Converting a USA C of A from Standard to Experimental

[RAS56]

New forum member, glad I found this resource!

I'm in the midst of purchasing an ASW-19 that has a Standard C of A...and am mulling over (because of some of the projects/instrumentation/maintenance/etc) if it would be beneficial to convert the certificate over to Experimental.

If the conversion is possible:

1. How much of a hassle was/is it?

2. Was the conversion worth the effort or are the FAA requirements onerous?

3. How difficult would it be to put the genie back in the bottle (go back to Standard) if needed?

4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in the way of paperwork?

5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?

I tried to search this forum for the answer, but only found topics about going from Experimental to Standard. If there is a thread out there that covers "going the other way" a link to it would save typing and be much appreciated!

Thanks,

Rob S.

[JJ Sinclair]

On Dec 2, 8:57*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> New forum member, glad I found this resource!
>
> I'm in the midst of purchasing an ASW-19 that has a Standard C of
> A...and am mulling over (because of some of the
> projects/instrumentation/maintenance/etc) if it would be beneficial to
> convert the certificate over to Experimental.
>
> If the conversion is possible:
>
> 1. How much of a hassle was/is it?

It's up to your FSDO, no real problem here in
Sacramento...............I've done it twice! You will need a reason,
something like; I would like to add winglets and there is no STC to do
that, or Factory closed and parts no longer available, etc.
>
> 2. Was the conversion worth the effort or are the FAA requirements
> onerous?

Write a letter explaining your reason and requesting experimental -
exhibition & racing. If they grant your request, an inspector will
come inspect the ship and type out your new airworthiness cert. This
could be a DAR and he will charge for his services.
>
> 3. How difficult would it be to put the genie back in the bottle (go
> back to Standard) if needed?

You will need a conformity inspection by the feds or an A&P
scertifying the ship is in conformance with its type certificate. Any
mods not covered by an STC must be removed....ie, winglets, etc. Once
again, a DAR might be able to do this. By the way, DAR stands for
designated airworthiness rep.
>
> 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
> the way of paperwork?

Call the maintenance section of your local FSDO.
Good luck,
JJ

>
> 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
>
> I tried to search this forum for the answer, but only found topics about
> going from Experimental to Standard. If there is a thread out there that
> covers "going the other way" a link to it would save typing and be much
> appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob S.
>
> --
> RAS56

[jcarlyle]

Rob,

I found the process of taking my ASW-19b to an Experimental TC to be
easy.

I called the local FSO, and talked with a real gentleman in the
Airworthiness Branch. He asked me to fill out an 8130-6 form and
provide a program letter, then he came out to verify that the aircraft
existed, had a logbook, had Experimental placards, had a current
Condition Inspection, and its serial number matched the paperwork. It
took 10 minutes to complete. To me, the conversion was worth the
effort because I could legally put on winglets and a lifting
instrument panel, and inspections could now be done by an A&P without
IA.

The only "hassles" are (a) once a year you have to send a new program
letter in to your local FSDO, listing places you are going to be
exhibiting/racing, (b) if you fly it outside of the 300 nm
"proficiency area" centered on your home base you have to fax where
you're planning to fly, (c) you have to avoid flying over populated
areas, (d) you have to announce to a towered airport that you are
experimental, and (e) you can't use the ship commercially. Other than
that, you simply make proficiency flights, like with any other
glider.

Going back to Standard TC involves the same process - an 8130-6, an
annual inspection by an A&P (with IA), remove the Experimental
placards. The gotcha is that they want to be certain that it's in the
condition certified by the manufacturer. I'm sure this would be
involved, although I've never done it. Frankly, I cannot imagine why
you would ever want to - look at the hassle that the folks in Europe
are having with EASA!

-John

On Dec 2, 11:57 pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> New forum member, glad I found this resource!
>
> I'm in the midst of purchasing an ASW-19 that has a Standard C of
> A...and am mulling over (because of some of the
> projects/instrumentation/maintenance/etc) if it would be beneficial to
> convert the certificate over to Experimental.
>
> If the conversion is possible:
>
> 1. How much of a hassle was/is it?
>
> 2. Was the conversion worth the effort or are the FAA requirements
> onerous?
>
> 3. How difficult would it be to put the genie back in the bottle (go
> back to Standard) if needed?
>
> 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
> the way of paperwork?
>
> 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
>
> I tried to search this forum for the answer, but only found topics about
> going from Experimental to Standard. If there is a thread out there that
> covers "going the other way" a link to it would save typing and be much
> appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob S.

[RAS56]

Thanks guys for all the gouge! I really appreciate it!!

Looks like my first call is to the FSDO closest to me...in San Antonio...that is unless someone has dealt with the ones in D/FW or Houston and had less headaches.

Again, many thanks!

Rob S.

ps-any -19 owners done the lift up panel mod? Wondering if it is worth the hassle...

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 3, 3:18*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> Thanks guys for all the gouge! I really appreciate it!!
>
> Looks like my first call is to the FSDO closest to me...in San
> Antonio...that is unless someone has dealt with the ones in D/FW or
> Houston and had less headaches.
>
> Again, many thanks!
>
> Rob S.
>
> ps-any -19 owners done the lift up panel mod? Wondering if it is worth
> the hassle...
>
> --
> RAS56

I flew a 19b for 15 years and 1,500 hours and never had an issue with
the fixed panel and I'm over 6ft tall. Don't change it unless you
have a real reason to do so. The canopy gas strut is barely strong
enough to hold up the canopy and is a real bitch to replace. Unlike
some gliders the strut is still under compression when the canopy is
fully open and you have to make a special tool that you hope will hold
it compressed while you do the installation. Do a good job on the
tool, if it lets go it could make quite a mess.

Andy

[T[_2_]]

On Dec 2, 8:57*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> New forum member, glad I found this resource!
>
> I'm in the midst of purchasing an ASW-19 that has a Standard C of
> A...and am mulling over (because of some of the
> projects/instrumentation/maintenance/etc) if it would be beneficial to
> convert the certificate over to Experimental.
>
> If the conversion is possible:
>
> 1. How much of a hassle was/is it?
>
> 2. Was the conversion worth the effort or are the FAA requirements
> onerous?
>
> 3. How difficult would it be to put the genie back in the bottle (go
> back to Standard) if needed?
>
> 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
> the way of paperwork?
>
> 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
>
> I tried to search this forum for the answer, but only found topics about
> going from Experimental to Standard. If there is a thread out there that
> covers "going the other way" a link to it would save typing and be much
> appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob S.
>
> --
> RAS56

Be sure this is what you want to do.
An Experimental Certificate for Exhibition and Racing is what you will
get.
It will be limited to a geographic area, either by states or radius.
The "Operating Limitations" will require an annual "Program Letter" to
be sent to the local FSDO/FAA and placed in your aircraft folder.
Without the annual filing of the Program Letter, your Certificate of
Airworthiness validity may be in question until it is filed.
The Program Letter should state any contests or planned flying outside
of the area limitation specified in the Operating Limitation.
Any flying outside of the Program Letter can be amended by faxing an
update mid year.

There is no "flying for fun", all flights are considered practicing
for the next contest.
Send an email to Cindy at Cal City, Carocole Soaring and ask her. She
had a great article for SSA on this and you may find it if you search
on SSA.org

T

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 3, 8:23*pm, T > wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:57*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
>
>
>
> > New forum member, glad I found this resource!
>
> > I'm in the midst of purchasing an ASW-19 that has a Standard C of
> > A...and am mulling over (because of some of the
> > projects/instrumentation/maintenance/etc) if it would be beneficial to
> > convert the certificate over to Experimental.
>
> > If the conversion is possible:
>
> > 1. How much of a hassle was/is it?
>
> > 2. Was the conversion worth the effort or are the FAA requirements
> > onerous?
>
> > 3. How difficult would it be to put the genie back in the bottle (go
> > back to Standard) if needed?
>
> > 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
> > the way of paperwork?
>
> > 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
>
> > I tried to search this forum for the answer, but only found topics about
> > going from Experimental to Standard. If there is a thread out there that
> > covers "going the other way" a link to it would save typing and be much
> > appreciated!
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Rob S.
>
> > --
> > RAS56
>
> Be sure this is what you want to do.
> An Experimental Certificate for Exhibition and Racing is what you will
> get.
> It will be limited to a geographic area, either by states or radius.
> The "Operating Limitations" will require an annual "Program Letter" to
> be sent to the local FSDO/FAA and placed in your aircraft folder.
> Without the annual filing of the Program Letter, your Certificate of
> Airworthiness validity may be in question until it is filed.
> The Program Letter should state any contests or planned flying outside
> of the area limitation specified in the Operating Limitation.
> Any flying outside of the Program Letter can be amended by faxing an
> update mid year.
>
> There is no "flying for fun", all flights are considered practicing
> for the next contest.
> Send an email to Cindy at Cal City, Carocole Soaring and ask her. She
> had a great article for SSA on this and you may find it if you search
> on SSA.org
>
> T

Yes, certainly a case of being careful what you wish for. One local
pilot has had the Feds on his back for a while. They seem to be
insisting 1. No fun flights, 2. OLC is not a contest, 3. If glider is
based in State X then it can't be flown in State Y for the summer
months if the summer location is more that 300nm from the base.

Another local pilot changed his experimental ASW28 to standard cert
just to avoid the hassle, but it cost a bunch for the DAR sign off.
Standard cert was not available for my 28 when I imported it. If it
had been I would have gone standard cert without hesitation.

Anyway you don't need no winglets on a 19, nor a hinged panel as I
said earlier. Just fly it and have fun.

Andy

[JJ Sinclair]

Hmmm,
My program letter simply states; N422DT will be flown for SSA badge
flights and regional and national soaring contests within the
continental US. My FSDO has had no problem with this wording for the
past 8 years.

On the tilt up panel, it makes getting in and out much less of a
hassle. It involves re-routing all electrical and pneumatic lines + re-
installing all instruments in the new panel. Costs a good $2000 if you
have it done. A new strut is requierd 1000n I believe.

On replacing the canopy strut in a 19/20...Grind a groove in both ends
of the new strut so a small cable can be fitted around the compressed
strut and held in a loop with a nycompress sleeve. Then lower the
canopy to line up the hole and insert bolt, then cut small cable off.
JJ

[guy]

I have owned three gliders with experimental certs. All you have to
do to fly outside of your 300nm radius is FAX a letter to the FSDO at
the new location. Easy.
As far as the local FSDO guy/gal saying that OLC doesn't count as a
contest...it is supported by the SSA. Anyway, many of us have learned
over the years that every person at every FSDO interprets the rules/
regs the way they want. And of course, their interpretation is the
only correct one. Just smile, agree, say thank you and comply. Then
move on.

I love talking with FAA people at every opportunity to express my
frustration with this culture of individual interpretations of the
rules. The answers are even more entertaining.

The small effort needed to write a Program Letter and to use a FAX
machine when travelling is well worth it.

Anyway, that's my spin on this topic.

Guy

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

> The "Operating Limitations" will require an annual "Program Letter" to
> be sent to the local FSDO/FAA and placed in your aircraft folder.

I have seen this. I have also seen Operating Limitations that do not
specify that Program Letters be submitted.

I have looked for a FAR or AC that requires Program Letters (in
general) to be submitted for Experimental Aircraft. So far I haven't
found any such regulation.

-Pat

[Darryl Ramm]

On Dec 4, 3:36*pm, Pat Russell > wrote:
> > The "Operating Limitations" will require an annual "Program Letter" to
> > be sent to the local FSDO/FAA and placed in your aircraft folder.
>
> I have seen this. *I have also seen Operating Limitations that do not
> specify that Program Letters be submitted.
>
> I have looked for a FAR or AC that requires Program Letters (in
> general) to be submitted for Experimental Aircraft. *So far I haven't
> found any such regulation.
>
> -Pat

Say what? Ever heard of Google?

14CFR §21.193 Experimental certificates: general.

An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following
information:

(a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator
setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.

....

Darryl

[guy]

Actually Darryl, Pat is partially correct. I know JJ can attest to
this.
The operating limitations are assembled and printed during the final
inspection by a FSDO representative. Although there is a boilerplate
example of the operating limitations document in the computer they use
in the field, the actual construction of the document you will be
branded with is subject to modification by that very same FSDO
representative. In every case we had a bit of a negotiation on what
paragraphs would be included in my aircraft's document.

At this moment I own two gliders with Experimental Certificates. Both
were originally registered within a year of each other. Both
documents are significantly different in specifying the conditions
underwhich I may fly outside of the 300nm circle and both are
different in specifying when a FAX needs to be sent when intending to
fly outside of that 300nm circle. My first glider got its
experimental certificate before 1998 and it had no requirement to
notify the receiving FSDO. So every aircraft experimental certificate
operating limitations can be slightly different than others even if
they were certificated at about the same time from the same FSDO
office.

Still, the ability to make modifications without all the paperwork and
hassel involved with the Standard Certificate makes sending FAXes a
breeze.

Bye the way, I had the new manditory ramp inspections done on both my
planes on the same day by the same inspector just a couple months
ago. The operating limitations for both planes are different and the
inspector had a difficult time explaining to me the exact limitations
I had to flying outside of the 300nm circle for each plane. He read
the documents over and over and came to a slightly different
conclusion each time he read through them. THere are just so many
ways to interpret the meaning of those boilerplate sentences and
phrases that are in those documents that even the very experienced
FSDO rep kept contradicting himself.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Dec 4, 6:34*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> Say what? Ever heard of Google?
>
> 14CFR §21.193 * Experimental certificates: general.
>
> An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following
> information:
>
> (a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator
> setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
>
> ...
>
> Darryl

Nice try, Darryl. But that is for the APPLICATION for the
airworthiness certificate. Basically, you are to use their form and
write them a letter telling them what you plan to do with the plane.
It says nothing as to what you are to do each year. If you want to
see what you will be dealing with as far as limitations and yearly
requirements, please look at 8130.2F, available from the FAA. It was
revised again 8-31-2010, so if you haven't downloaded your copy in a
couple of months, you might want to do it again. It is only about 300
pages. :-) There are about 30 pages of interest to the subject of
Experimental Exhibition and Racing Airworthiness Certificates. This
document will be supersceded in April of 2011 by 8130.2G.

This message is really no different than any other on RAS, in that you
just got exactly what you paid for! :-) But, at least now you know
where in the FAA documents to look for what you will be stuck with
doing.

Steve Leonard

[Darryl Ramm]

On Dec 4, 6:13*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 6:34*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > Say what? Ever heard of Google?
>
> > 14CFR §21.193 * Experimental certificates: general.
>
> > An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following
> > information:
>
> > (a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator
> > setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
>
> > ...
>
> > Darryl
>
> Nice try, Darryl. *But that is for the APPLICATION for the
> airworthiness certificate. *Basically, you are to use their form and
> write them a letter telling them what you plan to do with the plane.
> It says nothing as to what you are to do each year. *If you want to
> see what you will be dealing with as far as limitations and yearly
> requirements, please look at 8130.2F, available from the FAA. *It was
> revised again 8-31-2010, so if you haven't downloaded your copy in a
> couple of months, you might want to do it again. *It is only about 300
> pages. *:-) *There are about 30 pages of interest to the subject of
> Experimental Exhibition and Racing Airworthiness Certificates. *This
> document will be supersceded in April of 2011 by 8130.2G.
>
> This message is really no different than any other on RAS, in that you
> just got exactly what you paid for! *:-) *But, at least now you know
> where in the FAA documents to look for what you will be stuck with
> doing.
>
> Steve Leonard

The new doc that Steve is referring to that is effective April 16 2011
is at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1774fe9a01420b56862577ce005128dc/$FILE/Order%208130.2G.pdf

--

BTW I quick skimmed that doc and I could not see a clear statement of
where the authority to require an annual program letter comes from.

14CFR §21.193 requires a statement saying how the aircraft can be used
to be granted an experimental certificate and allows the Administrator
to define the form and manner of that documentation. That alone might
give the Administrator the authority to require an annual program
letter.

Even if 14CFR §21.193 did not grant the authority to require an annual
program letter, then it probably could come from 14CFR §91.319...

91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
....
(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the
Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the
persons that may be carried in the aircraft.

[T[_2_]]

On Dec 4, 3:36*pm, Pat Russell > wrote:
> > The "Operating Limitations" will require an annual "Program Letter" to
> > be sent to the local FSDO/FAA and placed in your aircraft folder.
>
> I have seen this. *I have also seen Operating Limitations that do not
> specify that Program Letters be submitted.
>
> I have looked for a FAR or AC that requires Program Letters (in
> general) to be submitted for Experimental Aircraft. *So far I haven't
> found any such regulation.
>
> -Pat

It depends on when the program letter was written.
Old.. Pre..(I forget the year).. did not ahve that requirement.
New.. current issue Program Letters do have the requirement.

Remember.. these are "Experimental for Exihibition and Racing".. built
by a factory and imported without a Standard Airworthy Certificate.
These are not "Experimental".. built by you and issued an airworthy
certificate based on you building it.

And there is mroe to Part 21 then mentioned above.

T

[JJ Sinclair]

On Dec 4, 8:39*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 6:13*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 6:34*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > Say what? Ever heard of Google?
>
> > > 14CFR §21.193 * Experimental certificates: general.
>
> > > An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following
> > > information:
>
> > > (a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator
> > > setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
>
> > > ...
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Nice try, Darryl. *But that is for the APPLICATION for the
> > airworthiness certificate. *Basically, you are to use their form and
> > write them a letter telling them what you plan to do with the plane.
> > It says nothing as to what you are to do each year. *If you want to
> > see what you will be dealing with as far as limitations and yearly
> > requirements, please look at 8130.2F, available from the FAA. *It was
> > revised again 8-31-2010, so if you haven't downloaded your copy in a
> > couple of months, you might want to do it again. *It is only about 300
> > pages. *:-) *There are about 30 pages of interest to the subject of
> > Experimental Exhibition and Racing Airworthiness Certificates. *This
> > document will be supersceded in April of 2011 by 8130.2G.
>
> > This message is really no different than any other on RAS, in that you
> > just got exactly what you paid for! *:-) *But, at least now you know
> > where in the FAA documents to look for what you will be stuck with
> > doing.
>
> > Steve Leonard
>
> The new doc that Steve is referring to that is effective April 16 2011
> is athttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/177...
>
> --
>
> BTW I quick skimmed that doc and I could not see a clear statement of
> where the authority to require an annual program letter comes from.
>
> 14CFR §21.193 requires a statement saying how the aircraft can be used
> to be granted an experimental certificate and allows the Administrator
> to define the form and manner of that documentation. *That alone might
> give the Administrator the authority to require an annual program
> letter.
>
> Even if 14CFR §21.193 did not grant the authority to require an annual
> program letter, then it probably could come from 14CFR §91.319...
>
> 91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
> limitations.
> ...
> * (i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the
> Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the
> persons that may be carried in the aircraft.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ahhhhh................. reg-mongers arise..................it must be
wintertime in the US!
Merry Christmas,
JJ

[lanebush]

I am compelled to make a distinction between properly complying with
the regulations and being in a noncompliance state. I just purchased
a very nice single place ship for our club (November of this year).
When I asked the owner for a copy of his program letter (so I could
use it as a template) he had no idea what I was referring to. After
arriving for the prepurchase inspection I noticed that the last time a
program letter was filed was in 2003 when the glider was imported from
Canada. The operating limitations clearly specified the need for an
annual program letter. Obviously some owners of "experimental racing/
exhibition" ships have no clue as to what their ops limitations
specify. It seems some people confuse "experimental" for "do as I
please". Please protect yourself by reading your operating
limitations and understanding each line item. The operating
limitations and any supporting documents called for such as "weight
and balance", "program letter" etc. must be on board the glider during
flight.

Lane Bush
XF

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Dec 5, 7:34*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> Ahhhhh................. reg-mongers arise..................it must be
> wintertime in the US!
> Merry Christmas,
> JJ

Not a reg-monger, JJ. Just one who has to live with them day in and
day out. And just like I said, "You get exactly what you paid for
with anything you read on RAS." I discovered just after hitting "Send"
that I was in fact looking at 8130.2G. 8130.2F is still in effect
until April of 2011.

But, it is wintertime here in the US, that is for sure!

Steve Leonard

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 5, 11:00*am, lanebush > wrote:
> I am compelled to make a distinction between properly complying with
> the regulations and being in a noncompliance state. *

Well I read all your post several times but I don't see where you make
that distinction. Seems to me the two are equivalent in that failing
to do one will always result in the other.

I just spent over an hour going through the sections of Order 8130.2G
that apply to group 1, and then reviewing my Operating Limitations.
It is clear to me that my operating limitations do not comply with the
group 1 requirements of 4113. They have several paragraphs that are
not currently called out by the order and others do not match the
wording of the boilerplate.

I'm also puzzled by the fact that 4110 assigns a requirement for a
geographic area only to groups 6 and 7. I don't see a requirement
for a defined geographic area for group 1 (except for phase 1 flight
test). Did I miss it or is this something that has changed since my
operating limitations were issued in 2002. Did the 300nm radius
requirement go away?

No, I don't plan to call my local FSDO, but I will have a copy of
Order 8130.2G on hand if/when I become the target of a FSDO
inspection.

Andy

[lanebush]

On Dec 5, 1:26*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 11:00*am, lanebush > wrote:
>
> > I am compelled to make a distinction between properly complying with
> > the regulations and being in a noncompliance state. *
>
> Well I read all your post several times but I don't see where you make
> that distinction. *Seems to me the two are equivalent in that failing
> to do one will always result in the other.
>
> I just spent over an hour going through the sections of Order 8130.2G
> that apply to group 1, and then reviewing my Operating Limitations.
> It is clear to me that my operating limitations do not comply with the
> group 1 requirements of 4113. They have several paragraphs that are
> not currently called out by the order and others do not match the
> wording of the boilerplate.
>
> I'm also puzzled by the fact that 4110 assigns a requirement for a
> geographic area only to groups 6 and 7. * I don't see a requirement
> for a defined geographic area for group 1 (except for phase 1 flight
> test). *Did I miss it or is this something that has changed since my
> operating limitations were issued in 2002. *Did the 300nm radius
> requirement go away?
>
> No, I don't plan to call my local FSDO, but I will have a copy of
> Order 8130.2G on hand if/when I become the target of a FSDO
> inspection.
>
> Andy

The following web site has some good info on aircraft certification.
Two weeks ago I met with an Atlanta FSDO inspector and we rewrote my
operating limitations to clean up some outdated language. The 300
mile radius was in effect at that time. Try this website for more
info http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/exhibition-air-racing.html

Lane
XF

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 5, 11:16*am, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 7:34*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ahhhhh................. reg-mongers arise..................it must be
> > wintertime in the US!
> > Merry Christmas,
> > JJ
>
> Not a reg-monger, JJ. *Just one who has to live with them day in and
> day out. *And just like I said, "You get exactly what you paid for
> with anything you read on RAS." I discovered just after hitting "Send"
> that I was in fact looking at 8130.2G. *8130.2F is still in effect
> until April of 2011.
>
> But, it is wintertime here in the US, that is for sure!
>
> Steve Leonard

You are right about the effectivity.

The current version appears to be 8130.2F change 5

8130.2G includes the following:

104. Cancellation. FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness Certification of
Aircraft and Related
Products, dated November 5, 2004, is cancelled upon the effective date
of this order.
105. Effective Date. This order is effective April 16, 2011.

Among the many changes are

b. Incorporates changes to chapter 4, section 10, Certification and
Operation of Aircraft
Under the Experimental Purpose(s) of Exhibition and Air Racing.
c. Incorporates numerous changes originating from input through the
directive feedback
system. Areas affected are throughout this order and include light-
sport aircraft (LSA).

It looks to me as thought the changes are in our favor. A major
change seems to be the group definitions and gliders are no longer
lumped in with aerobatic powered aircraft.

Group 1 used to include a requirement for a 300nm radius proficiency
area. It seems it will not when the new order comes into effect.

Got to keep the FDSO guys away until April then if there any issues
come up get new operating limitations based of rev G!

To the original poster. If you decide to go experimental - wait until
April 16 next year!

Andy

[danlj]

On Dec 2, 10:57*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
>
> 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
> the way of paperwork?
>
> 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
Well, there's the new rule, effective on April 16, 2011, at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/324850
and the old rule, at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/14171

[gliderman]

On Dec 6, 5:04*am, danlj > wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:57*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
>
> > 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
> > the way of paperwork?
>
> > 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
>
> Well, there's the new rule, effective on April 16, 2011, athttp://www.faa..gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/d...
> and the old rule, athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/d...


One more question regarding a conversion like this. What might it do
to the resale value of the glider? Any input would be appreciated.

Paul G

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 12/6/2010 9:40 AM, gliderman wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:04 am, > wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 10:57 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>> 4. Who do I talk to at the FAA to accomplish this and what's needed in
>>> the way of paperwork?
>>
>>> 5. Anything else to make me smarter on this topic?
>>
>> Well, there's the new rule, effective on April 16, 2011, athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/d...
>> and the old rule, athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/d...
>
>
> One more question regarding a conversion like this. What might it do
> to the resale value of the glider? Any input would be appreciated.
>
> Paul G

Replies to this question should be interesting! Here's one...

Assuming that whatever a person does to the ship's hardware once it's
converted to the Experimental category is 'essentially trivial' (as in,
doesn't tinker with primary structure), a reasonable answer is 'very little.'
For examples you can go as far back as Wil Schuemann's Diamant and
'Schuemannized Libelle' from the early 1970's. More recent examples would be
(eventually) ATC-ed German ships imported prior to obtaining reciprocal U.S.
licensing.

That noted, conversion likely *will* reduce the potential pool of buyers,
since there seems (to me, anyway) to be a proportion of U.S. pilots who simply
*never* will consider purchasing an experimentally licensed glider.

Regards,
Bob - never owned a non-experimental, post-1-26 sailplane - W.

[Tony[_5_]]

another consideration is how restrictive the experimental operating
limitations are.

many experimental - racing/exhibition operating limitaitons from "back
in the day" are quite unrestrictive and literally worth their weight
in unobtanium.

however if you take your Ka6 or otherwise semi-common type certified
glider and put it into the experimental - racing/exhibition category
in the modern era it will have restrictions that involve faxing FSDO's
annual letters and getting special permission to operate more than X
miles from home. These in and of itself aren't too tough to deal with
but as a buyer why would I want the hassle when there are plenty of
other non-restricted gliders out there available to buy?

I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
experimental - racing/exhibition.

[jb92563]

Just a reminder that Operating Limitations are a NEGOTIATED document
with the FSDO.

You do not have to accept their first draft suggestion.

Also be sure to get Experimental Exhibition/Racing as it allows more
freedom than one or the other alone.

With my OP Lims the FSDO and I negotiated the REMOVAL of the Program
letter requirement
added Aerobatics as specified in the POH and my area of operation
expanded to "Not densely Populated areas" except for
landing/takeoff (Marked in yellow on Sectionals).

Just for the record my FSDO was very receptive to any suggestions that
made sense or proved to be a common practice.

They even did the inspection saving me the cost of a DAR.

It was easy and quick (1 month) to get it all done and I was
pleasantly surprised after hearing other horror stories in dealing
with the FAA.

[T[_2_]]

On Dec 6, 9:45*am, Tony > wrote:
> another consideration is how restrictive the experimental operating
> limitations are.
>
> many experimental - racing/exhibition operating limitaitons from "back
> in the day" are quite unrestrictive and literally worth their weight
> in unobtanium.
>
> however if you take your Ka6 or otherwise semi-common type certified
> glider and put it into the experimental - racing/exhibition category
> in the modern era it will have restrictions that involve faxing FSDO's
> annual letters and getting special permission to operate more than X
> miles from home. *These in and of itself aren't too tough to deal with
> but as a buyer why would I want the hassle when there are plenty of
> other non-restricted gliders out there available to buy?
>
> I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
> However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
> experimental - racing/exhibition.

And to the question of limiting the pool of potential buyers..
Any buyer.. if he does his research and wants your experimental glider
will buy it.

However, if he does his research, he will find that he may have to
reaccomplish the CofA with updated Operating Limitations when he moves
the glider to a new location. Unless he is already on your airport.

We had some club members that bought a glider in KY and moved it west.
Then they found the Operating Limitations were written for the glider
being based in Penn. The entire time the glider was in KY, that owner
had not updated the Cof A or the Ops Limits, nor had he faxed in an
annual Program Letter as required. The entire time the glider was in
KY. It was flying illegally without a valid CofA.. and the A&P signing
off the "condition inspections" did not catch it.

They moved it west, had to reaccomplish the Cof A inspections and
Operating Limitations at an additional cost of about $500 to the DAR
and was issued a new CofA. Yes, the FSDO can process the Operations
Limitations and CofA, if they are used to dealing with gliders and
understand what they are doing. If not.. you can hand walk them
through it, with a little pain and frustration.

If the purchaser does his research and knows.. then it is not an
issue. He knows what he is up against.

Personally, an older experimental glider with the less restrictive
Operating Limitations are worth they weight in Gold. So are gliders
with Standard Certificates that do not have "Operating Limitations",
such as some of the newer 304CZ models.

Yes, an A&P can sign off the experimental "annual condition
inspection". An IA is required for a standard CofA.

T

[Scott[_7_]]

On 12-7-2010 03:56, T wrote:

>
> Yes, an A&P can sign off the experimental "annual condition
> inspection". An IA is required for a standard CofA.
>
> T

Is there a huge cost difference between an A&P doing the inspection
versus an IA doing it?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 5:06*am, Scott > wrote:

> Is there a huge cost difference between an A&P doing the inspection
> versus an IA doing it?

The issue is most likely to be availability. Not all A&P have an
Inspection Authorization but all with IA must be either Airframe or
Powerplant rated or both. You only need one with Airframe approval
for an experimental (exhibition and/or racing) sailplane condition
inspection if it is not self launch or sustainer equipped.

If you have lots of people available with an Airframe rating the
chances of finding one with a good price are better. I have use the
same person to inspect my ASW-28 since 2004. In 2004 he was only
airframe approved. Over the years he added Powerplant and then
Inspection Authorization. His prices have increased but I don't think
that was due to his increased qualifications. The advantage to me of
his increased ratings is that he now also inspects by airplane.

Andy

[gliderman]

>
> I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
> However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
> experimental - racing/exhibition.

So I wonder if I "substantially modify" a certified glider (such as
adding winglets or Schuemannizing,) might I be able to successfully
argue that it belongs in the amatuer built category?

Paul G

[[email protected]]

On Dec 7, 11:48*am, gliderman > wrote:
> > I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
> > However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
> > experimental - racing/exhibition.
>
> So I wonder if I "substantially modify" a certified glider (such as
> adding winglets or Schuemannizing,) might I be able to successfully
> argue that it belongs in the amatuer built category?
>
> Paul G

Maybe if it looks like a homebuilt when done.
Report back on your results.
LOL
UH

[jb92563]

The restrictions on Exhibition/Racing are minimal if you negotiate the
Operating Limitations properly.

You are simply Exhibiting when just flying around, or practising
exhibiting, and when there is a contest, you are racing,
or practicing for racing. Every time any pilot flies I'd say they are
practicing and honing their skills really!

Here are my flight area restrictions Negotiated in my Operating
Limitations.

"Prohibited from operating in congested airways or over densely
populated areas, except for takeoffs and landings or unless directed
by ATC or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe
emergency landing..."

So in effect I can fly anywhere I have the equipment for with VFR.

I don't have any range limitations nor Program letters to submit and
no matter where I go, fly-ins, contests etc, I'm always practicing my
skills to exhibit or race.

"21.191
(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities,
performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture,
television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition
flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying
to and from such air shows and productions.
(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such
participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from
racing events."

Not very restrictive, although flying for hire is one restriction I
can think of.

The whole process is not nearly as big a deal as others are lead to
believe and the people who have not
gone through the process are unjustifiably paranoid about it, although
there has surely been a case or two
that has not gone as well, but that is probably the exception more
than the rule.

Also my inspection by the FAA inspectors in 2010 took 20-30 minutes
and cost $0 (They do not charge for C of A inspections)
I think my C of A and OP Lims may have cost $5 if I recall correctly.
You could also pay for a DAR to inspect if you are in a hurry
and your FAA folks are very busy but you may only save a couple weeks
as the DAR looses time having to send stuff in, while the
FAA folks simply bring your paperwork to the inspection in person and
sign it right there.



On Dec 7, 11:39*am, wrote:
> On Dec 7, 11:48*am, gliderman > wrote:
>
> > > I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
> > > However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
> > > experimental - racing/exhibition.
>
> > So I wonder if I "substantially modify" a certified glider (such as
> > adding winglets or Schuemannizing,) might I be able to successfully
> > argue that it belongs in the amatuer built category?
>
> > Paul G
>
> Maybe if it looks like a homebuilt when done.
> Report back on your results.
> LOL
> UH

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, jb92563 > wrote:
> The restrictions on Exhibition/Racing are minimal if you negotiate the
> Operating Limitations properly.
>
> You are simply Exhibiting when just flying around, or practising
> exhibiting, and when there is a contest, you are racing,
> or practicing for racing. Every time any pilot flies I'd say they are
> practicing and honing their skills really!
>
> Here are my flight area restrictions Negotiated in my Operating
> Limitations.
>
> "Prohibited from operating in congested airways or over densely
> populated areas, except for takeoffs and landings or unless directed
> by ATC or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe
> emergency landing..."
>
> So in effect I can fly anywhere I have the equipment for with VFR.
>
> I don't have any range limitations nor Program letters to submit and
> no matter where I go, fly-ins, contests etc, I'm always practicing my
> skills to exhibit or race.
>
> "21.191
> *(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities,
> performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture,
> television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition
> flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying
> to and from such air shows and productions.
> (e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such
> participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from
> racing events."
>
> Not very restrictive, although flying for hire is one restriction I
> can think of.
>
> The whole process is not nearly as big a deal as others are lead to
> believe and the people who have not
> gone through the process are unjustifiably paranoid about it, although
> there has surely been a case or two
> that has not gone as well, but that is probably the exception more
> than the rule.
>
> Also my inspection by the FAA *inspectors in 2010 took 20-30 minutes
> and cost $0 (They do not charge for C of A inspections)
> I think my C of A and OP Lims may have cost $5 if I recall correctly.
> You could also pay for a DAR to inspect if you are in a hurry
> and your FAA folks are very busy but you may only save a couple weeks
> as the DAR looses time having to send stuff in, while the
> FAA folks simply bring your paperwork to the inspection in person and
> sign it right there.
>
> On Dec 7, 11:39*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 7, 11:48*am, gliderman > wrote:
>
> > > > I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
> > > > However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
> > > > experimental - racing/exhibition.
>
> > > So I wonder if I "substantially modify" a certified glider (such as
> > > adding winglets or Schuemannizing,) might I be able to successfully
> > > argue that it belongs in the amatuer built category?
>
> > > Paul G
>
> > Maybe if it looks like a homebuilt when done.
> > Report back on your results.
> > LOL
> > UH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think all you are telling us is that you worked with a helpful
inspector at a reasonable FSDO. Not all inspectors at all FSDOs are
quite to so easy to deal with. Here in the Phoenix area we seem to
have the new broom sweeps clean set. Hopefully there will be better
standardization when the new issue of the order comes into effect.

What FSDO did you use? Maybe there will be a rush of glider owners to
get their ops lims revised.

Andy

[Scott[_7_]]

On 12-7-2010 16:48, gliderman wrote:
>>
>> I own 3 experimental - amatuer builts which I thoroughly enjoy.
>> However the restrictions on them are no where near as restrictive as
>> experimental - racing/exhibition.
>
> So I wonder if I "substantially modify" a certified glider (such as
> adding winglets or Schuemannizing,) might I be able to successfully
> argue that it belongs in the amatuer built category?
>
> Paul G
Nope. There's that pesky 51% rule.

[RAS56]

Folks,

As the thread originator, I appreciated and enjoyed all the comments and shared wisdom....thanks!

After reading all the pros/cons I think for my needs and level of experience the right decision is to just leave everything "as is", not get too wrapped up chasing paperwork and doing a rug dance for the Feds but instead spend that time flying instead!

Again, thanks for all the info.

Rob

ps-as to the canopy gas strut replacement, just did that on the ASW-19b I have. We used a 1000 newton strut (Eastern Sailplane's rec., I believe) on one that does NOT have the lift up panel...a 700 nm was on it and it lasted only about 4-5 years.

We cut grooves in each end fitting of the strut, then compressed it and wrapped it several times with safety wire to hold it until we got it installed, then cut the wire.

It sure did feel like I was holding a safety-wired live cobra until I got that thing in place and the bolts and nuts back in! Hope the higher rated strut lasts as long as I fly this thing!