Experimental or not?

[John D. Abrahms]

Hello!

I'm reading here for a while now, but today I want to come up with a
question that bothered me for a while. I'm not a pilot (but will begin
to take flight lessons soon) so this is mostly out of curiosity.

I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
serialized products but individually built with different quality and
with different modifications. I also know that GA airplanes made of
composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.
What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane. I now wonder
why it's treated as experimental, and not as a normal aircplane,
utility aircraft or aerobatic airplane. Why is this the case? What
makes a jet airplane that is produced by a factory in high numbers
different than say a C-152 that also is produced by a factory in high
numbers? Is the only way to register jet airplanes like the L-39 the
experimental category? Or can they also be registered as say aerobatic
aircraft?

From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
be able to fly the L-39. What if the L-39 would not be registered as
experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane? Would this also
require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with this L-39? Are
there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?
Or are the 1000hrs required for experimental airplanes in general?

I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever). Is that true? If so, registering
airplanes like an L-39 in normal/utility/aerobatic category would
probably also remove some limitations like the use for training,
right? So why are they registered as experimental instead?

As I said, it's just curiosity. But it really confuses me.

JJ

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On 5 Apr 2005 14:36:01 -0700, (John D. Abrahms)
wrote:

There are more than one category of Experimental aircraft.

Experimental - Amateur built
Experimental - Exhibition
Experimental - Racing
Experimental - Research & Development

There are a couple (?) more that I can't recall at the moment..

The L-39 falls under Experimental Exhibition, principally, because
there is no FAA type-certificate for the machine. The Antonov AN-2
is another example of this, as are Canadian-built Harvard (T-6)
aircraft. Basically, the manufacturers of these aircraft have not
done what it takes to prove to the FAA that the design complies
with the FAA regulations which cover standard category aircraft.

I'm not an L-39 expert by any means, but it's unlikely (?) you'll find
one registered as a standard category airframe. The LOA for
a turbine powered aircraft is what's driving the 1000 hours PIC
time. You don't need 1000 PIC to fly an experimental aircraft
in general.

Bela P. Havasreti

>Hello!
>
>I'm reading here for a while now, but today I want to come up with a
>question that bothered me for a while. I'm not a pilot (but will begin
>to take flight lessons soon) so this is mostly out of curiosity.
>
>I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
>into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
>serialized products but individually built with different quality and
>with different modifications. I also know that GA airplanes made of
>composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.
>What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
>composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
>experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane. I now wonder
>why it's treated as experimental, and not as a normal aircplane,
>utility aircraft or aerobatic airplane. Why is this the case? What
>makes a jet airplane that is produced by a factory in high numbers
>different than say a C-152 that also is produced by a factory in high
>numbers? Is the only way to register jet airplanes like the L-39 the
>experimental category? Or can they also be registered as say aerobatic
>aircraft?
>
>From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
>1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
>be able to fly the L-39. What if the L-39 would not be registered as
>experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane? Would this also
>require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with this L-39? Are
>there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?
>Or are the 1000hrs required for experimental airplanes in general?
>
>I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
>training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever). Is that true? If so, registering
>airplanes like an L-39 in normal/utility/aerobatic category would
>probably also remove some limitations like the use for training,
>right? So why are they registered as experimental instead?
>
>As I said, it's just curiosity. But it really confuses me.
>
>JJ

[Dave S]

Ok.. multiple questions.,. and I will do my best to answer most of them...

John D. Abrahms wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm reading here for a while now, but today I want to come up with a
> question that bothered me for a while. I'm not a pilot (but will begin
> to take flight lessons soon) so this is mostly out of curiosity.
>
> I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
> into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
> serialized products but individually built with different quality and
> with different modifications.

Ok.. correct. They are considered "Experimental - Amatuer Built". They
can be one of a kind, unique designs, or they can be "one-off" copies of
existing plans-built or kit-built designs.

I also know that GA airplanes made of
> composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.

Not quite the case. THere are several certified, Normal Category
aircraft out there that are composite construction. Lancair has a
factory built product, and Cirrus is actually the best selling factory
built GA airplane in the world based on last years sales figures. They
are making more airframes than any Cessna model.

> What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
> composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
> experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane. I now wonder
> why it's treated as experimental, and not as a normal aircplane,
> utility aircraft or aerobatic airplane.

It is listed as an Experimental because it does not have an FAA issued
Type Certificate in the Normal, Utility or Aerobatic categories. The
manufacturer did not pursue certification testing to obtain this status.

Why is this the case? What
> makes a jet airplane that is produced by a factory in high numbers
> different than say a C-152 that also is produced by a factory in high
> numbers? Is the only way to register jet airplanes like the L-39 the
> experimental category? Or can they also be registered as say aerobatic
> aircraft?

Unless formal certification is undertaken, by the manufacturer of the
airframe, then the answer is no. I doubt that will be forthcoming, since
the former Warsaw Pact countries are able to sell their surplus old jets
just fine. Although they are listed as "Experimental" they are NOT
amatuer built, and the rules they operate under (Exhibition, I believe)
are somewhat more restrictive than your typical homebuilt (once the
homebuilt is out of phase 1 testing). Certification will involve LOTS of
money, time and NEW airframes (some are tested to destruction..)


>
> From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
> 1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
> be able to fly the L-39. What if the L-39 would not be registered as
> experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane? Would this also
> require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with this L-39? Are
> there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?
> Or are the 1000hrs required for experimental airplanes in general?

For the short term, normal/utility/aerobatic cert isn't gonna happen. IF
it was, then the airplane would fall under the "Large or Turbine
Powered" part of CFR 14, part 91. I want to say (without looking it up
right now) that large or turbine powered aircraft require a type rating.
This is easily summarized (and probably over simplified) as a checkride
to ATP standards in the aircraft (and ATP candidates require over 1200
hours to begin with), and a comprehensive understanding of the aircraft
and all its systems. The LOA process is essentially a "waiver" to the
type rating process, since the airplane doesn't have a "type
certificate" against which the rating can be issued. LOA's are not
something I have experience with, and I may be mistaken on the details
here. The list here WILL correct me if I'm wrong.. I'm sure.

>
> I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
> training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever). Is that true? If so, registering
> airplanes like an L-39 in normal/utility/aerobatic category would
> probably also remove some limitations like the use for training,
> right? So why are they registered as experimental instead?

You CAN use an experimental plane for training. It just cannot be used
for commercial purposes. So, if someone wants to TEACH you for free in
their's or someone elses experimental, they can. THey cannot charge you
rent, and if it was your plane, you couldn't hold the airframe out for
hire. A new exception/waiver that is in place now is that "transition
training" is now available for the Factory and lay CFI's to provide
training in type to prospective and new owners of experimental airplanes
.. For instance, before I take flight in the Velocity that I am helping
build, I will travel to Florida and recieve legal instruction (for a
fee) in a factory sponsored/operated/built aircraft.
>
> As I said, it's just curiosity. But it really confuses me.
>
> JJ

It confuses a lot of people, and we will find out shortly if I've got it
right, too.

Dave

[John D. Abrahms]

Dave S > wrote in message et>...

> Ok.. correct. They are considered "Experimental - Amatuer Built". They
> can be one of a kind, unique designs, or they can be "one-off" copies of
> existing plans-built or kit-built designs.

Yes. Up to this it's clear for me.

> Not quite the case. THere are several certified, Normal Category
> aircraft out there that are composite construction. Lancair has a
> factory built product, and Cirrus is actually the best selling factory
> built GA airplane in the world based on last years sales figures. They
> are making more airframes than any Cessna model.

Really? What about the canard designs (SC01 Speed Canard, LongEZE,
VariEZE etc)? Are they also normal category?

> It is listed as an Experimental because it does not have an FAA issued
> Type Certificate in the Normal, Utility or Aerobatic categories. The
> manufacturer did not pursue certification testing to obtain this status.

I understand.

> For the short term, normal/utility/aerobatic cert isn't gonna happen. IF
> it was, then the airplane would fall under the "Large or Turbine
> Powered" part of CFR 14, part 91. I want to say (without looking it up
> right now) that large or turbine powered aircraft require a type rating.
> This is easily summarized (and probably over simplified) as a checkride
> to ATP standards in the aircraft (and ATP candidates require over 1200
> hours to begin with), and a comprehensive understanding of the aircraft
> and all its systems.

I know that a type rating is necessary. But I wonder why one of the
requirements are 1000+ hrs PIC time. I mean, You still can fly with a
PPL on such thing...

Do all turbine airplanes require the 1000+hrs?

> The LOA process is essentially a "waiver" to the
> type rating process, since the airplane doesn't have a "type
> certificate" against which the rating can be issued. LOA's are not
> something I have experience with, and I may be mistaken on the details
> here. The list here WILL correct me if I'm wrong.. I'm sure.

Let's see? ;-)

> You CAN use an experimental plane for training. It just cannot be used
> for commercial purposes. So, if someone wants to TEACH you for free in
> their's or someone elses experimental, they can. THey cannot charge you
> rent, and if it was your plane, you couldn't hold the airframe out for
> hire. A new exception/waiver that is in place now is that "transition
> training" is now available for the Factory and lay CFI's to provide
> training in type to prospective and new owners of experimental airplanes

So that means an experimental can't be used commercially except for
providing training to pilots who want to fly such a thing, right? But
this again (sorry) makes me wonder about things like this:

The Jet Warbird Training Center
<http://www.jetwarbird.com/>
They not only offer type ratings but also general flight time in their
jets, and they also offer "jet orientation flights", which is much
more than just providing training to CFIs and prospective/new owners
of such airplanes. I assume that all of their planes fall into the
experimental category.

Or what about the "National Test Pilot School"
<http://www.ntps.com/>
They provide training for test pilots on several airplanes which for
sure are experimental (i.e. the Saab Draken, the MB326M Impala, the
MS760A Paris Jet, or the NDN1).

I also know that there are some companies that use experimental
airplanes like the Dornier Alpha Jet for flight tests.

I wonder how they can do that?

Thanks for your answers!

JJ

[Michael]

> Do all turbine airplanes require the 1000+hrs?

First, type ratings are required for turbojets, but not all turbines
(not turboprops) unless they are large.

Second, there is no minimum number of hours required to get a type
rating. In theory.

In practice, it doesn't really work that way. If you can afford to pay
cash for a certified turbojet, you can't afford to operate it without
liability insurance, and in any case virtually any airport where you
could base it would require you to have liability insurance. And guess
what - nobody will insure you in a turboject without 1000+ hours.
Since it hasn't been an issue, the FAA has not seen fit to regulate.
These surplus East-bloc turbojets are an issue, and realistically you
do need 1000 hours to fly one. Could it be done in less? Sure. If
you subjected yourself to an extremely rigorous program for a few
hundred hours, lived, ate, and breathed flying and nothing else, and
was the sort of person who was enough of a natural pilot to make it
through a military training program and not wash out, I bet you could
fly one in half that time, or even less.

>The Jet Warbird Training Center
>Or what about the "National Test Pilot School"
>I wonder how they can do that?

They are connected, and can get waivers for the regulations. You are
not, and can't.

Michael

[Dave S]

John D. Abrahms wrote:

>
> Really? What about the canard designs (SC01 Speed Canard, LongEZE,
> VariEZE etc)? Are they also normal category?

No, Because Rutan (the designer) did not seek FAA type certification,
and make all of his planes at the factory. Experimental - Amatuer Built
airplanes may meet the performance requirements to be in the aerobatic,
or utility or normal categories, but they have not undergone FAA
certification to do so.

(SNIP)
>
>
>>You CAN use an experimental plane for training. It just cannot be used
>>for commercial purposes. So, if someone wants to TEACH you for free in
>>their's or someone elses experimental, they can. THey cannot charge you
>>rent, and if it was your plane, you couldn't hold the airframe out for
>>hire. A new exception/waiver that is in place now is that "transition
>>training" is now available for the Factory and lay CFI's to provide
>>training in type to prospective and new owners of experimental airplanes
>
>
> So that means an experimental can't be used commercially except for
> providing training to pilots who want to fly such a thing, right? But
> this again (sorry) makes me wonder about things like this:
>
> The Jet Warbird Training Center
> <http://www.jetwarbird.com/>
> They not only offer type ratings but also general flight time in their
> jets, and they also offer "jet orientation flights", which is much
> more than just providing training to CFIs and prospective/new owners
> of such airplanes. I assume that all of their planes fall into the
> experimental category.

I meant to confine my comments about commercial use to "Experimental -
Amatuer Built", not the entire experimental category. I cannot claim the
answer with regards to the whole category.
>
> Or what about the "National Test Pilot School"
> <http://www.ntps.com/>
> They provide training for test pilots on several airplanes which for
> sure are experimental (i.e. the Saab Draken, the MB326M Impala, the
> MS760A Paris Jet, or the NDN1).
>
> I also know that there are some companies that use experimental
> airplanes like the Dornier Alpha Jet for flight tests.
>
> I wonder how they can do that?

If there is an FAA rule, there can always be an FAA waiver. If the FAA
chooses to do so. Thats how persons with otherwise disqualifying medical
conditions can be allowed to hold medicals. Thats how aerobatic
performers can do their stuff below 1500 feet and thats how people can
operate turbojets without type ratings. If the FAA feels its the right
thing to do, in their sole opinion, they can waiver the rule.


>
> Thanks for your answers!
>
> JJ

Dave

[Juan Jimenez]

"John D. Abrahms" > wrote in message
om...

> I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
> into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
> serialized products but individually built with different quality and
> with different modifications.

Not really. You can restore a certified airplane from a dataplate and a
single piece of metal and build everything yourself. If you can get an IA to
sign off on it, and the FAA to agree, it doesn't have to be experimental.

> I also know that GA airplanes made of
> composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.

No. Cirrus, Lancair and a few others are composites and they are certified
aircraft.

> What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
> composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
> experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane.

That's because it's an ex-military airplane that was never put through
normal certification. In order to fly in private hands it has to have an
experimental airworthiness certificate.

> From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
> 1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
> be able to fly the L-39.

Correct.

> What if the L-39 would not be registered as
> experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane?

The manufacturer, as far as I know, has no interest in spending the oodles
of money required to achieve this. And most likely you wouldn't be able to
afford the airplane if they did.

> Would this also require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with
> this L-39?

It would require a type rating.

> Are there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?

To my knowledge, that is only the case on the few ex-military experimentals
being sold out there.

> I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
> training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever).

No. A CFI can use your experimental to train you to fly it.

Juan

[Don Hammer]

Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?

The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
and killed themselves.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[AINut]

The LOA is no longer called an LOA, but from what the FSDO told me about
the requirements, it is still a rose by another name.



Don Hammer wrote:
> Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
> dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
> case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?
>
> The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
> requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
> more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
> and killed themselves.
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Juan Jimenez]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...
> Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
> dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
> case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?

Don't know about the Goose or Lodestar but the ex-mil fighters are covered
by an AC, can't remember the number.

> The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
> requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
> more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
> and killed themselves.

Still applies. :)

[Juan Jimenez]

LOA's are still around. For the ex-mil's now they have a weird
pseudo-type-rating system that shows up on your license. But that applies
only to ex-mil on that AC that's been recently updated. For my BD-5J, for
example, I was told to apply for an LOA, and that's what the FSDO will issue
me if aero-medical ever gets around to handling my special issuance renewal.

"AINut" > wrote in message
...
> The LOA is no longer called an LOA, but from what the FSDO told me about
> the requirements, it is still a rose by another name.
>
> Don Hammer wrote:
>> Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
>> dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
>> case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?
>>
>> The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
>> requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
>> more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
>> and killed themselves.
>>
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 6 Apr 2005 09:30:37 -0700, (John D. Abrahms) wrote:

>> Not quite the case. THere are several certified, Normal Category
>> aircraft out there that are composite construction. Lancair has a
>> factory built product, and Cirrus is actually the best selling factory
>> built GA airplane in the world based on last years sales figures. They
>> are making more airframes than any Cessna model.
>
>Really? What about the canard designs (SC01 Speed Canard, LongEZE,
>VariEZE etc)? Are they also normal category?

There are two main airworthiness categories: Standard and Special.

Standard airworthiness aircraft are proven to meet certain FAA standards, and
they must be maintained to ensure their continued compliance with those
standards. At given intervals they must be inspected to ensure they still
conform to the Type Certificate they receive. Since these aircraft are known
quantities, they may be placed into commercial service with no further FAA
certification action (although some additional equipment may be required for
some operation).

Standard airworthiness includes normal, aerobatic, utility, transport, commuter,
and transport categories.

Special airworthiness is used for airplanes that either have not undergone the
FAA certification process, or specific changes are made to them that take them
outside the limits established by their type certificate. Operation of Special
airworthiness aircraft is basically governed on a *per aircraft* basis. The FAA
assigns operations limitations to each aircraft, and these limitation are not
blanket to a given aircraft type nor are they transferrable to an identical
aircraft.

Special airworthiness categories include Limited, Primary, Restricted, Special
Light Sport, and Experimental. Commercial operations are *not* prohibited, but
they require specific FAA approval. The degree to which the FAA grants such
permission varies.

The Experimental category under the Special Airworthiness includes a number of
categories, such as racing, market survey, R&D, Exhibition, experimental LSA,
and amateur-built. The FAA's *policy* may be to deny permission for these
aircraft to operate commercially, but such policies can be waived. You just
have to give the FAA a good reason why the waiver is a good idea.

As others have described very nicely, the L-39 Albatross may be a safe,
professionally-designed aircraft, but it never was awarded a US type
certificate, nor any similar type certificate that the US is treaty-bound to
honor. Hence, it can never be operated normal or any other Standard category.
That tosses it into the Special airworthiness category, and the category it
apparently best fits into the Experimental/Exhibition one.

Obviously, with dozens L-39s being imported to the US, having a school that can
check folks out in them is a real good idea. So the FAA will issue a waiver
allowing them to operate one or several aircraft to train folks. Similarly,
having a school for training civilian test pilots is also beneficial to
aviation, hence a waiver was possible. Similarly, manufacturers of
high-performance homebuilts have received waivers allowing them to provide
training in a company-built example.

The FAA waiver usually demands that these planes receive professional-type
maintenance similar to that of standard airworthiness aircraft (e.g., the L-39
instructor won't be allowed the maintain the plane himself unless he has an A&P
license).

Ron "It's *albatross* bloody flavor" Wanttaja

[Blueskies]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
> There are two main airworthiness categories: Standard and Special.
>
> Standard airworthiness aircraft are proven to meet certain FAA standards, and
> The FAA waiver usually demands that these planes receive professional-type
> maintenance similar to that of standard airworthiness aircraft (e.g., the L-39
> instructor won't be allowed the maintain the plane himself unless he has an A&P
> license).
>
> Ron "It's *albatross* bloody flavor" Wanttaja

Nice write up Ron...

Thanks!

Dan D.

[Morgans]

> "Ron Wanttaja" wrote

> > There are two main airworthiness categories: Standard and Special.


"Blueskies" wrote

> Nice write up Ron...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan D.

*************
Yea Ron! That was 'splained pretty good! You ought ot write a book, or
sumpthin'!
(wink) <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Highflyer]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...
> Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
> dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
> case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?
>

Flavors and trends do change over time. It did indeed, used to be the case
that most warbirds that didn't have a civilian type certificate were
certified in the "Restricted" category with the specific restrictions
determined on a case by case basis.
As I recall there were also some in the "Limited" category, with the
specific limitations also determined on a case by case basis.

At that time it was also true that the "certificate" given to an amateur
built aircraft was only valid for one year. Every year you had to have the
FAA come out and inspect the airplane to renew it. Then the FAA figured out
that they were in the business of giving free annuals for homebuilts and
instituted the present permanent "certificate" that must be inspected every
year by a certified mechanic. Note that a "repairman certificate" holder is
a "certified mechanic" whose "certification" extends only to one specific
airplane. :-)

Nowadays most of the warbirds are finding their certification easier in the
"Exhibition" category. This category generally allows some radius of
operation, of several hundred nautical miles, for "pilot proficiency
maintenance" where you can fly pretty much as you please. Trips outside of
that radius require that the FAA be "notified" prior to the trip. Generally
you can fax the FAA office a "notification." You can also send them a list
of the shows and flyins that you plan to attend once a year.

Much of this change is because of the changing view of warbirds. At one
time they were just big, expensive, impractical airplanes. Now they are
antiques and collectors items and people pay money to see them up close and
see them fly.

I can remember when you could buy a surplus fighter for a couple of thousand
bucks because nobody wanted the headaches. I just wish I had bought a few
dozen of them an stored them in the back of my hangar! :-) I did meet one
older gentleman down in Louisiana who had thirty Stearman trainers brand new
in the crate stored in the back of his hangar. He said whenever he needs a
little extra money he puts one together and sells it. Since that was back
in the sixties, I doubt that any of them are left in the hangar. He was in
his sixties then as well and may not need extra money anymore!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[COLIN LAMB]

There is the old story about the DC-3. I recall it was designed before the
CAA adopted the new regulations in the thirties. The new regulations
required that each airplane used in commercial service must have an
emregency exit over the wing. However, that could not be done on the DC-3.
It just happened that the DC-3 was already in service and the safest
airplane in service. So, the newly created FAA gave a temporary type
certificate to the DC-3 and it flew for a long time with a temporary type
certificate.

It had been awhile since I heard the story and sometimes facts get twisted,
so I did a search and found in part 125 of the regulations the following:

"This paragraph does not apply to the rear window emergency exit of DC-3
airplanes operated with less than 36 occupants, including crewmembers, and
less than five exits authorized for passenger use."

So, the FAA can make any rule it wants to make and then exempt airplanes
from their own rules, just because it feels like it. I think wives have the
same power.

Colin N12HS

[Montblack]

("COLIN LAMB" wrote)
<snip>
> So, the FAA can make any rule it wants to make and then exempt airplanes
> from their own rules, just because it feels like it. I think wives have
> the
> same power.


Yeah, but they don't write anything down for you to reference. You kind of
have to keep up with the changes as you go...


Montblack

[Juan Jimenez]

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There are two main airworthiness categories: Standard and Special.
>>
>> Standard airworthiness aircraft are proven to meet certain FAA standards,
>> and
>> The FAA waiver usually demands that these planes receive
>> professional-type
>> maintenance similar to that of standard airworthiness aircraft (e.g., the
>> L-39
>> instructor won't be allowed the maintain the plane himself unless he has
>> an A&P
>> license).
>>
>> Ron "It's *albatross* bloody flavor" Wanttaja

I'm curious what warbird experimentals come with a restriction that A&P's
must maintain them. Far as I know, all experimentals are still exempt from
FAA Part 43, and all of them carry the same annual condition inspection
requirement in the operating limitations...

43.1.(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has
issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.

??

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:28 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>I can remember when you could buy a surplus fighter for a couple of thousand
>bucks because nobody wanted the headaches. I just wish I had bought a few
>dozen of them an stored them in the back of my hangar! :-)

Dunno, HF...I've *seen* your hangar. Sure there ain't a couple of P-40s stashed
in back? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Highflyer]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:28 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:
>
>>I can remember when you could buy a surplus fighter for a couple of
>>thousand
>>bucks because nobody wanted the headaches. I just wish I had bought a few
>>dozen of them an stored them in the back of my hangar! :-)
>
> Dunno, HF...I've *seen* your hangar. Sure there ain't a couple of P-40s
> stashed
> in back? :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

No P-40s Ron. However, there ARE a couple of Vultees. :-/ Back behind the
Stinson and the Pietenpol and the Cavalier and the Apache. It is getting
crowded in there. One of these days I will get ALL of them together and
flying. Then I WILL have a parking problem! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Cy Galley]

All experimentals come with a set of Operating Limitations. Within this
document can be placed a restriction to follow what ever FAR they want to
impose. "Must be Maintained by an A&P" and then that is a requirement. Must
write a maintenance manual and have it approved by the MIDO then that must
be done before flight. Must follow FAR 91.xxx then that what you have to
do. The FARs may remove regulations, the OpLims put them back in spades.
--
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot


"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> There are two main airworthiness categories: Standard and Special.
>>>
>>> Standard airworthiness aircraft are proven to meet certain FAA
>>> standards, and
>>> The FAA waiver usually demands that these planes receive
>>> professional-type
>>> maintenance similar to that of standard airworthiness aircraft (e.g.,
>>> the L-39
>>> instructor won't be allowed the maintain the plane himself unless he has
>>> an A&P
>>> license).
>>>
>>> Ron "It's *albatross* bloody flavor" Wanttaja
>
> I'm curious what warbird experimentals come with a restriction that A&P's
> must maintain them. Far as I know, all experimentals are still exempt from
> FAA Part 43, and all of them carry the same annual condition inspection
> requirement in the operating limitations...
>
> 43.1.(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has
> issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
> different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.
>
> ??
>

[John D. Abrahms]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...

Sorry for being late. I was busy during the last days so I couldn't
answer.

> There are two main airworthiness categories: Standard and Special.
>
> Standard airworthiness aircraft are proven to meet certain FAA standards, and
> they must be maintained to ensure their continued compliance with those
> standards. At given intervals they must be inspected to ensure they still
> conform to the Type Certificate they receive. Since these aircraft are known
> quantities, they may be placed into commercial service with no further FAA
> certification action (although some additional equipment may be required for
> some operation).
>
> Standard airworthiness includes normal, aerobatic, utility, transport, commuter,
> and transport categories.
>
> Special airworthiness is used for airplanes that either have not undergone the
> FAA certification process, or specific changes are made to them that take them
> outside the limits established by their type certificate. Operation of Special
> airworthiness aircraft is basically governed on a *per aircraft* basis. The FAA
> assigns operations limitations to each aircraft, and these limitation are not
> blanket to a given aircraft type nor are they transferrable to an identical
> aircraft.

Ok. So that means if I build a kitplane and get an airworthiness
certificate this doesn't necessarily mean that my neighbour building
the exactly same kit with exactly the same parts. Understandable, as
even with the same parts the quality of work may differ.

> Special airworthiness categories include Limited, Primary, Restricted, Special
> Light Sport, and Experimental. Commercial operations are *not* prohibited, but
> they require specific FAA approval. The degree to which the FAA grants such
> permission varies.

Ok. So if I want to use my experimental commercially I need to get FAA
approval first.

> The Experimental category under the Special Airworthiness includes a number of
> categories, such as racing, market survey, R&D, Exhibition, experimental LSA,
> and amateur-built.

Racing is clear. What is the difference between the other categories?
I assume amateur-built means a plane built by hobbyists. R&D probably
is something like an experimental airplane from a plane manufacturer
like the YF-22, right? What is experimental LSA?

I also wonder when a plane is amateur-built. I assume it's the case if
someone without special knowledge builts a plane by itself. What about
if he does that commercially (building planes and selling them)? Or
what about if a aircraft construction engineer builds a plane? He
probably can't be considered as amateur?

> The FAA's *policy* may be to deny permission for these
> aircraft to operate commercially, but such policies can be waived. You just
> have to give the FAA a good reason why the waiver is a good idea.

So in the end that means it's basically not allowed to use them
commercially, but this can be overcome by a waiver.

> As others have described very nicely, the L-39 Albatross may be a safe,
> professionally-designed aircraft, but it never was awarded a US type
> certificate, nor any similar type certificate that the US is treaty-bound to
> honor. Hence, it can never be operated normal or any other Standard category.
> That tosses it into the Special airworthiness category, and the category it
> apparently best fits into the Experimental/Exhibition one.

I understand.

> Obviously, with dozens L-39s being imported to the US, having a school that can
> check folks out in them is a real good idea. So the FAA will issue a waiver
> allowing them to operate one or several aircraft to train folks. Similarly,
> having a school for training civilian test pilots is also beneficial to
> aviation, hence a waiver was possible. Similarly, manufacturers of
> high-performance homebuilts have received waivers allowing them to provide
> training in a company-built example.

I understand

> The FAA waiver usually demands that these planes receive professional-type
> maintenance similar to that of standard airworthiness aircraft (e.g., the L-39
> instructor won't be allowed the maintain the plane himself unless he has an A&P
> license).


So basically if You maintain Your plane according to the manufacturer
standards and if You have a valid reason chances are good that You can
get a waiver to allow commercial operation.

Thank You very much for your very detailed explanation. And of course
to everyone here that answered to my (probably somehwat stupid)
questions.

JJ.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 12 Apr 2005 10:35:47 -0700, (John D. Abrahms) wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...

>Ok. So that means if I build a kitplane and get an airworthiness
>certificate this doesn't necessarily mean that my neighbour building
>the exactly same kit with exactly the same parts. Understandable, as
>even with the same parts the quality of work may differ.

Yep! As far as the FAA is concerned, the two aircraft aren't even related to
each other.

>> The Experimental category under the Special Airworthiness includes a number of
>> categories, such as racing, market survey, R&D, Exhibition, experimental LSA,
>> and amateur-built.
>
>Racing is clear. What is the difference between the other categories?

They're spelled differently. :-)

>I assume amateur-built means a plane built by hobbyists. R&D probably
>is something like an experimental airplane from a plane manufacturer
>like the YF-22, right? What is experimental LSA?

FAR 21.191:

Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:

(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft
equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new
uses for aircraft.

(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other
operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including
flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type
certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show
compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.

(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.

(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.

(f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys,
sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in § 21.195.

(g) Operating amateur built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of
which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the
construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

(h) Operating kit-built aircraft. Operating a primary category aircraft that
meets the criteria of § 21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit
manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the
supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under §
21.184(a).

(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that-
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does
not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental certificate
will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after August 31,
2007;
(2) Has been assembled-
(i) From an aircraft kit for which the applicant can provide the information
required by §21.193 (e); and
(ii) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an
applicable consensus standard; or
(3) Has been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category under §21.190.

>I also wonder when a plane is amateur-built. I assume it's the case if
>someone without special knowledge builts a plane by itself. What about
>if he does that commercially (building planes and selling them)? Or
>what about if a aircraft construction engineer builds a plane? He
>probably can't be considered as amateur?

Correct, and the plane can't be registered as Experimental Amateur-Built.
>
>> The FAA's *policy* may be to deny permission for these
>> aircraft to operate commercially, but such policies can be waived. You just
>> have to give the FAA a good reason why the waiver is a good idea.
>
>So in the end that means it's basically not allowed to use them
>commercially, but this can be overcome by a waiver.

Pretty much. Note, though, that it's up to the FAA discretion. Unless a formal
policy letter has been published (like for homebuilts), the limitations imposed
on Special airworthiness category aircraft is set by the individual FAA
inspector. If he doesn't want to risk his career....

>So basically if You maintain Your plane according to the manufacturer
>standards and if You have a valid reason chances are good that You can
>get a waiver to allow commercial operation.

As mentioned above, though, you are not *guaranteed* a waiver. If the FDSO guy
is having a bad morning, you may find yourself denied. Often, some FSDOs are
more lenient that others...folks may actually apply to FSDOs outside their own
districts.

Finally, it should be noted that many of the Experimental airworthiness
certificates are only good for a single year. At the end of the year, you have
to re-apply for it, and if you get a different inspector, your new operating
limitations may be much more strict. Experimental Amateur-Built airworthiness
certificates are at least permanent.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:56:06 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
>wrote:
>
>:>I also wonder when a plane is amateur-built. I assume it's the case if
>:>someone without special knowledge builts a plane by itself. What about
>:>if he does that commercially (building planes and selling them)? Or
>:>what about if a aircraft construction engineer builds a plane? He
>:>probably can't be considered as amateur?
>:
>:Correct, and the plane can't be registered as Experimental Amateur-Built.
>
>Whaaa? Ron, I agree of course as to part 1 of his question (doing it
>commercially) but if an "aircraft construction engineer" builds an
>airplane solely for his or her own education or recreation, it can be
>registered under 21.191g.

You're right, of course...I was still thinking of a build-for-hire situation.
The "Amateur-Built" moniker is convenient, but the important thing is whether
the builder is doing it for pleasure or education, not for a profit.

Ron Wanttaja