Experimental or not?

Hello!

I'm reading here for a while now, but today I want to come up with a
question that bothered me for a while. I'm not a pilot (but will begin
to take flight lessons soon) so this is mostly out of curiosity.

I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
serialized products but individually built with different quality and
with different modifications. I also know that GA airplanes made of
composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.
What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane. I now wonder
why it's treated as experimental, and not as a normal aircplane,
utility aircraft or aerobatic airplane. Why is this the case? What
makes a jet airplane that is produced by a factory in high numbers
different than say a C-152 that also is produced by a factory in high
numbers? Is the only way to register jet airplanes like the L-39 the
experimental category? Or can they also be registered as say aerobatic
aircraft?

From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
be able to fly the L-39. What if the L-39 would not be registered as
experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane? Would this also
require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with this L-39? Are
there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?
Or are the 1000hrs required for experimental airplanes in general?

I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever). Is that true? If so, registering
airplanes like an L-39 in normal/utility/aerobatic category would
probably also remove some limitations like the use for training,
right? So why are they registered as experimental instead?

As I said, it's just curiosity. But it really confuses me.

JJ

On 5 Apr 2005 14:36:01 -0700, (John D. Abrahms)
wrote:

There are more than one category of Experimental aircraft.

Experimental - Amateur built
Experimental - Exhibition
Experimental - Racing
Experimental - Research & Development

There are a couple (?) more that I can't recall at the moment..

The L-39 falls under Experimental Exhibition, principally, because
there is no FAA type-certificate for the machine. The Antonov AN-2
is another example of this, as are Canadian-built Harvard (T-6)
aircraft. Basically, the manufacturers of these aircraft have not
done what it takes to prove to the FAA that the design complies
with the FAA regulations which cover standard category aircraft.

I'm not an L-39 expert by any means, but it's unlikely (?) you'll find
one registered as a standard category airframe. The LOA for
a turbine powered aircraft is what's driving the 1000 hours PIC
time. You don't need 1000 PIC to fly an experimental aircraft
in general.

Bela P. Havasreti

Hello!

I'm reading here for a while now, but today I want to come up with a
question that bothered me for a while. I'm not a pilot (but will begin
to take flight lessons soon) so this is mostly out of curiosity.

I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
serialized products but individually built with different quality and
with different modifications. I also know that GA airplanes made of
composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.
What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane. I now wonder
why it's treated as experimental, and not as a normal aircplane,
utility aircraft or aerobatic airplane. Why is this the case? What
makes a jet airplane that is produced by a factory in high numbers
different than say a C-152 that also is produced by a factory in high
numbers? Is the only way to register jet airplanes like the L-39 the
experimental category? Or can they also be registered as say aerobatic
aircraft?

From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
be able to fly the L-39. What if the L-39 would not be registered as
experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane? Would this also
require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with this L-39? Are
there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?
Or are the 1000hrs required for experimental airplanes in general?

I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever). Is that true? If so, registering
airplanes like an L-39 in normal/utility/aerobatic category would
probably also remove some limitations like the use for training,
right? So why are they registered as experimental instead?

As I said, it's just curiosity. But it really confuses me.

JJ

Ok.. multiple questions.,. and I will do my best to answer most of them...

John D. Abrahms wrote:
Hello!

I'm reading here for a while now, but today I want to come up with a
question that bothered me for a while. I'm not a pilot (but will begin
to take flight lessons soon) so this is mostly out of curiosity.

I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
serialized products but individually built with different quality and
with different modifications.

Ok.. correct. They are considered "Experimental - Amatuer Built". They
can be one of a kind, unique designs, or they can be "one-off" copies of
existing plans-built or kit-built designs.

I also know that GA airplanes made of
composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.

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.

What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane. I now wonder
why it's treated as experimental, and not as a normal aircplane,
utility aircraft or aerobatic airplane.

It is listed as an Experimental because it does not have an FAA issued
Type Certificate in the Normal, Utility or Aerobatic categories. The
manufacturer did not pursue certification testing to obtain this status.

Why is this the case? What
makes a jet airplane that is produced by a factory in high numbers
different than say a C-152 that also is produced by a factory in high
numbers? Is the only way to register jet airplanes like the L-39 the
experimental category? Or can they also be registered as say aerobatic
aircraft?

Unless formal certification is undertaken, by the manufacturer of the
airframe, then the answer is no. I doubt that will be forthcoming, since
the former Warsaw Pact countries are able to sell their surplus old jets
just fine. Although they are listed as "Experimental" they are NOT
amatuer built, and the rules they operate under (Exhibition, I believe)
are somewhat more restrictive than your typical homebuilt (once the
homebuilt is out of phase 1 testing). Certification will involve LOTS of
money, time and NEW airframes (some are tested to destruction..)



From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
be able to fly the L-39. What if the L-39 would not be registered as
experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane? Would this also
require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with this L-39? Are
there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?
Or are the 1000hrs required for experimental airplanes in general?

For the short term, normal/utility/aerobatic cert isn't gonna happen. IF
it was, then the airplane would fall under the "Large or Turbine
Powered" part of CFR 14, part 91. I want to say (without looking it up
right now) that large or turbine powered aircraft require a type rating.
This is easily summarized (and probably over simplified) as a checkride
to ATP standards in the aircraft (and ATP candidates require over 1200
hours to begin with), and a comprehensive understanding of the aircraft
and all its systems. The LOA process is essentially a "waiver" to the
type rating process, since the airplane doesn't have a "type
certificate" against which the rating can be issued. LOA's are not
something I have experience with, and I may be mistaken on the details
here. The list here WILL correct me if I'm wrong.. I'm sure.


I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever). Is that true? If so, registering
airplanes like an L-39 in normal/utility/aerobatic category would
probably also remove some limitations like the use for training,
right? So why are they registered as experimental instead?

You CAN use an experimental plane for training. It just cannot be used
for commercial purposes. So, if someone wants to TEACH you for free in
their's or someone elses experimental, they can. THey cannot charge you
rent, and if it was your plane, you couldn't hold the airframe out for
hire. A new exception/waiver that is in place now is that "transition
training" is now available for the Factory and lay CFI's to provide
training in type to prospective and new owners of experimental airplanes
.. For instance, before I take flight in the Velocity that I am helping
build, I will travel to Florida and recieve legal instruction (for a
fee) in a factory sponsored/operated/built aircraft.

As I said, it's just curiosity. But it really confuses me.

JJ

It confuses a lot of people, and we will find out shortly if I've got it
right, too.

Dave

Dave S wrote in message link.net...

Ok.. correct. They are considered "Experimental - Amatuer Built". They
can be one of a kind, unique designs, or they can be "one-off" copies of
existing plans-built or kit-built designs.

Yes. Up to this it's clear for me.

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?

It is listed as an Experimental because it does not have an FAA issued
Type Certificate in the Normal, Utility or Aerobatic categories. The
manufacturer did not pursue certification testing to obtain this status.

I understand.

For the short term, normal/utility/aerobatic cert isn't gonna happen. IF
it was, then the airplane would fall under the "Large or Turbine
Powered" part of CFR 14, part 91. I want to say (without looking it up
right now) that large or turbine powered aircraft require a type rating.
This is easily summarized (and probably over simplified) as a checkride
to ATP standards in the aircraft (and ATP candidates require over 1200
hours to begin with), and a comprehensive understanding of the aircraft
and all its systems.

I know that a type rating is necessary. But I wonder why one of the
requirements are 1000+ hrs PIC time. I mean, You still can fly with a
PPL on such thing...

Do all turbine airplanes require the 1000+hrs?

The LOA process is essentially a "waiver" to the
type rating process, since the airplane doesn't have a "type
certificate" against which the rating can be issued. LOA's are not
something I have experience with, and I may be mistaken on the details
here. The list here WILL correct me if I'm wrong.. I'm sure.

Let's see? ;-)

You CAN use an experimental plane for training. It just cannot be used
for commercial purposes. So, if someone wants to TEACH you for free in
their's or someone elses experimental, they can. THey cannot charge you
rent, and if it was your plane, you couldn't hold the airframe out for
hire. A new exception/waiver that is in place now is that "transition
training" is now available for the Factory and lay CFI's to provide
training in type to prospective and new owners of experimental airplanes

So that means an experimental can't be used commercially except for
providing training to pilots who want to fly such a thing, right? But
this again (sorry) makes me wonder about things like this:

The Jet Warbird Training Center
http://www.jetwarbird.com/
They not only offer type ratings but also general flight time in their
jets, and they also offer "jet orientation flights", which is much
more than just providing training to CFIs and prospective/new owners
of such airplanes. I assume that all of their planes fall into the
experimental category.

Or what about the "National Test Pilot School"
http://www.ntps.com/
They provide training for test pilots on several airplanes which for
sure are experimental (i.e. the Saab Draken, the MB326M Impala, the
MS760A Paris Jet, or the NDN1).

I also know that there are some companies that use experimental
airplanes like the Dornier Alpha Jet for flight tests.

I wonder how they can do that?

Thanks for your answers!

JJ

Do all turbine airplanes require the 1000+hrs?

First, type ratings are required for turbojets, but not all turbines
(not turboprops) unless they are large.

Second, there is no minimum number of hours required to get a type
rating. In theory.

In practice, it doesn't really work that way. If you can afford to pay
cash for a certified turbojet, you can't afford to operate it without
liability insurance, and in any case virtually any airport where you
could base it would require you to have liability insurance. And guess
what - nobody will insure you in a turboject without 1000+ hours.
Since it hasn't been an issue, the FAA has not seen fit to regulate.
These surplus East-bloc turbojets are an issue, and realistically you
do need 1000 hours to fly one. Could it be done in less? Sure. If
you subjected yourself to an extremely rigorous program for a few
hundred hours, lived, ate, and breathed flying and nothing else, and
was the sort of person who was enough of a natural pilot to make it
through a military training program and not wash out, I bet you could
fly one in half that time, or even less.

The Jet Warbird Training Center
Or what about the "National Test Pilot School"
I wonder how they can do that?

They are connected, and can get waivers for the regulations. You are
not, and can't.

Michael

John D. Abrahms wrote:


Really? What about the canard designs (SC01 Speed Canard, LongEZE,
VariEZE etc)? Are they also normal category?

No, Because Rutan (the designer) did not seek FAA type certification,
and make all of his planes at the factory. Experimental - Amatuer Built
airplanes may meet the performance requirements to be in the aerobatic,
or utility or normal categories, but they have not undergone FAA
certification to do so.

(SNIP)


You CAN use an experimental plane for training. It just cannot be used
for commercial purposes. So, if someone wants to TEACH you for free in
their's or someone elses experimental, they can. THey cannot charge you
rent, and if it was your plane, you couldn't hold the airframe out for
hire. A new exception/waiver that is in place now is that "transition
training" is now available for the Factory and lay CFI's to provide
training in type to prospective and new owners of experimental airplanes


So that means an experimental can't be used commercially except for
providing training to pilots who want to fly such a thing, right? But
this again (sorry) makes me wonder about things like this:

The Jet Warbird Training Center
http://www.jetwarbird.com/
They not only offer type ratings but also general flight time in their
jets, and they also offer "jet orientation flights", which is much
more than just providing training to CFIs and prospective/new owners
of such airplanes. I assume that all of their planes fall into the
experimental category.

I meant to confine my comments about commercial use to "Experimental -
Amatuer Built", not the entire experimental category. I cannot claim the
answer with regards to the whole category.

Or what about the "National Test Pilot School"
http://www.ntps.com/
They provide training for test pilots on several airplanes which for
sure are experimental (i.e. the Saab Draken, the MB326M Impala, the
MS760A Paris Jet, or the NDN1).

I also know that there are some companies that use experimental
airplanes like the Dornier Alpha Jet for flight tests.

I wonder how they can do that?

If there is an FAA rule, there can always be an FAA waiver. If the FAA
chooses to do so. Thats how persons with otherwise disqualifying medical
conditions can be allowed to hold medicals. Thats how aerobatic
performers can do their stuff below 1500 feet and thats how people can
operate turbojets without type ratings. If the FAA feels its the right
thing to do, in their sole opinion, they can waiver the rule.



Thanks for your answers!

JJ

Dave

"John D. Abrahms" wrote in message
om...

I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
serialized products but individually built with different quality and
with different modifications.

Not really. You can restore a certified airplane from a dataplate and a
single piece of metal and build everything yourself. If you can get an IA to
sign off on it, and the FAA to agree, it doesn't have to be experimental.

I also know that GA airplanes made of
composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.

No. Cirrus, Lancair and a few others are composites and they are certified
aircraft.

What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane.

That's because it's an ex-military airplane that was never put through
normal certification. In order to fly in private hands it has to have an
experimental airworthiness certificate.

From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
be able to fly the L-39.

Correct.

What if the L-39 would not be registered as
experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane?

The manufacturer, as far as I know, has no interest in spending the oodles
of money required to achieve this. And most likely you wouldn't be able to
afford the airplane if they did.

Would this also require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with
this L-39?

It would require a type rating.

Are there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?

To my knowledge, that is only the case on the few ex-military experimentals
being sold out there.

I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever).

No. A CFI can use your experimental to train you to fly it.

Juan

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

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

"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?

Don't know about the Goose or Lodestar but the ex-mil fighters are covered
by an AC, can't remember the number.

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.

Still applies.