Owner Maintenance

[Luscombeator]

I'd like to put my Luscombe into Owner Maintenance. Anyone have any experience/advice about the application process, easily overlooked rules/requirements, the time it took to get the aircraft into Owner Maintenance, anything else, I'd surely appreciate it.

Thanks to all

[Turbo2]

An aircraft that is currently flying and in compliance with applicable Type Certificate Data Sheet it is a fairly easy process to transfer to the owner maintenance category if that's what you have decided to do. It does take a bit of time for the paperwork back and forth with Transport Canada. If the Luscombe model you want to change over is listed in CAR Standard 507 Appendix H list of eligible aircraft, you then need to contact your nearest Transport Canada office and ask to speak to a Maintenance inspector. The first step in the process is to request authorization to modify the airframe and engine data plates to add an X to the model and serial numbers. The inspector will provide you with the forms needed to fill out to do this. You will need to complete this form and return. Once reviewed by TC they will sent you written authorization to modify the data plates. Once that is done you need to take pics of those data plates and the the prop hub which shows the model and serial numbers with the Xs added. Now you can apply for a new Certificate of Registration that will show the new identity of the aircraft. Once you receive the new C of R back from TC registration department you can now apply for a new Special Certificate of Airworthiness, Owner Maintenance and submit it to the TC Maintenance inspector.
A couple of things to keep in mind are, once the aircraft is in the Owner Maintenance category it will be restricted to flight only in Canadian airspace as it is not recognized by the FAA for flight in US airspace and the aircraft would not be saleable to an American buyer, therefore limiting resale.
The registered owner must be a licenced pilot. An owner maintenance aircraft can not be registered in a company name or a NON pilot family members name. The registered owner/pilot is the only person who can sign a maintenance release for work done on the aircraft, or a qualified AME.
Keep in mind that most of the maintenance regulations in CARs still apply with the one difference that any modifications do not require approved data but do require "acceptable" data. Any common mods that are approved under an STC for the make and model of aircraft are automatically accepted.
Compliance with applicable Airworthiness Directives is not mandatory but common sense should prevail and anything that affects safety be actioned.
All flight manual operational requirements as well as annual inspection requirement still remain the same.
Hope this helps.

[Heliian]

An aircraft that is currently flying and in compliance with applicable Type Certificate Data Sheet it is a fairly easy process to transfer to the owner maintenance category if that's what you have decided to do. It does take a bit of time for the paperwork back and forth with Transport Canada. If the Luscombe model you want to change over is listed in CAR Standard 507 Appendix H list of eligible aircraft, you then need to contact your nearest Transport Canada office and ask to speak to a Maintenance inspector. The first step in the process is to request authorization to modify the airframe and engine data plates to add an X to the model and serial numbers. The inspector will provide you with the forms needed to fill out to do this. You will need to complete this form and return. Once reviewed by TC they will sent you written authorization to modify the data plates. Once that is done you need to take pics of those data plates and the the prop hub which shows the model and serial numbers with the Xs added. Now you can apply for a new Certificate of Registration that will show the new identity of the aircraft. Once you receive the new C of R back from TC registration department you can now apply for a new Special Certificate of Airworthiness, Owner Maintenance and submit it to the TC Maintenance inspector.
A couple of things to keep in mind are, once the aircraft is in the Owner Maintenance category it will be restricted to flight only in Canadian airspace as it is not recognized by the FAA for flight in US airspace and the aircraft would not be saleable to an American buyer, therefore limiting resale.
The registered owner must be a licenced pilot. An owner maintenance aircraft can not be registered in a company name or a NON pilot family members name. The registered owner/pilot is the only person who can sign a maintenance release for work done on the aircraft, or a qualified AME.
Keep in mind that most of the maintenance regulations in CARs still apply with the one difference that any modifications do not require approved data but do require "acceptable" data. Any common mods that are approved under an STC for the make and model of aircraft are automatically accepted.
Compliance with applicable Airworthiness Directives is not mandatory but common sense should prevail and anything that affects safety be actioned.
All flight manual operational requirements as well as annual inspection requirement still remain the same.
Hope this helps.

+1 brilliant rundown.

Is there a warning label required near the door?

[PilotDAR]

Turbo2 has wrapped it up well, other than to say that my OM plane moved from certified to OM while remaining in a company which owns it, there did not seem to be any concern about that. However, I would agree that personal ownership is probably what was intended.

Yes, a bilingual message is required by both doors.

OM is not a carte blanche to modify the plane. some mods are permitted with proper data, but you have to follow the same path as a certified plane, just not quite to the "approved" data standards.

Being in the OM category does not mean that the owner has to perform the maintenance, but they are fully responsible for it. If you're not skilled or set up to conduct maintenance, you can still take it to and AME/AMO, they do the work you specify, to the standard you specify ('same as present), just you sign to it, rather than the AME/AMO.

OM airplanes have crossed into the US, though with considerable FAA application. I tried a little, but did not follow through. Practically, don't expect to get into the US with the plane - but Canada is a big, beautiful country, with lots of places to fly!

The more the OM privilege is used, the more TC will see what a good ideal it is for a segment of Canadian GA.

[AirFrame]

Yes, a bilingual message is required by both doors.

The label need not be ugly, either. I designed one for my father's Cessna 150 when he moved it to O-M, it looks nice and clean on the side panel behind the door handle. On some aircraft the door frame is wide enough to place the label, and that has the benefit of hiding the label when the door is closed. It only needs to be seen when entering the aircraft, not when it's parked (or flying).

OM airplanes have crossed into the US, though with considerable FAA application.

This was permitted by some local FSDO's initially, but the loophole has since been closed. FAA HQ in Salt Lake has issued a directive to all FSDO's to rescind any flight permits that were issued to owners of O-M aircraft, and not to issue any more. Until FAA HQ changes their mind, and up until now they have been adamantly against any O-M aircraft flying in the US, you can be pretty sure your plane is now good for use in Canadian airspace only.

[photofly]

Something else of note is that the aircraft must be airworthy and in a compliant condition at the time of being transferred to the OM category. Reluctantly I had to sell for parts value a certified aircraft that had some airworthiness concerns (that came to my attention) that couldn't economically and in a realistic time frame be fixed merely in order to change category: those issues would not have been an concern in the OM category, and the airplane would have continued in flight.

[AirFrame]

...certified aircraft that had some airworthiness concerns...
...those issues would not have been an concern in the OM category...

Can you say what kind of issues those were? I'm curious what would ground a Certified aircraft that wouldn't ground an O-M aircraft.

[TrilliumFlt]

...certified aircraft that had some airworthiness concerns...
...those issues would not have been an concern in the OM category...

Can you say what kind of issues those were? I'm curious what would ground a Certified aircraft that wouldn't ground an O-M aircraft.

I believe what's meant is that the airplane must be "snag free" prior to the OM C of A being issued and the snags that prevented that action would have been easier dealt with had it been on an OM C of A. They where still grounding items is more "manageable" as an OM airplane.

[AirFrame]

I believe what meant is that the airplane must be "snag free" prior to the OM C of A being issued and the snags that where prevented that action would have been easier dealt with had it been on an OM C of A. There where still grounding items is more "manageable" as an OM airplane.

Maybe, but i'd like to hear what the actual story is and not speculation.

[TrilliumFlt]

I believe what's meant is the airplane must be "snag free" prior to the OM C of A being issued and the snags that where prevented that action would have been easier dealt with had it been on an OM C of A. They where still grounding items is more "manageable" as an OM airplane.

Maybe, but i'd like to hear what the actual story is and not speculation.

I'll further "speculate" that the poster would have divulged those had he/she felt comfortable in doing so.

[photofly]

...certified aircraft that had some airworthiness concerns...
...those issues would not have been an concern in the OM category...

Can you say what kind of issues those were? I'm curious what would ground a Certified aircraft that wouldn't ground an O-M aircraft.

It’s a long story, also about a Luscombe, coincidentally. If you pm me some contact details I will tell all.

In summary, the aircraft had work done under an STC in the fifties, I think. Subsequently, some other modifications were made that were contrary to stipulations in the STC. That was in the 90s - so more than 20 years ago. It had been flying around all that time in an unapproved state.

When this history came to my attention I realized that I should not fly the aircraft again in that state, and that I was going to have to regularize the aircraft, which could only be done by reversing the subsequent modifications. At that point I would be able to transfer the aircraft to OM category and then I could reapply the modifications, acceptable data being available, or at least obtainable. But after a lot of consultation it seemed there was no way to skip to the end, the aircraft had to be "compliant" at the time of the issue of the new category C of A. And given the value of the aircraft and the cost of those modifications (and reversing them) it would not have made any sense to do so.

[AirFrame]

It’s a long story, also about a Luscombe, coincidentally. If you pm me some contact details I will tell all.

That's enough detail to explain it, thanks for the clarification.

[Luscombeator]

New to the forum. Thanks all for the great response.

Turbo 2, you covered most everything in COPA's 20 page briefing all in one post. Fantastic. Thanks for the effort.

PilotDAR, I've followed some of your previous posts on OM and I gather it's worked well for you.

photofly, I assumed the aircraft had to be airworthy and compliant but it's not particularly clear in the research I've read. Thanks for the clarification. I bought my Luscombe as a project and it would certainly be great if the repairs could be done under OW. In fact, I think I have read of owners rebuilding damaged a/c into OW but I can't locate any references now.

I'm well underway with the repairs (prop strike, cowl damage, etc) with an AME looking over my shoulder. The engine went out for inspection on Monday but the idea of OM still is attractive. The down time while the paper work takes place is a concern. I talked to Garry Wolf, pres of RAA, and he told me of an application that started fall of 2019 and still wasn't complete June 2020. That's a lot of down time.

Thanks all.

[PilotDAR]

PilotDAR, I've followed some of your previous posts on OM and I gather it's worked well for you.

Yes, very well, though I'm set up to do maintenance at home, and I've worked with the TC Inspectors before, so the steep part of the learning curve was covered. Time entry to completion just over a month, if I recall. As long as the USA is not in your plans for the plane, and you're content that some people think that the value has gone down, go for it. You'll find that you spend time working on the plane yourself, which you'd not want to hire out, even just cleaning, and you'll have a better plane, as a labour of love, rather than paying for all of the labour!

If you're stamping an "X" on the data plate of a Lycoming, be sure you're about to stamp it in an area on the data plate, where there's aluminum case behind. The Lycoming cases have ridges in that area, and if you stamp into a ridge, with no support behind the data plate, it pops off!

[AirFrame]

photofly, I assumed the aircraft had to be airworthy and compliant but it's not particularly clear in the research I've read. Thanks for the clarification. I bought my Luscombe as a project and it would certainly be great if the repairs could be done under OW. In fact, I think I have read of owners rebuilding damaged a/c into OW but I can't locate any references now.

I haven't seen one that was moved to OM in the damaged state and then rebuilt under OM. But I thought someone here on AvCanada had one that was disassembled for transport or storage, and they were able to put it in OM before re-assembling. It was airworthy before it was disassembled.

[Luscombeator]

.

I haven't seen one that was moved to OM in the damaged state and then rebuilt under OM. But I thought someone here on AvCanada had one that was disassembled for transport or storage, and they were able to put it in OM before re-assembling. It was airworthy before it was disassembled.
[/quote]

That may well be what I was recalling. Wishful thinking on my part.