licensing for homebuilts

[Tater Schuld]

I've been reading some of the FAA documents and am sort of confused about
something.

I don't see any requirements for a pilots license when applying for
registration and such for a homebuilt. is it implied that you already have a
license or is none required?

I see talk about reserving your N number then getting inspected, then
getting your 25 (or 40) hour permission.

note: I am talking about what's required, not what is heavily recommended.

[Vaughn]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
> I don't see any requirements for a pilots license when applying for
> registration and such for a homebuilt. is it implied that you already have a
> license or is none required?

You don't need a pilot's license to own or even build an airplane. Now if
you wish to actually fly it...

Vaughn

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
"Tater Schuld" > wrote:

> I've been reading some of the FAA documents and am sort of confused about
> something.
>
> I don't see any requirements for a pilots license when applying for
> registration and such for a homebuilt. is it implied that you already have a
> license or is none required?
>
> I see talk about reserving your N number then getting inspected, then
> getting your 25 (or 40) hour permission.
>
> note: I am talking about what's required, not what is heavily recommended.

Tater, did you wake up as a troll again today? I had just started to
take you seriously!

But I'll bite. Yes, you need a pilot's license, unless the plane is an
ultralight.

You can own a car, and register it, but you can't drive it without a
license. Same with a plane.

[Morgans]

"Smitty Two" > wrote

> Tater, did you wake up as a troll again today? I had just started to
> take you seriously!

Your bad. When did he not wake up a troll? <g>

> But I'll bite. Yes, you need a pilot's license, unless the plane is an
> ultralight.

Yes, to fly the plane, but he asked about registering it.

The * plane* gets an OK to fly, along with the required number of hours
assigned. A trained monkey can fly it, if he is a certificated pilot.

> You can own a car, and register it, but you can't drive it without a
> license. Same with a plane.
--
Jim in NC

[Chris Wells]

No One Give This Man An Airplane

[Tater Schuld]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
> I've been reading some of the FAA documents and am sort of confused about
> something.
>
> I don't see any requirements for a pilots license when applying for
> registration and such for a homebuilt. is it implied that you already have
> a license or is none required?
>
> I see talk about reserving your N number then getting inspected, then
> getting your 25 (or 40) hour permission.
>
> note: I am talking about what's required, not what is heavily recommended.
ok, I gave a lot of you the incorrect questions.

lets see if this makes more sense.

in the following documents

AC 20-27E
AC 20-139
AC 21-12B
AC 39-7C
AC 65-23A
AC 90-89A
AC 103-7

Which I picked up at the FAA booth at Oshkosh, bound together as the
"Amateur Built Aircraft Reference Manual". I could not find the Pilot
licensing requirements. can someone point them out to me?

I keep reading through them, but cannot find anywhere that states that a
certified pilot is needed to fly the aircraft. maybe I am looking in the
wrong set of documents.

like I said above, I am talking about what's required, not what is heavily
recommended.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Tater Schuld wrote:

> ...I keep reading through them, but
> cannot find anywhere that states that
> a certified pilot is needed to fly the
> aircraft. maybe I am looking in the
> wrong set of documents...

The booklets you collected are mostly about building and resistering
homebuilt aircraft, not about flying them.

Except when they're ultralight, homebuilt airplanes are civil aircraft
subject to 14 CFR part 61, 91, and a few others.

What you're looking for starts with 14 CFR 61.3:

> (a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as
> pilot in command or in any other capacity as
> a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil
> aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person-

> (1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special
> purpose pilot authorization issued under
> this part in that person's physical
> possession or readily accessible in the
> aircraft when exercising the privileges of
> that pilot certificate or authorization.
> However, when the aircraft is operated
> within a foreign country, a current pilot
> license issued by the country in which
> the aircraft is operated may be used;
> and..

You can find all current FARs in the links from this FAA Web site page:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:52:42 -0600, "Tater Schuld" > wrote:

>I've been reading some of the FAA documents and am sort of confused about
>something.
>
>I don't see any requirements for a pilots license when applying for
>registration and such for a homebuilt. is it implied that you already have a
>license or is none required?

A pilot license is not required to either build or register an aircraft, whether
Normal or Special categories. A pilot license *is* required to operate them.
See FAR 61.3. The FAA documents addressing certification and registry of
homebuilts do not address pilot qualifications, as that has nothing to do with
certification or registering.

It's perfectly legal for someone without a pilot's license to build an
Experimental Amateur/Built plane, just as it's legal for someone at Boeing to
assemble an airliner without a pilot's license.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hawkeye]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> A pilot license *is* required to operate them. See FAR 61.3.

If I build a Flybaby, can I do the first flight and subsequent testing
while using my "Sport Pilot" classification?

How about a one-off Experimental Category design that is engineered to
comply with the Light Sport Aircraft operating limitations?

Thanks, Hawkeye Hughes

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:55:21 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
>"Hawkeye" > wrote
>
>> If I build a Flybaby, can I do the first flight and subsequent testing
>> while using my "Sport Pilot" classification?
>>
>> How about a one-off Experimental Category design that is engineered to
>> comply with the Light Sport Aircraft operating limitations?
>>
>> Thanks, Hawkeye Hughes
>
>Yes, and yes.

Ditto, and Ditto. :-)

If an aircraft meets the Light Sport definition, it can be flown by a Sport
Pilot regardless of its certification category.

The only issue that might come up is if some FAA'ian wants to dispute whether
your one-off Experimental aircraft meets the definition. If it weighs 1,000
pounds, has only 50 sq.ft of wing area, and an IO-540 for power, it's probably
likely the plane can't meet either the speed requirements...top OR bottom. But
as far as I know, there are no formal procedures for legally establishing
whether a unique aircraft (and each Experimental/Amateur Built aircraft,
legally, *is* unique) meets the definition. There are certification
requirements if the plane is to be *licensed* as Light Sport, but they don't
apply if the plane is in some other category.

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:55:21 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Hawkeye" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>If I build a Flybaby, can I do the first flight and subsequent testing
>>>while using my "Sport Pilot" classification?
>>>
>>>How about a one-off Experimental Category design that is engineered to
>>>comply with the Light Sport Aircraft operating limitations?
>>>
>>>Thanks, Hawkeye Hughes
>>
>>Yes, and yes.
>
>
> Ditto, and Ditto. :-)
>
> If an aircraft meets the Light Sport definition, it can be flown by a Sport
> Pilot regardless of its certification category.
>
> The only issue that might come up is if some FAA'ian wants to dispute whether
> your one-off Experimental aircraft meets the definition. If it weighs 1,000
> pounds, has only 50 sq.ft of wing area, and an IO-540 for power, it's probably
> likely the plane can't meet either the speed requirements...top OR bottom. But
> as far as I know, there are no formal procedures for legally establishing
> whether a unique aircraft (and each Experimental/Amateur Built aircraft,
> legally, *is* unique) meets the definition. There are certification
> requirements if the plane is to be *licensed* as Light Sport, but they don't
> apply if the plane is in some other category.
>
> Ron Wanttaja


While all of the above is true, there is one additional factor that should be
considered.

Do you have enough experience in a similar type if aircraft to be competent in
the new one?

Beyond the obvious tailwheel/chin wheel question.

Is Cessna 150 experience adequate to fly an RVxA?

Cub time would be great for a Flybaby, but for a Cassut?

What would prepare ANYBODY to fly a Moller Air car?!!?


Richard

[[email protected]]

Go to this and it will explain it for you:

http://www.kitplanes.com/sportplanes/0505-3740.pdf

Keep the shiney side up! <G>

[Jim Carriere]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> What would prepare ANYBODY to fly a Moller Air car?!!?

"Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts."

[Peter Pan reference... it's probably not as funny when I explain it.]

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
> What would prepare ANYBODY to fly a Moller Air car?!!?


A previous near death experience???
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote

> While all of the above is true, there is one additional factor that should
be
> considered.
>
> Do you have enough experience in a similar type if aircraft to be
competent in
> the new one?

True.

It is my understanding that an experimental amateur built has no
subdivisions, such as seaplane, tailwheel, ect.

So could I, a single engine land pilot, get into my flying boat homebuilt
and proceed to do water landings?

Technically, yes, if what I was told is correct. A FAA guy visiting at a
fly-in told us that he would not sign off a new plane, if the owner was not
experienced in the "corresponding type" of certified plane.

What do you all think of that? True or not? Within his powers, or not?
--
Jim in NC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> What would prepare ANYBODY to fly a Moller Air car?!!?
>

Sitting in the pilots seat of your unfinished airplane making engine noises?

(Don't lie to me, I KNOW you've done it.)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Dan]

Richard Lamb wrote:

>
> What would prepare ANYBODY to fly a Moller Air car?!!?
>
>
> Richard

Either the largest gullibility quotient in U.S. history or a sincere
death wish.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Al]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
>> While all of the above is true, there is one additional factor that
>> should
> be
>> considered.
>>
>> Do you have enough experience in a similar type if aircraft to be
> competent in
>> the new one?
>
> True.
>
> It is my understanding that an experimental amateur built has no
> subdivisions, such as seaplane, tailwheel, ect.
>
The A/C doesn't have these subdivisions, the pilot does.

> So could I, a single engine land pilot, get into my flying boat homebuilt
> and proceed to do water landings?
>
Not legally. You would need a Single engine Sea rating.

> Technically, yes, if what I was told is correct. A FAA guy visiting at a
> fly-in told us that he would not sign off a new plane, if the owner was
> not
> experienced in the "corresponding type" of certified plane.
>
> What do you all think of that? True or not? Within his powers, or not?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Nothing says the Owner has to make the first flights. The FAA is inspecting
the airplane, not the pilot. I think I'd call him on this one.

Al


>

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Al wrote:

>> So could I, a single engine land pilot, get into my flying boat
>> homebuilt and proceed to do water landings?
>>
> Not legally. You would need a Single engine Sea rating.

This is not correct.

Per FAR 61.31 (k) (2) (iii) (B), the restrictions for Category, Class,
and Type ratings do NOT apply to experimental aircraft, as long as no
passengers are being carried. To carry passengers, you'd need the
rating.

It might be stupid, but it's legal (when solo).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Morgans]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote
>
> This is not correct.
>
> Per FAR 61.31 (k) (2) (iii) (B), the restrictions for Category, Class,
> and Type ratings do NOT apply to experimental aircraft, as long as no
> passengers are being carried. To carry passengers, you'd need the
> rating.
>
> It might be stupid, but it's legal (when solo).

AaHa! I thought there was something like that, but I had no idea where to
find it.

Not that I'm planning to do anything stoopid, mind you! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Al]

Thanks Marc, I sit corrected.

Al


"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> Al wrote:
>
>>> So could I, a single engine land pilot, get into my flying boat
>>> homebuilt and proceed to do water landings?
>>>
>> Not legally. You would need a Single engine Sea rating.
>
> This is not correct.
>
> Per FAR 61.31 (k) (2) (iii) (B), the restrictions for Category, Class, and
> Type ratings do NOT apply to experimental aircraft, as long as no
> passengers are being carried. To carry passengers, you'd need the rating.
>
> It might be stupid, but it's legal (when solo).
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright (c) 2006
>

[Highflyer]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
k.net...

<snip>

> What would prepare ANYBODY to fly a Moller Air car?!!?
>
>
> Richard

Brain surgery? The question is moot anyway. First, a Moller Air car has to
fly! So far you couldn't get one high enough to even make the pilot
nervous. Of course, the pilot probably has a right to nervous about all of
that high speed rotating machinery surrounding the operators position! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote
>
>> While all of the above is true, there is one additional factor that
>> should
> be
>> considered.
>>
>> Do you have enough experience in a similar type if aircraft to be
> competent in
>> the new one?
>
> True.
>
> It is my understanding that an experimental amateur built has no
> subdivisions, such as seaplane, tailwheel, ect.

Certified aircraft do not have those subdivisions either. No difference.
Those subdivisions apply only to qualifications for the pilot.

>
> So could I, a single engine land pilot, get into my flying boat homebuilt
> and proceed to do water landings?
>
Yes. But you could not carry any passengers. The same with rotorcraft.

> Technically, yes, if what I was told is correct. A FAA guy visiting at a
> fly-in told us that he would not sign off a new plane, if the owner was
> not
> experienced in the "corresponding type" of certified plane.

Hmmm. They do it all the time around here. However, they DO require the
owner get the appropriate qualifications added to their pilot certificate
before they take anyone up in it and they prefer to see the qualifications
added before the owner attempts to fly it. I have known non-pilots who
have built airplanes and licensed them properly and legally as amateur
built. They just couldn't fly them themselves.

>
> What do you all think of that? True or not? Within his powers, or not?
>

Most FAA guys are not too concerned with "limitations on their powers."
Remember, if they ever find anyone who understands an FAA regulation, it is
immediately rewritten to cure that problem. That allows FAA guys to pretty
much do their own interpretation of the regs unless and until a specific
interpretation is officially released by FAA Legal. Then it still only
applies in that specific situation or instance.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> Al wrote:
>
>>> So could I, a single engine land pilot, get into my flying boat
>>> homebuilt and proceed to do water landings?
>>>
>> Not legally. You would need a Single engine Sea rating.
>
> This is not correct.
>
> Per FAR 61.31 (k) (2) (iii) (B), the restrictions for Category, Class, and
> Type ratings do NOT apply to experimental aircraft, as long as no
> passengers are being carried. To carry passengers, you'd need the rating.
>
> It might be stupid, but it's legal (when solo).
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright (c) 2006
>

That particular exemption ONLY applies to aircraft in the Experimental
category and was written in to allow anyone to testfly a new aircraft that
required a type rating! Clearly no one can obtain a type rating in the
aircraft without flying it so the first time it is flown it must be flown by
a pilot without the proper rating. :-) Of course, when they placed "amateur
built" aircraft into the experimental category that exemption applied to
them also.

As a result you can fly solo in any homebuilt regardless of type, category,
or class ratings. However, you MUST have the appropriate rating to carry
passengers and they PREFER you have an appropriate rating for the solo
flights and test flights if it is feasible to do so.

In other words, you COULD build a four engine flying boat and fly it solo
with only a SEL rating on your ticket. But everyone from the FAA to the
insurance company would be much happier if it was test flown by a pilot with
a MES on his certificate somewhere! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Roger rudder]

Not quite so. The Moller air car has flown, sort of, kinda...

I was looking at a picture of the tethered flights and thought I recognized
the pilot, so I called him at home. The first thing out of his mouth when I
asked
if that was anyone he knew was "yah its me but for Christ sakes don't tell
anyone
or I will never get any peace". This person was employed at Moller for
several
years and was the only one who "flew" it.

Few interesting tidbits of information. On several of the tethered pictures
the obvious
large firehose sized tether is slack, however the actual cable tether is
string tight. You
can only spot the cable in some pictures.

The highest "flight" is what you see in the tethered pics, most were well
under 18 inches
of altitude as it became more unstable in the rarefied heights.

He experienced a engine failure at about 12 inches altitude. This was one
engine out of 8.
He said it was the first time in 30 years of flying he thought he was going
to die.
It started hubcapping on him quite violently. He cut power and rode it out
but was
sure it was going to roll over or do something equally nasty.

When he was there the engines were right out of second hand Bombardier snow
mobiles.

I asked about fuel burn and he replied I don't know we never measured it. We
just
put enough in so we could see we had some. I thought this was a bit strange
and
asked him again and he said he didn't know. I asked him again how they
wouldn't
know that and yet Moller was able to make all these claims. He said that
Moller
was the best he had ever seen at raising money and this data was to keep the
investors
happy. He claimed all of the money invested so far was 100% private funding
and
no government funds at all. And the reason he didn't know something as basic
as
fuel burn accurately was that in the years he was employed as the test pilot
he had
managed to log a TOTAL of just 3 and 1/2 minutes of time.

He had a few other comments about the suitability of this as a viable flying
machine, none
being very enthusiastic.

Roger


> Brain surgery? The question is moot anyway. First, a Moller Air car has
> to fly! So far you couldn't get one high enough to even make the pilot
> nervous. Of course, the pilot probably has a right to nervous about all
> of that high speed rotating machinery surrounding the operators position!
> :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>
>