Experimental?

[rsrguy3]

It's not likely anybody that's a thinking individual would disagree with you in terms of the idiots that are out there and the stupid things that they do. I'm not calling for the wild west here. I just think we should standardized safety inspections, if the airplane doesn't pass it it doesn't fly. I believe if we have less restrictions with competent individuals like you doing the inspecting we can can have a safer more diverse Fleet and a thriving GA industry. There will always be incompetent stupid people out there that try and cheat the system. Aviation is the exception, its one of the safest mechanized Industries out there and I have to believe its because of the prevailing level of operator competence not over regulation. Sounds to me like you're a practical guy, I wish we had more like you at FISDO's and in government. Zero fatalities isn't a realistic goal, we can police ourselves provided we have a logical common sense framework that isn't corrupted by outside special interest. Cost here is the main factor the regs have pushed prices into the stratosphere 250+ K? For a super cub that's leaps and bounds better than it was when it was certified and built in Lockhaven? Don't you think it's gone just a lot to far?

[dgapilot]

Thanks for the compliments! Yes, I try to be practical and have tried to help guys out of a hole more than once. The FAA inspectors know and see very little anymore, they are saddled with filling in boxes on their computer screens. Truth be told, regulation doesn't really add that much to producing an already proven design. The labor to build an aircraft is the biggest issue along with product liability. Low volume production is expensive. Consider just recovering a Cub or Pacer. In today's world, a shop would have to charge over 30k just to break even. The last shop I ran, about 15 years ago, my product liability insurance premium was over 75k. You have to sell a lot of labor to cover that. Now, for all the A&P, IA, DAR, and DER work I do, I'm hanging out for liability otherwise I would have to charge 3 to 5 times what I do just to cover liability insurance. The only thing I can say is I try and do the best I can so it would be unlikely to get tied up in litigation. Hope I never have to face that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dgapilot]

Mark,
You have done enough changes/mods/work that you might want to put it in Experimental Amateur Homebuilt.

I don't think it would qualify. Work done on certified parts don't count towards the 51%. He could go Experimental Exhibition though. Since it was "previously certified" part 43 would still apply so he would still need 8110-3 engineering approvals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CamTom12]

Dga, here's a question I have:

Previously certified parts mean parts that have flown on a certified aircraft, correct?

If you just were to buy new cub ribs and spars (from Dakota or somewhere) and build your own wings, would that assembly count towards the fabrication/assembly box checks?

[andya]

Is Experimental Exhibition require a letter every year as to where you plan to operate the aircraft. My friend had a British Bulldog and I thought he had to
file that letter every year and get approval. I was guessing his was Experimental Exhibition.

[Rick-CAS]

You are required to file a Program Letter with the local FSDO each year for flights outside the operating area listed in the operating limitations. Most were around 100 miles from the home airport. The FAA did not need to approve them just be notified. The current limitations today seem to be very liberal in distance from the home airport. I know two aircraft with 500 mile limitations. They can go just about anywhere they want with out needing to file a program letter since it's in the operating area. If they decide to go farther than the 500 mile limit they email a notice of the destination and dates they are going to and from.

[dgapilot]

Dga, here's a question I have:

Previously certified parts mean parts that have flown on a certified aircraft, correct?

If you just were to buy new cub ribs and spars (from Dakota or somewhere) and build your own wings, would that assembly count towards the fabrication/assembly box checks?

That would be correct, major assemblies that were installed on certified aircraft don't count. If you take piece parts, you can't take credit for fabricating them, but you can take assembly credit for adding them to your assembly. The guidance is silent on the use of PMA parts, so I would evaluate them the same. Remember, it is task based, so if you build one rib and use PMA ribs for all the rest, you pretty much get credit for "building ribs".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dgapilot]

Is Experimental Exhibition require a letter every year as to where you plan to operate the aircraft. My friend had a British Bulldog and I thought he had to
file that letter every year and get approval. I was guessing his was Experimental Exhibition.

It depends on when the op limits were issued. FAA has changed the requirement over the years. For about the last 10 years Exhibition op limits have had the requirement to submit a program letter each year. That said, there is no "requirement" for FAA to approve said program letter. In fact there is no guidance for what an inspector does with the program letter!

Just keep in mind that the regulations say Experimental aircraft can't be used for purposes other than what they were certificates for. In the case of Exhibition, that is proficiency flights and exhibiting them. Your program letter should state that the aircraft will be exhibited at some place during the year. Doesn't matter where, could be an Airshows or a pancake breakfast. Just because you put it on the program letter doesn't mean you have to go. Just make sure you meet the purpose requirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dgapilot]

You are required to file a Program Letter with the local FSDO each year for flights outside the operating area listed in the operating limitations. Most were around 100 miles from the home airport. The FAA did not need to approve them just be notified. The current limitations today seem to be very liberal in distance from the home airport. I know two aircraft with 500 mile limitations. They can go just about anywhere they want with out needing to file a program letter since it's in the operating area. If they decide to go farther than the 500 mile limit they email a notice of the destination and dates they are going to and from.

Again, this is a holdover from old guidance. Op limits issued today have no geographic boundaries other than a phase 1 test area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andya]

Seems like the FAA person he worked with wanted specific locations he might visit. He got tired of the hassle and sold the airplane