|
On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:50:37 GMT, "Nemo" <Nemo@Erewhon.com> wrote:
>
>"Ron Wanttaja" <ron.wanttaja@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:e0qe525seujo2haih8garko0o3j5ad3s41@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:13:14 +0800, Stealth Pilot <tailwind@iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys
>>> searching legislative web sites drives me nuts.
>>> I have searched the canadian dept of justice web site for this and cant
>>> find it.
>>> can anyone point me to the act which creates the canadian owner
>>> maintenance framework/legislation. ....for aircraft owners.
>>
>> It's not a legislative action, it's a regulatory one. See
>>
>>
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/507s.htm
>>
>> Google "canada aircraft owner maintenance" for lots of other information.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
thanks Ron. Much appreciated. I couldnt find it for looking.
>The OM category has basically been proven to be a disaster for the owner.
>The intent was good but
>the reality of it sucks. While your maintenance costs do drop so does the
>value of the airframe. As soon
>as it enter the category it basically becomes a orphan. Say it is a J3 which
>is typical of the simple designs
>that OM was intended. You cannot just recertify and end your problems without
>getting each and every part
>recertified. And because of restrictions of trans border flight into the US
>it has less resale value than say a
>amatuerbuilt Cubby. This is the only category that the US does not grant
>temp flight permits to. The airplanes are
>not certified anymore and they are never inspected under any of the other
>categories so in effect they fly at
>the whim of the CDN govt. And the FAA just won't whim it. Most responsible
>pilot organizations in Canada
>(not going to name names on who is being naughty opa) have been actively
>recommending NOT to do
>anything with this category for the last few years.
>
>Nemo
>
I accept what you say but my correspondence with a canadian owner or
two paints an entirely different picture. They achieve great enjoyment
in maintaining and operating their aircraft, and do it safely without
fuss.
The category isn't deficient at all. People do seem to see the FAA
position as a condemnation of the category but this isnt necessarily
the case. For the life of me I cant see why the EAA has never pursued
this category. It makes an amazing amount of sense for homebuilts like
mine built by previous owners where there are no similar aircraft
around.
resale???? who sells an aircraft they love flying.
Stealth pilot
|
|
Re: Query: Canadian Owner maintenance
