But most experimental still use an A&P and an IA. That option will of course remain. And for a complicated aircraft, most likely necessary. However, if you have a small volume aircraft, like a Meyers or something, you're a Meyers aficionado, part of the Meyers club and know everything about them as an enthusiast, surely you should be able to do repair work to it? You for sure know more than any A&P on the subject of that particular model.

And on the subject of maintainability, we already have buyers getting forced into mainstream models because it becomes economically unviable for manufacturers to certify upgrades for smaller run aircrafts. This would sidestep that completely. I don't think we need a segmented market, where:

1. These are all the aircraft made in more than, say 500, worth certifying upgrades for.
2. The rest.

Nobody is helped by sustaining a model that caters and amplifies that, because guess what - what happens to that A35 or B35 Bonanza eventually? It gets on the second list.

We're all on borrowed time with our old dinosaurs anyway.

Adam,


If you add, should have the option to be experimental. That might fly.

I toss in some reform on the PMA process. A lot of our parts are from 1960s AC Delco. Maybe they paid someone to make sure it was in the top 10% of their production run before they put it in a special box, but that shouldn't cause a huge expense, but somehow it does.

We have several vendors here on BT. Ask them the trauma they went through to get PMAs many times unnecessarily. A part for Musketeer isn't going on an Airbus for Pete's sake.

Best,
Rich

Sure, I agree that's prob the best. There might still be some who want to keep it in Normal Category.

The biggest problem I see is the inconsistent interpretation of rules for approvals and the process to get STCs or what is a minor repair.

I’d be in trouble with my FSDO for doing things that I see field approved or even part of STCs on airplanes from other parts of the country.

Field approvals float around for T3 tailwheel shocks on Cubs for example. I have a copy of a letter from the Chicago ACO saying that it was eligible for field approval.

But NY and my local FSDO say no. Others are using loopholes in CAR3 for installation of wood composite CATTO propellers but the loophole does not really exist. Avionics and portable mounts like iPads are another problem.

So the question is if one FSDO or even one inspector in a FSDO says ok to a modification and it’s done as a logbook entry instead of a block 3 field approval. What happens to that airplane when it’s sold later and moves to a new owner in a FSDO that says no. Can I annual it? Or if the owner flies say from Utah to Lockhaven PA for Sentimental Journey. Has an accident due to the “approved” experimental part what happens then? In their FSDO it’s fine but since they are in the area of a FSDO that says no to these types of things what happens?

But in the case of the Seabee experimental Exhibition is really your only way out unless you can find an engine STC you can work with. The only other option may be a 1955 or earlier 337 for that will be accepted as approved data but the conversion shown is probably not for an engine model you would like to have.

I work on Stinson V-77 which are also orphaned but I have copies of all the drawings and engineering reports so I can build any part or assist in owner produced parts to keep them flying. There is one engine STC available to remove the R-680 Lycoming and install a Pratt R-985 but the STC is not really the best. At least it’s a basis to start from. Sadly the Seabee drawings may not be available and engineering test data might be even harder to find unless you can buy an STC from it’s owner and all the data that was used for the original approval. Which may be surprisingly lacking depending on age of the STC.

There is, Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance (LSR-M). But it has limitations to aircraft that meet ASTM standards, not CAR/CFR.

Fly safe,
Jim