Thought I might add some info here from up North.

In Canada, we have a class called OM, means Owner Maintenance.
General criteria (of the top of my head) is former certified birds
that are no longer produced or supported, not in commercial service &
mostly older F/P prop types, in an effort to keep them flying
& affordable. There is an approved list that changes (models are
added) & is a work in progress.

This also allows the use of non certified parts. For ex., rather than
usng a 4,500 buck Beech fuel selector valve, one can opt for a non
certified one that works in a left & right selection app, are cheap &
probably ~ 100 bucks.

Older Musketeers for sure qualify in this category & I know of 1 that
has gone that route. Its a one way trip & no going back to certified.
Biggest drawback IMO (outside of value concners) at this point is that
it's not legal to fly such a bird in the US & is LTD to Canada. COPA
is pursuing this. Might sound crazy but..

Interesting that the FAA takes a "no way" approach to this class of
bird, yet allows all manner of homebuilt & ultralights with all types
of engines into US airspace, inclcuding VW conversions & 2 srokes.
Dunno which would be worse.

Putting a qualifying plane into OM is as simple as signing some
papers, having a current pilot licence & being the owner.

This allows the owner to do ALL maintenance on the plane & engine
including OHs & annuals.


--- In, "Mike Rellihan" <rellihan@r...>
> To clarify....
> If you meet the 51% rule constructing an Experimental aircraft, AND
you apply for and are granted the associated FAA Repairman's
Certificate for that specific plane, then you can legally perform the
Condition Inspection (not "Annual Inspection") on that particular plane.
> If you buy a partially completed kit and finish it, things can get
dicey. You have to compile enough documentation to convince the FAA
that your completion activities were expansive enough to meet the 51%
rule, and to apply for the Repairman's Certificate.
> If you buy an experimental plane that was ever completed, even if it
is back in pieces when you buy it (and you must rebuild it), it gets
even dicier. You must do the research to find out whether anyone,
anywhere, was ever issued a Repairman's Certificate for that specific
plane. If they were, you will never be able to get one for it...
despite the fact that you will almost be building it back from scratch.
> And finally, the owner of any home-built Experimental plane can do
any maintenance he wishes. Unless he has the Repairman's Certificate,
or holds an A&P license, he cannot do the annual Condition Inspection.
However, any A&P can do the Inspection; it does not require an
A&P-IA. It can sometimes be difficult to find an A&P who is willing
to stick their neck out to do the Inspection on an Experimental,
unless they are very familiar with the builder and plane.
> There remains a lot of gray area in the Experimental arena.
Legally, things like ADs on engines, props, and other appliances are
not enforced on Experimentals. However, you are an idiot if you
ignore an AD for crankshafts that appear to be failing (for example).
And if you do not comply with an AD on an engine or prop, the
affected item will lose its certified status. If you have not
complied with engine ADs on an Experimental plane, you are legally
required to remove the engine data plate. It cannot be restored to
certified status unless the paperwork trail and maintenance
compliance/configuration compliance trail is re-established. The loss
of certified status on big-ticket items like props and engines can
significantly impact their value.
> And I have explained all this to illustrate that in many respects
the Experimental crowd has to work within the same constraints that we
live with on our certified planes. There is a lot to consider before
you sell your Mouse and go Experimental. One major factor is that few
Experimentals ever return even 50% to 75% of the MONEY put into them,
much less labor. How much is your Mouse worth today versus back when
you bought it? It is hard to actually lose money on a Mouse (though
it can happen due to several factors); it is almost a given that you
will lose money on most Experimentals.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jon simik
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:06 PM
> Subject: [musketeermail] Re: Annual
> --- In, "sundowner1982"
> <o_iftikhar@b...> wrote:
> <snip>
> (Crossing into Experimental world, then I'll be doing my own
> annuals - Scary isn't it)
> If its the way you repair fuels sumps yes. <G>
> I'm also going X-world for sure. Could easely put together a flying
> Teledyne motor for ~ a G note.
> Jon
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's
'Thanks & Giving.'

Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: