Could your airplane be a PNC?

[busav8or]

This looks very interesting! Thoughts?

http://macsblog.com/2014/03/could-your- ... -be-a-pnc/

[blueldr]

I am all for it.

[bagarre]

I could get behind this.
Maybe people would start documenting repairs this way.

[GAHorn]

It wouldn't change anything about how I treat my airplane, but it might allow others to meet their own standards.

[bagarre]

I see it as a way to allow me to properly maintain my airplane without having to pay someone for the log book entry.

Let's not turn this into the baseless debate that only A&P's know how to properly work on an airplane.

[ghostflyer]

OMG???? This will open a BIG can of worms. While a large number of people are responsible owners and try to do the right thing there is the element who are not . I have been in the industry since 1970 and have seen things and corrected life endangering modifications that owners and operators have done over the years makes you have bad dreams at night . The regs are there to keep the public safe and alive. And most importantly the pilot and his passengers alive.
It's the passengers that to me are the most important people in a aircraft . It's there safety and well being should be on top of the list . Plus most aircraft fly over your house and my house also .
Why this is a hot topic for me just recently ,I inspected a "Light Sport Aircraft" . The bolts and hardware I didn't recognise and asked the owner and builder were they in the kit originally . No,I was told they came from a bolt supply specialist . There was a bolt holding 3 parts of the structure together and the alignment didn't look right ,so I pulled it apart . Instead of 1/4 bolt it had a metric undersized fitted . I then examined the head of the bolt for its markings . None . So who was this bolt supply specialist that you used was my next question . I finally found out they only supplied common hardware bolts to stores . The argument raged on for some time as I wanted all hardware to be changed to the manufactures specs. I was told then "This aircraft has done 480hours and we have had no problems . After being told I was incompetent ,I walked out and a letter was off to the regulator.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

A point could be made qhostflyer, that lots of planes are already maintained under a cloak of secrecy. Maintained as the owner wishes, not necessarily by the regulations. And there is no warning to the unsuspecting public who might chance a ride in one. A plane designed by someone with no education, built by someone with no education, using any material they deem appropriate is called an Experimental. And I don't mean to imply that Experimentals are all under designed under built dangerious aircraft, but we all have seen at least one.

I have no fear of my house being hit by any airplane.

I think a well written PNC will bring many owners out from that cloak of secrecy and we will all be better for it. True it will not be for everybody and there will be operations still done secretly, but we won't be any worse of than we are now.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I see it as a way to allow me to properly maintain my airplane without having to pay someone for the log book entry.

Let's not turn this into the baseless debate that only A&P's know how to properly work on an airplane.

I will change your statement a little. If written well with a manageable reasonable method to return the plane to previous category, I see it as a way to I can better maintain my airplane including records without having to chase after the signatures required for the log entries made. It is not a free for all. We would still have to have a yearly condition inspection by an A&P just like the fleet of Experimental's that is growing larger and larger by the day.

Would a PNC category change the way I maintain my aircraft. Yes it would. I've always wanted to document the work performed on my aircraft better that those A&P/IAs I've worked with ever want to do. They want plausible deniability. Reveal just enough and no more. Other than that nothing would likely change.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

it is to early of course because the proposed rule is not completed. But I see very little difference between a plane that was always maintained by a A&P and had an annual inspection by IA in a standard category verses one that was maintained in PNC and then given an annual inspection to return it to standard category. And if there is I'll buy the cheaper of the two if their condition is otherwise equal.

[bagarre]

I can see the classified ads now..."never been PNC", "full annual done every year".

I bet people will expect a premium for the planes that were maintained by IAs instead of owner/A&Ps.

That will have as much meaning as "No Damage History", "Extensive last annual", "Whole wheat" or "All Organic".

But yes, there will be people that make the assumption that PNC airplanes are dangerous hacks that are using garden hoses for fuel lines and the prop bolts came from HomeDepot because you somehow need a piece of paper from the government to make you competent.

I don't know how it could devalue my $40,000 60 year old airplane when RV8s effectively maintained by why PNC sounds like are going for $80,000. If anything, my value would go UP because the cost to upgrade and repair it would be cut in HALF.

[daedaluscan]

In Canada we have an "Owner Maintenance" category. I am not an expert, but do know that these planes do not hold their value as well as a plane with an annual. It is also (anecdotally) quite complex to actually get the plane into this category. And you cant fly them in the US.

[lowNslow]

I see it as a way to allow me to properly maintain my airplane without having to pay someone for the log book entry.

Let's not turn this into the baseless debate that only A&P's know how to properly work on an airplane.

As I read the proposal you would still need an A&P to sign of the annual condition report as required for experimental aircraft.

[c170b53]

There's lots to consider here. (Charlie got some of this down already)
In Canada we have the OM category which is basically what this initiative is suggesting maybe as a possible revival strategy. But it's been a dismal failure in Canada. OM planes cannot fly in US airspace. OM's are orphans no one wants; parts removed from one cannot be used on certified aircraft, regulators still want part of the "action", the aircraft value plummets.
I do like the comment that A&P's are the only ones who know how to work on planes. That's a interesting subject, as I believe the regulations are in place to creat a standard standard but sadly have evolved much like a Microsoft product; with the excessive code, it takes forever to get something done.
There's lots of common sense out there and given the right environment an aircraft could be maintained by the owner. The problem as I see it and as I might think our forums have demonstrated, is creating that space where safety will prevail and common nonsense is identified.
I'm all for it, as long as there's no limitations, other than non revenue.
Some of the stuff that bothers me as an example; I'd like to upgrade my radios but the price difference for the same piece of equipment can vary considerably depending on an install into certified or non certified. Why? Some suppliers will only sell through their installers if certified. I can't even get my hands on the stuff (and the good stuff other than a safety angle, I can't justify the expense).
Bit of a ramble here but there's a decline in resources, talent and knowledge throughout aviation. I spend a bit of time travelling to fix airplanes and I've walked through many a empty hangar wondering what could have been. Without the economy of scale it's getting difficult to see how we can pullout of this decline. A fill up now runs me almost $400 . I've got the investment but only cause I'm a bit slow. I don't see any half hearted effort turning this thing around.

[minton]

We still need to get the gross weight for the "New 3rd class" upped to 2200lbs for C-170's to quality (Which I'm all for)!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

We still need to get the gross weight for the "New 3rd class" upped to 2200lbs for C-170's to quality (Which I'm all for)!

What are you talking about. The proposed expansion of the fly with a drivers license for a medical is for aircraft up to 6000 lbs or something like that.

This from AOPA talking about the bill in congress:

• The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots to use the driver’s license medical standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats. That includes virtually all single-engine airplanes with six or fewer seats, including Beech Bonanzas, as well as many light twins like the Piper Aztec, Beech Baron 55 and 58, and Cessna 310. By way of comparison, most large SUVs on the roads today weigh more than 6,000 pounds and can carry six to seven passengers, making them larger than the aircraft that would be operated with proof of a valid driver’s license under this new bill.
  
  Pilots would be allowed to carry up to five passengers, fly at altitudes below 14,000 feet msl, and fly no faster than 250 knots. The act also would require the FAA to report on the safety consequences of the new rule after five years.