This was quoted from someone on a Mooney Forum....very interesting and would be awesome! I could put some bush wheels on my Mooney!!!! haha...

The owner of any Part 23 aircraft, or heritage Part 23 aircraft (CAR3 etc) regardless of weight, number of engines or

horsepower may elect to redesignate his or her aircraft as a Non-Commercial (TC).

Privileges
- Aircraft in this category can be maintained by the owner using the same procedures that have been established for
Experimental AB aircraft.
- Replacement or Alteration Parts should be appropriate for aircraft use, however need not be PMA / TSO authorized.
- Owners can “opt out” of Airworthiness Directives at their discretion.
- Owners can alter their own aircraft without the requirement for a Field Approval or STC. (however, some alterations
may require “phase 1” flight testing similar to Experimental AB requirements)

Requirements
- Before conversion, all applicable ADs must be complied with, i.e. it must an airworthy aircraft.
- Airplane owners must affix a “non-commercial” placard readily visible to all passengers
- The aircraft must have a yearly condition inspection by an A&P Mechanic noting the fact that the aircraft is “in
condition for safe operation.” (similar to Experimental AB requirements)
- The above will be codified within Part 23 as a set of “ Operating Rules”

Limitations
- Aircraft can not be used to carry persons for hire, this includes aircraft rental for flight instruction.
- Aircraft owners must maintain a list in the aircraft logbook of ALL applicable ADs and their compliance status. This
list would be used to highlight the owners awareness of the ADs existence and document their choice of whether to
comply or not.
- Aircraft owners must maintain a list in the aircraft logbook of ALL alterations performed that are not FAA approved
and ALL non PMAed / TSO parts installed. This list would be used to facilitate the conversion of the aircraft back to
normal category.

Conversion back to Normal Category
- Aircraft operated in the Non Commercial (TC) class would be dual certificated in both the standard and non
commercial classes, as is common place for Restricted Category aircraft.
- Aircraft in the Non-Commercial (TC) category can be operated in the Standard category, provided the aircraft
reasonably 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
- The conversion can be accomplished by an IA mechanic with a complete and thorough annual inspection and log
book audit. Upon successful completion the aircraft could be operated under it’s Standard Airworthiness Certificate.
The Procedure is very common with Restricted Category aircraft and has proven both safe and successful.

Read the entire PDF off the EAA forums here...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 7003,d.cGE

This would be awesome...

This would be a dream come true for many... I wish GA registered on the FAA's priorities.

That makes too much sense for it to ever be made policy.

I gotta say that if that were to become the rules, it would make my and my IA's life a whole lot easier. He's done a lot of modifying of my airplane at my request, and I've done a little, but because it's an odd-duck version of a 172 so that many, many STCs don't apply even if the parts are identical, we've had to get the FAA's blessing regularly. It's never caused a problem, other than to delay getting things done, but it has been an irritant.

On the other hand, it really does make too much sense to ever become "law".

Cary

PS I'd like to see the Mooney with bush wheels!

Maybe I missed it, but I am surprised and dissapointed the EAA and AOPA haven't been all over this?

So I was looking around today and wanted to find the source of this document. And it actually didn't come from the EAA like I thought. It actually came from the Aviation Rulemaking Committe (ARC) which is even better! Maybe this does have a chance down the road...I mean we can dream right. One thing I did find out though is the aircraft has to be currently in airworthy/ in annual before it can be changed over. And it only applies to aircraft 20 years or older. Here is the full thing....

Starts on page physical page 39 ( PDF page 50)

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... Report.pdf

For Applicability it starts on page 40 (PDF page 51)
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.

So this passed unanimously through both houses (congress) and is now just waiting for POS to sign the bill????!!!!!!!!!

When does anything pass unanimously through congress, first time I've been happy with the govt in a long long time!!!

Definitely pinching myself tryin not to get excited yet, this is like all my wildest dreams come true

The kicker is the FAA has till Dec. 31, 2015 to implement part 23. Hopefully it will happen much sooner though...

I still can't believe what little coverage this has gotten. Waiting on the POTUS's signaure still, then we all wait to see what the FAA actually does. Still, very exciting times for those of us with old aircraft. I have a panel upgrade in mind but am willing to wait and see what happens. One thing I am wondering about is how the propsed changed to Part 23 would affect those of us with aircraft certified under the CARs. They define a "small airplane" as an "airplane which is certified to part 23 standards."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1848

scottf wrote:I still can't believe what little coverage this has gotten. Waiting on the POTUS's signaure still, then we all wait to see what the FAA actually does. Still, very exciting times for those of us with old aircraft. I have a panel upgrade in mind but am willing to wait and see what happens. One thing I am wondering about is how the propsed changed to Part 23 would affect those of us with aircraft certified under the CARs. They define a "small airplane" as an "airplane which is certified to part 23 standards."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1848

This is very different from the Bill that was passed. This is something the FAA has to bite off on...the bill you're referring to is one that tells the FAA to do their job faster....haha ya that'll be nice!

So this is confusing...After reading the bill text it seems clear that there is no mention of a non-commercial category. I am assuming that this proposal on the EAA forums, originally linked from piper painter, is nothing more than a recommendation from??? and the FAA will still do what it wants tom"streamline" the certification process etc etc. It appears that it is way early to get excited about anything revolutionary like a non-commercial category being created for all of us flying light certified aircraft to operate with the same privileges as the amateur built experimentals. Not gonna give up hope, but this bill seems very loosely worded and does not inspire the hopes I had from the proposal...

I really hope someone corrects me and shows somewhere that the aviation rule making committee has actually adopted this proposal?

I'm curious to hear from our Canadian members how their "owner maintained" rules have affected their system. The Canadian rule is referred to several times in the proposed rule change documents.

What has been the actual percentage of pilots doing "owner maintained" as apposed to leaving their plane certified?

How has "owner maintained" affected the planes value?

How has "owner maintained" affected your local FBO's, has there been significant loss of business, etc?

Has "owner maintained" affected the cost of aircraft parts positively or negatively?

Has "owner maintained" affected the cost of maintenance on certified aircraft positively or negatively?

Has there been a surge in the non-certified parts and avionics industries?

What other pros and cons have you seen in Canada with regards to "owner maintained" category?

These are just a few of the questions we need to all be asking in regards to a rule change of this nature. It would be a shame to jump on this only to find a year or two later that your plane is only worth half as much because it has been "owner maintained".

Marty

okay let me explain!
HR1848 was a bill that passed the senate, house and is waiting the the presidents signature. This is some of the verbage from HR1848
Safety and regulatory improvements for general aviation(a)
In generalNot later than December 15, 2015, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue a final rule—

(1)to advance the safety and continued development of small airplanes by reorganizing the certification requirements for such airplanes under part 23 to streamline the approval of safety advancements; and

(2)that meets the objectives described in subsection (b).

Now, the Non-Commercial Category is a document (the one I already attached) here http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... Report.pdf

The recommendation to have a non-commercial category is from the Aviation Rulemaking committe. It was sent to the FAA back in June 2013. Sooo what that means is that congress has said "you need to do you're job and update this stufff" and the Aviation rulemaking committe has given them some ideas. The FAA doesn't have to listen to them, as they are recommendations. Now we wait....they need to make a decision by Dec 2015. That's not anytime fast!

I'm not gonna hold my breath on this one. Look at how much sense it made to expand the sport pilot medical self-certification to include private pilot op's in non-complex, non-high performance airplanes...... and here we are over a year later, still waiting for the FAA to even officially respond. (I guess the lack of a response IS a response, eh?)

Thanks, I was having a hard time verifying that the proposal for non-commercial was actually directly from the ARC. That is good news, I lost about an hour of sleep last night trying to put the pieces together again

Yup, December 15' ain't exactly around the corner but this is a move in the right direction anyways. If nothing else it is putting a spotlight on the need to address how insanely and unnecessarily expensive it is to own/operate in the small/light aircraft end of the certified category. I really appreciate at minimum the beginning of talks, amongst legislators anyways, about the discrepancies/unfairness between certified and experimental categories for the non-commercial crowd. Hopefully, facts and common sense will prevail, I know I know but sometimes when things reach the height of ridiculousness reason finally does prevail...often by means of force, like a Bill mandating the FAA to get their sh$t together by Dec 15' to promote safety and growth of GA in a way that is actually affordable/realistic for the average Joe. Or, we could just continue to be stuck in the 1970's at 2013 prices

180jocky wrote:I'm curious to hear from our Canadian members how their "owner maintained" rules have affected their system. The Canadian rule is referred to several times in the proposed rule change documents.

What has been the actual percentage of pilots doing "owner maintained" as apposed to leaving their plane certified?

How has "owner maintained" affected the planes value?

How has "owner maintained" affected your local FBO's, has there been significant loss of business, etc?

Has "owner maintained" affected the cost of aircraft parts positively or negatively?

Has "owner maintained" affected the cost of maintenance on certified aircraft positively or negatively?

Has there been a surge in the non-certified parts and avionics industries?

What other pros and cons have you seen in Canada with regards to "owner maintained" category?

These are just a few of the questions we need to all be asking in regards to a rule change of this nature. It would be a shame to jump on this only to find a year or two later that your plane is only worth half as much because it has been "owner maintained".

Marty

Hey Marty. Up here in Canada, the rules on owner maintained are fairly straight forward. 200hp or less, no constant speed props, and nothing over 4 seat. There is more, but IMHO those are the big ones.
I can see where it will save me a lot of money. A certified prop is $5000 where I can get an experimental for $2500. Avionics run the same way. I am very close to popping it over into that category, and the only thing holding me back is that I cannot fly the plane into the US once it is in the homeowners category. If that rule changes I'll be in it in a heart beat.
One other difference from reading this bill, is that it seems like your planes will be easy to take ot of that category. In Canada, it is very expensive to re certify. All serial numbers on all engine/prop parts need to be stamped with an X at the end. In order to recertify, everything needs to be overhauled before the X can be removed. This is very expensive and time consuming. Basically once it is in the home owner maintained catergory, you don't take it out.
Someone feel free to correct me where/if I am wrong with my facts, its been known to happen.

David