Weird Experimental Certificate wording - Normal?

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

Michael McNulty wrote:

"Mark Zivley" wrote in message
om...

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

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


The "Experimental" certification that most US gliders have is explicitly,
for the purpose of "Exhibition and Racing". Given this fact, it seems
reasonable to me that the FAA might ask us to substantiate that this is in
fact what we are doing with these aircraft. (Remember, we never go for
"pleasure flights" in these aircraft; we are maintaining proficiency for our
exhibition and racing activities).

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

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

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