Experimental/Exhibition

[Juan Jimenez]

Is there anyone here who has gone through the process of getting an
airworthiness certificate for a homebuilt aircraft as an experimental,
exhibition in group IV? I'd like to compare notes with someone who has
already done it. I had no idea what was involved when I went into it. Heck
of a way to learn... Mine's a turbine aircraft but I just want to compare
notes regardless of the type of aircraft.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:08:13 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

>Is there anyone here who has gone through the process of getting an
>airworthiness certificate for a homebuilt aircraft as an experimental,
>exhibition in group IV? I'd like to compare notes with someone who has
>already done it. I had no idea what was involved when I went into it. Heck
>of a way to learn... Mine's a turbine aircraft but I just want to compare
>notes regardless of the type of aircraft.

Jim Pratt might be able to give you some help. He's got a sample of Exp/Exhib
operations limitations:

http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/exhibyak.htm

It's for a Group I, but I suspect he should be able to help on a IV. His web
page shows his email as [his last

Ron Wanttaja

[Juan Jimenez]

Thanks. I have already been shown my draft operating limitations, and
they're pretty much the same as his, except that I may be required to do
more test flight hours (way above the guidelines, which I have already told
them I object to). What I really want to talk about with someone who has
already gone through this is what the FSDO folks asked for during the
process, what roadblocks people have run into and how they were surmounted,
etc. For example, 8130.2F says that you must provide a letter stating all
air shows and other exhibition activities, including "static displays" in
which the aircraft will participate, and lists the letter as a mandatory
requirement. However, it doesn't say what happens when no plans have yet
been made to attend any exhibition activities. Also, 8130.2F mentions
homebuilt aircraft only in passing as virtually a sidebar in the Group IV
definition, but the rest of the document pretty much assumes the aircraft
was not homebuilt. In particular, it would be great to find someone who went
through the wringer with a homebuilt aircraft that someone else built, or
even better, a foreign amateur-built aircraft that was imported to the US
(yes, I know, kinda like trying to find that proverbial left-handed albino
lesbian dentist who voted for Bush.... but I don't lose anything by asking
if someone knows anyone else that's already been through what I have been
going through since _June_, believe it or not.

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:08:13 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
> wrote:
>
>>Is there anyone here who has gone through the process of getting an
>>airworthiness certificate for a homebuilt aircraft as an experimental,
>>exhibition in group IV? I'd like to compare notes with someone who has
>>already done it. I had no idea what was involved when I went into it. Heck
>>of a way to learn... Mine's a turbine aircraft but I just want to compare
>>notes regardless of the type of aircraft.
>
> Jim Pratt might be able to give you some help. He's got a sample of
> Exp/Exhib
> operations limitations:
>
> http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/exhibyak.htm
>
> It's for a Group I, but I suspect he should be able to help on a IV. His
> web
> page shows his email as [his last
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:38:48 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:08:13 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Is there anyone here who has gone through the process of getting an
>>>airworthiness certificate for a homebuilt aircraft as an experimental,
>>>exhibition in group IV?
>>
>> Jim Pratt might be able to give you some help. He's got a sample of
>> Exp/Exhib operations limitations:

>Thanks. I have already been shown my draft operating limitations, and
>they're pretty much the same as his, except that I may be required to do
>more test flight hours (way above the guidelines, which I have already told
>them I object to). What I really want to talk about with someone who has
>already gone through this is what the FSDO folks asked for during the
>process, what roadblocks people have run into and how they were surmounted,
>etc.

I flipped through my registration database and came up with three BD-5s with
Experimental/Exhibition licensing. The only names actually listed were Michael
Watkins of Temecula, CA, and Dave "Hammer" Harris, a fellow Seattle-area EAAer.
I've got an email address for Harris, if you haven't talked to him already.

Another possibility would be Classic Fighter Industries in Everett,
Washington... they're the folks scratch-building the ME-262s. Dave Hammer (no,
NOT the same guy as "Hammer" Harris) is in charge. The outfit has a "contact"
page at:

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/common/contact.htm

I also took a general look at all the Experimental/Exhibition category aircraft.
Homebuilt types popped up to some extent. Several of the recent Wright Flyer
replicas are in this category, 'though I suspect the owners didn't worry about
trying to get loose limitations. The Europa folks had three Exp/Exh planes;
maybe there's still someone you can talk to at Lakeland.

BTW, I'm presuming you're shooting for Experimental/Exhibition so the BD-5 can
be used for airshow work....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bob K.]

Earlier, Juan Jimenez wrote:

> ...For example, 8130.2F says that you
> must provide a letter stating all air
> shows and other exhibition activities,
> including "static displays" in which
> the aircraft will participate, and
> lists the letter as a mandatory
> requirement. However, it doesn't say
> what happens when no plans have yet
> been made to attend any exhibition
> activities...

Ah, the infamous "program letter." My suggestion would be to talk to
the kinds of people who routinely file program letters and have no
problems with them at all: competition sailplane pilots. There are
probably more than a thousand European competition sailplanes in the US
being operated on Experimental/Exhibition or Experimental/Racing
certificates, and I've heard of very few complaints about their
operating limitations or program letters.

I think that the most common approach is to include on the program
letter any contest or event that you might possibly attend, and then
add some extra verbiage about proficiency flights.

If you search rec.aviation.soaring on the phrase "program letter"
you'll find a lot of general advice, but probably few concrete examples
of complete program letters.

Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Juan Jimenez]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> I flipped through my registration database and came up with three BD-5s
> with
> Experimental/Exhibition licensing. The only names actually listed were
> Michael
> Watkins of Temecula, CA, and Dave "Hammer" Harris, a fellow Seattle-area
> EAAer.
> I've got an email address for Harris, if you haven't talked to him
> already.

I know Dave, and I've talked extensively with Bob Bishop, whose panel
upgrade I designed for all three of his -5J's. He did his airworthiness
years ago, though, and things have changed. He's been a lot of help for some
key issues, though.

> Another possibility would be Classic Fighter Industries in Everett,
> Washington... they're the folks scratch-building the ME-262s. Dave Hammer
> (no,
> NOT the same guy as "Hammer" Harris) is in charge. The outfit has a
> "contact"
> page at:
>
> http://www.stormbirds.com/project/common/contact.htm

Hmm... now there's an interesting idea. I think I will contact them.

> I also took a general look at all the Experimental/Exhibition category
> aircraft.
> Homebuilt types popped up to some extent. Several of the recent Wright
> Flyer
> replicas are in this category, 'though I suspect the owners didn't worry
> about
> trying to get loose limitations. The Europa folks had three Exp/Exh
> planes;
> maybe there's still someone you can talk to at Lakeland.
>
> BTW, I'm presuming you're shooting for Experimental/Exhibition so the BD-5
> can
> be used for airshow work....

Well, yes and no. Regardless of what I want to do with the plane, I don't
have a choice. The original builder in Australia did not keep a builder's
log nor did he compile photographs of the work in progress, so I cannot
submit evidence that it was amateur-built. And the only group I fit into in
exhibition is group IV.

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

"Bob K." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Earlier, Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> ...For example, 8130.2F says that you
>> must provide a letter stating all air
>> shows and other exhibition activities,
>> including "static displays" in which
>> the aircraft will participate, and
>> lists the letter as a mandatory
>> requirement. However, it doesn't say
>> what happens when no plans have yet
>> been made to attend any exhibition
>> activities...
>
> Ah, the infamous "program letter." My suggestion would be to talk to
> the kinds of people who routinely file program letters and have no
> problems with them at all: competition sailplane pilots. There are
> probably more than a thousand European competition sailplanes in the US
> being operated on Experimental/Exhibition or Experimental/Racing
> certificates, and I've heard of very few complaints about their
> operating limitations or program letters.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I will look into that. Thanks!

> I think that the most common approach is to include on the program
> letter any contest or event that you might possibly attend, and then
> add some extra verbiage about proficiency flights.

Kinda hard to do that when you're sitting on an island in the Caribbean more
than 1k miles from the nearest airshow, and the plane doesn't have anywhere
near the range to get there. :)

> If you search rec.aviation.soaring on the phrase "program letter"
> you'll find a lot of general advice, but probably few concrete examples
> of complete program letters.

I think what I will do is state that I have no plans as of yet to attend any
specific airshows because there are none on the island, but I am pursuing
sponsors, will do static displays and perhaps some solo flybys over the
beach to entertain people. :)

> Thanks, and best regards to all
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Thanks for your help! :)

Juan

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:15:23 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
>> BTW, I'm presuming you're shooting for Experimental/Exhibition so the BD-5
>> can be used for airshow work....
>
>Well, yes and no. Regardless of what I want to do with the plane, I don't
>have a choice. The original builder in Australia did not keep a builder's
>log nor did he compile photographs of the work in progress, so I cannot
>submit evidence that it was amateur-built. And the only group I fit into in
>exhibition is group IV.

Doggone it, Juan, I hate to see you get trapped in Exp/Exh unless that's the
category you want. Will you be able to receive the Repairman Certificate for
the plane? I note that wording of 14CFR 65.104 does NOT limit it to
amateur-built ("Repairman Certificate - Experimental Aircraft Builder") but I
don't know how the local FSDOs interpret it. And there's the more-stringent
operational limitations as well.

How far have you explored the possibility of getting Experimental Amateur-Built
with your DAR? Could you get a letter from the Aussie builder, where he attests
that he did the original work for recreation/education? How much was actually
done when you received it? If I recall your past postings, it sounds like you
did most of the engine installation work, which probably will impress the FAA
guy. ISTR that you did a lot of rework of some rather odd practices by the
original builder, as well.

But from your comments about fighting this since last summer, I expect you
probably have already exhausted most of these channels. But it seems like you
should be able to convince a reasonable DAR.

If all else fails, post the address of your DAR and all us on RAH will write
testimonials to your character. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Juan Jimenez]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:15:23 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> BTW, I'm presuming you're shooting for Experimental/Exhibition so the
>>> BD-5
>>> can be used for airshow work....
>>
>>Well, yes and no. Regardless of what I want to do with the plane, I don't
>>have a choice. The original builder in Australia did not keep a builder's
>>log nor did he compile photographs of the work in progress, so I cannot
>>submit evidence that it was amateur-built. And the only group I fit into
>>in
>>exhibition is group IV.
>
> Doggone it, Juan, I hate to see you get trapped in Exp/Exh unless that's
> the category you want.

Well, I'm not so sure that exp/exh will be a bad thing. The process to get
the a/w certificate in the first place has been tedious and drawn out, but
the mission profile of the airplane does fit the exp/exh rules for Group IV,
and Exp/Exh does allow the a/c to be used for pay in air shows. There's not
much more that you can use a BD-5J for, other than the military cruise
missile surrogate work Bobby Bishop is doing, and my airplane is not really
well equipped for that.

> Will you be able to receive the Repairman Certificate for the plane?

Are you kidding? :)

> I note that wording of 14CFR 65.104 does NOT limit it to
> amateur-built ("Repairman Certificate - Experimental Aircraft Builder")
> but I
> don't know how the local FSDOs interpret it. And there's the
> more-stringent
> operational limitations as well.

Well... these folks are so behind the curve they even asked me for all 337's
for major alterations (such as my upgrade of the landing gear from
fiberglass to metal) and A&P signoffs for all work done since 2001. Of
course, I told them there would be no such things forthcoming for an
experimental homebuilt aircraft, other than a signoff for the condition
inspection prior to issuing the airworthiness certificate. I don't really
hold it against them because they do so few of these, and mine is certainly
a different proposition with it being a homebuilt turbine aircraft, but
you'd think the basics would be covered... But a Repairman certificate? With
no proof of the original construction? Woof. They did suggest that I bring
in my military records to see if I qualify to take the A&P tests, which I
thought was thoughtful of them. However, I doubt I will qualify that way.

> How far have you explored the possibility of getting Experimental
> Amateur-Built with your DAR?

There are no DAR's here and I can't afford to bring one from the mainland,
pay hotel, car, airfare plus fees, etc.

> Could you get a letter from the Aussie builder, where he attests that he
> did the original work for recreation/education?

Yes, but that still won't change anything re: experimental/exhibition.

> How much was actually done when you received it?

Most of the structural work was done.

> If I recall your past postings, it sounds like you did most of the engine
> installation work,
> which probably will impress the FAA guy.

No, the engine was installed, but I changed the sensors, worked out a custom
N1 monitoring scheme, complete redid the ignition system, finished the fuel
systems, reworked most of the electrical, etc. The FSDO is impressed with my
work but not enough to issue me a repairman certificate. I'm not so
concerned about that, I have good relationships with A&P's and IA's here who
are willing to signoff on work, mostly because they know that I will not get
mad if they tell me that something needs to be fixed before they sign. :)

> ISTR that you did a lot of rework of some rather odd practices by the
> original builder, as well.

Yes.

> But from your comments about fighting this since last summer, I expect you
> probably have already exhausted most of these channels. But it seems like
> you
> should be able to convince a reasonable DAR.

As I said, there are no DAR's here. :(

> If all else fails, post the address of your DAR and all us on RAH will
> write
> testimonials to your character. :-)

Ha! Yeah, right, I can already see the result of _that_! hehehehe...

Juan

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...

>If all else fails, post the address of your DAR and all us on RAH will write
>testimonials to your character. :-)

I'd gladly do that for jaun complete with some of jaun's postings here on RAH.
Anything to be of help ;-)


See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[Bob Korves]

I fly a racing sailplane under Exp/Exh and it has not been a problem at all.
Actually, this is the second glider I have owned that is Exp/Exh. The first
one was built in the early '80's and was very generous WRT operating
limitations. The current one, bought new in 2001, was still pretty lenient
WRT operating limitations. This was after the fall of the Soviet bloc and
the importing of military aircraft had become a bit of a problem, making the
FAA more nervous.

The FSDO came out to the local airport to look at the aircraft and its
paperwork. My partner and I gave him our program letter stating the events
that we _PLANNED_ to attend. We listed our bases of operation (all the
gliderports in three states that we might ever fly out of). He offered us a
flight radius of 300 nm from our 'bases'. We countered that we would be
attempting SSA badge and record flights that may go father than that
regularly and were able to get the radius increased to 500 nm. He told us
that if we wanted to fly from other bases or farther than the 500 mile
radius that we could fax a note to the FSDO explaining what we were planning
to do.

The only part of our Exp/Exh certificate that could be much of much concern
is the prohibition from flying over congested areas.

We are able to do all the repairs and minor modifications to the aircraft
that we wish. We need an A&P to sign off the annual condition inspection.

For single seat aircraft that will not be flown over urban areas, Exp/Exh is
a good way to go. Our insurance company has been fine with it, too. For
more than one seat or flying in and out of large airports in big cities you
may have a problem. Insurance companies may have a problem with it , too.
Experimental/amateur built would of course be better, if it is possible.

Juan, I think the source of your problem is a turbine engine. The FAA
relates turbine Exp/Exh to Mig 15/17's and a F-86 burning in a ice cream
parlor. Make sure that you understand the meaning of "conservative" when
you deal with them.
-Bob Korves

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob K." > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Earlier, Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >
> >> ...For example, 8130.2F says that you
> >> must provide a letter stating all air
> >> shows and other exhibition activities,
> >> including "static displays" in which
> >> the aircraft will participate, and
> >> lists the letter as a mandatory
> >> requirement. However, it doesn't say
> >> what happens when no plans have yet
> >> been made to attend any exhibition
> >> activities...
> >
> > Ah, the infamous "program letter." My suggestion would be to talk to
> > the kinds of people who routinely file program letters and have no
> > problems with them at all: competition sailplane pilots. There are
> > probably more than a thousand European competition sailplanes in the US
> > being operated on Experimental/Exhibition or Experimental/Racing
> > certificates, and I've heard of very few complaints about their
> > operating limitations or program letters.
>
> Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I will look into that. Thanks!
>
> > I think that the most common approach is to include on the program
> > letter any contest or event that you might possibly attend, and then
> > add some extra verbiage about proficiency flights.
>
> Kinda hard to do that when you're sitting on an island in the Caribbean
more
> than 1k miles from the nearest airshow, and the plane doesn't have
anywhere
> near the range to get there. :)
>
> > If you search rec.aviation.soaring on the phrase "program letter"
> > you'll find a lot of general advice, but probably few concrete examples
> > of complete program letters.
>
> I think what I will do is state that I have no plans as of yet to attend
any
> specific airshows because there are none on the island, but I am pursuing
> sponsors, will do static displays and perhaps some solo flybys over the
> beach to entertain people. :)
>
> > Thanks, and best regards to all
> > Bob K.
> > http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>
> Thanks for your help! :)
>
> Juan
>
>
>

[John Ammeter]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:19:26 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>If all else fails, post the address of your DAR and all us on RAH will write
>testimonials to your character. :-)
>
>Ron Wanttaja


Uh, Ron.... somehow I seriously doubt Juan would like us to
do that...

John

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Riley says...

>Hey, Chuck - didn't you have an exhibition registered airplane once?
>I'm sure you'll help Juan out here.

I think so but "I" designed it ,"I" built it and "I" flew it so I had no
problems with the Feds :-)


>Lets do a search on the FAA database for ex-ex airplanes.

I had more than one plane I built N numbered and an Easy Riser.Let me know if
you find a data base of old numbers I'd like to look and see just how many I
did.

> There must
>be some registered to people who've contributed to RAH, who'd be happy
>to see Juan fly his airplane.

I'd be happy to watch and offer him all the luck he deserves .Maybe his buddy
zoom will test it, hell he's a test pilot ain't he? Ahhh loops ,rolls and spins.
LOL!!!


See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[Juan Jimenez]

Yes, I do think you hit the proverbial nail on the head when you said I
should keep in mind the word "conservative" when dealing with the FSDO
folks. :)

And yes, the turbine issue is the catch. 8130.2F is, IMO, not really
designed for homebuilt turbine-powered aircraft. Again, the FAA is behind
the curve. What can I say. This is one of many areas where the agency is
reactive, rather than proactive.

Thanks for the info!

Juan

"Bob Korves" <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote in message
...
>I fly a racing sailplane under Exp/Exh and it has not been a problem at
>all.
> Actually, this is the second glider I have owned that is Exp/Exh. The
> first
> one was built in the early '80's and was very generous WRT operating
> limitations. The current one, bought new in 2001, was still pretty
> lenient
> WRT operating limitations. This was after the fall of the Soviet bloc and
> the importing of military aircraft had become a bit of a problem, making
> the
> FAA more nervous.
>
> The FSDO came out to the local airport to look at the aircraft and its
> paperwork. My partner and I gave him our program letter stating the
> events
> that we _PLANNED_ to attend. We listed our bases of operation (all the
> gliderports in three states that we might ever fly out of). He offered us
> a
> flight radius of 300 nm from our 'bases'. We countered that we would be
> attempting SSA badge and record flights that may go father than that
> regularly and were able to get the radius increased to 500 nm. He told us
> that if we wanted to fly from other bases or farther than the 500 mile
> radius that we could fax a note to the FSDO explaining what we were
> planning
> to do.
>
> The only part of our Exp/Exh certificate that could be much of much
> concern
> is the prohibition from flying over congested areas.
>
> We are able to do all the repairs and minor modifications to the aircraft
> that we wish. We need an A&P to sign off the annual condition inspection.
>
> For single seat aircraft that will not be flown over urban areas, Exp/Exh
> is
> a good way to go. Our insurance company has been fine with it, too. For
> more than one seat or flying in and out of large airports in big cities
> you
> may have a problem. Insurance companies may have a problem with it , too.
> Experimental/amateur built would of course be better, if it is possible.
>
> Juan, I think the source of your problem is a turbine engine. The FAA
> relates turbine Exp/Exh to Mig 15/17's and a F-86 burning in a ice cream
> parlor. Make sure that you understand the meaning of "conservative" when
> you deal with them.
> -Bob Korves
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob K." > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Earlier, Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> >
>> >> ...For example, 8130.2F says that you
>> >> must provide a letter stating all air
>> >> shows and other exhibition activities,
>> >> including "static displays" in which
>> >> the aircraft will participate, and
>> >> lists the letter as a mandatory
>> >> requirement. However, it doesn't say
>> >> what happens when no plans have yet
>> >> been made to attend any exhibition
>> >> activities...
>> >
>> > Ah, the infamous "program letter." My suggestion would be to talk to
>> > the kinds of people who routinely file program letters and have no
>> > problems with them at all: competition sailplane pilots. There are
>> > probably more than a thousand European competition sailplanes in the US
>> > being operated on Experimental/Exhibition or Experimental/Racing
>> > certificates, and I've heard of very few complaints about their
>> > operating limitations or program letters.
>>
>> Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I will look into that. Thanks!
>>
>> > I think that the most common approach is to include on the program
>> > letter any contest or event that you might possibly attend, and then
>> > add some extra verbiage about proficiency flights.
>>
>> Kinda hard to do that when you're sitting on an island in the Caribbean
> more
>> than 1k miles from the nearest airshow, and the plane doesn't have
> anywhere
>> near the range to get there. :)
>>
>> > If you search rec.aviation.soaring on the phrase "program letter"
>> > you'll find a lot of general advice, but probably few concrete examples
>> > of complete program letters.
>>
>> I think what I will do is state that I have no plans as of yet to attend
> any
>> specific airshows because there are none on the island, but I am pursuing
>> sponsors, will do static displays and perhaps some solo flybys over the
>> beach to entertain people. :)
>>
>> > Thanks, and best regards to all
>> > Bob K.
>> > http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>>
>> Thanks for your help! :)
>>
>> Juan
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[wmbjk]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:54 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
> wrote:


> Again, the FAA is behind
>the curve. What can I say. This is one of many areas where the agency is
>reactive, rather than proactive.

Now you're talkin'! Sounds like it's time for a scathing editorial!
The Feds will wise up pronto, and the all new, clarified rule is bound
to be named in your honor. But if the first critique doesn't humble a
few FSDOs, then you should blast them annually. Geez, I can't believe
Zoom doesn't tell you this stuff.

Wayne