Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!bob
From: bob@decvax.UUCP (Robert Bismuth)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Primary aircraft proposal.
Message-ID: <4@decvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 00:29:01 EST
Article-I.D.: decvax.4
Posted: Sun Dec  2 00:29:01 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 05:34:00 EST
Lines: 52

<---- This line may be mangled ! ---->


A month or so ago the AOPA and EAA published their joint proposal for a new
aircraft category: primary aircraft. For those unfamiliar with this, they
are proposing a classification of aircraft which are fixed gear, maximum 4
seats, single engine, less than 200 hp and which may not be used for hire
or compensation. In other words, a personal, RV aircraft.

In addition, their proposal calls for simplified certification procedures,
a wider class of owner/pilot maintenance and the ability for aircraft already
possessing an existing type certificate to transfer, if desired, to the new
certification type.

If accepted by the FAA, it is hoped that this will stimulate general aviation
manufacturers to produce some new more modern aircraft. There is also a
provision to allow the production of more complete "kit" aircraft to 
augment the current Experimental Type.

The FAA have now posted the proposal and requested comments from the aviation
industry in general. In a recent letter from the EAA, it has been revealed 
that the FAA has received NO comments. There is only a 60 to 90 day window
for comments.

This proposal is important. The cost of aircraft is rising at the moment.
Primary aircraft would go far to turn this trend. We are at a point where
GAMA members are approaching a Catch-22 situation: each aircraft sold today
must pay for a manufacturer's liability insurance. That insurance covers
EVERY PLANE THEY HAVE EVER MADE THAT IS STILL FLYING !!

Just think of how many 150s and 172s are being insured each time a new 172
is sold. No wonder the new craft is so expensive. The catch is that the 
expense is narrowing the market, which reduces the number sold, which 
increases the liability cost per new plane, which increases the price, ...

Providing newer, more modern aircraft which use cheaper to build composite
methods is one way of breaking this doomsday-situation.

Also, those who already own craft meeting the primary specification would have
the option of reclassification. This means a reduction in maintenance costs
since the amount of owner/pilot maintenance allowed would be greatly 
increased. In fact, if I have read it correctly, owner/pilots would be able
to almost carry out the annual.

It is important that the FAA hear from us all, both positive and negative
comments. I'd like to encourage people to read the proposal (available from
the FAA, or back issues of Sport Avaition or AOPA Pilot) and send their
comments to the feds. The docket number for the petition is 23345 and it
will shortly appear in the Federal Register. Local GADOs should be able to
help with the address for responses.

                                 Bob