Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Thinking about buying this plane...

Thanks Matt. That ad sounds like a 150 I looked at with a new prop and he had no paperwork (to back up his claim that it was just worn out) or old prop to show me. That scared me away from it.

If the engine has a new crank since it happened, would a prop strike still be a problem?

Well I'm not a mechanic, but I assume that as long as the crankcase seals and bearings were replaced and the case wasn't cracked, then it would likely be okay.

But the lack of candor is worth worrying about. He might be forgetting to tell you about those fatigue cracks he found last week.

Depends upon who you ask. According to Rick Hestilow, the FAA turns a blind-eye towards 'un-allowed' oil changes by non-mechanics. So he incorporated it into the STC so there would be no ambiguity.

The FAA's opinion can be found in Advisory Circular 43-12A which says, in part,

Items 6 and 23 (Part 43, Appendix A, paragraph (c)). These items permit the draining and reservicing of oil, and the removal, cleaning and reinstallation of oil screens, filters, and strainers in an aircraft oil system to be done as preventive maintenance, and are subject to the provisions of Sections 43.13(a) and (b).

However, Advisory Ciculars are only advisory, not law. It's not likely one would run afoul of the Feds over changing the oil, but Rick Hestilow wanted to make sure.

I don't understand this. Why does the owner's plane get moved from standard category to "special," if the STC allows the owner to work on any 150/152 that he subsequently owns without having to STC that aircraft to special? What impact does the STC have on market value of the airplane when it comes time to sell? Can the aircraft be moved back to the standard airworthiness certificate at a later time? I believe Canada has a similar program and I seem to recall the airplane takes a hit when it comes time to sell.

I'd be much more interested in Topcat if it didn't change the airworthiness certificate of my airplane and it truly just applied to my qualification to work on the 150/152.

Reread the quote, Tim!

It's a "special" STC on the owner (kinda like an endorsement, but not)!

It's NOT an STC on the airplane the owner happens to own at the time.

Methinks the STC and move from primary category are because that's the only way to do it within the existing paper-blizzard infrastructure at the FAA.

It is true that the airplane is reclassified to primary category - I think that's so it fits into that line-item in appendix 'A' that mentions primary category. Any subsequent airplane would also be moved into that category before the owner could work on it. Moving it back is easy according to Rick Hestilow.

TOPCAT recertifies the airplane in the Primary Category. This was (in my view) the FAA's first attempt at Light Sport Aircraft. Unfortunately, it (along with the Recreational License) never took off. No pun intended.

A Primary Category aircraft is one that is simple enough to allow the qualified owner to perform more tasks than currently allowed. To work on a Primary Category plane, one must receive proper training. Thus, the 'STC' on the person. This is not a blanket rating, however. The current or subsequent aircraft must be in the Primary Category for the 'STCed'-owner to be legally able to work on them.

Part of the expense of the TOPCAT course, in addition to the training, is an extensive annual inspection of the plane to certify it in the Primary Category. However, it remains a certified plane and can be converted back to Standard (or Utility) category by a subsequent A&P/IA.

This is different than the Canadian model. Their method is not to change the airplane's category, but to decertify it entirely. Indeed, X's are stamped over the engine and airframe serial numbers to reinforce that fact. For most intents and purposes, it becomes much like a homebuilt experimental.

While this offers some great freedoms as far as who can work on the plane and what materials they may use, it also comes with liabilities. One, the FAA doesn't allow such planes to come into US airspace - homebuilts are inspected and certified by the FAA/CAA, but these planes are not. Two, resale is an issue. And three, it's a one-way trip. It's next to impossible to recertify such a plane since, in effect, you have to re-prove that every single nut and bolt meets certified standards.

While I like the idea of TOPCAT, for me the list of approved repair items is still too short. It's more a problem of FAA bureaucracy. For example, Rick Hestilow had a very hard time getting valve cover gasket replacement added as an approved task. The FAA types didn't like the idea of non-mechanics opening up the engine. Rick argued that if the gasket repair was faulty, then the engine would leak oil. However, exhaust gaskets (which they had already approved), if done wrong would leak fire! They grudgingly agreed and added the item to the list.

And that's the problem - they approve specific tasks, rather than defining abilities. It's like the current list of Owner Approved Maintenance. One can change a tire or spark plugs, but is not allowed to change an air filter. Never mind that one has demonstrated the ability to change the filter by virtue of changing tires and plugs. Doesn't matter - air filter is not on the list, therefore it's not allowed.

The TOPCAT program has a list of tasks that require some good abilities, abilities that can easily translate to other parts of the airplane. But since those other tasks don't appear in the list, they can't be done. Too shortsighted and limited in my view.

Carl and Kirk,
Thanks for the clarification, I understand now. I knew the Canadian system opened up a can of worms and made it difficult to return the aircraft to its original airworthiness certification and I assumed a similar problem with TOPCAT. I wonder how your average IA would look at a primary category aircraft come time for annual. Several I know don't want anything to do with experimentals so I wonder how many would shy away from something that's had a lot of maintenance accomplished on it by a minimally trained mechanic.

I don't mind inspecting experimentals as long as the airframe construction is with materials and methods I'm familiar with. I need to be familiar with the engines and props, too. I'm getting more familiar with the Rotax's more and more every day.

When we look at an aircraft, we're (IAs) making sure the aircraft and all attached components conform to the type design, and that it is PRESENTLY in an airworthy condition. A minimally trained, non certificated mechanic (owner) has more to lose by doing things wrong than a lot of the supposedly maximally trained, certificated mechanics. The owners may have minimal training, but they're not out there overhauling the engines or replacing the wing spar. They're doing simple (or relatively simple) things. I've never put a mag on wrong that ran right. Starters and alternators are even more fool proof. Get the wiring messed up and it won't work correctly. I'd like to see owners be allowed to do more maintenance. Just like us mechanics, they should do it the first time under supervision, then they own the skill.

That said, we all know tinkerers who have no business tinkering. That would be the only drawback. Kinda like one guy messing it up for everyone.

Different mechanics have different comfort levels with what they'll do and/or sign off. Ask one to go outside that comfort zone and you're asking for trouble.

My two and a half cents...

I just received a lenghty email from Rick and I thought some people here might be interested. The attatchment he mentions is the same 28 items listed in this thread already.

Eric,

Thanks for your email. Please allow me to tell you a short story. Several months ago the hangar that I used at Hicks Airfield was sold, and the new owner and I couldn?t work out a good agreement for TOPCAT School?s continued use of the facility. At about the same time Tarrant County College (TCC) asked me to work on a National Science Foundation (NSF) project that they were the lead college on. TCC is the community college that serves Fort Worth, Texas and the surrounding area. TCC has an A&P program that is 36 years old and is, according to the FAA, the highest rated A&P program in the state. The NSF project was to be known as the National Center for Aircraft Technician Training (NCATT). It was a great opportunity and I agreed to work on the project. I became the project?s ?Business Liaison?, the project?s ?Grant Writer? and ?Coordinator of Special Projects, Aeronautical Technology Department?. The proposal that I submitted to NSF was selected and funded by the NSF. I then became, and am, the ?National Director of Accreditation and Certification? for NCATT. As you might suspect, I?ve been busy. If you?re interested take a look at the NCATT website at www.ncatt.org [ncatt.org], it?s a continuing work in progress.

Back to what both of us are interested in, TOPCAT School. I?ve never abandon the project. Having had a long association with TCC (from 1980 to the present) I suspected that I might be able to work out an agreement with TCC through which the TOPCAT School Program could come back into existence. I'm in the process of developing that partnership agreement now. When the details are worked out I'll be able to use the classrooms, laboratory and equipment (training aids) that we use in the college?s A&P program. It will be the same equipment that we train A&P mechanics on. It will make the TOPCAT School program a lot better, and we won't have to worry about breaking "real" airplanes in the training process. It also means that owners won?t have to fly their airplanes from all over the country. It also means that the program should cost several hundred dollars less. The down side is it will cover only the owner training. The owner will still have to contact their local FAA office to convert their airplane to the ?Primary Category?, but with the training completed, ?Certificate of Competency? issued and signed-off, and the STC and instructions from the Fort Worth FAA FSDO to the owner?s FAA FSDO providing instructions on that process in hand, the owner will be in good shape.



I?ll keep you informed. I?ve also received FAA approval for several more items to be included in the list of ?preventive maintenance? items that are a part of the TOPCAT School STC for C-150/152 aircraft. I?ve attached the new items to this email.



Thanks again, and I?ll let you know when the partnership is completed, and classes are offered.



Rick