Experimental Instrument Rated?

[CFLav8r]

Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
the FAA?

David (KORL)

[G.R. Patterson III]

CFLav8r wrote:
>
> Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
> the FAA?

Many experimental aircraft can be flown under an instrument flight plan when
properly equipped.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> CFLav8r wrote:
> >
> > Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
> > the FAA?
>
> Many experimental aircraft can be flown under an instrument flight plan when
> properly equipped.

New jets undergoing initial certification flights are experimental
aircraft. I assume they operate under IFR.

There was a NOVA a bunch of years back on the development of the 777.
It looked kind of wierd to see an airliner with the same "EXPERIMENTAL"
sticker pasted over the door that would you see on a contraption some
guy built in his garage.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:24:11 GMT, "CFLav8r" >
wrote:

>Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
>the FAA?

If it is there are a lot of them out there flying IFR illegally.
(unless I'm missing something in your phrasing)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



>
>David (KORL)
>

[CFLav8r]

> >Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified
by
> >the FAA?
>
> If it is there are a lot of them out there flying IFR illegally.
> (unless I'm missing something in your phrasing)
>
My question is about the aircraft not the ability to fly it in IFR
conditions.
I recently showed my instructor an ad for a Glasair and he remarked that
you could never get it IFR certified with the FAA.
That didn't make much sense to me, but then again I am the student and he
is the instructor.
The way I figure it, if it is IFR equipped then why couldn't it be IFR
certified?

David

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:24:11 GMT, "CFLav8r" >
wrote:

>Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
>the FAA?
>
>David (KORL)
>

since the australian rules are a transplant of the american an aussie
answer may be valid.

experimental amateur built aircraft are by default signed off for day
vfr.
IFR requirements are another set of regulations.
If the aircraft meets the requirements of those regulations then the
signoff can be amended to incorporate the necessary endorsements for
IFR.

havent seen ifr in person but I have mediated for an experimental
Thorp T18 being endorsed for night vfr in this country. was easy.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[JFLEISC]

>The way I figure it, if it is IFR equipped then why couldn't it be IFR
>certified?

I'm a little confused here. I didn't think anything on an experimental aircraft
was 'certified'. If it was then it wouldn't be 'experimental'. Experimentals
are not 'certified' to "fly" but they legally do. I believe the rules read
something like "it can be flown under conditions that it is properly equiped
for" i.e. you can't make a VOR approach if it is not equipped with a VOR
receiver. Something like that.

Jim

[Dan Luke]

"CFLav8r" wrote:
> I recently showed my instructor an ad for a Glasair and he
> remarked that you could never get it IFR certified with
> the FAA.
> That didn't make much sense to me, but then again I am
> the student and he is the instructor.

Your instructor is F. O. S.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dave]

Yah... as I understand it, experimental certified aircraft can do
everything a normal/utility certified aircraft can do except:

carry people for hire.

Check out the EAA site for more details...

Dave

Dan Luke wrote:
> "CFLav8r" wrote:
>
>>I recently showed my instructor an ad for a Glasair and he
>>remarked that you could never get it IFR certified with
>>the FAA.
>>That didn't make much sense to me, but then again I am
>>the student and he is the instructor.
>
>
> Your instructor is F. O. S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:42:27 GMT, "CFLav8r" >
wrote:

>My question is about the aircraft not the ability to fly it in IFR
>conditions.
>I recently showed my instructor an ad for a Glasair and he remarked that
>you could never get it IFR certified with the FAA.

There are a lot of homebuilt aircraft designs that can't pass the CFR Part
23 requirements necessary to receive a type certificate. Typically, a
design does not meet the stability requirements. Hence, a given design
cannot receive an airworthiness certificate in the normal, utility,
aerobatic, or transport categories. It doesn't make them harder to fly,
but their lower stability does make them less-suitable as IFR platforms.

As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d) and
receives the required regular equipment checks, it can legally be used to
fly IFR. But unless it meets the requirements of CFR Part 23, it cannot
receive anything other than an "Experimental" certification, and certain
restrictions apply in the form of the operating limitations assigned by the
FAA.

There are probably thousands of Experimental aircraft whose operating
limitations specifically permit IFR operations.

Ron Wanttaja

[G.R. Patterson III]

CFLav8r wrote:
>
> I recently showed my instructor an ad for a Glasair and he remarked that
> you could never get it IFR certified with the FAA.

He's correct, but only because the FAA does not certify any aircraft for IFR. If
you installed adequate avionics and instruments and got a shop to sign off the
altimeter, you could fly instruments in the Wright Flyer as far as the FAA is
concerned.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Dale]

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:


>
> As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
> Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d) and
> receives the required regular equipment checks, it can legally be used to
> fly IFR.

Not always the case.

The B-24 I was flying is licensed Experimental/Exhibition. It states in
the "Operating Limitations" (which appears to be a generic document)
that it will be operated VFR only. That being said we did fly it IFR
quite often. <G> I can't find it now, but there was other statements
which allowed us to operate IFR.

We also carried passengers for hire in the airplane, but that was
specifically restricted to Day/VMC.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[S Green]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:24:11 GMT, "CFLav8r" >
> wrote:
>
> >Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified
by
> >the FAA?
> >
> >David (KORL)
> >
>
> since the australian rules are a transplant of the american an aussie
> answer may be valid.
>
> experimental amateur built aircraft are by default signed off for day
> vfr.
> IFR requirements are another set of regulations.
> If the aircraft meets the requirements of those regulations then the
> signoff can be amended to incorporate the necessary endorsements for
> IFR.
>
> havent seen ifr in person but I have mediated for an experimental
> Thorp T18 being endorsed for night vfr in this country. was easy.
>
> Stealth Pilot
> Australia

The UK equivalent of experimental is the "permit to fly". They are limited
to VFR only.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
>Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d)

But a Diamond DA-20 can be equipped (probably even comes) with all the
necessary IFR equipment, but you can't actually fly it IFR because they
didn't embed the metal mesh in the composite skin like they did in the
DA-40.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Geoff Lane]

"S Green" > wrote in
:

> The UK equivalent of experimental is the "permit to fly". They are
> limited to VFR only.

It appears that you can do so much more in UK with an FAA PPL in an N-reg
aircraft than you can with a JAA PPL in a G-reg. Also (from this thread) N-
reg experimentals can legally fly over conurbations, at night, and in IMC
(which UK PFA types cannot). So, is it possible to build and maintain an N-
reg experimental in UK? If not, is it possible to import a US homebuilt and
keep it on the N register?

TIA,

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> But a Diamond DA-20 can be equipped (probably even comes) with all the
> necessary IFR equipment, but you can't actually fly it IFR because they
> didn't embed the metal mesh in the composite skin like they did in the
> DA-40.

I'll bite. Why does a metal mesh make a difference? Is it an issue of
primary radar returns, or something else?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article .net>,
"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote:

> > But a Diamond DA-20 can be equipped (probably even comes) with all the
> > necessary IFR equipment, but you can't actually fly it IFR because they
> > didn't embed the metal mesh in the composite skin like they did in the
> > DA-40.
>
> I'll bite. Why does a metal mesh make a difference? Is it an issue of
> primary radar returns, or something else?
>
>

Nope -- lightning protection and dissipation. Lightning can literally
blow apart nonmetallic structures and home in on the occupants in
flight, without tha Faraday cage effect of the metal mesh.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Nope -- lightning protection and dissipation. Lightning can literally
> blow apart nonmetallic structures and home in on the occupants in
> flight, without tha Faraday cage effect of the metal mesh.

Thanks! I never would have thought of that, but it makes sense now that you
point it out.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:05:04 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article >,
>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>>As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
>>Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d)
>
>But a Diamond DA-20 can be equipped (probably even comes) with all the
>necessary IFR equipment, but you can't actually fly it IFR because they
>didn't embed the metal mesh in the composite skin like they did in the
>DA-40.

I'd seriously doubt the metal mesh would keep it from being certified
for IFR. The Beech Starship didn't have a metal mesh and it was
certified for IFR.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Gerry Caron]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:05:04 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> >>As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
> >>Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d)
> >
> >But a Diamond DA-20 can be equipped (probably even comes) with all the
> >necessary IFR equipment, but you can't actually fly it IFR because they
> >didn't embed the metal mesh in the composite skin like they did in the
> >DA-40.
>
> I'd seriously doubt the metal mesh would keep it from being certified
> for IFR. The Beech Starship didn't have a metal mesh and it was
> certified for IFR.
>

Believe it. The mesh provides the lightning protection required to meet the
current Part 23 rules. Starship is one of the reasons the HIRF and
lightning standards have increased by several orders of magnitude over the
last 10 years. I know guys who worked the Starship's avionics. It was a
headache then to meet the old specs. No way it could be certificated today
without the extra shielding.

The key words in whether you can fly IFR are OPERATING LIMITATIONS. If your
operating limitations say "VFR only" you can't fly IFR even if you have the
equipment in 14 CFR 91.205(d). If it doesn't say you can't, or it says you
can; then you can fly IFR if you meet all the other requirements in Part
91.

All aircraft have operating limitations. An experimental gets them as part
of the airworthiness certificate. These are pretty loose since it doesn't
have to meet any of the 14 CFR Part 23 requirements. A certificated
aircraft gets its operating limitations as part of its type certificate. If
it can't meet 14 CFR 23.1309 (b), it will be limited to VFR. While it
doesn't say anything about lightning, section 23.1309 (b)(4)(i) refers to
"...including malfunctions and damage from external sources;" Lightning and
HIRF are external sources that must be addressed by the applicant.

Gerry

[Paul Lee]

At least in US many homebuilt ("experimental") are authorized
for IRF. Certified is somewhat a wrong term to use since
experimental aircraft are never type certified for any flight.

I am just in process of getting a homebuilt checked out
by FAA for airworthiness. It is on the airworthiness operating
limitations that the FAA indicates whether the aircraft is
authorized for VFR day, night or IFR - at the time of inspection.

If you ever attend Oshkosh, go to the FAA booth and have all your
questions aswered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

"CFLav8r" > wrote in message >...
> Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
> the FAA?
>
> David (KORL)

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:48:15 GMT, "Gerry Caron" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:05:04 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> >Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>> >>As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
>> >>Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d)
>> >
>> >But a Diamond DA-20 can be equipped (probably even comes) with all the
>> >necessary IFR equipment, but you can't actually fly it IFR because they
>> >didn't embed the metal mesh in the composite skin like they did in the
>> >DA-40.
>>
>> I'd seriously doubt the metal mesh would keep it from being certified
>> for IFR. The Beech Starship didn't have a metal mesh and it was
>> certified for IFR.
>>
>
>Believe it. The mesh provides the lightning protection required to meet the
>current Part 23 rules. Starship is one of the reasons the HIRF and
>lightning standards have increased by several orders of magnitude over the
>last 10 years. I know guys who worked the Starship's avionics. It was a
>headache then to meet the old specs. No way it could be certificated today
>without the extra shielding.
>
>The key words in whether you can fly IFR are OPERATING LIMITATIONS. If your
>operating limitations say "VFR only" you can't fly IFR even if you have the
>equipment in 14 CFR 91.205(d). If it doesn't say you can't, or it says you
>can; then you can fly IFR if you meet all the other requirements in Part
>91.
>
>All aircraft have operating limitations. An experimental gets them as part
>of the airworthiness certificate. These are pretty loose since it doesn't

You just have it equiped for IFR at that time and it will be.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>have to meet any of the 14 CFR Part 23 requirements. A certificated
>aircraft gets its operating limitations as part of its type certificate. If
>it can't meet 14 CFR 23.1309 (b), it will be limited to VFR. While it
>doesn't say anything about lightning, section 23.1309 (b)(4)(i) refers to
>"...including malfunctions and damage from external sources;" Lightning and
>HIRF are external sources that must be addressed by the applicant.
>
>Gerry
>

[Ron Natalie]

"CFLav8r" > wrote in message ...
> Is it true that an experimental aircraft can not be instrument certified by
> the FAA?

Most homebuilts get a clause in their operating limitations that say they can be
flown IFR provided they are equipped by the regs.

[Ron Natalie]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...

> There was a NOVA a bunch of years back on the development of the 777.
> It looked kind of wierd to see an airliner with the same "EXPERIMENTAL"
> sticker pasted over the door that would you see on a contraption some
> guy built in his garage.

Yep and they showed the thing shooting multiple ILS's to DH trying to get into the
test strip.

My favorite part of the show was despite the fact that they had people on a conference
call to transfer the funds and run the paperwork into OKC by hand, they use the same
little bill of sale and temporary registration that they do on our little planes. After the
guy fills it out he tears off the temporary registration copy and tells someone to go out
and stick it in the airplane.

[Ron Natalie]

"JFLEISC" > wrote in message ...
> >The way I figure it, if it is IFR equipped then why couldn't it be IFR
> >certified?
>
> I'm a little confused here. I didn't think anything on an experimental aircraft
> was 'certified'. If it was then it wouldn't be 'experimental'. Experimentals
> are not 'certified' to "fly" but they legally do.

They have airworthiness certificates. Attached to the experimental airworthiness
certificate is a list of conditions for operation. These spell out if the aircraft can
be operated at night or IFR. Homebuilts will usually get this permission.

What they don't have is type certification.

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave" > wrote in message ...
> Yah... as I understand it, experimental certified aircraft can do
> everything a normal/utility certified aircraft can do except:
>
> carry people for hire.
>
That's not quite right. It's mostly right for "Experimental--Amateur Built."
There are some vague additional restrictions like flights in congested airways
(nobody has ever explained to me what a congested airway is, other than perhaps
the segment between Ripon and OSH during Airventure, which wouldn't be so
congested if they got rid of the homebuilts).

Other types of experimental certification typically have more restrictive limitations.
(Like no unnecessary passengers at all).

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...

> As several other folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as "IFR
> Certified"...if any aircraft is equipped in accordance to CFR 91.205(d) and
> receives the required regular equipment checks, it can legally be used to
> fly IFR.

A rub is that the type certificates for some non-experimentals specifically call
out different restrictions than just complying with 91.205.

[Ron Natalie]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message news:orfairbairn_spam_sucks-
> Nope -- lightning protection and dissipation. Lightning can literally
> blow apart nonmetallic structures and home in on the occupants in
> flight, without tha Faraday cage effect of the metal mesh.

It's more than just lightening. Even without a direct strike, the thing will have
enough problems with static to be annoying.

[Michael]

"CFLav8r" > wrote
> My question is about the aircraft not the ability to fly it in IFR
> conditions.

Your answers are to be found in the operating limitations for the
aircraft in question. Standard operating limitations for experimental
amateur-built aircraft are give in FAA Order 8130.2d, Change 2. While
the inspector issuing the certificate has some discretion, generally
they are issued as written. I call attention to the following:

Page 112, Par 134, line item 8: After completion of Phase I flight
testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument
flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under VFR, day only.

So after Phase I, if you have the right equipment, you may indeed fly
IFR.

> I recently showed my instructor an ad for a Glasair and he remarked that
> you could never get it IFR certified with the FAA.

Well, you couldn't get a Glasair certified in any way - VFR or IFR.
It does not meet the requirements of Part 23. That does not mean you
can't operate it under IFR.

When people talk about an airplane being IFR certified, they are
usually talking about the seminannual pitot/static and transponder
checks required by 14CFR91.411 and 14CFR91.413, which is performed by
an instrument shop, not the FAA. If that is the 'certification' he is
talking about, then he is simply wrong.

> That didn't make much sense to me, but then again I am the student and he
> is the instructor.

Just because someone has a CFI ticket doesn't mean he necessarily
knows anything. It's just a piece of paper issued by some federal
bureaucrat.

> The way I figure it, if it is IFR equipped then why couldn't it be IFR
> certified?

See above. If you mean certified under Part 23, plenty of reasons
having to do with stall speed, stability, lack of lightning
protection, etc. If you mean certified by a technician to meet the
requirements of 91.411 and 91.413, then no reason at all.

Michael