If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PA-32 on Experimental Certificate | Mike Granby | Owning | 3 | July 21st 04 03:04 AM |
Crashing Experimental on America's Funniest Home Videos | Jay | Home Built | 7 | March 10th 04 12:11 AM |
USA: Experimental Certificates | C.Fleming | Soaring | 4 | October 30th 03 10:48 PM |
A couple Questions-Ramp Checks and Experimental Operations | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 48 | October 8th 03 09:11 PM |
2 Place Experimental.... | [email protected] | Soaring | 8 | September 7th 03 03:03 AM |