CattoProps
Registered User
Yes, if the P20/22 only has two seats it should fall into the simple aircraft category.
The TCDS states "Number of Seats 3 (One at +6 and two at +34)Only one person permitted in rear seat when operating in Utility Category"actually... the PA-12 has ONLY TWO seats... the back seat, just happens to be able to accommodate 2 passengers with using ONLY the ONE lap belt....
I bet that will fly...
If the plane were placarded "Utility Category only" or "only one person may occupy rear seat" said:I don't believe there is a utility category anymore in the rewrite. Not sure how that plays with airplanes that are already certificated under old regs.
I'm pretty disappointed about how this looks like it's going to shake out. Once again I'm left out high and dry when it comes to my PA-14....
Bummer but look on the bright side, there will be a plethora of used black props for sale when legal Cato's comes to market. Oh and by the way did I mention that mines in perfect condition especially compared to that gravel buster of Pierce's, but if that won't work well I've got a gray one as well.I don't believe there is a utility category anymore in the rewrite. Not sure how that plays with airplanes that are already certificated under old regs.
I'm pretty disappointed about how this looks like it's going to shake out. Once again I'm left out high and dry when it comes to my PA-14....
Seems to me there is a shortage of Sensnich and McCulley stickers out there
Because fraud is always such a good approach to regulation...Seems to me there is a shortage of Sensnich and McCulley stickers out there
So from reading this , I think we got a skunk in the nest, FAA lurking in the dark. In the name of "SAFETY" its ok on a experimental but OMG you cant put that on a certified real one. When it comes to logic they FAA is in the toilet.
JOHN PERRY
I am not advocating putting experimental parts on certified planes. Let's look at how many of these are out there . What better testing ground is there. Instead of just saying not airworthy. Let's see the failure rate or what issues . If any. Heck hook up a dynavibe and go fly . Look at the harmonics. Don't crush something good. Something that is working. If your gonna say it's not airworthy on certified how can it be airworthy on experimental.
I am not advocating putting experimental parts on certified planes. Let's look at how many of these are out there . What better testing ground is there. Instead of just saying not airworthy. Let's see the failure rate or what issues . If any. Heck hook up a dynavibe and go fly . Look at the harmonics. Don't crush something good. Something that is working. If your gonna say it's not airworthy on certified how can it be airworthy on experimental.
I hope they finally succeed. They've been after it for a long time. About 4-1/2 years ago I asked Craig his thoughts about getting a pre-cert. prop approved after the fact and he wasn't very optimistic.Craig Catto estimated certification in 4th quarter 2017 this last summer... Just got a note from Nicole, she said they are still chipping away and looking to be certified by late spring 2018.
A question?? I have a Catto that is sitting on the shelf...Craig said it is identical to the upcoming certified prop...field approval?? I guess it's a FSDO question but I would think.... but since it wasn't built with FAA oversight ....but if they won't approve a identical prop then field approvals are likely a thing of the past.
anyways, just a update.
Steve
Normal time for an STC is 2 years from application to issuance. Normal time for a TC and PC is about 5 years. Since they need to get TC & PC, then STC, I would think somewhere between 4 & 7 years is not out of the question. The wheels of progress (and the FAA) go slow!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk