USA: Experimental Certificates

[C.Fleming]

Do new gliders delivered to USA customers have Experimental Certificates?
If so, why? If not, why do most second-hand gliders have Experimental
Certificates?

Please reference any replies.

Thanks!

Chris

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 22:00 27 October 2003, Todd Pattist wrote:

>My understanding is that the (US) process is
>much easier now if the glider is certified in its home
>country.

Perhaps some European ras-ers can comment on whether
and how individual countries' aircraft certification
processes are up for revision with the EU craze. Do
I understand correctly that there are some interim
procedures attempting to 'harmonize' things right now?
What lies ahead?

Judy

[F.L. Whiteley]

No idea who now populates the BGA technical committee, but they had a long
standing trust in the US FAA's philosophy towards experimental aircraft as
an approach to reasonable airworthiness and modification approvals (as
discussed with Dick Stratton over a beer at Bicester one summer afternoon in
1991 IIRC). I suspect there is some pressure from CAA and EU workings.

Other than Polish aileron hinges wearing a bit quickly, I'm not aware of
anything that wouldn't pass muster at periodic, say 1000-hour, special
inspections following the intial 3000-hour life. Hopefully, said gliders
will continue to fly under the experimental condition inspections in the US
if they can't fly under TC, if they are impacted at all here.

Frank Whiteley

"IanR" > wrote in message
...
> Not sure about general airworthiness situation here in the UK, but my
> syndicate's a/c has been grounded for three months now, thanks to red
> tape. There doesn't seem to be any resolution in sight, either.
>
> It seems that the BGA are now enforcing manufacturers' suggested
> service-life figures as mandatory. Not sure if this has come from
> Brussels, but I wouldn't be at all surprised. At the same time, some
> manufacturers have imposed new and very severe lifetime-restrictions
> on their products.
>
> The worst aspect is that both did this without prior warning, and
> without publicising the fact until well after the event. At present we
> cannot establish whether there is any engineering or safety-basis for
> these changes, and the manufacturers refuse to disclose their reasons.
> (Which I view as unacceptable - if there is a safety-issue, we should
> be told what it is.)
>
> More info here:
> http://www.internet.plus.com/pzl/
>
> ****************************
>
> On 27 Oct 2003 23:07:03 GMT, Judy Ruprecht >
> wrote:
>
> >At 22:00 27 October 2003, Todd Pattist wrote:
> >
> >>My understanding is that the (US) process is
> >>much easier now if the glider is certified in its home
> >>country.
> >
> >Perhaps some European ras-ers can comment on whether
> >and how individual countries' aircraft certification
> >processes are up for revision with the EU craze. Do
> >I understand correctly that there are some interim
> >procedures attempting to 'harmonize' things right now?
> >What lies ahead?
> >
> >Judy
> >
> >
>

[IanR]

Agree. After all, SZD aircfaft have been flying for many years without
serious problems. They do have their weak-points, like the
airbrake-tube failures on the Puchacz, and the insecure winch-hook of
the Bocian, but then what doesn't have some repair-requirements? For
comparison looking at German bulletins reveals just as many, or maybe
more, directives to repair suspect parts. (Discus mainspars for
example!)

Th BGA CTO is now Jim Hammerton, and I get the impression he's
reluctant to commit himself to any definitive statement on the matter.


I also strongly suspect that Brussels has an evil hand in this, as
they have in so many things bureaucratic. The CAA generally don't
want any involvement with gliders, so I would be very surprised if
they had influenced the mandatory life-limitation.

>Other than Polish aileron hinges wearing a bit quickly, I'm not aware of
>anything that wouldn't pass muster at periodic, say 1000-hour, special
>inspections following the intial 3000-hour life. Hopefully, said gliders
>will continue to fly under the experimental condition inspections in the US
>if they can't fly under TC, if they are impacted at all here.

[Ivan Kahn]

"C.Fleming" > wrote in message
...
> Do new gliders delivered to USA customers have Experimental Certificates?
> If so, why? If not, why do most second-hand gliders have Experimental
> Certificates?
>
> Please reference any replies.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>

I think you will find that gliders are delivered to the US without any
certificate at all - the owner makes an application to the FAA for the
airworthiness certificate. If the glider was certificated under the Joint
Aviation Regulations (JAR) then it is eligible for a standard certificate.
Otherwise, there are other hoops to jump through to get a standard
certificate, if one can be had at all. So in many cases the experimental
certificate is issued because the glider is either not eligle, or because it
was too much touble to get the standard.

Having an experimental certificate also gives you more latitude in making
modifications to the glider and so some gliders that are eligible for a
standard certificate have an experimental instead - in these cases the owner
felt the benefits of the experimental certificate outweighed the
limitations.

As to why so may used ships have experimental certificates, all the above
applies plus I think you will find that the further back you go the small
the population of gliders that were eligible for a standard certificate.

Ivan