Simviation Forums

This can't be anything but bad.

are they crazy? Man if that went through it'd be fought hard prolly....... Thats just not right I dont think! Cheers, Gunny

older aircraft whose type certificate or supplemental type certificate is no longer supported by a manufacturer. Such aircraft are commonly referred to as "orphans."

I'm not up with the current CAA/JAA regulations on this but taken literally it could affect a lot of GA aircraft & airliners, never mind warbirds. I wonder if the DC-3 is still supported by the manufacturer. In the UK many of these aircraft operate under a "Permit to Fly" which is less restrictive than a full C of A. It can be used for private purposes & even display aircraft but you couldn't operate under this certification if you carry paying passengers. http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=detail&id=1330

I was thinking the same thing, except I was wondering about the 707 or the 727...

These Byzantine regs. really tick me off. Any aircraft should simply be required to meet airworthiness standards. Period.I have a hard time believing that a part is more likely to cause an accident because it was removed in good condition from another aircraft that was subsequently destroyed. I understand the concern , but it's the wrong way to go about it.  Owners of older "orphan" birds already pay thru the nose for insurance, even though the accident stats really don't seem to indicate that aging airframes and engines are more dangerous than newer ones ...

Sounds like the Federal A$$hole Authority are out to get people. How many people here can afford a brand new Cessna?

WTF?! That is crazy! That means DC9s, DC8s, DC3s, 707s, 727s, MD11s, MD/DC10s, DC8s and not to mention all warbirds would be grounded!

Protectionism...

Protect your own industry (Cessna) by keeping the cheaper competition from getting a certificate that allows sensible operation

For example
AN-2 vs C208, An-2 is cheaper and can carry more.
Yak-18 and Yak-52 vs C172 and C182, Yak-18 seats 4 too in standard spec but gives aerobatic capabilities.

What this will do for Technoavia (they are building a redesigned Yak-18 as the SM-2000P and a 750HP turboprop version of it that is fully aerobatic certified) i don't know.

Not that big a' deal, for the the warbirds anyway. Certify as experimental ...........keep flying.
Most of the parts for the old warbirds have to be fabricated anyway. Other than parts support, what other  reason do you need to maintain standard certification?

It kinda sounds like the FAA is purposely trying to piss people off.  >:(

What this will do for Technoavia (they are building a redesigned Yak-18 as the SM-2000P and a 750HP turboprop version of it that is fully aerobatic certified) i don't know.

More sales - The redesigned Yak-18 is a NEW design/ production, not an "orphan".  Now, once Technoavia STOPS supporting what it made, then there's a problem.

Even GA types can be certified as Experimental...it just affects Fare-Paying Pax and insurance rates after all...besides allowing uncertified mechanics (like hobbyists) to work on the plane.

Even GA types can be certified as Experimental...it just affects Fare-Paying Pax and insurance rates after all...besides allowing uncertified mechanics (like hobbyists) to work on the plane.

That's where I was going. To me it makes more sense to certify as experimental. It would be much cheaper and actually prolong the life of a warbird.
As far as GA, I wasn't forgetting about them, just focusing on the key topic. But, while you're on the subject, unless you plan on keeping the airplane for life, recertifying your 172 or Cherokee as experimental would probably be a bad idea due to a much lower resale value.
When you get into the "big stuff", some of the airliner airframes can amass anywhere from 50-100,000 hrs in a few short years. It's probably safer and more cost effective that they are  forced to retire these planes.