Experimental/Exhibition

I fly a racing sailplane under Exp/Exh and it has not been a problem at all.
Actually, this is the second glider I have owned that is Exp/Exh. The first
one was built in the early '80's and was very generous WRT operating
limitations. The current one, bought new in 2001, was still pretty lenient
WRT operating limitations. This was after the fall of the Soviet bloc and
the importing of military aircraft had become a bit of a problem, making the
FAA more nervous.

The FSDO came out to the local airport to look at the aircraft and its
paperwork. My partner and I gave him our program letter stating the events
that we _PLANNED_ to attend. We listed our bases of operation (all the
gliderports in three states that we might ever fly out of). He offered us a
flight radius of 300 nm from our 'bases'. We countered that we would be
attempting SSA badge and record flights that may go father than that
regularly and were able to get the radius increased to 500 nm. He told us
that if we wanted to fly from other bases or farther than the 500 mile
radius that we could fax a note to the FSDO explaining what we were planning
to do.

The only part of our Exp/Exh certificate that could be much of much concern
is the prohibition from flying over congested areas.

We are able to do all the repairs and minor modifications to the aircraft
that we wish. We need an A&P to sign off the annual condition inspection.

For single seat aircraft that will not be flown over urban areas, Exp/Exh is
a good way to go. Our insurance company has been fine with it, too. For
more than one seat or flying in and out of large airports in big cities you
may have a problem. Insurance companies may have a problem with it , too.
Experimental/amateur built would of course be better, if it is possible.

Juan, I think the source of your problem is a turbine engine. The FAA
relates turbine Exp/Exh to Mig 15/17's and a F-86 burning in a ice cream
parlor. Make sure that you understand the meaning of "conservative" when
you deal with them.
-Bob Korves

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...

"Bob K." wrote in message
ups.com...
Earlier, Juan Jimenez wrote:

...For example, 8130.2F says that you
must provide a letter stating all air
shows and other exhibition activities,
including "static displays" in which
the aircraft will participate, and
lists the letter as a mandatory
requirement. However, it doesn't say
what happens when no plans have yet
been made to attend any exhibition
activities...

Ah, the infamous "program letter." My suggestion would be to talk to
the kinds of people who routinely file program letters and have no
problems with them at all: competition sailplane pilots. There are
probably more than a thousand European competition sailplanes in the US
being operated on Experimental/Exhibition or Experimental/Racing
certificates, and I've heard of very few complaints about their
operating limitations or program letters.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I will look into that. Thanks!

I think that the most common approach is to include on the program
letter any contest or event that you might possibly attend, and then
add some extra verbiage about proficiency flights.

Kinda hard to do that when you're sitting on an island in the Caribbean
more
than 1k miles from the nearest airshow, and the plane doesn't have
anywhere
near the range to get there.

If you search rec.aviation.soaring on the phrase "program letter"
you'll find a lot of general advice, but probably few concrete examples
of complete program letters.

I think what I will do is state that I have no plans as of yet to attend
any
specific airshows because there are none on the island, but I am pursuing
sponsors, will do static displays and perhaps some solo flybys over the
beach to entertain people.

Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Thanks for your help!

Juan

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:19:26 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

If all else fails, post the address of your DAR and all us on RAH will write
testimonials to your character. :-)

Ron Wanttaja


Uh, Ron.... somehow I seriously doubt Juan would like us to
do that...

John

In article , Richard Riley says...

Hey, Chuck - didn't you have an exhibition registered airplane once?
I'm sure you'll help Juan out here.

I think so but "I" designed it ,"I" built it and "I" flew it so I had no
problems with the Feds :-)


Lets do a search on the FAA database for ex-ex airplanes.

I had more than one plane I built N numbered and an Easy Riser.Let me know if
you find a data base of old numbers I'd like to look and see just how many I
did.

There must
be some registered to people who've contributed to RAH, who'd be happy
to see Juan fly his airplane.

I'd be happy to watch and offer him all the luck he deserves .Maybe his buddy
zoom will test it, hell he's a test pilot ain't he? Ahhh loops ,rolls and spins.
LOL!!!


See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

Yes, I do think you hit the proverbial nail on the head when you said I
should keep in mind the word "conservative" when dealing with the FSDO
folks.

And yes, the turbine issue is the catch. 8130.2F is, IMO, not really
designed for homebuilt turbine-powered aircraft. Again, the FAA is behind
the curve. What can I say. This is one of many areas where the agency is
reactive, rather than proactive.

Thanks for the info!

Juan

"Bob Korves" bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom wrote in message
...
I fly a racing sailplane under Exp/Exh and it has not been a problem at
all.
Actually, this is the second glider I have owned that is Exp/Exh. The
first
one was built in the early '80's and was very generous WRT operating
limitations. The current one, bought new in 2001, was still pretty
lenient
WRT operating limitations. This was after the fall of the Soviet bloc and
the importing of military aircraft had become a bit of a problem, making
the
FAA more nervous.

The FSDO came out to the local airport to look at the aircraft and its
paperwork. My partner and I gave him our program letter stating the
events
that we _PLANNED_ to attend. We listed our bases of operation (all the
gliderports in three states that we might ever fly out of). He offered us
a
flight radius of 300 nm from our 'bases'. We countered that we would be
attempting SSA badge and record flights that may go father than that
regularly and were able to get the radius increased to 500 nm. He told us
that if we wanted to fly from other bases or farther than the 500 mile
radius that we could fax a note to the FSDO explaining what we were
planning
to do.

The only part of our Exp/Exh certificate that could be much of much
concern
is the prohibition from flying over congested areas.

We are able to do all the repairs and minor modifications to the aircraft
that we wish. We need an A&P to sign off the annual condition inspection.

For single seat aircraft that will not be flown over urban areas, Exp/Exh
is
a good way to go. Our insurance company has been fine with it, too. For
more than one seat or flying in and out of large airports in big cities
you
may have a problem. Insurance companies may have a problem with it , too.
Experimental/amateur built would of course be better, if it is possible.

Juan, I think the source of your problem is a turbine engine. The FAA
relates turbine Exp/Exh to Mig 15/17's and a F-86 burning in a ice cream
parlor. Make sure that you understand the meaning of "conservative" when
you deal with them.
-Bob Korves

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...

"Bob K." wrote in message
ups.com...
Earlier, Juan Jimenez wrote:

...For example, 8130.2F says that you
must provide a letter stating all air
shows and other exhibition activities,
including "static displays" in which
the aircraft will participate, and
lists the letter as a mandatory
requirement. However, it doesn't say
what happens when no plans have yet
been made to attend any exhibition
activities...

Ah, the infamous "program letter." My suggestion would be to talk to
the kinds of people who routinely file program letters and have no
problems with them at all: competition sailplane pilots. There are
probably more than a thousand European competition sailplanes in the US
being operated on Experimental/Exhibition or Experimental/Racing
certificates, and I've heard of very few complaints about their
operating limitations or program letters.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I will look into that. Thanks!

I think that the most common approach is to include on the program
letter any contest or event that you might possibly attend, and then
add some extra verbiage about proficiency flights.

Kinda hard to do that when you're sitting on an island in the Caribbean
more
than 1k miles from the nearest airshow, and the plane doesn't have
anywhere
near the range to get there.

If you search rec.aviation.soaring on the phrase "program letter"
you'll find a lot of general advice, but probably few concrete examples
of complete program letters.

I think what I will do is state that I have no plans as of yet to attend
any
specific airshows because there are none on the island, but I am pursuing
sponsors, will do static displays and perhaps some solo flybys over the
beach to entertain people.

Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Thanks for your help!

Juan

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:54 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


Again, the FAA is behind
the curve. What can I say. This is one of many areas where the agency is
reactive, rather than proactive.

Now you're talkin'! Sounds like it's time for a scathing editorial!
The Feds will wise up pronto, and the all new, clarified rule is bound
to be named in your honor. But if the first critique doesn't humble a
few FSDOs, then you should blast them annually. Geez, I can't believe
Zoom doesn't tell you this stuff.

Wayne