How is Canadian Owner maintenance getting along?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is Canadian Owner maintenance getting along?
I understand the concepts behind Canadian Owner Maintenance for owners of private aircraft from talking to a Canadian dubbleyew eight owner about 10 years ago.
In Australia our system is a legislative abortion at the extreme other end of the scale. Owner maintenance is illegal. ...but like you canadians we ignore the detractors and do it anyway :-) (we are following your precedent)
What observations do you enlightened Canadians have on your owner maintenance system?
regards
dear old dubbleyew eight in australia.
In Australia our system is a legislative abortion at the extreme other end of the scale. Owner maintenance is illegal. ...but like you canadians we ignore the detractors and do it anyway :-) (we are following your precedent)
What observations do you enlightened Canadians have on your owner maintenance system?
regards
dear old dubbleyew eight in australia.
The FAA prohibit any OM aircraft from flying in US airspace under any circumstances. Also an OM aircraft can't be exported either. Together these restricting have considerably reduced interest in going the OM route as the airplane is almost unsellable after the conversion
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when I heard that the EAA, of all people, would not support the canadian owner maintainers wanting to fly to oshkosh I pulled my membership.
I'm sure that as aviation changes from what it once was the "certified" participants will try harder and harder to exclude all but the "certified" participants from the environment. It will eventually collapse and we the meek will still be out there flying our owner maintained aircraft.
we will win in the end because we own the aircraft.
I'm sure that as aviation changes from what it once was the "certified" participants will try harder and harder to exclude all but the "certified" participants from the environment. It will eventually collapse and we the meek will still be out there flying our owner maintained aircraft.
we will win in the end because we own the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the exception of our Cessna 421 two of three private aircraft we own are in OM, Why you say? Simple our "toys" are vintage aircraft, two built in 1946 and one built in 1936, {and the only one flying in North America by the way} I simply got tired of dealing with TC types who have not a bloody clue about this class of aircraft, for example, we were being ramped at a fly in, the TC idiots background was working in the tire bay of a now defunct outfit, then a bit of composite repair work for another defunct outfit, he tapped the side of our aircraft and asked "what is this stuff" I replied that I had re covered it in 1984 using the Ceconite STC, his reply? "whats Ceconite?" at a later date when we were installing a L/R tank in the same aircraft he wanted us to presurise it to the equivelent of 23,000 feet differential, this in an aircraft that brand new had an absolute ceiling of 13,000 and the tank was a perfect re-production of original equipment!These are just two of the absurdities we had to endure over the years, now we do it right without having to put up with this crap. In our local TC office there is only one inspector left with grease under his nails, God help us when this last voice of reason leaves. The Brits are moving nearly all of their vintage aircraft into a similar system, why the States caved in to the presure from certified repair shops would make interesting reading Im sure, { by the way, we owned two AMOs} but if the only restriction is I cant cross the border, so be it, its a small price to pay to avoid the frustration of dealing with TC bottom feeders.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dubbeyew Eight, your original post prompted me to ask a few questions from some who folks spent time working for the "Feds", now retired, thus able to speak more freely than in their previous "life", the questions I posed were in regards to their observations as to the quality of care and standards of maintainence they have observed in the OM program. They all agreed on one thing, the OM aircraft are far better maintained than the vast majority of certified non-complex light aircraft, with the exception of some of the older Cessna 150 series which have been purchased as "time builders" by folks wanting to save money getting their ratings, thus having no real interest in vintage or rare aircraft, but to a person thay were all in step in their opinions that the "rag and tube, vintage group" were far better maintained than before OM came in! They also pointed out somthing interesting, this is when required owners are using certified AMEs to help with, and check the work done, the only difference being the AME doesnt sign for the work, thus is not held responsible . As for the suposed loss a value of the aircraft in OM, this has certainly not been our experience, mind you light aircraft prices are in the sewer right now and I think will stay that way for some time, a combination of the economic situation and an ageing population,{that includes me by the way!} One other thing they all agreed on, OM has done much to rid us of the "lets fix it behind the barn and keep it to ourselves" which was rampent before OM came in.One last comment, one of these retirees asked me, "how many in TC do you think have ever worked on wooden airframes?" I replied I didnt know the answer, his reply, "I was the last one", this I think makes the point as to why OM was needed in the first place.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well your observations about the quality of Owner maintained aircraft accords with the South African Pilots I have spoken to. All of them commented that you could discern over time that the aircraft were in better and better condition as the owners worked their way through all the restoration and maintenance issues.
In Australia I'm told that there were only ever 53 LAME's who held the wood structures ticket. I know of 2 of them who have died.
oh well so much for getting rid of illegal hidden maintenance in Australia. the guys are perfecting the necessary newspeak and just getting on with it. :-)
our rules are getting worse - that is if you pay much attention to them.
You Canadians are a shining light.
In Australia I'm told that there were only ever 53 LAME's who held the wood structures ticket. I know of 2 of them who have died.
oh well so much for getting rid of illegal hidden maintenance in Australia. the guys are perfecting the necessary newspeak and just getting on with it. :-)
our rules are getting worse - that is if you pay much attention to them.
You Canadians are a shining light.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not so sure we "got it right" the push behind OM was in large part due to TC simply not having those with the skills and experience needed to monitor such aircraft as Cubs and Champs, let alone a Stampe or Tiger Moth, on top of this Joe Public doesnt care if a light aircraft gets bent, only when there a lots of bits of bodies does it register in the mainline media. After the Transat fiasco, {wrong parts installed, wrong check list used, Captain ex drug smugler} I think TC made a decision to focus on the "heavy metal" and treat the simple non complex field much like the soaring/glider fraternity, after all they have a pretty darn good history of self governence. Regardless of the reasons behind OM, I for one am very glad we have it.
