Primary non comercial.. hell yeah! lets hope this passes

[akflyer 1427]

Below is a section of the proposed rule making from the FAA work group.

Here is a link to the whole thing, http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... Report.pdf



3.3.5 Primary Non‐Commercial Category
Background
The 14 CFR Part 23 Reorganization ARC was tasked with doubling aircraft safety while reducing certification costs by half. Currently, there are almost 200,000 General Aviation aircraft registered in the United States; however, production of new aircraft averages less than 1 percent of this per year. Consequently, it may be decades before this ARC’s improvements for new aircraft design will yield any measurable safety improvements or cost reductions for the General Aviation Fleet as a whole.
One way to realize the safety and cost goals is by leveraging the concepts this ARC developed for use in new aircraft certification in a manner that would have an immediately felt positive safety effect on the existing General Aviation fleet.
~ 39 ~
This section will summarize the ARC’s recommendation to implement a Primary Non‐Commercial Category (See Appendix G for complete paper) that is similar to the Canadian Owner Maintenance Category, but with some significant safety enhancements to address some concerns with that program. This recommendation is bold, but reflects the challenge posed to industry at the FAA’s ARC kick‐off meeting. At that meeting, the FAA challenged the ARC members to be bold, creative, and non‐ traditional.
The Primary Non‐Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate their aircraft in a substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of FAA maintenance and alteration requirements to a level appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.
This proposal has two precedents that support the concept. First, this class follows international precedent by leveraging the concepts of the Canadian Owner Maintenance Category, which has a proven safety record over the last decade. For more information on the Canadian system requirements and safety results experience see the complete recommendation in Appendix G. Secondly, this concept uses the maintenance training principles of the highly successful LSA program that has a proven safety record. Incorporation of this new category will offer the FAA a rare opportunity for implementation of sound safety continuum principles paired with international harmonization.
In addition, by allowing a practical and workable path to return Non‐Commercial aircraft to Standard Category through dual airworthiness certificates, owners will have a large financial incentive to keep their aircraft near type design to avoid devaluing their aircraft. This is a significant safety advantage over the Canadian system where it is nearly impossible to return to Standard Category; therefore, affording no incentive for owners to keep aircraft compliant to safety proven type design.
Finally, the principles set forth in the “Primary Non‐Commercial Category” proposal exclusively leverage existing US regulations with proven safety records. The recommendation simply takes successful existing regulatory practices and combines them into the new Primary Non Commercial Category. For example, maintenance training and certification comes from LSA, airworthiness certification comes from dual certificated Standard/Restricted Category aircraft and Non‐Commercial use from Experimental Aircraft. There is nothing new or novel proposed, except for the potential for safety and cost improvements that would be available for users of the Primary Non Commercial class.
3.3.5.1 Primary Non‐Commercial Category Recommendation
Applicability
The owner of a fixed wing, non‐ turbine powered part 23 aircraft or part 23 glider, 20 years or older, may elect to redesignate their aircraft as a Primary Non‐Commercial.
Privileges
1. Aircraft in this category can be maintained by the owner with a repairperson’s certificate, similar to currently established procedures for LSA aircraft repairpersons.
~ 40 ~
2. Replacement or alteration parts should be appropriate for aircraft use; however, such parts need not be PMA/TSO authorized.
3. Owners can alter their own aircraft without the requirement for FAA approved data; however, some alterations may require “phase 1” flight testing similar to Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) requirements.
Limitations
1. Primary Non‐Commercial Category Aircraft are required to observe the FAA Approved Aircraft Flight Manual Operational Limitations and/or required placard limitations established for the Standard Category.
2. Aircraft cannot be used to carry persons for hire, this includes aircraft rental, but allows an owner to receive flight instruction in their own aircraft.
3. Airworthiness Directives are only applicable as currently allowed for EAB.
4. Aircraft owners must maintain a list in the aircraft logbook of all applicable ADs and their compliance status. This list will be used to highlight the owners’ awareness of the ADs existence and document their choice of compliance. This list will also be used to facilitate the conversion of the aircraft back to normal category.
5. Aircraft owners must maintain a list in the aircraft logbook of all alterations performed that are not FAA approved and all non PMA/TSO parts installed. This list will be used to facilitate the aircraft conversion back to normal category.
6. Incomplete or fraudulent maintenance logbook entries result in the revocation of the aircraft’s standard airworthiness certificate.
Requirements
1. Before original conversion, the aircraft must have a current annual inspection – all applicable ADs must be complied with at the current annual inspection.
2. Airplane owners must either add the prefix of “NC” to the aircraft registration number or affix a “Non‐Commercial” placard readily visible to all passengers.
3. The aircraft must have a yearly condition inspection by an A&P mechanic certifying that the aircraft is “in condition for safe operation.”
4. Upon transfer of aircraft ownership, the Non‐Commercial Airworthiness Certificate must be reissued in the new owner’s name.
~ 41 ~
Conversion Back to Normal Category
1. Aircraft operated in the Non‐Commercial type certification class would be dual certificated in both the Normal and Non‐Commercial categories, as is commonplace for Restricted Category aircraft.
2. Aircraft in the Non‐Commercial TC category can be operated in the Standard Category, provided the aircraft meets it type design data including compliance with all ADs, removal of all Non‐ PMA/TSO parts and replacement with certified units and the removal of all non‐certified alterations.
3. The conversion can be accomplished by an Inspection Authority (IA) mechanic with a complete and thorough annual inspection and logbook audit. Upon successful completion, the aircraft could be operated under its Standard Airworthiness Certificate. The procedure is very common with Restricted Category aircraft and proven to be safe and successful.
Regulation and Order Changes
The following regulations would need to be revised to accommodate the Primary Non‐Commercial Category.
1. New Regulation § 21.24 establishing the Primary Non‐Commercial Category
2. Revised Regulation § 21.184 issue of airworthiness certificates for primary category aircraft and primary (non‐commercial) aircraft
3. New Regulation § 91.328 Operating Limitations for Primary Non‐Commercial Aircraft
4. Revised Regulation § 45.22 for markings on Primary Non‐Commercial Aircraft
5. New Regulation § 65.108 establishing Primary Non‐Commercial Repairmen Certificates
6. Revised FAA Order 8130.2 Airworthiness Inspector’s Handbook
7. New Order 800‐ANC‐ARC defining required training for Primary Non‐Commercial Repairman Courses and Evaluation
3.3.5.2 Conclusion
The intent of the Primary Non‐Commercial Category is to reduce the level of FAA maintenance and alteration requirements to a level more appropriate for a privately operated vehicle while simultaneously improving safety and reducing owner costs.
This recommendation follows the international precedent of the Canadian Owner maintenance class. Analysis of a decade of Transport Canada data indicates that this class has been fully successful in maintaining (and in some cases enhancing) the safety of the Canadian GA fleet. It is reasonable to conclude that similar US Primary Non‐Commercial Category would have safety results equivalent to the
~ 42 ~
Canadian success. Thus, incorporation of this new category will offer the FAA a rare opportunity for international harmonization by the application of sound safety continuum principles.
It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing new or novel in this recommendation – the “Primary Non Commercial Category” consists exclusively of regulations and procedures used to certify and operate other categories of aircraft. These “borrowed” regulations are simply recombined in a way that preserves the individual safety checks in a streamlined manner that is substantially less burdensome for a private owner.
In order for general aviation to remain viable in the United States, it is essential that a way be found to both lower costs and improve safety. The Primary Non‐Commercial Category offers the FAA a chance to accomplish both goals, using existing regulatory language, while decreasing oversight requirements and expenditures.

[dholly 718]

I can see Cub and T-Crate prices plummeting already...

[lostman 198]

If this happens it will be a big boost for some individuals to keep flying!

[EDMO 1078]

I don't think the IAs will be very happy!

EDMO

[akflyer 1427]

I don't see cub prices going down. The guides need them and that will keep the price up there. I can see the price of 172 and planes like that going back up because now people can afford to fly them and won't need a medical if the 3rd class med goes away. In general, it will let the retired guys on fixed incomes get back in the air and not be breaking the bank as bad. Just my take on it.

[EDMO 1078]

I didn't see that about the medical - was reading about the planes - So, is this the reg that will let us old farts without a medical go back to flying our _________instead of LSA?      What?  4-place too?  AT-6?  250 mph SkyDragon?  

Night flight too?

Where are these regs on the medical?

EDMO

Edited 7 Apr 2014 by Ed In Missouri

[horsepower 24]

I think so Ed,they will treat it like a LSA,which if you have a drivers license you should qualify.Im all for it,theres too many people like me that have to stress about passing a FAA physical,even though Im healthy there are some things that just start going bad as we get older. I have enough common sense to not fly if Im not well.Hope it passes.Randy

[akflyer 1427]

no, separate issues here.  The medical is in the senate right now, this one is to basically make it so you can move your certified aircraft into something like the "owner maintained category" like they have in canada.  It also means you dont have to use PMA parts.  I would be able to use the $45 dimmer switch from NAPA in stead of the same part from Cessna that costs 1900.  or I could put the cheaper EFIS systems for an experimental plane in the cessna.  If you ever wanted to sell the plane, or put it back into the normal category, you would have to pull out the stuff you installed that was not PMA approved, and get a normal annual done on it.  This would pretty much make it so I can treat the certified plane as if it were an experimental and do with is as I want.  This would make it much much cheaper to upgrade the planes, swap engines or props etc.  No more STC or Field approvals needed, just any A&P noting in the log book that the plane is airworthy just like you do with experimental.

 

[EDMO 1078]

Leni,

      I totally agree that this is a GREAT reg - I would have loved this years ago, and it makes perfect sense.

 I just hadn't seen anything in it about the medicals - I know what they are trying to pass on the meds.

EDMO

[akflyer 1427]

Leni,

      I totally agree that this is a GREAT reg - I would have loved this years ago, and it makes perfect sense.

 I just hadn't seen anything in it about the medicals - I know what they are trying to pass on the meds.

EDMO

 

There is nothing in this one about the medical... the medicals are addressed in a separate one.

 

[EDMO 1078]

As they say, "History repeats itself"!

They had the non-commercial certification back in the 1940's, with the NC numbers.

This was under the CAA (Civil Aviation Administration), and maybe was phased out in the 1950's when CAA became the FAA.

The NX and X numbers were also phased out for general aviation.

History 101 - Todays Lesson!

Maybe Tomorrow will be better.

EDMO

Edited 8 Apr 2014 by Ed In Missouri

[lostman 198]

I was reading not too long ago about the old N numbers. It seems they all were NC to start with, it stood for North Carolina. It might have evolved into something else later but that's what article said.

 

Any idea what the NX and X stood for?

Edited 8 Apr 2014 by lostman

[EDMO 1078]

X = Experimental - But not the Amateur-built kind we have now - these were factory built prototypes, but guess some of them were sold with that marking?

And, I could be wrong on what the NC was for - that was what I was told - I was too young to fly then - Well, too young for a license!   But, why would a bunch of Cessnas, made in Kansas, have a North Carolina License number?

EdMO

Edited 8 Apr 2014 by Ed In Missouri

[akflyer 1427]

X = Experimental - But not the Amateur-built kind we have now - these were factory built prototypes, but guess some of them were sold with that marking?

And, I could be wrong on what the NC was for - that was what I was told - I was too young to fly then - Well, too young for a license!   But, why would a bunch of Cessnas, made in Kansas, have a North Carolina License number?

EdMO

 

yes sir, your a little wrong, it had nothing to do with North Carolina

 

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/aircraft_nnumber_history/

 

  But because you asked the question, I learned something new today!

[EDMO 1078]

Thanx Leni,

      Well, Kenneth and I were both wrong - since the C meant "Standard" until 1948.   Well, anyway, we verified that there was an NC number long ago.   Maybe you will someday see a plane with this marking on it, and know what it means.    Very interesting reading.

BTW:   In case you didn't know - Radio call signs W and K are assigned to stations East and West of the Mississippi River - now you can tell which half of the U.S. the radio station is located in when you tune in with your antique ADF to listen to a ballgame - same goes now for TV stations, which were a spinoff from radio licenses.   Ham radio licenses are issued the same way.

I never even thought of this when in Alaska - would it be West of the Big Muddy?  Guess so - and a little bit North too!

EDMO

Edited 8 Apr 2014 by Ed In Missouri

[ChrisBolkan 130]

I love the concept and it makes sense. However a lot of financial interests will be hurt such as mechanics and the whole LSA group and they won't let this happen without a fight. Couple that with FAA reluctance to give up any power and I give it a slim to no chance of going anywhere. 

[akflyer 1427]

I love the concept and it makes sense. However a lot of financial interests will be hurt such as mechanics and the whole LSA group and they won't let this happen without a fight. Couple that with FAA reluctance to give up any power and I give it a slim to no chance of going anywhere. 

 

What is the financial impact to the mechanics for all the planes sitting in a barn or hangar that have been there for years untouched.. now possibly, these planes can come out of the hangar and get back in flying shape.  At least now, the mechanics will get to work on them once a year.  Chances are, if the mechanics can now install a $5,000 panel instead of a $25,000 one, a lot of the people will just have the mechanics doing the work using readily available parts the experimental world is now using.  It will make flying much more affordable and I think will actually INCREASE the amount people will pay a mechanic to work on things.  If I can pay a guy to do the work using parts that are just as good if not better than the original, yet cost 1/4 of the price of the certified part, I can still pay the guy to do the work and save 75% that I can then give to the FBO buying fuel and actually flying the damn thing... I have written letters to my senators on the medical bill and on this one to see if we can get some push behind this to put the FAA in its place. 

 

It may be a long shot, but if there is a shot I am pretty happy to see them take it.

 

[ChrisBolkan 130]

Maybe you are right. I guess I don't know where the money flows WRT this issue, but follow that to find the support...and opposition.