Weird Experimental Certificate wording - Normal?

[Noel Luneau]

I have an ASW-17 and the aircraft is registered under
an experimental certificate and has special operating
limitations.
They read, in part, 'All flights shall be conducted
within the geographic area described as follows: Within
300 mile radius of a sanctioned glider meet or contest.
Profficiency flights may be conducted in the vicinity
of fly-ins or airshows.'

Is this common for Experimental Certificates for our
sailplanes?

Thanks,

Noel

[jphoenix]

Noel Luneau wrote:
> I have an ASW-17 and the aircraft is registered under
> an experimental certificate and has special operating
> limitations.
> They read, in part, 'All flights shall be conducted
> within the geographic area described as follows: Within
> 300 mile radius of a sanctioned glider meet or contest.
> Profficiency flights may be conducted in the vicinity
> of fly-ins or airshows.'
>
> Is this common for Experimental Certificates for our
> sailplanes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Noel

[[email protected]]

I own a Russia and that is the wording that my certificate has. I send
a letter to FSDO each spring listing where I plan on flying outside of
that 300 mile limit. Easy to do when I can fax the letter.

Larry Johnson
Noel Luneau wrote:
> I have an ASW-17 and the aircraft is registered under
> an experimental certificate and has special operating
> limitations.
> They read, in part, 'All flights shall be conducted
> within the geographic area described as follows: Within
> 300 mile radius of a sanctioned glider meet or contest.
> Profficiency flights may be conducted in the vicinity
> of fly-ins or airshows.'
>
> Is this common for Experimental Certificates for our
> sailplanes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Noel

[jphoenix]

The current FAA Order 8130.2F has the following boilerplate for ops
limitations issued to gliders under experimental, exhibition and
racing:

8130.2F 11/5/2004
Page 178
(34) All proficiency/practice flights must be conducted within the
geographical area described
in the applicant's program letter and any modifications to that
letter, but that area will not be more than
300 nautical miles from the aircraft's home base airport. Proficiency
flights are limited to a nonstop
flight that begins and ends at the aircraft's home base airport. An
alternate airport selection is not
permitted for this aircraft. However, an exception is permitted for
proficiency flying outside of the area
stated above for organized formation flying, training, or pilot
checkout in conjunction with a specific
event listed in the applicant's program letter (or amendments). The
program letter should indicate the
location and dates for this proficiency flying.
(Applicability: Group IV)

(35) Proficiency flights are authorized without geographical
restrictions when conducted in
preparation for participation in sanctioned meets and pursuant to
qualify for Federal Aeronautique
International (FAI) or Soaring Society of America (SSA) awards. These
flights may only take place as
defined in the applicant's program letter, and prior to the specific
FAI or SSA event. The pilot in
command must submit a description of the intended route and/or
geographical area intended to be flown
to the local FSDO.
(Applicability: Group I, gliders only)

So, it looks like your Ops Limitations were kind of messed up a bit, or
were issued a while back. See your local FSDO for corrected or updated
limitations. You can access the 8130.2F online by going to faa.gov and
searching for 8130.2F or search for Orders.

Jim

Noel Luneau wrote:
> I have an ASW-17 and the aircraft is registered under
> an experimental certificate and has special operating
> limitations.
> They read, in part, 'All flights shall be conducted
> within the geographic area described as follows: Within
> 300 mile radius of a sanctioned glider meet or contest.
> Profficiency flights may be conducted in the vicinity
> of fly-ins or airshows.'
>
> Is this common for Experimental Certificates for our
> sailplanes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Noel

[Mark Zivley]

Sure would be nice if the SSA could lobby the FAA to eliminate the
requirement for program letters for gliders that are factory built, if
not all experimental gliders.

Enlighten me please, what's the point beyond "it's just the rule,
dumb..." or "it's always been this way" or etc.

Seems like it would save the FAA some $$ in not having to deal with the
letters coming in and we'd not have to submit them. Why do they care
where we might go fly? Besides all that, there is no enforcement for
all practical purposes.

Mark

Noel Luneau wrote:
> I have an ASW-17 and the aircraft is registered under
> an experimental certificate and has special operating
> limitations.
> They read, in part, 'All flights shall be conducted
> within the geographic area described as follows: Within
> 300 mile radius of a sanctioned glider meet or contest.
> Profficiency flights may be conducted in the vicinity
> of fly-ins or airshows.'
>
> Is this common for Experimental Certificates for our
> sailplanes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Noel
>
>
>
>

[Michael McNulty]

"Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
om...
> Sure would be nice if the SSA could lobby the FAA to eliminate the
> requirement for program letters for gliders that are factory built, if not
> all experimental gliders.
>
> Enlighten me please, what's the point beyond "it's just the rule, dumb..."
> or "it's always been this way" or etc.
>
The "Experimental" certification that most US gliders have is explicitly,
for the purpose of "Exhibition and Racing". Given this fact, it seems
reasonable to me that the FAA might ask us to substantiate that this is in
fact what we are doing with these aircraft. (Remember, we never go for
"pleasure flights" in these aircraft; we are maintaining proficiency for our
exhibition and racing activities).

Given that the annual program letter takes about five minutes to prepare and
send in, I think that we've got the best side in this deal. Please don't
rock the boat; if the FAA really wants to cut down on their workload, my
fear is that they could eliminate the "Experimental, Exhibition and Racing"
category altogether. Those who really object to the program letter can
always buy an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate.

By the way, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that
homebuilts (Experimental, Amateur Built airworthiness) have a program letter
requirement. They do have other restrictions, however.

Also, thanks for reminding me to submit my 2005 program letter.

[Jim Phoenix]

Yes, they do have a program letter. All experimentals do - except for some
"show compliance" experimental certificates. See excerpt from the 8130.2F:

11/5/2004 8130.2F
Page 161

153. ISSUANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS.

etc., etc.

At the FSDO, your Ops Limitations come from a boilerplate generator in the
computer. The Inspector simply fills in the variables in the Word template.
Any variation from the Order (8130.2F) must be justified and approved
through the FSDO and AVR chain of command. A lengthy and perhaps not always
successful endeavour I can tell you, unless you have some very good reason
for requesting what they call "non-standard language".

It has been done.

Jim.

"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
>
snip
>
> By the way, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that
> homebuilts (Experimental, Amateur Built airworthiness) have a program
> letter requirement. They do have other restrictions, however.
>

>

[Jim Phoenix]

Also, because I did not answer the specific question - the experimental
amateur built do have a program letter requirement in phase 1. (The basis
for the program letter is in CFR 21.193)

Jim
"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
news:FanDd.51992$Cl3.43474@fed1read03...
>
> "Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Sure would be nice if the SSA could lobby the FAA to eliminate the
>> requirement for program letters for gliders that are factory built, if
>> not all experimental gliders.
>>
>> Enlighten me please, what's the point beyond "it's just the rule,
>> dumb..." or "it's always been this way" or etc.
>>
> The "Experimental" certification that most US gliders have is explicitly,
> for the purpose of "Exhibition and Racing". Given this fact, it seems
> reasonable to me that the FAA might ask us to substantiate that this is in
> fact what we are doing with these aircraft. (Remember, we never go for
> "pleasure flights" in these aircraft; we are maintaining proficiency for
> our exhibition and racing activities).
>
> Given that the annual program letter takes about five minutes to prepare
> and send in, I think that we've got the best side in this deal. Please
> don't rock the boat; if the FAA really wants to cut down on their
> workload, my fear is that they could eliminate the "Experimental,
> Exhibition and Racing" category altogether. Those who really object to
> the program letter can always buy an aircraft with a standard
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> By the way, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that
> homebuilts (Experimental, Amateur Built airworthiness) have a program
> letter requirement. They do have other restrictions, however.
>
> Also, thanks for reminding me to submit my 2005 program letter.
>

[Mark Zivley]

Look at what JJ submitted for his program letter. It's great that he's
not tied to anything, but it really doesn't say anything of value. My
point is why not eliminate the paperwork. I'm not trying to rock the
boat, but what practical information did the FAA get and they could have
elminated the hassle of receiving the letter and we'd not have to submit
them.

Michael McNulty wrote:

> "Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Sure would be nice if the SSA could lobby the FAA to eliminate the
>>requirement for program letters for gliders that are factory built, if not
>>all experimental gliders.
>>
>>Enlighten me please, what's the point beyond "it's just the rule, dumb..."
>>or "it's always been this way" or etc.
>>
>
> The "Experimental" certification that most US gliders have is explicitly,
> for the purpose of "Exhibition and Racing". Given this fact, it seems
> reasonable to me that the FAA might ask us to substantiate that this is in
> fact what we are doing with these aircraft. (Remember, we never go for
> "pleasure flights" in these aircraft; we are maintaining proficiency for our
> exhibition and racing activities).
>
> Given that the annual program letter takes about five minutes to prepare and
> send in, I think that we've got the best side in this deal. Please don't
> rock the boat; if the FAA really wants to cut down on their workload, my
> fear is that they could eliminate the "Experimental, Exhibition and Racing"
> category altogether. Those who really object to the program letter can
> always buy an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate.
>
> By the way, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that
> homebuilts (Experimental, Amateur Built airworthiness) have a program letter
> requirement. They do have other restrictions, however.
>
> Also, thanks for reminding me to submit my 2005 program letter.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Mark,
The paper work we have is a direct result of an accident where the
pilot of an experimental (exhibition & racing) licenced F-86, didn't
want to use the fuel it would take to taxi to the long runway, so he
used the short runway, went off the end, through a fence, across
Freeport Blvd and came to rest in an ice cream parlor, full of kids. A
gigantic hue and cry was heard, "Let's shut down these nuts flying
those EXPERIMENTAL things". I don't mind sending in a couple of program
letters, if it means we can continue to fly our birds.
JJ


Mark Zivley wrote:
> Look at what JJ submitted for his program letter. It's great that
he's
> not tied to anything, but it really doesn't say anything of value.
My
> point is why not eliminate the paperwork. I'm not trying to rock the

> boat, but what practical information did the FAA get and they could
have
> elminated the hassle of receiving the letter and we'd not have to
submit
> them.
>
> Michael McNulty wrote:
>
> > "Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>Sure would be nice if the SSA could lobby the FAA to eliminate the
> >>requirement for program letters for gliders that are factory built,
if not
> >>all experimental gliders.
> >>
> >>Enlighten me please, what's the point beyond "it's just the rule,
dumb..."
> >>or "it's always been this way" or etc.
> >>
> >
> > The "Experimental" certification that most US gliders have is
explicitly,
> > for the purpose of "Exhibition and Racing". Given this fact, it
seems
> > reasonable to me that the FAA might ask us to substantiate that
this is in
> > fact what we are doing with these aircraft. (Remember, we never
go for
> > "pleasure flights" in these aircraft; we are maintaining
proficiency for our
> > exhibition and racing activities).
> >
> > Given that the annual program letter takes about five minutes to
prepare and
> > send in, I think that we've got the best side in this deal. Please
don't
> > rock the boat; if the FAA really wants to cut down on their
workload, my
> > fear is that they could eliminate the "Experimental, Exhibition and
Racing"
> > category altogether. Those who really object to the program letter
can
> > always buy an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate.
> >
> > By the way, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that

> > homebuilts (Experimental, Amateur Built airworthiness) have a
program letter
> > requirement. They do have other restrictions, however.
> >
> > Also, thanks for reminding me to submit my 2005 program letter.
> >
> >

[Mark Zivley]

This will be my last post on this. Letters are not that big of a
hassle. Let's face it, they provide no tangible value and a program
letter will not prevent the kind of accident you described.

If someone builds a home-built then yes, I can see that it might be nice
if they crash within 20nm of their home airport, but for factory built
gliders the accident rate is almost entirely pilot error.

Anyway, it would sure be nice if the SSA could eliminate program letters
for factory built gliders. Nuf said.

Mark

[plasticguy]

"Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
. com...
> This will be my last post on this. Letters are not that big of a hassle.
> Let's face it, they provide no tangible value and a program letter will
> not prevent the kind of accident you described.
>
> If someone builds a home-built then yes, I can see that it might be nice
> if they crash within 20nm of their home airport, but for factory built
> gliders the accident rate is almost entirely pilot error.
>
> Anyway, it would sure be nice if the SSA could eliminate program letters
> for factory built gliders. Nuf said.
>
> Mark
>

Mark.

Yes it would be nice if that could happen, but I don't see it happening.
The issue is this. You cannot operate an aircraft without an airworthiness
certificate.
You do not qualify for amatuer built/experimental for obvious reasons.
It wasn't certified in the US by the manufacturer, so the powers that be
created
experimental/exhibition&racing. At the time the law was created, sailplanes
were a very small blip
on the radar and program letters were read very closely if you were
operating a warbird,
primarily jets. The Fresno incident just about killed non-certified
aircraft op's in the country.
They are a bit of a hassle, but are necessary because of the class the
aircraft operates under.
Until the classification requirements change, the program letter is the only
thing that allows you to fly.

Scott.

[[email protected]]

We (SSA) already enjoy quite a few privileges and exemptions that power
pilots don't get. We do have some clout with the FAA, but lets not
spend it on meaningless issues. The FAR's have been written in our
favor or exemtions granted in the following areas:
+ We don't need:
Radios
Transponders
ELT's
Medicals
+ We have:
Experimental licence that allows us to:
Build & inspect our own sailplanes.
Fly factory built ships (no US type Cert)
Assemble & disassemble without sign-off.

My recommendation is to just mail in the program letter each year (the
simple one I posted works just fine). Sure it doesn't say anything, but
lets save our political muscle for really important things. If we keep
asking for meaningless things, the FAA may start to think of us as,
"Those snively glider pukes, whining about nothing again".
:>) JJ