• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

NX**** Registration Numbers

gdafoe

gdafoe

FRIEND
Castle Well Airpark SE of Wickenburg AZ
I need to get an N and start the registration process on my Smith Cub. Was going to get an NX number. Some months ago maybe a year, I looked into this and some said that FAA no longer allowed NX, NC, etc numbers. Then I found on the FAA site where you could use them. I looked up a few that I liked and they were available, I did not reserve any at that time. Now the only place on the FAA site I can find won't seem to let me do and NX prefix. Does anybody know the REAL story on this? Can you point me to the correct FAA page that works for the NX registration numbers? SEC 45:22 Seems to allow it. Thanks,
 
Real simple. Just reserve a regular N number but put NX on the tail. You don't have to put that stupid experimental sticker in the cockpit, just the passenger warning sticker.
 
Snert said:
Real simple. Just reserve a regular N number but put NX on the tail. You don't have to put that stupid experimental sticker in the cockpit, just the passenger warning sticker.
Click to expand...

That's how Charlie Aileron did it on the Crimson Cub.

Eric
 
I put the nx number on my smith cub as well... you do all the paper work leaving the x out. There is an advisory circular describing how it all works. I sure like it as apposed to the EXPERIMENTAL sticker in the cockpit. Joe
 
Great, yes now I'm remembering how that works. I was thinking that there was a somewhat obtuse method to get this done.
 
So, if you have an already registered experimental can you repaint with the 'NX' and get rid of the interior 'experimental'?

Steve G
 
Bipe.... not sure, but I bet with minimal paperwork it can be done... but this rule only applies to an aircraft that is a replica of a certified aircraft, 30 years or older. Joe
 
gdafoe said:
I need to get an N and start the registration process on my Smith Cub. Was going to get an NX number....Does anybody know the REAL story on this?
Click to expand...

Yep, FAR 45.22 is what you're looking for. This regulation allows you to use the "X" (for experimental aircraft) or the "C" (for standard category aircraft) if the aircraft is either a small US civil aircraft built at least 30 years ago, or an experimental aircraft that is a replica of a small US civil aircraft built at least 30 years ago.

Remember that you do not request an "NX" number. Your registration number on the paperwork will just be Nxxxx. The X (or C) is only used to mark the aircraft. It will not appear on the registration or airworthiness certificate.

So if you have a standard category Cub (or any other aircraft) that's at least 30 years old you could use the "NC" when you paint the N number on it (but most people only use this on the aircraft that originally displayed "NC" when they were new). If you have a Cub replica (Smith, Wag Aero, etc.) you can use "NX" when you mark the N number on the aircraft.
 
Remember that you do not request an "NX" number. Your registration number on the paperwork will just be Nxxxx.

So, Joe...

I have to request a number with N and four X's? :crazyeyes: :eek: :lol:

John Scott
 
This is an old one, but it is time to put numbers on my Smith.
Even thou it is registered in the US, I plan to fly in Canada, so I will need 12" registration numbers,right?
Thanks,
PR
 
As you know, we in Canada have an "owner maintenance" category.
I want into that.

How do I change from "cert." to "owner maint."?

I understand that the FAA is pressuring Canada to end that option.
Maybe I gottt'a be quick. :)
 
NimpoCub said:
"owner maintenance"....I understand that the FAA is pressuring Canada to end that option.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that? I don't know why the FAA would care a damn about whether Canada has an owner maintenance category or not. I haven't heard word one on the subject from any FAA people I have contact with.
 
Mitch, thanx. Will look around there.

Jnorris, I heard (from a real knowledgeable guy) that heard it from a friend of an in-law of a neighbor that there was some concern that there will be pressure to create a like category in the States, which scares the FAA. Canada usually "does what it's told".

Rumor - maybe - but it sounds possible.
 
Nimpo,

I think that is what got misinterpreted. I believe the EAA is attempting to influence the FAA to get some type of "Owner Maintenance" category here in the good ol US. I may be all wrong on this also. Joe Norris may have the right answer.
I wish the FAA would wake up and allow it for these older, simple planes. It is getting harder and harder to find "authorized" people to work on them. And just because they are an IA/AP doesn't mean they know the little idiosyncrasies of these old planes. So many FOB's are geared towards the turbine and high dollar singles. These old planes are basic mechanical machines.....doesn't take a rocket scientist to work on them.

Keith
 
WWhunter said:
...just because they are an IA/AP doesn't mean they know the little idiosyncrasies of these old planes. .....doesn't take a rocket scientist to work on them...
Click to expand...

Agreed, but just because someone is a pilot or owner doesn't either. I have seen folks come in that are intimately familiar with their aircraft, and can do the job right. Then there are the folks on the other end of the Bell curve that think scat is something you look for when you are hunting, paperwork is too big a nuisance to bother with, and why wait for overpriced hardware when there's a Home Depot just down the street?

Many would safely benefit from such a category. We/GA would have to come up with safeguards that would convince the FAA that Joe Pilot would not likely make a simple and basic mistake causing his 172 to create a smoking hole. To be a pilot you have to go to school, test, and show proficiency. Mechanics do the same, for the same good reason. Safety. Even after certification, a mechanic cannot perform any task unless he has previously performed it under supervision.

Maybe an abbreviated maintainer's school (cut out the big jet stuff). No for profit work, no authority to return to service after major repairs as defined in part 43. No complex systems, turbines or aircraft used for hire. No appliance or CS prop repairs. And an airworthiness cert. that identifies any aircraft touched as having been owner maintained...
 
Greg Smith said:
WWhunter said:
Maybe an abbreviated maintainer's school (cut out the big jet stuff). No for profit work, no authority to return to service after major repairs as defined in part 43. No complex systems, turbines or aircraft used for hire. No appliance or CS prop repairs. And an airworthiness cert. that identifies any aircraft touched as having been owner maintained...
Click to expand...

Actually, several versions of what could be called "owner maintenance" have been proposed to the FAA over the years. In each case, the type clubs and users groups have shot down the FAA's offerings because the FAA would require that the aircraft surrender its standard airworthiness certificate in order to take advantage of "owner maintenance". It seems that we have been our own worst enemy on this issue because nobody is willing to give up their standard airworthiness certificate. We all seem to want to have our cake and eat it too.

In order to have a workable owner maintenance category in the US, there would have to be some significant changes to the FARs (especially Part 43) and the aircraft would have to surrender its standard airworthiness certificate. Until we get a majority of owners who would be willing to go along with the airworthiness change, there won't be any drive for the FAA to spend the time and energy to go through the rulemaking process to change the reg.
Click to expand...
 
OK, part of what you learn in getting your flyin' license is that flying is inherently more dangerous than walking. (for some more than others):)

To respect that fact is a qualification to stay in the gene pool if you wanna fly.

Anyone who'd buy a walmart part to fasten their wings/engine on loses their right to stay alive, we just need to worry about anyone who may be below them. Perhaps an extra chapter in the ground school book that teaches the benefits of having a pro fix your plane, with a couple references about what to be concerned about it you DIY.

"They've" been trying to legislate intelligence, safety, honesty, etc. for many years, and it just don't werk. I think people need to be responsible for themselves (with a little help from friends) and choose what they do with/to themselves.

Jeeze, did I need that extra coffee this morn?
 
Ok, I'm sure you have all thought about this from time to time. As you drive down the highway, go to auto shows, watch American Hotrod, you see vehicles that are heavily modified by the owner/ shop etc,without ...any...controls, rules, or government oversight. Not to mention all of the vehicles that are wrenched on by the owner. Now it seems to me that all of these machines whizzing along within inches of each other are much more of a threat to human safety than our general aviation fleet. Why is that?
Jim
 
Joe... get your ear a little closer up to that FAA door, they've been up here pressuring TC to stop allowing a lot of stuff! OM aircraft cannot fly into the USA, because the FAA fear they are not safe since an AME/AP is not signing them off.......yet they let our homebuilts fly in no questions asked signed off by the owners.

Logan...why in the world would you want to devalue your SC and put it in OM ? Unless you plan to keep this bird for the rest of your life... please don't do it as you can never feasibly get it re-certified and immediately lose 80% of the re-sale market. Also note that you can never go amphibs if you go OM. We could at first and have a few grandfathered that we keep here on my strip, but OM does not allow retractable gear. This also leaves out your ability to have re-positionable wheel skis on that SC if you go OM !
 
X numbers

Not in the subject but back to it how do I go about getting the process started on numbering my PA-11 Project thanks.

On the last subject
sometimes I think I am better off working on my own plane than letting some so called super approved 100bucks an hour wrench jokey work on my plane and leaving it even worse and less flight worthy than before.
there are some really bad mech outfits out there that give the good ol boy mechanics a bad name bottom line if you fly SC chances are you really know your plane in and out and when it is time to anual it is like handing your 4 year ol daughter to the doctor for shots. my 2 cents.
carry on
 
wheat said:
Ok, I'm sure you have all thought about this from time to time. As you drive down the highway, go to auto shows, watch American Hotrod, you see vehicles that are heavily modified by the owner/ shop etc,without ...any...controls, rules, or government oversight. Not to mention all of the vehicles that are wrenched on by the owner. Now it seems to me that all of these machines whizzing along within inches of each other are much more of a threat to human safety than our general aviation fleet. Why is that?
Jim
Click to expand...
Absolutely right! The problem is perception. Wreck a hot rod and kill 5 people and it wont make the news outside of the local area. Crash 1 airplane and kill just the pilot, and it is news nationwide, and causes folks to have an even dimmer if uneducated view of all of us.

NimpoCub said:
Anyone who'd buy a walmart part to fasten their wings/engine on loses their right to stay alive, we just need to worry about anyone who may be below them...
Click to expand...
True in more ways than one. If a plane takes out someone on the ground, the survivors will call their attorneys, their Congressmen, and the media. None of that will be good for GA. The headline will be "Pilot attempts to fix own plane, kills self and bystanders." If that happens enough, Congress will listen to their constituency, which has seen crying orphans on TV.

I am a pilot and an A&P. It may not sound like it, but I would be in favor of an owner maintenance program. It just has to have reasonable safeguards built in. We/GA need to lead the way in promoting safety and reasonable legislation, lest someone else do it for us.
 
irishfield said:
Logan...why in the world would you want to devalue your SC and put it in OM ?
Click to expand...

Well Irishfield, I didn't really buy this thing as an investment... well kinda... I bought it cheap because it was nearly timed out & needed recovering soon. Now I'm paying the (recovering) dues. If I'm able to fly it for another 10-15 yrs & sell it for a bit less than I paid, I'm still smilin'. I'm one of those guys with more time than money. (that doesn't mean cheap tho)

I fully realize that planes are more special than trucks, but it's just another (fun) vehicle for me. I know I can't fly/sell into the U.S. but I'm sure there are enough Canucks who'll want one some day. Sure, I'll use cert. parts and document everything I do carefully, but I have this aversion to (some kinds of) adult supervision & paying someone for common sense I already have.

Also, I'm fortunate to have neighbors around me who have lifelong airplane experience so when it's time for me to complete the "annual checklist" there will be good advice to be had @ happy hour or on the dock. Out here there are lots of very professional services to be had in exchange for yours, folks are happy to help each other. It's quite different than anything I've ever experienced, it's refreshing & heartwarming. But I digress...

I also agree with some kind of mandatory training to allow ownership of an OM plane. That would take some pressure off the (poor) insurance companies & the FAA/TC too. I advocate self preservation!! :)

...Charles Darwin fan
 
irishfield said:
Joe... get your ear a little closer up to that FAA door, they've been up here pressuring TC to stop allowing a lot of stuff!
Click to expand...

My ear is about as "close to the door" as anyone who doesn't work for the FAA can be, to the point that I was in the same room with the deputy administrator just last week, where many vintage and homebuilt issues were discussed. Canadian Owner Maintenance was not among those issues discussed.

The fact is, Transport Canada would like to see the FAA adopt some similar category in the US so that there would be a way for Canadian OM aircraft to fly in the US. This is the basic stumbling block. Unlike amateur-built category, where the US and Canada have VERY similar rules in place making it easy to have cross-border arrangement between the two countries. Not so with OM. The US does not have any category that is anywhere near similar to Canadian OM, so there's no basis for which to allow cross-border operations. (Remember, this is "FAA-think", not my personal opinion.) If the US were ever to adopt some form of OM I think you'd see a cross-border agreement in short order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Garmin GDL 82 ADS-B Problem I can't explain
Replies
20
Views
4K
hotrod180
hotrod180
mike mcs repair
final rule 3 year FAA Requires Aircraft Registration Renewal
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
Marty57
Marty57
skukum12
Registration archive search
Replies
5
Views
3K
skukum12
skukum12
W
Paperwork
Replies
4
Views
3K
Dave Prizio
D
S
Cub(L21) Research
2
Replies
33
Views
15K
North Hatley
N
Back
Top