Aircraft values

[dlegg]

If I were to build two identical planes and register 1 RAA 19-xxxx and the other VH- experimental, which plane would have a better resale value?

 

 

[Geoff_H]

I am also interested.  My project can be registered in either category.  I would like to know from an ownership point of view as to running costs and bureaucratic aspects.  What about building costs of the same Aircraft.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Assume everything is going to be built to the same standard. 

 

The costs of building are the same. 

 

 The costs differences arise from admin and bureaucratic costs. 

 

With GA experimental there are some initial aircraft registration costs  but then no ongoing costs for it after that. There are yearly aircraft registration costs in RAA. 

 

Assuming you are starting with a zero clean slate on the licence side. It’s a lot more to get an RPL or PPL but once you have it there’s no yearly ongoing costs. 

 

If you get an RAA certificate you have to pay less to train to get it but you have to join RAA and pay continued yearly fees. 

 

The preferred pathway to GA experimental is to join the SAAA and also do their courses to maintain privileges to do your maintenance. But unlike RAA it’s not mandatory.

 

 but doing the required Maintenance procedures courses may be more expensive or impossible if you don’t.  so there are some ongoing yearly costs. 

 

As for for resale value I’m not sure since it could be registered in either you could cross sell it to someone in the other category who could reregister it.  

 

My experience is that if it’s maintained by a LAME (as in a GA LAME) the asking price seems to always be higher.  Whether the asking price is what people got for it is another thing. 

 

 

[Downunder]

A very good thread.

 

I wonder if you need to keep SAAA membership to do ongoing ga exp maintenance?

 

I'm thinking about moving from RAA pilot cert to RPL. 

 

I don't actually want to fly much differently (2 seater, no cta, etc) but would like a extra 100 kg or two, giving another 20 or 30 kts and more fuel/range.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Nope. You 

 

A very good thread.I wonder if you need to keep SAAA membership to do ongoing ga exp maintenance?

 

I'm thinking about moving from RAA pilot cert to RPL. 

 

I don't actually want to fly much differently (2 seater, no cta, etc) but would like a extra 100 kg or two, giving another 20 or 30 kts and more fuel/range.

Nope not at all. 

But remember you have to build it first. Unlike RAAus you can’t buy one already made and do maintenance. so its quite a time down the track. 

 

In fact you never need  to be an SAAA member at all strictly to start doing your maintenance. You need to build it and have your authorized person who does your C of A endorse  it. Then you need to do a maintenance procedures course. (MPC)

 

I know that the SAAA MPC has been available to non members in the past. Just at higher cost than to members.

 

LAMEs have to do a similar course and can do the SAAA MPC to satisfy their requirement. I know at one time SAAA were doing it for LAMEs who were not also SAAA members. I assume that continues but could be wrong. That’s why I said might be impossible - was just covering a position I don’t about for sure. You can contact the SAAA on line and ask them. If all has continued as it was when I last checked you can do an MPC as a non member just costs more. 

 

Strictly the wording of the rules is that doing  an MPC lasts 2 years and you are supposed to do a refresher every 2 years but I have followed this up several times for setting up courses for our SAAA chapter  members and this is not what they do in practice. For now CASA allow one course to carry on past two years. That could change at any minute though. I’ve done several courses now and haven’t bothered to continue repeating the same course over and over.

 

The weight and balance module in it is treated separately though and does have to be redone every two years but since you may never do another W &  B on your aircraft after the first you could just do one and then never do another. 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

[peter]

I think you will also find it is easier to transfer GA to RAAus than the other way around.

 

In theory the training costs from scratch to RPL should not be much different than to RPC. The only actual extra requirement is instrument time and some of that can be done on a simulator.

 

If you find a school that does both then you can end up with both quite easily.

 

 

[Nobody]

It would also depend a bit on the aircraft. For instance a Pitts special might meet the RAAus weight limit but if registered with RAAus the aerobatic restrictions means it isn't really that useful. The value if registered GA would be higher. 

 

Something like a savannah with only Day VFR instruments can do everything in RAAus it can do in GA but RAAus has the advantage in that owners who buy an aircraft can do their own maintenance. The value under RAAus should be higher...

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I would pay a bit more for GA register because it gives more confidence that maintenance has been done to a standard. And could always re-reg as RAA, whereas going the other way may not be possible if lack of maintenance records.

 

 

[old man emu]

I would pay a bit more for GA register because it gives more confidence that maintenance has been done to a standard. And could always re-reg as RAA, whereas going the other way may not be possible if lack of maintenance records.

In either category, I would be looking at the maintenance records very carefully. The better the records, the more dough I would be prepared to part with, alternatively, the poorer the records, the more I would knock down the price.

 

 

[peter]

If the aircraft is owner maintained, given the MPC from SAAA and the online course from RAAus, then the maintenance log may be beautifully kept with extensive notes all of which are meaningless because it tells you nothing of the mechanical competence of the author simply that he knows what to write where and what numbers to put next to his/her signature.

 

 I learnt nothing about the actual maintenance when I did my course.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

If the aircraft is owner maintained, given the MPC from SAAA and the online course from RAAus, then the maintenance log may be beautifully kept with extensive notes all of which are meaningless because it tells you nothing of the mechanical competence of the author simply that he knows what to write where and what numbers to put next to his/her signature. I learnt nothing about the actual maintenance when I did my course.

From my experience that could apply to many LAME out there, except the writing may not be as neat

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Yeah. This is the major failing of bureaucracies everywhere they seem to think that good notes equals good job done. 

 

Ive seen a number of completely incompetent people whose work and skills have been questioned because of poor outcomes but the investigating bodies have exonerated them because of meticulous notes that made everything seem rosy.  

 

 

[derekliston]

As a retired LAME I can agree with all of the above. I’ve seen some appallingly maintained or repaired machines which are accepted because the paperwork is perfect and CASA inspectors aren’t allowed (apparently) to pull off panels. Also, even as LAME I had to do the SAAA MPC to maintain my own aeroplane and as stated above the MPC doesn’t really cover maintenance. My impression was that it mainly covers corrosion which, let’s face it, isn’t going to be a problem for home builders for a while.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

As a retired LAME I can agree with all of the above. I’ve seen some appallingly maintained or repaired machines which are accepted because the paperwork is perfect and CASA inspectors aren’t allowed (apparently) to pull off panels. Also, even as LAME I had to do the SAAA MPC to maintain my own aeroplane and as stated above the MPC doesn’t really cover maintenance. My impression was that it mainly covers corrosion which, let’s face it, isn’t going to be a problem for home builders for a while.

The curriculum for the MPC isn’t really  about anything practical and from what I’ve heard the practical titbits that do get thrown in are presenter dependant and generally depends on what the presenter has seen in their own area of interest. I’ve done two complete courses and never had a word about corrosion in either. But then again at both the courses pretty much all the participants owned composite aircraft and the presenters were aware of it. 

 

 

[derekliston]

Interesting. Where were your courses run? I suspect that most on our course were composite also, apart from my CH701 and a Brumby.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Interesting. Where were your courses run? I suspect that most on our course were composite also, apart from my CH701 and a Brumby.

Both in Cairns. 

Both organized by our SAAA chapter (by me) with SAAA ( with normal lecturers who teach the course) to come up to put courses on for us. About 20 participants each time. 

 

 

[derekliston]

Sounds like it just might have been more relevant than the Brisbane one that I attended. I seriously believe it was a waste of time. Having said that, as I previously stated, I was a LAME, possibly non-aeronautical people may have felt differently.

 

 

[alf jessup]

My take on it is it’s value is governed by what someone is will to pay for it