Airworthiness Certificate of New Aircraft

April 20, 2005 Federal Aviation Administration Dan Hayworth AIR-200 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington DC 20591 Reference: Docket FAA-2003-14825 Mr. Hayworth: EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an international membership of 170,000, EAA brings together aviation enthusiasts, pilots, and aircraft owners who are dedicated to the continued growth of aviation, dedicated to the preservation of its history, and committed to aviation's future. EAA programs, safety initiatives, activities, and events are known throughout the world for supporting aviation safety and promoting personal enjoyment and responsibility within an aviation lifestyle. EAA does not have any objections to the specific changes to 14 CFR 21 and 91 in the proposed rulemaking. However, EAA is opposing key statements made within the preamble of the proposed rulemaking. In the preamble the FAA specifically states that: "Used aircraft do not include aircraft that have been classified as destroyed or demolished by the National Transportation Safety Board. Additionally, the term {used aircraft} does not include an aircraft damaged to the extent that it would be impracticable or unsafe to return it to an airworthy condition. Such aircraft would be classified as destroyed." This statement could effectively preclude the current and long-standing practice among the antique and vintage aircraft community of "restoring" historic aircraft back to their original state. The FAA has provided no data whatsoever to indicate a safety concern over the activity of aircraft restoration. EAA asks the FAA to remove, in its entirety, the statement that an aircraft classified as destroyed or demolished cannot be considered as a "used" aircraft. The FAA, through preamble language, is effectively attempting to outlaw a longstanding and safe practice of restoring antique and classic and contemporary aircraft. Such proposed action should only be done through rulemaking and with the full review for its economic or safety effects. In addition, the statement relates to used aircraft not the certification of new aircraft, which is the stated purpose of this rulemaking proposal. Additionally, the FAA has not provided any indication of how the NTSB, the FAA or anyone else makes the determination that an aircraft is destroyed or demolished. For example, in the past there have been aircraft listed on preliminary NTSB and FAA reports as "destroyed" in hurricanes. The damage may have been limited to the wings and tail surfaces, and the aircraft "totaled" by the insurance company. After an assessment was made concerning the state of the aircraft, it was deemed repairable and the aircraft in question were flying safely within weeks after the event by replacing the affected sections of the aircraft. There are many examples of this type; what may be deemed totaled or destroyed by one entity is seen as repairable by others willing to put the time and effort into their restoration. Just because it may not make economic sense to restore an aircraft does not mean the aircraft should be declared "destroyed." EAA contacted the NTSB and they verified there isn't a NTSB definition at all for destroyed aircraft. Even though they officially classify damage as either NONE, MINOR, SUBSTANTIAL, or DESTROYED they only have a definition for substantial. The NTSB also stated that they are currently considering eliminating the term "destroyed" and only use "substantial damage" in its place. The FAA should not attempt to prevent the restoration of aircraft and the FAA has not provided any data, safety or otherwise, to indicate the restoration of used aircraft should not be included as part of the certification of a "used" aircraft. We thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, - Original Signed - Earl Lawrence Vice President Industry and Regulatory Affairs - Original Signed - Henry G. Frautschy Executive Director, EAA's Vint…