Experimental or not?

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

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

"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.

"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

"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 )

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

("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

"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.

??

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

"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 )