From EAA: FAA Puts Historic Aircraft Restorations at Risk

[bdk]

FAA Language Puts Historic Aircraft Restorations at Risk

April 21, 2005-EAA, along with its Vintage Aircraft Association division, is objecting strongly to language in a proposed FAA rule change that would jeopardize future historic aircraft restorations. The proposed rule's preamble, specifically, would prohibit a historic aircraft that had been destroyed-as indicated by National Transportation Safety Board reports-from being rebuilt and receiving a type certificate to operate as a standard category aircraft.

In its written comments to FAA presented this week, EAA and VAA said that there is no evidence of a safety concern with aircraft restored after receiving substantial damage or even being deemed totaled by an insurance company. The NTSB actually has no definition for "destroyed" as used in its reports, and is considering dropping the term from aviation accident reports.

"There are many, many examples of beautiful aircraft restorations taking place from a few remaining aircraft parts or what are commonly known as `basket cases,'" said Earl Lawrence, EAA's vice president of industry and regulatory affairs. "In addition, FAA is using language in the rule preamble to create policies that should be handled through a regular rulemaking process, which includes full economic and safety effects. The agency, in this case, is circumventing its own process."

EAA does not have any objections to the specific changes within the rule (14 CFR 21 and 91) that are proposed; the strong objections are only with the preamble language. Contrary to some reports, the rule change would not completely ground or halt the restoration of such aircraft. It would, however, subject the restored aircraft to more restrictive categories such as Experimental/Exhibition.

It is important to note that the proposal does NOT affect aircraft restorations of aircraft that have never been classified as "destroyed or totaled", and removed from the FAA registration database.

"There are two wrongs in this proposal that need immediate correction," said H.G. Frautschy, executive director of the Vintage Aircraft Association. "First is FAA's impression that the full restoration of a `destroyed' type-certificated aircraft cannot be considered a `used' aircraft for certification purposes. Secondly, and perhaps more threatening, is FAA's use of preamble language to create language that is open to wide interpretation and will not only cause confusion, but hinder safe and successful restoration of many wonderful aircraft in the future."

[Jack Cook]

Sounds like they want to end the practice of shuffling paperwork from airplane to airplane.

Last edited by Jack Cook on Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[airnutz]

I think you hit it on the nose Jack!

[Joe Scheil]

This is evidence of the danger to owners that "enthusiasts" can pose in discussing aircraft resurection and arguing in a public forum regarding its originality. Historians chasing serial numbers like myself are to blame as well as the awareness of what constitutes a specific aircraft seem to have become mainstream. Hopefully there exists a way to show that this is also done in the Cessna 172 world and many showpiece Barons and Bonanzas have been reassembled from wrecked aircraft, as well as military aircraft both in and out of the military too. Parts is parts.

I'll stop combing the mountains when thar' is metal in the hanger Scheil...

[Jack Cook]

The difference is that nobody is going to purchase the paperwork of a destroyed Cherokee to get their restoration licensed. I can't honestly believe the FAA is so ignorant they need monitor the wix board to figure out that somethings up when the P-51 that was completely destroyed 6 months ago is now grand champion at Oshgosh. Or the Aussie experimental P-51 they saw at a show they covered last year is back at the same show but is now amazingly a standard catagory P-51D.

[Joe Scheil]

Why not? If an aircraft is listed as destroyed for whatever purpose, say to prevent paying the property tax every year, it could be near impossible to reregister. Swaping the paperwork may be the easiest thing to do. In the P-51's case its easier to swap paperwork then push the old through the FAA. Anyone can build an aircraft, the only way to keep it safely on the ground is through paperwork! I do not believe that the FAA is watching the WIX board, but it may be an interesting point of discussion occasionally around the FSDO.