichenberger" <jeiche...@ehlawyers.com>
>> To: <J...@Preston-Company.com>; "Aeronca Aviators" <aer...@westmont.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:27 AM
>> Subject: RE: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
>>
>>
>> > Joe -
>> >
>> > Quite a few Aeroncas are, and more will be, used in sport pilot
>> > training
>> > programs. The new category would kill that.
>> >
>> > And, you can't take the airplane back to normal if you go to the new
>> > vintage
>> > category - I see that killing a part of the resale market for your
>> > airplane
>> > if you convert, so I'd be very careful about the decision to convert.
>> >
>> > Jerry E.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Joe Preston [mailto:J...@Preston-Company.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:55 AM
>> > To: Aeronca Aviators; Jerry Eichenberger
>> > Subject: RE: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually, I think it could be very beneficial to Aeronca owners as it
>> > is
>> > proposed. If you take wheels for example, at some point the price and
>> > availability will be out of reach for some. As I read the proposal,
>> > this
>> > would allow the owner to utilize wheels that are not TSO compliant but
>> > still
>> > work fine. There will be many more similar possibilities that are as
>> > yet
>> > unknown. Engines would be another area of discussion.
>> > It appears that the main thing you loose is the ability to use the
>> > aircraft
>> > in a commercial environment. Most of us do not use that approach now.
>> > JoeP
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jerry Eichenberger [mailto:jeiche...@ehlawyers.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:15 AM
>> > To: aer...@westmont.edu; J...@preston-company.com
>> > Subject: RE: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
>> >
>> >
>> > I share John's concerns, except, so far, switching categories isn't
>> > mandatory.
>> >
>> > I think this new proposal is more for the really orphaned airplanes,
>> > with
>> > no
>> > succession of type cert. holder.
>> >
>> > Airplanes like the Porterfield, Funk, Spartan, etc. could be helped,
>> > since
>> > there's little approved data to use in maintaining them.
>> >
>> > I really doubt it would do anything for Aeroncas, since we have a
>> > continuum
>> > of TC holders, plenty of approved data, and TC data sheets to use.
>> >
>> > Jerry E.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: aeronca...@westmont.edu
>> > [mailto:aeronca...@westmont.edu]On Behalf Of John Rodkey
>> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:44 AM
>> > To: aer...@westmont.edu; J...@preston-company.com
>> > Subject: Re: [f-AA] New Vintage aircraft category proposal - by ANN
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm quite concerned about the one-way aspect and non-commercial.
>> > Also, what's going to happen down the road when my non-Vintage A/C
>> > category Chief needs to have a 337 accepted for a modification. I can
>> > easily see the FAA saying, "tough beans - that's what the VAC category
>> > is for." This seems to not have a lot of upsides. How would it be
>> > beneficial?
>> >
>> > On 3/24/06, Joe Preston <J...@preston-company.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This seems to be a one way street, but it could be very beneficial to
>> >> some
>> >> owners...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> EAA Proposes Vintage Aircraft Category At Aging Aircraft Summit
>> >>
>> >> Here are some of the guidelines the EAA proposed for the new category
>> >> (emphasis added by ANN):
>> >>
>> >> 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 "op-out" 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > John (poobah) Rodkey - N9361E 11AC at KIZA
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Aeronca mailing list
>> > Aer...@westmont.edu
>> > http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Aeronca mailing list
>> > Aer...@westmont.edu
>> > http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aeronca mailing list
>> Aer...@westmont.edu
>> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>>
>
>
> --
> John (poobah) Rodkey - N9361E 11AC at KIZA
> _______________________________________________
> Aeronca mailing list
> Aer...@westmont.edu
> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aeronca mailing list
> Aer...@westmont.edu
> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>
_______________________________________________
Aeronca mailing list
Aer...@westmont.edu
http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca