On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 6:04:11 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Yes, but I can get my own work signed off much easier than having to have an A&P do the work at a much higher labor rate, field approvals and 337's are not as much of an issue, and considering the amount of grief the FAA put me through over the 3,000 hour Pegase life limit, I don't want to have any more contact with their bureaucracy than is absolutely necessary.

ps. I already do some stuff for the local A&P for other aircraft he is working on. I.E., machining, welding, electrical, O2 system installations, etc.

My understanding is there is little difference between Exp and Standard catagories as far as maintenance and repair work. Both must be done under the supervision of, and signed off by certified persons. That means you can do the work provided those rules are met. I believe this is often confused with a homebuilt aircraft, which operate as experimental but under a different set of rules: the manufacturer can always work on their aircraft, and the builder is considered to be the manufacturer. Not true of a German built glider operating with an experimental certificate. That is my understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if it is wrong.

My understanding as well.

But more importantly I think folks need to be careful with an aircraft that was moved from standard/type certified to experimental racing/exhibition. You don't escape from lots of stuff as for that aircraft "the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;" and therefore 14 CFR 41 (b)(1) applies and captures that aircraft back into Part 41 requirements.

"(b) This part does not apply to -

(1) 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;"

----

Transferring a standard type certificated aircraft to experimental exhibition/racing does not seem to me to remove say approval requirements for major alterations. Now wether a FSDO took a different level of interest in things and wanted more or less justification in an approval, who knows. After the NTSB investigation about he Galloping Ghost crash at Reno I wonder if FSDOs are paying more attention to all major alterations to racing and exhibition aircraft.

And on the other hand I hear about things, sometimes just crazy stuff, where I suspect folks are taking way too hard an interpretation of what is a major alteration in type certified gliders. This especially can happen if gliders are taken to say airframe or avionics shops that have no experience working with gliders.

As for ADS-B out installations, the regulations and policies are fairly complex when you dig into the lowest levels (much easy if you understand the policies apply and just follow them :-)) and I don't understand all the details, and not sure anybody really does, including even avionics manufacturers. I have questions into the FAA office of Chief Counsel asking about specific details with ADS-B Out installation regulations and policies.

My quick re-read of the AFS-360 March 2, 2016 Memo and AFS-360-2017-1 technical paper that describe the FAA ADS-B out installation policy (for type certified aircraft) is those policies do not seem to capture experimental aircraft that were previously type certified--since the preamble to each is similar stating the policies apply to "civil aircraft certificated under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Parts 23, 25, 27, 29". However it may be a bit more complex that that, and do not rely on me for legal interpretation here.