I am wondering about “re-certification” of old (“golden era”) certified aircraft whose production is resumed in 2014. I never really understood that. On the one hand, there is the famous story about Cessna having been required to go through extensive FAA re-certification of their single engine piston line before they resumed production in 1996. On the other hand, at last month’s Aero, Partenavia popped up and presented the “already certified” V1.0, which is merely a resurrection of the old P66.
What is the situation there? I think there are a couple of people here who are more involved in certification matters.
The reason I ask is this. Can they really just restart production tomorrow and sell them as certified aircraft? If they can, the -400 might be a winner. since they don’t have the burden of the initial certification cost, they might be able to sell these for say 1 million $, little more than an SR22…
The other question is whether many people would be interested in an aircraft that has been certified 45 years ago and that hasn’t gone through any innovation process since then…
[sorry for the typo in the thread title]
As the type certificate holder, you cold re-start production exactly in accordance with the design of the initial certification.
However, I think such aircraft would feature severe obsolescence issues, requiring certification of many MODs. That can be a serious cost driver.
Then, depending on how “significant” the changes are (per EASA/FAA criteria – typically MODs that strongly affect structural capabilities or performance), the OEM may be required to re-certify per the latest standards (i.e. the certification requirements valid at the date of the new application). The certification basis of the aircraft is then re-visited and updated to the latest standard, which means some old stuff cannot be re-certified anymore.
To conclude: it can be done if only small modifications are required (but obsolescence will cost money anyway). And no major performance improvement, otherwise the certification basis may be redefined.
It’d be interesting to understand the regulatory ‘process’ under which a determination of non-compliance to the existing TC is made based on intended updates to the aircraft configuration. I bet its not entirely non-political 
Its interesting to note that under multiple FAA STCs almost anything can be changed and the aircraft remains on the existing TC – for instance on a Globe/Temco Swift where existing aircraft are re-engined, get major control mods, a new wing section, new canopy, new systems etc etc under multiple combined STCs.
I just watched a video made by Vulcanair in relation to the V1.0/P.66 and it seems to me they may be on to something. The design was originally a kind of lightweight Italian version of the C172, but much bigger than a C150, produced in the volume required by the Italian national aero clubs of the 60’s. I think that requirement matches the current need for a certified trainer that’s tougher built than the Light Sport aircraft… if they can actually make the V1.0 at low enough cost. Thanks for mentioning that Vulcanair program – very interesting.
PS Not to overlook the Meyers… The 400 is not the first of them to attract this kind of attention. The Meyers 145 was relaunched as the Micco SP 20 and did not succeed in avoiding a new type certificate: Link
I don’t know anything about the Meyers 400 but the 300 (the reciprocating engine version) has a good reputation (no airframe ADs) but was supposedly expensive to build.
I think that requirement matches the current need for a certified trainer that’s tougher built than the Light Sport aircraft.
Well, airline pilots that actually have to learn how to land an aircraft is not necessarily a bad thing. A C-172 is extremely forgiving. The quality of airline pilots regarding landing their machines has not exactly increased during the last 20 years.
I am also curious of how this certification process actually work. I would think that an aircraft cannot be “un-certified” even though it was certified according to old regulations half a century ago. I would also think that the technical aircraft part is a small part. Sub suppliers and trace-ability of materials and manufacturing processes must be a much larger headache when the production has stopped for some decades? You cannot adopt old regulations on those things. If you already have up to date running production facilities and you do most production in-house from stock material, then I don’t see what the problems should be in relation to starting up producing an old certified aircraft. If, on the other hand, the production is/was based heavily on sub suppliers and contractors that don’t exist anymore, I see a wall of problems.
Well, airline pilots that actually have to learn how to land an aircraft is not necessarily a bad thing. A C-172 is extremely forgiving. The quality of airline pilots regarding landing their machines has not exactly increased during the last 20 years.
They don’t need a c172 to learn this. MPL is mostly simulator.
…apologies for thread drift, but the well built Meyers reminds me of this iconic aircraft…
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=spartan+executive&facrc=&imgrc=HaqTzbqhEnEntM%253A%3Bundefined%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.forbesimg.com%252Fimages%252F2001%252F01%252F19%252Fvow_ext2377×259.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F"www.forbes.com%252F2001%252F01%252F19%252F0122vow.html%3B377%3B259":http://www.forbes.com%252F2001%252F01%252F19%252F0122vow.html%3B377%3B259
If you decide you can’t live without a Meyers 
there are a couple of 200s for sale on the owners group website…Link
In relation to cost of restarting production of an existing type – as the story goes, that’s the reason Rockwell developed the 112/114 Commander. They bought the Meyers 200 design, built about 100 of them, but it was costing too much to re-tool for the volumes they were interested in. So they designed a new plane instead.
…the link I tried was for the hand built Spartan Executive, hopefully this link is better…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spartan_Executive_Old_Warden_7_Oct_2013_1.jpg
They don’t need a c172 to learn this. MPL is mostly simulator.
I’m not sure what MPL is, but surely airline pilots also have learned to fly in something else than simulators. Anyway, what I meant was you don’t really learn to land in a C-172. It is too forgiving and robust.
