Owner maintenance
-
Citabriafloats
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:04 am
I have read copa's guide to owner maintenance and talked with other owners of aircraft in the category and am seriously considering it for my plane. I'm not worried about resale value as I don't plan on ever getting rid of it. I have a great AME who is willing to work with me and I have always been heavily involved in the maintenance anyways. There is one part of it I'm unsure of. It says you can install uncertified parts but it also says you must have supporting documentation. One of the main reasons I would like to switch over is so I can run a different propeller on floats. I have been talking with a guy that has a very similar airplane that's a home built and he runs a catto propeller and he gets significantly better performance than me especially getting on step. I know the propeller works with the engine setup I have but as I read the regulations it would still be illegal for me to install one on my plane because there wouldn't be any supporting documentation. Am I interpreting this correctly?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
It is too bad you publicly asked this question.
Now you are in the cross-hairs, because TC reads this.
If you had not said anything, but quietly swapped the
prop, no one would have said anything, because no one
really understands owner maintenance, or wants to.
I will wager there are plenty of quietly modified owner
maintenance aircraft out there.
Paperwork problems on un-certified aircraft. Only in Canada.
Now you are in the cross-hairs, because TC reads this.
If you had not said anything, but quietly swapped the
prop, no one would have said anything, because no one
really understands owner maintenance, or wants to.
I will wager there are plenty of quietly modified owner
maintenance aircraft out there.
Paperwork problems on un-certified aircraft. Only in Canada.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
We've got at least one aircraft out here in the "Owner Maintenance" category. As I understand it, you can maintain the aircraft yourself but you have to maintain it to the same standard as if it was in the "Certified" category. (Or whatever it's called".) So... No replacing the starter with one from a Fordson tractor; no adding a bendable trim tab to the elevator or aileron or whatever, no patching a rock hole in the belly with the top of a soup can.
The beauty of the "Owner maintenance" category is that YOU can do your own maintenance, but you have to do it as your AME would have done it.
There's more available from TC sources, I'm more familiar with the Experimental category.
Another thing to keep in mind; if you cut corners and use unapproved parts/repairs/etc on your aircraft, it's not TC that might bite yer ass, it may be your insurance company... (I presume you can get insurance on "Owner maintenance aircraft...)
About the propeller... Based on the above, I'm guessing it not be legal; again, TC may never pick up on it, but should there be an accident and a claim forwarded to your insurance company...
John
The beauty of the "Owner maintenance" category is that YOU can do your own maintenance, but you have to do it as your AME would have done it.
There's more available from TC sources, I'm more familiar with the Experimental category.
Another thing to keep in mind; if you cut corners and use unapproved parts/repairs/etc on your aircraft, it's not TC that might bite yer ass, it may be your insurance company... (I presume you can get insurance on "Owner maintenance aircraft...)
About the propeller... Based on the above, I'm guessing it not be legal; again, TC may never pick up on it, but should there be an accident and a claim forwarded to your insurance company...
John
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
People like to rattle the fearsome paperwork sabre to
keep you in line, but in my experience, insurance
adjusters are mouth-breathers. Forensic scientists,
they are not.
If we accept the TC hypothesis that aircraft with bad
paper will have insurance (including liability) claims
denied, that means that not one aircraft accident was
ever paid out on, because [b]there is not one legally
airworthy aircraft in Canada[/b].
Yes, that's true. You dig deep enough, you can find
a paperwork or physical flaw with any aircraft in Canada
that renders it illegal to fly. Yet, they continue to,
somehow.
Many years ago, after a long day of work spinning
wrenches, me and my master (B) AME were leaving
the airport. We drove by the club FTU 172's which
of course are proudly commercially registered and
maintained in accordance with the highest TC standards.
"Unairworthy", AME grumbles. Horseshit, I say - you
didn't come within 10 feet of them. How would you
know?
"4 inch letters on the tail", AME replies.
And he was right - that was illegal. TC requires 6
inch letters on the tail. Those commercially-registered
aircraft were not legally airworthy.
And you are saying that if those 172's were in an
accident, the claim would be denied because it had
bad paperwork?
What horseshit.
Physics is what counts. Not crashing is what matters.
Just because regs are broken doesn't mean the insurance
company is off the hook. I have no idea where this urban
legend comes from.
Example: moron from Kingston hand-props on the ramp,
of course the mixture is rich, mags are on and the throttle
is wide open. It bounds across the infield and smashes
into a hangar and causes serious damage to the aircraft
inside.
Of course that was completely illegal. Of course the
insurance company paid up.
I could go on and on and on and on and on all day.
Another joker from Kingston comes to my old airport
in the dead of night. Lines up his 210 on the runway,
locks the throttle forward and jumps out. His buddy
drives him home, the pilotless aircraft crashed on the
infield, the insurance company paid up.
Incredibly dangerous, completely illegal, TC doesn't
give a shit, guy laughs to the bank, insurance pays up.
Quit it with the sabre rattling, ok?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabre-rattling
keep you in line, but in my experience, insurance
adjusters are mouth-breathers. Forensic scientists,
they are not.
If we accept the TC hypothesis that aircraft with bad
paper will have insurance (including liability) claims
denied, that means that not one aircraft accident was
ever paid out on, because [b]there is not one legally
airworthy aircraft in Canada[/b].
Yes, that's true. You dig deep enough, you can find
a paperwork or physical flaw with any aircraft in Canada
that renders it illegal to fly. Yet, they continue to,
somehow.
Many years ago, after a long day of work spinning
wrenches, me and my master (B) AME were leaving
the airport. We drove by the club FTU 172's which
of course are proudly commercially registered and
maintained in accordance with the highest TC standards.
"Unairworthy", AME grumbles. Horseshit, I say - you
didn't come within 10 feet of them. How would you
know?
"4 inch letters on the tail", AME replies.
And he was right - that was illegal. TC requires 6
inch letters on the tail. Those commercially-registered
aircraft were not legally airworthy.
And you are saying that if those 172's were in an
accident, the claim would be denied because it had
bad paperwork?
What horseshit.
Physics is what counts. Not crashing is what matters.
Just because regs are broken doesn't mean the insurance
company is off the hook. I have no idea where this urban
legend comes from.
Example: moron from Kingston hand-props on the ramp,
of course the mixture is rich, mags are on and the throttle
is wide open. It bounds across the infield and smashes
into a hangar and causes serious damage to the aircraft
inside.
Of course that was completely illegal. Of course the
insurance company paid up.
I could go on and on and on and on and on all day.
Another joker from Kingston comes to my old airport
in the dead of night. Lines up his 210 on the runway,
locks the throttle forward and jumps out. His buddy
drives him home, the pilotless aircraft crashed on the
infield, the insurance company paid up.
Incredibly dangerous, completely illegal, TC doesn't
give a shit, guy laughs to the bank, insurance pays up.
Quit it with the sabre rattling, ok?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabre-rattling
-
Citabriafloats
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:04 am
I'm aware that TC probably reads this and I have not made any modifications to the aircraft to make it unairworthy or illegal. It is still certified and maintained by an ame. The way I read the regulations is that I could use bolts from Canadian tire and floats from someone's basement made with bamboo struts which I definitely wouldn't be interested in doing. But when it comes to engine and propeller there basically has to be an existing stc to make a change. I'm not interested in changing to owner maintenance to save money or cut corners. I'm also quite happy to just have something to fly and if that means leaving it certified to avoid hassels that's what I'll do.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
Andrew:
Sabre rattling? Hardly. Real Sabre pilots don't announce their presence. Just a bullet in the back! (;>0)
Anyway, I'm no effing expert, but I do have insurance on my aircraft. Some just have PL and PD. Some include hull, as do I.
What I know about invalidating your insurance is contained in the link below. Whether or not your insurance company pays up is up to them, I guess. But if one of the terms of the coverage is that the aircraft is airworthy when flown and that it is only flown by named or certified pilots, etc., I wouldn't want to test the validity of that provision...
https://www.copanational.org/FPDec12-4En.cfm
Do you disagree with that? Have you had occasion to make a claim following an accident to an aircraft that was not airworthy? What was the outcome?
John
Sabre rattling? Hardly. Real Sabre pilots don't announce their presence. Just a bullet in the back! (;>0)
Anyway, I'm no effing expert, but I do have insurance on my aircraft. Some just have PL and PD. Some include hull, as do I.
What I know about invalidating your insurance is contained in the link below. Whether or not your insurance company pays up is up to them, I guess. But if one of the terms of the coverage is that the aircraft is airworthy when flown and that it is only flown by named or certified pilots, etc., I wouldn't want to test the validity of that provision...
https://www.copanational.org/FPDec12-4En.cfm
Do you disagree with that? Have you had occasion to make a claim following an accident to an aircraft that was not airworthy? What was the outcome?
John
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]one of the terms of the coverage is that the aircraft is airworthy when flown and that it is only flown by named or certified pilots[/quote]
I guess you didn't read the example where a guy from
Kingston hand-propped his Cherokee on the ramp. It
was not secured. He did not have it tied down. He
was trying to not buy a new battery. His was dead.
All sorts of regs broken there. And the dead battery
certainly rendered the aircraft unairworthy.
Now, with no one inside at all, it smashed into a hangar
and damaged the aircraft inside. It not only did not
have a named pilot controlling it, [b]it had no pilot at all[/b].
And the insurance company paid.
This urban legend about airworthy and approved pilots
for insurance to be valid, needs to die.
What about in-flight damage? It no doubt renders
the aircraft illegal and unairworthy. Is the insurance
company off the hook if the aircraft is damaged?
Of course not.
I say again: there is not one legal, airworthy aircraft
in all of Canada. And if you dig a bit, the pilots are
likely illegal, too.
I know a guy, nosed over a Cessna 140 taxiing. His
pilot booklet was expired. The insurance company paid.
How about the 2 year recency rule? Complied with?
Few pilots I know of, are in compliance with that
particular piece of ICAO pencil whipping. I doubt
many of them even know about it.
Another big one with private certified aircraft: AD
compliance. AME signing the annual is NOT responsible
for AD compliance, unlike the USA where the A&P/IA's
balls are on the line.
The owner, who probably doesn't even know what
an AD is, is required to track calendar and flight time
requirements of all applicable AD's for his engine,
accessories, prop, avionics, airframe, etc.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha.
You think that is happening in Canada? Of course
it isn't. Most owners don't have a clue what the difference
is between an SI, SL, SB, MSB and AD. For that matter,
neither do the goons at TC, who lie and tell private aircraft
owners that they must comply with all SB's.
What bullshit. And I'm getting pretty tired of it.
I just wish people would care about the physics and
material science - you know, what matters - and less
about the stupid paperwork.
I have only been a practicing, graduate engineer for
over 3 decades, John. You use my software every
day. What the fuck would I know?
I guess you didn't read the example where a guy from
Kingston hand-propped his Cherokee on the ramp. It
was not secured. He did not have it tied down. He
was trying to not buy a new battery. His was dead.
All sorts of regs broken there. And the dead battery
certainly rendered the aircraft unairworthy.
Now, with no one inside at all, it smashed into a hangar
and damaged the aircraft inside. It not only did not
have a named pilot controlling it, [b]it had no pilot at all[/b].
And the insurance company paid.
This urban legend about airworthy and approved pilots
for insurance to be valid, needs to die.
What about in-flight damage? It no doubt renders
the aircraft illegal and unairworthy. Is the insurance
company off the hook if the aircraft is damaged?
Of course not.
I say again: there is not one legal, airworthy aircraft
in all of Canada. And if you dig a bit, the pilots are
likely illegal, too.
I know a guy, nosed over a Cessna 140 taxiing. His
pilot booklet was expired. The insurance company paid.
How about the 2 year recency rule? Complied with?
Few pilots I know of, are in compliance with that
particular piece of ICAO pencil whipping. I doubt
many of them even know about it.
Another big one with private certified aircraft: AD
compliance. AME signing the annual is NOT responsible
for AD compliance, unlike the USA where the A&P/IA's
balls are on the line.
The owner, who probably doesn't even know what
an AD is, is required to track calendar and flight time
requirements of all applicable AD's for his engine,
accessories, prop, avionics, airframe, etc.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha.
You think that is happening in Canada? Of course
it isn't. Most owners don't have a clue what the difference
is between an SI, SL, SB, MSB and AD. For that matter,
neither do the goons at TC, who lie and tell private aircraft
owners that they must comply with all SB's.
What bullshit. And I'm getting pretty tired of it.
I just wish people would care about the physics and
material science - you know, what matters - and less
about the stupid paperwork.
I have only been a practicing, graduate engineer for
over 3 decades, John. You use my software every
day. What the fuck would I know?
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
“What the fuck would I know.â€
I have no idea. However, what I know is that I’m not going to get into a pixxing contest with a guy with an engineering degree and a low tolerance threshold for folks who have differing views. Especially when my claim to fame is being kicked out of high school two weeks before graduation for imbibing a couple of brewskis at a track and field day and had it not been for Her Majesty and her Royal Canadian Air Force, I’d probably still be pounding spikes for the CNR.
In any event, you remember Ron Joyce and the Fox Harbour crash? 2007? The aircraft was totaled and several people hurt.
Now, prior to the brand-spanking-new Global 5000 landing at Fox Harbour, the pilots were supposed to have XX hours on type. (Can’t remember the number; could be 10, could be 25; can’t remember).
The insurance company balked at paying the claim because the pilots were a few hours short. Tim Doughnuts said that the time in simulator made up the difference.
Insurance company said no.
I don’t know in whose favour it was resolved. But, given the previous number of accidents/incidents involving the company, the insurance company may have dug in their heels.
However, contrary to your assertions, I am NOT going to knowingly fly MY aircraft without a valid C of A nor let an un-named pilot drive it around in order to test the resolve of Magnus.
Again, I may be out to lunch on this, but the insurance company is only your friend as long as you keep your part of the bargain…
If you have insurance on your aircraft, would you contact your insurance company and ask them what would be the outcome if an accident totaled the aircraft and you had flown it without a valid C of A?
I have no idea. However, what I know is that I’m not going to get into a pixxing contest with a guy with an engineering degree and a low tolerance threshold for folks who have differing views. Especially when my claim to fame is being kicked out of high school two weeks before graduation for imbibing a couple of brewskis at a track and field day and had it not been for Her Majesty and her Royal Canadian Air Force, I’d probably still be pounding spikes for the CNR.
In any event, you remember Ron Joyce and the Fox Harbour crash? 2007? The aircraft was totaled and several people hurt.
Now, prior to the brand-spanking-new Global 5000 landing at Fox Harbour, the pilots were supposed to have XX hours on type. (Can’t remember the number; could be 10, could be 25; can’t remember).
The insurance company balked at paying the claim because the pilots were a few hours short. Tim Doughnuts said that the time in simulator made up the difference.
Insurance company said no.
I don’t know in whose favour it was resolved. But, given the previous number of accidents/incidents involving the company, the insurance company may have dug in their heels.
However, contrary to your assertions, I am NOT going to knowingly fly MY aircraft without a valid C of A nor let an un-named pilot drive it around in order to test the resolve of Magnus.
Again, I may be out to lunch on this, but the insurance company is only your friend as long as you keep your part of the bargain…
If you have insurance on your aircraft, would you contact your insurance company and ask them what would be the outcome if an accident totaled the aircraft and you had flown it without a valid C of A?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Any large claim, of course the insurance company
is going to deny it, and force you to go to court to
make them pay. That's SOP for them.
And you keep missing the point. Every aircraft
that's had an accident in Canada was not legally
airworthy, if you dig deep enough.
Are you saying some contraventions are ok, and
others are not?
Is AD compliance important to you? Take a look
at the [i]right[/i] fuel cap on a 172 sometime. Is it
legal? How on earth would you know? Is a 172 an
exotic type? Are there none in private hands?
Is AD compliance required for private aircraft for
the C of A to be valid? Of course it is. How many
private aircraft owners have spreadsheets with calendar
and flight time, tracking their AD required inspections?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha
The regs are a joke. I'm not sure why you're having
trouble seeing that.
The next private owner of a certified aircraft that you
meet, ask him if his magnetos, carburetor, air filter,
alternator, vacuum pump, vacuum filter and vacuum
regulator filter have any AD's outstanding, and what
the calendar and flight time inspection requirements
and life limits are for those components.
is going to deny it, and force you to go to court to
make them pay. That's SOP for them.
And you keep missing the point. Every aircraft
that's had an accident in Canada was not legally
airworthy, if you dig deep enough.
Are you saying some contraventions are ok, and
others are not?
Is AD compliance important to you? Take a look
at the [i]right[/i] fuel cap on a 172 sometime. Is it
legal? How on earth would you know? Is a 172 an
exotic type? Are there none in private hands?
Is AD compliance required for private aircraft for
the C of A to be valid? Of course it is. How many
private aircraft owners have spreadsheets with calendar
and flight time, tracking their AD required inspections?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha
The regs are a joke. I'm not sure why you're having
trouble seeing that.
The next private owner of a certified aircraft that you
meet, ask him if his magnetos, carburetor, air filter,
alternator, vacuum pump, vacuum filter and vacuum
regulator filter have any AD's outstanding, and what
the calendar and flight time inspection requirements
and life limits are for those components.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
PS I know all about Fox Harbor, and Ron Joyce.
IMHO any pilot employed by Ron Joyce could be
charged with CAR 602.01, even before they step
foot in one of his airplanes for the first time,
because they meet the Tribunal litmus test - what
a "prudent pilot" would not do.
Makes perfect sense to me. After all, your buddies
at TC used to phone up airshow organizers and threaten
them that they wouldn't issue an SFOC if my family
name was on it. Hell, they even called down to
airshows in the USA and told the organizers down
there not to hire us.
Given that kind of looney and reckless behaviour
from TC, I don't see why Ron Joyce's pilots shouldn't
all be charged with CAR 602.01 contravention.
Look at how the FAA fucked over Bob Hoover and
Melissa Pemberton, with no consequences. Why
not use that kind of reckless bureaucratic power for
good?
But no, Bluebird is still up and running.
Barf.
IMHO any pilot employed by Ron Joyce could be
charged with CAR 602.01, even before they step
foot in one of his airplanes for the first time,
because they meet the Tribunal litmus test - what
a "prudent pilot" would not do.
Makes perfect sense to me. After all, your buddies
at TC used to phone up airshow organizers and threaten
them that they wouldn't issue an SFOC if my family
name was on it. Hell, they even called down to
airshows in the USA and told the organizers down
there not to hire us.
Given that kind of looney and reckless behaviour
from TC, I don't see why Ron Joyce's pilots shouldn't
all be charged with CAR 602.01 contravention.
Look at how the FAA fucked over Bob Hoover and
Melissa Pemberton, with no consequences. Why
not use that kind of reckless bureaucratic power for
good?
But no, Bluebird is still up and running.
Barf.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
