airworthiness certificate

[Del Jensen]

I am shopping for a glider. Today I looked at a 304 That is in very good shape, current on its annual. The type is experimental. The certificate in the cockpit stipulates that the glider is to be operated from a single airfield. Is this normal? Will faa hassle me were I to purchase and register it and wish to fly out of a different field? Do airworthiness certificates typically specify that an aircraft only fly out of one location?

Many thanks for any enlightenment.

[Dan Marotta]

You'll need to submit a Program Letter to your local FSDO. This letter
will describe the ship, list its home field (your base of operations),
the types of flights planned, i.e., "fly at the Seniors Competition", 30
practice flights of 4 hours duration to maintain currency, etc. You can
work out with your FSDO representative what is required in your letter.
You'll have to submit a new letter each year. It's not a big deal.

Send me your email address and I'll send you a copy of letter which
worked for my experimental glider.

Dan

On 2/4/2017 7:01 PM, Del Jensen wrote:
> I am shopping for a glider. Today I looked at a 304 That is in very good shape, current on its annual. The type is experimental. The certificate in the cockpit stipulates that the glider is to be operated from a single airfield. Is this normal? Will faa hassle me were I to purchase and register it and wish to fly out of a different field? Do airworthiness certificates typically specify that an aircraft only fly out of one location?
>
> Many thanks for any enlightenment.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

No need to send your email - I emailed you a copy of a previous Program
Letter to update to your needs should you buy the glider.

On 2/4/2017 7:24 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> You'll need to submit a Program Letter to your local FSDO. This
> letter will describe the ship, list its home field (your base of
> operations), the types of flights planned, i.e., "fly at the Seniors
> Competition", 30 practice flights of 4 hours duration to maintain
> currency, etc. You can work out with your FSDO representative what is
> required in your letter. You'll have to submit a new letter each
> year. It's not a big deal.
>
> Send me your email address and I'll send you a copy of letter which
> worked for my experimental glider.
>
> Dan
>
> On 2/4/2017 7:01 PM, Del Jensen wrote:
>> I am shopping for a glider. Today I looked at a 304 That is in very
>> good shape, current on its annual. The type is experimental. The
>> certificate in the cockpit stipulates that the glider is to be
>> operated from a single airfield. Is this normal? Will faa hassle me
>> were I to purchase and register it and wish to fly out of a different
>> field? Do airworthiness certificates typically specify that an
>> aircraft only fly out of one location?
>>
>> Many thanks for any enlightenment.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Del Jensen]

Many thanks Dan. I was little bit concerned over whether I could take the glider somewhere on an occasional basis (e.g., Parowan). You've set my mind at ease.

Del

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 8:18:00 PM UTC-8, Del Jensen wrote:
> Many thanks Dan. I was little bit concerned over whether I could take the glider somewhere on an occasional basis (e.g., Parowan). You've set my mind at ease.
>
> Del

I am pretty sure a program letter won't override any limitations in the airworthiness certificate. You need a new airworthiness certificate. But I could be wrong . . .

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 9:01:45 PM UTC-5, Del Jensen wrote:
> I am shopping for a glider. Today I looked at a 304 That is in very good shape, current on its annual. The type is experimental. The certificate in the cockpit stipulates that the glider is to be operated from a single airfield. Is this normal? Will faa hassle me were I to purchase and register it and wish to fly out of a different field? Do airworthiness certificates typically specify that an aircraft only fly out of one location?
>
> Many thanks for any enlightenment.

Assuming it is licensed Experimental- Exhibition and Air Racing you should be able to get your local FSDO to provide new operating limitations that conform to the latest standards. Operating limitations are a prt of the airworthiness certificate. Current standards allow for operating at sites other than home base as long as they are on your annual program letter.
UH

[Dan Marotta]

Glad to have been of assistance.

On 2/4/2017 9:17 PM, Del Jensen wrote:
> Many thanks Dan. I was little bit concerned over whether I could take the glider somewhere on an occasional basis (e.g., Parowan). You've set my mind at ease.
>
> Del
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 12:01:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 8:18:00 PM UTC-8, Del Jensen wrote:
> > Many thanks Dan. I was little bit concerned over whether I could take the glider somewhere on an occasional basis (e.g., Parowan). You've set my mind at ease.
> >
> > Del
>
> I am pretty sure a program letter won't override any limitations in the airworthiness certificate. You need a new airworthiness certificate. But I could be wrong . . .

You are right that the program letter does not override limitations in the AW certificate and associated docs.
Whether a new AW certificate is needed depends on what the old one says.
If it is very old you may not have to do a program letter and can fly most anywhere. After the California jet fighter crash the Feds tightened up a lot.

[Del Jensen]

Thanks for the heads up on that. Do you know of a link or reference to the guide document?

Del

[Casey[_2_]]

A specific place is required for phase one testing.

[Del Jensen]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:52:15 PM UTC-7, Casey wrote:
> A specific place is required for phase one testing.

Wow! Are you saying that a purchase triggers a total re-certification process, including phase I and II testing?

[Casey[_2_]]

Phase one and two testing are only done once but are restricted to one location. I'm not sure if a new airworthiness cert is "require" after testing but I requested a new one so as to have no confusion. The way mine was written it did not sound like it was restricting but a new airworthiness cert is no big deal with only showing that testing has been completed from an entry in log.

[Del Jensen]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:01:16 AM UTC-7, Casey wrote:
> Phase one and two testing are only done once but are restricted to one location. I'm not sure if a new airworthiness cert is "require" after testing but I requested a new one so as to have no confusion. The way mine was written it did not sound like it was restricting but a new airworthiness cert is no big deal with only showing that testing has been completed from an entry in log.

OK. Many thanks to all you guys for the help. I bought the Kestrel pre '93, when none of these arcane (to me) rules were in play.

I know I sound a little jittery about dealing with the faa, but I read about some poor guy who asked them an innocent question about a Pegasus he was buying, and the result was mandatory grounding of any Pegasus over 3000 hours, with no certification renewal. That took a few years to straighten out..

You guys are really patient with my newby questions - I just want to make sure I don't put my foot in it.

Del

[Mike the Strike]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-7, Del Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:01:16 AM UTC-7, Casey wrote:
> > Phase one and two testing are only done once but are restricted to one location. I'm not sure if a new airworthiness cert is "require" after testing but I requested a new one so as to have no confusion. The way mine was written it did not sound like it was restricting but a new airworthiness cert is no big deal with only showing that testing has been completed from an entry in log.
>
> OK. Many thanks to all you guys for the help. I bought the Kestrel pre '93, when none of these arcane (to me) rules were in play.
>
> I know I sound a little jittery about dealing with the faa, but I read about some poor guy who asked them an innocent question about a Pegasus he was buying, and the result was mandatory grounding of any Pegasus over 3000 hours, with no certification renewal. That took a few years to straighten out.
>
> You guys are really patient with my newby questions - I just want to make sure I don't put my foot in it.
>
> Del

When I bought an "experimental" Discus 2 from Colorado and brought it to Arizona, our local FSDO inspected it and issued a new airworthiness for me. It required Phase 1 and 2 testing (as if it were a home-constructed experimental) However, they did not require notification that these tests had been carried out or subsequent inspection - just logbook entries to verify they had been done. It restricted flying to my home base in Arizona, unless I notified them. For notification, I e-mailed a program letter to the FSDO listing places I would fly. If anything changed - I just e-mailed a revised program letter. As long as there's nothing in their database indicating problems with your glider type or model, this process should be straightforward.

Mike

[MNLou]

When I purchased my "experimental" glider and moved it from MI to MN, I had the same experience as Mike except that I was not required to repeat the Phase 1 and 2 testing of the glider.

I had a very good experience with the local FSDO. One meeting at their office, one glider inspection at the field, and I was handed the new airworthiness certificate and operating limitations. (The new OLs were less restrictive than the previous OLs.)

I was told it was the glider changing FSDOs that required the new airworthiness certificate.

Lou

[Dan Marotta]

When I bought my last "Experimental" in Texas and moved it to New
Mexico, I mailed in my registration application to the FAA, modified the
existing program letter from TX, and emailed it to the ABQ FSDO. Then I
flew happily for five years (submitting an updated letter each January)
with no further contact with the FAA. Then we got a new inspector at
the FSDO and he wanted me to revise the letter. We had several meetings
and finally got a letter that satisfied him.

I asked him why my previous letter was no longer acceptable and he told
me a little story. He said when he joined the FAA an attended FSDO
training, the instructor told them, "Welcome to FSDO, 87 independently
owned and operated offices." That reminded me that, when I qualified in
the Air Force Sabreliner in the St. Louis area, I was told that getting
a type rating there would not remove the "center line thrust"
restriction on my multi-engine license. When I returned to my duty
station in Florida, I received a type rating without the center line
restriction. Bottom line is, different region, different interpretation
of the rules. YMMV.

On 2/9/2017 8:48 AM, MNLou wrote:
> When I purchased my "experimental" glider and moved it from MI to MN, I had the same experience as Mike except that I was not required to repeat the Phase 1 and 2 testing of the glider.
>
> I had a very good experience with the local FSDO. One meeting at their office, one glider inspection at the field, and I was handed the new airworthiness certificate and operating limitations. (The new OLs were less restrictive than the previous OLs.)
>
> I was told it was the glider changing FSDOs that required the new airworthiness certificate.
>
> Lou

--
Dan, 5J

[Tom (TK)]

The format for the program letter has changed over the years. 8130.2H is the current policy
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/1027070

[Frank Whiteley]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:11:03 AM UTC-7, Tom (TK) wrote:
> The format for the program letter has changed over the years. 8130.2H is the current policy
> https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/1027070

My FSDO has a form letter. Fill in the blanks, PDF it, e-mail it in. They will file it in case of future reference.

[Vernon Brown]

At 22:56 09 February 2017, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:11:03 AM UTC-7, Tom (TK) wrote:
>> The format for the program letter has changed over the years. 8130.2H
is
>the current policy
>>
>https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/1027070
>
>My FSDO has a form letter. Fill in the blanks, PDF it, e-mail it in.
They
>will file it in case of future reference.
>

Living in the UK I am curious, what is Phase 1 and 2 testing?

[Del Jensen]

Vernon,

From AC No: 20-27G:

"14. Phase I Flight Testing.
a. Flight Tests. Section 91.319(b) requires you to show that your aircraft is controllable at all its normal speeds during all the maneuvers you might expect to execute. You also need to show that your aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features.
b. Number of Flight Test Hours. The number of hours depends on your aircraft’s characteristics. See table 7 below for specific requirements. The FAA may decide you need additional hours of flight testing beyond those shown in the table to comply with § 91.319(b)." & etc.

This is primarily directed at home built, but many gliders in the US are certified as experimental. I'm not sure why that is so, but I suspect that if for some reason the feds revoke your standard certification, is is much easier to make mods under the experimental cert (as opposed to the standard cert) in order to get your machine back up in the air. Just changing out your variometer for something new can invalidate your certificate if the factory originally stipulated a particular vario.

As to what kind of mods can require you to redo phase I and II, I get the impression that it is up to the local FSDO, who acts as the regional interpreter of the federal regs.

Del

[Vernon Brown]

Thanks for the explanation, I was curious since the gliders mentioned in
the thread 304, Kestrel and Discus 2, after manufacture certification do
not any further testing in Europe, just the usual annual with ARC
(Airworthiness Review Certificate) which is a document check, and any
mandatory inspection.
Vernon


At 22:25 10 February 2017, Del Jensen wrote:
>Vernon,
>
>From AC No: 20-27G:
>
>"14. Phase I Flight Testing.
>a. Flight Tests. Section 91.319(b) requires you to show that your
aircraft
>=
>is controllable at all its normal speeds during all the maneuvers you
>might=
> expect to execute. You also need to show that your aircraft has no
>hazardo=
>us operating characteristics or design features.
>b. Number of Flight Test Hours. The number of hours depends on your
>aircraf=
>t=E2=80=99s characteristics. See table 7 below for specific requirements.
>T=
>he FAA may decide you need additional hours of flight testing beyond
those
>=
>shown in the table to comply with =C2=A7 91.319(b)." & etc.
>
>This is primarily directed at home built, but many gliders in the US are
>ce=
>rtified as experimental. I'm not sure why that is so, but I suspect that
>i=
>f for some reason the feds revoke your standard certification, is is much
>e=
>asier to make mods under the experimental cert (as opposed to the
standard
>=
>cert) in order to get your machine back up in the air. Just changing out
>y=
>our variometer for something new can invalidate your certificate if the
>fac=
>tory originally stipulated a particular vario.
>
>As to what kind of mods can require you to redo phase I and II, I get the
>i=
>mpression that it is up to the local FSDO, who acts as the regional
>interpr=
>eter of the federal regs.
>
>Del
>
>
>

[Casey[_2_]]

Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA issues a standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that glider experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown that the glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in say 1975 and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the manufacture for that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US; could that glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it was manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?

[Dan Marotta]

My Stemme was imported into Mexico when new. The model has a US type
certificate. When I brought it into the USA, I had to have a DAR
perform a conformity check and issue a US Standard Airworthiness
Certificate.

On 2/10/2017 4:57 PM, Casey wrote:
> Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA issues a standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that glider experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown that the glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in say 1975 and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the manufacture for that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US; could that glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it was manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?

--
Dan, 5J

[Michael Opitz]

At 23:57 10 February 2017, Casey wrote:
>Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA
issues a
>st=
>andard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that
glider
>e=
>xperimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown
that the
>gli=
>der is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in
say 1975
>a=
>nd then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the
manufacture for
>=
>that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US;
could
>that=
> glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it
was
>manufac=
>tured prior to the standard cert issued?
>


Casey,

I have had a number of gliders which fit your question. All of them
were early serial numbers in their production run. The JAR 22
reciprocal certification process takes time to make it's way through
all of the bi-lateral red tape, so the first bunch of new design
gliders when imported to the USA are usually given Experimental
Airworthiness Certificates. The understanding is that usually, when
the JAR 22 reciprocal approvals are finalized, the owner can then
get the Airworthiness Certificate changed from Experimental to
Standard if so desired. I made the change on one of the gliders I
had before I sold it, but the others, I just left Experimental. My
present Discus-2b is serial number 50, and was built in 1999. The
reciprocal Standard Airworthiness was not granted until the USA
FAA issued TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) G17CE in 2003.
Under the "Import Requirements" in the TCDS, it specifically lists
the serial numbers of the gliders that are grandfathered to be
eligible for a certificate change from Experimental to Standard,
provided the glider still meets the TCDS (no modifications outside of
those the factory approves) and has had all AD's and TN's complied
with. I have not opted to change my D-2's certificate yet, but my
local FAA MIDO has checked everything, and has advised me that
they can easily do it for me in conjunction with an annual
inspection, should I so desire to have it done.

So, the bottom line is to check the USA FAA TCDS for the glider in
question. If you find that the serial number is listed in the TCDS as
grandfathered, then (unless there have been major non-factory
authorized modifications) it most probably can be changed to a
Standard certificate. If the serial number is not grandfathered,
then my FAA MIDO says that the chances of getting a Standard
certificate issued in place of an Experimental one are not very
good at all....basically slim to none....

See the FAA website for a TCDS search:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.n
sf/Frameset?OpenPage

RO

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> On 2/10/2017 4:57 PM, Casey wrote:
> Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA issues a
> standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is that glider
> experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown that the
> glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider in say 1975
> and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the manufacture for
> that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US; could that
> glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it was
> manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?

The answer to Q1 is, any glider imported into the U.S. prior to the FAA
jumping through their own paper hoops designed to
ultimately-via-reciprocity-agreement recognizing the country-of-origin's
"approved type certificate" (exact verbiage dependent upon country of origin),
will be granted some form of "Experimental" airworthiness certificate. It
likely will be, "Experimental, Factory-Built, Exhibition and Racing." The
"importation certification" will remain in force until the owner of said
glider takes it upon him/herself to "upgrade" to an ATC (once "reciprocal
recognition" occurs). This is common with (e.g.) gliders of German origin.
Using the ubiquitous ASW-20 as an example, I wouldn't bet my life on there not
being a number of such ships in the U.S. still registered as "Experimental"
despite a "reciprocal-ATC" almost certainly (so I presume) having been granted
decades ago.

FAA "reciprocal-ATC-issuance" does not happen coincident with the country of
origin's issuing their equivalent of an ATC; so far as I'm aware there's
always been a paperwork-related (not U.S.-based, testing-related) delay.

I don't know the answer to Q2, though I would *guess* that any ship capable of
being shown to the FAA's satisfaction as meeting the design criteria
associated with that ship's ATC would be eligible for a "reciprocal-ATC." In
any event, Joe Owner of such a ship is pretty much guaranteed at least a minor
adventure in interfacing with (FSDO/FAA), and, paperwork.

Somewhat tangentially, there may be some RASidents unaware the FAA has
multiple "Experimental" buckets. Five, sez ancient recall. Common in the
general aviation arena is "Experimental, Amateur Built." My HP-14 was in that
category. My C-70 and Zuni were registered "Experimental, Factory Built,
Exhibition and Racing." I can't offhand remember the exact wording, but
there's also an Experimental bucket used by manufacturers (e.g. Cessna) when
they do development work, while the remaining Experimental buckets presently
aren't coming to mind.

Over the decades, the FAA's view on owners moving ATC-registered gliders into
an "Experimental" bucket (for whatever reason) has varied, unsurprisingly
tending (so I've been reliably, though not-recently, told) toward being less
willing. Hearsay suggests they presently won't let Joe Owner make such a
change simply "because J.O. wants to," though if you want to (say) develop
your own self-launching option, a "type-certificate-related mechanism" to do
so still exists.

Bob W.

[Michael Opitz]

At 03:34 11 February 2017, Bob Whelan wrote:
>> On 2/10/2017 4:57 PM, Casey wrote:
>> Question: If a glider is imported into the US prior to the FAA
issues a
>> standard airworthiness cert to the manufacture for the type, is
that
>glider
>> experimental and will always be experimental or can it be shown
that the
>> glider is the same type? Or say if a manufacture makes a glider
in say
>1975
>> and then the FAA issues a standard type cert in 1976 to the
manufacture
>for
>> that type glider and then a 1975 glider is imported into the US;
could
>that
>> glider be grandfathered under the standard type even though it
was
>> manufactured prior to the standard cert issued?
>


>Using the ubiquitous ASW-20 as an example, I wouldn't bet my
life on there
>not
>being a number of such ships in the U.S. still registered as
"Experimental"

Bob,

If you look up the FAA TCDS website, you will find that there is no
TCDS for the ASW-20, so all will still be registered as Experimental
in the USA. That paperwork was never done.

I also had the specific discussion with one of our local FAA MIDO
inspectors about getting a Standard certificate issued after an
Experimental one was already in place. His view was that if the
glider was not grandfathered in the TCDS, the FAA would assume
that the importer had been trying to "back door" the established
system by not going through the proper procedures (ie Export C of
A, etc), and therefore the FAA would be extremely reluctant to allow
that aircraft a status change from Experimental to Standard.

If the aircraft happened to come through a "3rd country" (exported
from country of manufacture to another country, before being
exported from the second country to the USA), then it depends on if
the USA FAA has a reciprocal 3rd country licensing agreement with
that specific country. If so, one can get a 3rd country Export C of
A, and then get a USA Standard C of A. If there is no 3rd country
reciprocal agreement, then the options upon USA entry are (like
Dan) to hire a DAR and have a thorough condition inspection done
for a Standard certificate, or just slap an Experimental certificate on
it. Once the experimental certificate goes on though, it will be nigh
on impossible to change it to Standard later.

RO

[Michael Opitz]

>If there is no 3rd country
reciprocal agreement, then the options upon USA entry are (like
Dan) to hire a DAR and have a thorough condition inspection done
for a Standard certificate, or just slap an Experimental certificate on
it<

TYPO... Conformity inspection - which is much more exhaustive than
the annual Experimental Condition inspection.

RO

[BobW]

On 2/11/2017 7:00 AM, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 03:34 11 February 2017, Bob Whelan wrote:
<Snip...>
>> Using the ubiquitous ASW-20 as an example, I wouldn't bet my life on there
>> not being a number of such ships in the U.S. still registered as
> "Experimental"
>
> Bob,
>
> If you look up the FAA TCDS website, you will find that there is no
> TCDS for the ASW-20, so all will still be registered as Experimental
> in the USA. That paperwork was never done.
>
> I also had the specific discussion with one of our local FAA MIDO
> inspectors about getting a Standard certificate issued after an
> Experimental one was already in place. His view was that if the
> glider was not grandfathered in the TCDS, the FAA would assume
> that the importer had been trying to "back door" the established
> system by not going through the proper procedures (ie Export C of
> A, etc), and therefore the FAA would be extremely reluctant to allow
> that aircraft a status change from Experimental to Standard.
>
> If the aircraft happened to come through a "3rd country" (exported
> from country of manufacture to another country, before being
> exported from the second country to the USA), then it depends on if
> the USA FAA has a reciprocal 3rd country licensing agreement with
> that specific country. If so, one can get a 3rd country Export C of
> A, and then get a USA Standard C of A. If there is no 3rd country
> reciprocal agreement, then the options upon USA entry are (like
> Dan) to hire a DAR and have a thorough condition inspection done
> for a Standard certificate, or just slap an Experimental certificate on
> it. Once the experimental certificate goes on though, it will be nigh
> on impossible to change it to Standard later.
>
> RO

Thanks for correcting and clarifying things, Mike. Obviously, I had no idea
the "dirt common" ASW 20 had never received a U.S. ATC/TCDS. Despite the
largely post-Sacramento-tragedy-associated creation of
Experimental-category-related operating limitations hoops through which owners
must now jump, I remain a fan of the Experimental registration approach to
airworthiness certification.

Kinda-sorta related to this thread's topic, I neglected to mention in my
previous post there are significant category-related operating restriction
differences between the various Experimental categories...point being that
"Experimental registration" is far from a universal catchall. By way of
emphasizing this point, the operating restrictions of (say) an unlimited
category Reno racer are quite different (more restrictive) than those of
today's average "Exhibition, Factory-Built, Exhibition and Racing" sailplane,
which in turn are quite different (more onerous in a paperwork sense, in my
view) than those of my 1981- registered same-category Zuni.

Bob W.

[Michael Opitz]

>today's average "Exhibition, Factory-Built, Exhibition and Racing"
sailplane,
which in turn are quite different (more onerous in a paperwork sense,
in my
view) than those of my 1981- registered same-category Zuni.<

Bob,

I just send out a letter to our local FAA office early every year detailing

which contests I might fly, and where they will be located during the
upcoming season. Then, I list all of the local area sites I might fly out

of and state that training for the upcoming contests may occur at any
of these sites. After the dates of the last contest of the year, the
training will be for contests occurring in the next year's time frame.

I have the master copy of this letter in my PC, and I just change the
contest locations and dates to match on a yearly basis. It doesn't take
up much of my time at all to do this and send it to my local FAA MIDO,
so it has just been convenient to keep the glider in Experimental
registry for now.

RO

[[email protected]]

On my program letter, I write 'TBD' for activities, and 'US Territories' for areas of operation.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:44:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On my program letter, I write 'TBD' for activities, and 'US Territories' for areas of operation.

That would bounce in any FSDO that knows what they are doing.
UH

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:44:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On my program letter, I write 'TBD' for activities, and 'US Territories' for areas of operation.
>
> That would bounce in any FSDO that knows what they are doing.
> UH

So it should work fine in San Diego