Experimental AB a Thing Of The Past?

I guess my point with the civil disobedience was: would I "be in trouble" if I put a Skyview panel in my airplane? Probably so, if the FAA found out about it. However, would I "be in trouble" if myself and 80,000 other airplane owners did the same thing? I would hope that the rules would instead be changed to coincide with the beliefs of the people for whom the rules apply.

In my humble opinion, technology has changed so much over the past 10 years that, in some aspects, the current certification rules actually inhibit the safety of GA aircraft. Synthetic vision with obstacle avoidance and an auto-pilot both seem like they would be quite useful for flying during times of lower visibility. As of today, adding these safety-enhancing items are cost-prohibitive, but I could definitely afford to install both of the non-certified counterparts.
 
Challenged said:
I guess my point with the civil disobedience was: would I "be in trouble" if I put a Skyview panel in my airplane? Probably so, if the FAA found out about it. However, would I "be in trouble" if myself and 80,000 other airplane owners did the same thing? I would hope that the rules would instead be changed to coincide with the beliefs of the people for whom the rules apply.
Click to expand...

Point taken.


Challenged said:
In my humble opinion, technology has changed so much over the past 10 years that, in some aspects, the current certification rules actually inhibit the safety of GA aircraft. Synthetic vision with obstacle avoidance and an auto-pilot both seem like they would be quite useful for flying during times of lower visibility. As of today, adding these safety-enhancing items are cost-prohibitive, but I could definitely afford to install both of the non-certified counterparts.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.
 
DavidWhite said:
R&W do you think there is a good chance of this actually happening?
Click to expand...

There are people working on it, and it does have merit. Unfortunately it is working through a bureaucracy, so it will take time.

And if I was guessing, there will be changes made before the final product comes out.

Stay tuned.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
There are people working on it, and it does have merit. Unfortunately it is working through a bureaucracy, so it will take time.

And if I was guessing, there will be changes made before the final product comes out.

Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Even if it happens 5 or 10 years down the road this still makes me very excited.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Point taken.
Click to expand...

Was my point as well, the risk is low enough that organizing a large enough group to create a situation of non compliance that the FAA has no option but to accept because it creates a situation they cannot enforce is a way to set up such a protest. I question whether you could get enough American pilots to go for it though.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
There are people working on it, and it does have merit. Unfortunately it is working through a bureaucracy, so it will take time.

And if I was guessing, there will be changes made before the final product comes out.

Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

R&W - since you seem to be relatively knowledgable about this - how difficult is the road to taking a certificated aircraft into Experimental category to be able to do this? Is that something that can only be accomplished for specific tasks or product testing for a specified period of time?
 
airguy said:
R&W - since you seem to be relatively knowledgable about this - how difficult is the road to taking a certificated aircraft into Experimental category to be able to do this? Is that something that can only be accomplished for specific tasks or product testing for a specified period of time?
Click to expand...


Pretty accurate, the 'specified period of time' part is a bit flexible since some things they'll let you keep running for a considerable time collecting data. There's an AeroCommander still flying around on a EX/R&D more than a decade after they first put on the Orenda engines for certification. Funny they certified the engine, but not the installation.
 
airguy said:
R&W - since you seem to be relatively knowledgable about this - how difficult is the road to taking a certificated aircraft into Experimental category to be able to do this? Is that something that can only be accomplished for specific tasks or product testing for a specified period of time?
Click to expand...

Depends upon the experimental category in which you want to place it. And of course remember the restrictions that each category has.

The guys that deal in Experimental on a regular basis (as well as the EAA folks) are very well versed in this.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Don't know where you got that from, but if you actually believe it you are a fool.
Click to expand...

I know of one who did well over 10 years, the FAA walked right by it many times and never gave it a second thought.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Sure Tom......
Click to expand...

Gotta remember folks,, Until Rotor head proves who he is, he's just another wantabee. with a yahoo address. Unable to look up and post the most common things a FAA employee should be able to do.
 
airguy said:
R&W - since you seem to be relatively knowledgable about this - how difficult is the road to taking a certificated aircraft into Experimental category to be able to do this? Is that something that can only be accomplished for specific tasks or product testing for a specified period of time?
Click to expand...

Why not sell it and buy an experimental? Faster, more economical, and you can do what ever you want.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Point taken.




I don't disagree.
Click to expand...

IMO this is the biggest disconnect insofar as GA regulation is concerned. Every time I see one of the new glass panels in a homebuilt, I reflect back to the time when they were all PVC pipe and remnants of WW-II trainers and our certified birds were resplendent in their Silver Crown stacks with GNS-80 Rnav capability.

Well, we still have the Silver Crown panels. A couple years ago I asked the True-Trac guy (at OSH) if he would ever produce a unit for the certified market. He said hell no.
 
Geico266 said:
Why not sell it and buy an experimental? Faster, more economical, and you can do what ever you want.
Click to expand...

That's really the ***** in the aviation world. There isn't a great capability overlap between the experimental and certified markets.

If you want a 2 seater, tons of options EXP, a couple certified. Want a 4 seater? Lots of certified options, a hand full of experimentals. 6 seat or more? Only a couple of experimental options, and they are as expensive as the certified ones.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's really the ***** in the aviation world. There isn't a great capability overlap between the experimental and certified markets.

If you want a 2 seater, tons of options EXP, a couple certified. Want a 4 seater? Lots of certified options, a hand full of experimentals. 6 seat or more? Only a couple of experimental options, and they are as expensive as the certified ones.
Click to expand...

It's all based upon need and money, most home builders are looking for 1 or 2 seats. and have the time to build that type of aircraft, and the money to support it.
 
airguy said:
R&W - since you seem to be relatively knowledgable about this - how difficult is the road to taking a certificated aircraft into Experimental category to be able to do this? Is that something that can only be accomplished for specific tasks or product testing for a specified period of time?
Click to expand...
I'm not involved with the FAA (other than by having a pilot cert) but I know of two owners who tried to do what you're suggesting and they both found that it's virtually impossible.

As R&W mentioned there are several versions of the "experimental" airworthiness certificate but only two come with the kind of modification/freedom you are likely associating with "experimental". One is exhibition which is generally applied to warbirds and new designs/major mods. In the case of the warbirds the owner/pilot's rights are similar although it's only recently that ex-military airplanes with an experimental exhibition cert were able to fly without geographic limitations and even now there are a few hoops to jump through. When applied to a modified airplane that originally had a "standard" cert there are usually significant usage limitations as well as a time limit beyond which the airplane has to be brought back to standard (either by removing the mod or getting a STC for it).

The cert you'd like to get is "experimental amateur built" and to convert your 172 to that you'd have to essentially rebuild it from scratch, (i.e. build the wings, fuselage, and tail feathers out of bits of sheet metal). I don't know why the FAA is so strongly against such a change in airworthiness cert but they are from everything I've heard on the subject.
 
Geico266 said:
Why not sell it and buy an experimental? Faster, more economical, and you can do what ever you want.
Click to expand...

I'm building a Vans RV9A now, about 12 months to first flight. I also have a C-172 that I would like to put some non-certificated items in. So yeah, I'm there.
 
Some one please tell me why a Primary category aircraft wouldn't fit the bill for the purposes we want.???

21.31 Type design.

The type design consists of—

(a) The drawings and specifications, and a listing of those drawings and specifications, necessary to define the configuration and the design features of the product shown to comply with the requirements of that part of this subchapter applicable to the product;

(d) For primary category aircraft, if desired, a special inspection and preventive maintenance program designed to be accomplished by an appropriately rated and trained pilot-owner.

Here is more: CFR 21.184

(c) Aircraft having a current standard airworthiness certificate. An applicant for a special airworthiness certificate-primary category, for an aircraft having a current standard airworthiness certificate that meets the criteria of §21.24(a)(1), may obtain the primary category certificate in exchange for its standard airworthiness certificate through the supplemental type certification process. For the purposes of this paragraph, a current standard airworthiness certificate means that the aircraft conforms to its approved normal, utility, or acrobatic type design, complies with all applicable airworthiness directives, has been inspected and found airworthy within the last 12 calendar months in accordance with §91.409(a)(1) of this chapter, and is found to be in a condition for safe operation by the FAA.

(d) Other aircraft. An applicant for a special airworthiness certificate-primary category for an aircraft that meets the criteria of §21.24(a)(1), and is not covered by paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, is entitled to a special airworthiness certificate if—

(1) The applicant presents evidence to the FAA that the aircraft conforms to an approved primary, normal, utility, or acrobatic type design, including compliance with all applicable airworthiness directives;

(2) The aircraft has been inspected and found airworthy within the past 12 calendar months in accordance with §91.409(a)(1) of this chapter and;

(3) The aircraft is found by the FAA to conform to an approved type design and to be in a condition for safe operation.

(e) Multiple-category airworthiness certificates in the primary category and any other category will not be issued; a primary category aircraft may hold only one airworthiness certificate.
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
Flaunting ( even recommending ) non compliance on a public web board is not only foolish, it's idiotic.
Click to expand...

Yes sir. :rolleyes2:

(Egyptian authorities shut down Internet access for most of their country in order to suppress coordination on Facebook and Twitter of the 2011 Egyptian protests that turned into a revolution. It took one post by Rotor&Wing to shut down any attempt to get the ball rolling on civil disobediance against FAA regulations. I'm impressed by how quickly and easily it was managed - and saddened.)
 
Jim Logajan said:
Yes sir. :rolleyes2:

(Egyptian authorities shut down Internet access for most of their country in order to suppress coordination on Facebook and Twitter of the 2011 Egyptian protests that turned into a revolution. It took one post by Rotor&Wing to shut down any attempt to get the ball rolling on civil disobediance against FAA regulations. I'm impressed by how quickly and easily it was managed - and saddened.)
Click to expand...

Well Jim, This is what your working with,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W_42CGdgrw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7XRmlqvT0&feature=related

They must be one and the same.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Yes sir. :rolleyes2:

(Egyptian authorities shut down Internet access for most of their country in order to suppress coordination on Facebook and Twitter of the 2011 Egyptian protests that turned into a revolution. It took one post by Rotor&Wing to shut down any attempt to get the ball rolling on civil disobediance against FAA regulations. I'm impressed by how quickly and easily it was managed - and saddened.)
Click to expand...


Yes, I have been amply kowed by The Man...:rolleyes:

Ya know, one of our resident Feds had those "Illegal Experimental Avionics" in his certified plane for a long time...:yikes::yikes::yikes::nono::lol:
Fact is it's always been legal, you just have to avoid doing the things they say you can't do. That's where creativity counts.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Yes sir. :rolleyes2:

(Egyptian authorities shut down Internet access for most of their country in order to suppress coordination on Facebook and Twitter of the 2011 Egyptian protests that turned into a revolution. It took one post by Rotor&Wing to shut down any attempt to get the ball rolling on civil disobediance against FAA regulations. I'm impressed by how quickly and easily it was managed - and saddened.)
Click to expand...

Nice twist there Jim.

The intent of my post was to keep someone from following the foolish advice being disseminated on the thread. Some time back another young gentleman (A&P type) launched into a thread writing about potential legal activity he was engaged in, and went as far as giving times and location. I offered the same advice then as now.

There are times in life when some things are left better unsaid. Personally I could care less, but I'm also aware many, many people read these threads.

If you guys want to throw caution into the wind, take advice from some clueless individual and gain the attention that otherwise one wouldn't want, then go for it.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Yes sir. :rolleyes2:

(Egyptian authorities shut down Internet access for most of their country in order to suppress coordination on Facebook and Twitter of the 2011 Egyptian protests that turned into a revolution. It took one post by Rotor&Wing to shut down any attempt to get the ball rolling on civil disobediance against FAA regulations. I'm impressed by how quickly and easily it was managed - and saddened.)
Click to expand...
I don't think you would have gotten many people on board with that civil disobedience idea anyway. Even with no FAA penalty involved, not many people are going to risk the chance that their asset will be worth pennies on the dollar when they try to sell it because they have modified it illegally. What would they intend to do about the pre-buy inspection? I suppose the only people that wouldn't care are those who intend to keep that specific airplane forever.

And how can you possibly compare this to the situation in Egypt?
 
Henning said:
I'm guessing he nosed over the Stearman, fixed it and flew it?
Click to expand...
No. He did an overhaul pretty much every winter. He always had a spare engine on mounts ready to go and could swap engines in half a day. They never once banged the airplane up (well my dad did clip a four wheeler with the wing once and broke a few ribs in the wing).

The thing about the propellor governor control rod being bent was just because he didn't like how it worked so he modified it. It was that way until the day he died.

He operated in a very stubborn manner which is why he was always scraping by. A 300 hp Stearman is not the ideal spraying configuration..which is what he used..all the way into the 90s.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't think you would have gotten many people on board with that civil disobedience idea anyway. Even with no FAA penalty involved, not many people are going to risk the chance that their asset will be worth pennies on the dollar when they try to sell it because they have modified it illegally. What would they intend to do about the pre-buy inspection? I suppose the only people that wouldn't care are those who intend to keep that specific airplane forever.

And how can you possibly compare this to the situation in Egypt?
Click to expand...

A few years ago I was involved in Canadian Transport trying to prosecute a US owner for running "C" numbers on a Ilegal Twin Bo.

The whole story was he bought it from a Canadian in his wifes name, brought it to the US and simply made up a set of N numbers, and flew it that way, no annual, no registration, nothing, for a while, Canada thought it was exported, the US never knew it existed, until one day a noisy FAA inspector walked by and smelled auto fuel, knowing the GO-480 is not an engine with an STC for auto fuel, he ran the number, found that the number was not on a Twin Bonaza. and stuck a sticker on it and waited until he shows.
The owner rents a hangar, placed the aircraft in the hangar, The FAA had no clue who owned the aircraft because there was no registration, so they hit a dead end. The owner then stripped the aircraft polished it, and placed C letters on it and started to fly it again.

then 911 occurred, and he flew it during the no fly period and the FAA had a fit, called Transport Canada and got one of there inspectors to come down and have a look, they ran the C letters and found they did not belong to a Twin Bo. and placed a no fly sticker on it.

but then it disappeared from that airport and appeared at BVS, in the mean time some body ratted out the owner and told the FAA who owned the aircraft, so they violated him for flying an unairworthy aircraft, he simply said NO I didn't, prove I did, and they couldn't.

Now the aircraft sets at BVS and hasn't flown since, but the FAA couldn't prove their case, and can't touch him until flys that aircraft again. He has since bought another aircraft that the FAA has no record of either.

I was summoned to testify at hearing against his wife at transport canada in VanCouver Ca. they out come of those proceeding were that she got fined 1450.00 CD for the citation transport Canada filed.

That's all that ever happened in that case.

MY point in all this? the FAA has no teeth in the enforcement issues you only need to stone wall them, they only know what you tell them.

This case is my best bad example of why the seller must remove there registration and send in the 8050-2 form them selves. you never know what the buyer is going to do with the aircraft after they fly away.
 
Tom-D said:
I was summoned to testify at hearing against his wife at transport canada in VanCouver Ca. they out come of those proceeding were that she got fined 1450.00 CD for the citation transport Canada filed.

That's all that ever happened in that case.
Click to expand...
That plus that fact that he has a worthless airplane which he can't fly. I'm sure he didn't get it for free. Plus, if you read your story, does that sound like something any reasonable person would want to go through just so that they could run auto fuel?

Why is it that there have been so many, "It's OK if you get away with it," threads these days?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The intent of my post was to keep someone from following the foolish advice being disseminated on the thread.
Click to expand...

All civil disobedience may be characterized as foolish. But you also labeled it idiotic; yet it is not.
 
Everskyward said:
And how can you possibly compare this to the situation in Egypt?
Click to expand...

With respect to the Egyptian uprising: I was noting the effect of a single post on this thread, not on the effect a change to an airplane might have on its resale value - or any other aspect of changes to an aircraft not allowed by FAA regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top