Should All Certified Airplane Default to the Experimental Category After 20 Years?

[denverpilot]

As far as the proposal goes, lots of negative unintended consequences. Which is fairly typical of “easy fixes” in any industry.

Honest question, why is it that tort reform is a third rail in this Country again?

Seriously? Have you seen how much money law firms give to political candidates? It’s the favorite money laundering method of political donators of all sorts.

Not to mention that something like 80% of legislators are lawyers.

Not disparaging all lawyers, but they literally own DC. Literally.

Everything in my opinion. Would you buy a house that was not built/maintained to any building codes?

Every house I’ve purchased didn’t meet current code. Just sayin’. None have fallen or burnt down. You may have a different experience if you’ve always purchased brand new ones.

No worries though, they’re usually out of code compliance quickly with continual changes made by various bureaucrats.

I wouldn’t use a house building analogy against aircraft, it doesn’t work too well.

 

[Bell206]

I wouldn’t use a house building analogy against aircraft, it doesn’t work too well.

Agreed. Was trying to keep example simple for OP. Used it to imply something built to a known standard and maintained to a known standard. Not intended to be used literally.

 

[GRG55]

...Some would argue that there is an increase in safety and consistency in build when one purchases a certified aircraft. I would argue that you are buying a 20 year aircraft and any real consistency in that make and model ended 10 years ago after they were originally built...

...What do you think the advantages of a 20 year old certified aircraft holds over an experimental aircraft?

The certified GA fleet as a whole (and that is dominated by older airplanes unfortunately), is statistically safer than E-AB. In aviation there is a direct correlation between the amount of regulation and accident statistics, such as the fatality rates. The safest part of aviation is the most regulated - commercial air carriers. E-AB, one of the less regulated parts of aviation, is at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[unsafervguy]

The certified GA fleet as a whole (and that is dominated by older airplanes unfortunately), is statistically safer than E-AB. In aviation there is a direct correlation between the amount of regulation and accident statistics, such as the fatality rates. The safest part of aviation is the most regulated - commercial air carriers. E-AB, one of the less regulated parts of aviation, is at the other end of the spectrum.

i will let ron w chime in here as he is the king of those statistics, but I think that once you take out the phase one accidents, and the "yall watch this sh..t" accidents the numbers are pretty close between EAB and certified aircraft.
bob

 

[paflyer]

The certified GA fleet as a whole (and that is dominated by older airplanes unfortunately), is statistically safer than E-AB. In aviation there is a direct correlation between the amount of regulation and accident statistics, such as the fatality rates. The safest part of aviation is the most regulated - commercial air carriers. E-AB, one of the less regulated parts of aviation, is at the other end of the spectrum.

It's not necessarily the equipment, it's the operators that account for a lot of the difference. A lot of guys spend years building but not staying current, then on the first test flight buy the farm. Or operate out of unimproved airports which can induce more accidents.

You can't make a blanket statement that it's all due to the amount of regulation.

 

[GRG55]

It's not necessarily the equipment, it's the operators that account for a lot of the difference. A lot of guys spend years building but not staying current, then on the first test flight buy the farm. Or operate out of unimproved airports which can induce more accidents.

You can't make a blanket statement that it's all due to the amount of regulation.

Sure I can.

It's the "operators" (read: pilots) that account for most of the accidents in certified GA airplanes too. Top three causes of GA accidents, in order, according to the FAA: 1. Loss of control, 2. CFIT, 3. System or Component Failures/Powerplant. If that is indeed because more E-AB pilots spend more time building than flying, and their skills atrophy as you suggest, then how does replacing certificated aircraft with more E-AB improve the accident rate. The E-AB rate is pretty dismal; see the excerpt below.

This isn't a condemnation of E-AB aircraft, or the people that build and fly them. It's a just a simple observation of that sector's fatal accident rate compared to certified GA and other more regulated sectors of aviation. In fact, 40% of the experimental fatalities in 2017 were NOT in amateur built aircraft (18 of 45 total).

Let's theoretically increase the amount of regulation of E-AB (or certified GA) to equal that of air carriers. What do you think will happen to the accident rate?

But that's not necessary to make improvement, as the current efforts of the FAA, EAA and other organisations involved in E-AB have shown.

A brief excerpt from an October 2017 FAA Fact Sheet publication (emphasis mine):

"...Amateur-built and other experimental aircraft were involved in almost 25 percent of U.S. fatal general aviation accidents over the past five years and account for an estimated five percent of total general aviation fleet hours. With the help of targeted safety enhancements developed by the FAA and GAJSC industry participants, and new policies, this segment of the GA industry is showing significant improvement..."

 

[cgrab]

How about making the annual a biennial? That would save money, be less intrusive to the air frame. I believe (don firesuit) it would have little effect on safety.

 

[dmspilot]

How is it optional?

I may have exaggerated. My understanding now is that it is complex process with several caveats.

 

[Steven Untet]

I may have exaggerated. My understanding now is that it is complex process with several caveats.

I understand the many experimental categories but most are not what we are looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Agreed. Was trying to keep example simple for OP. Used it to imply something built to a known standard and maintained to a known standard. Not intended to be used literally.

Still problematic. The standard for assembly or maintenance on any certified aircraft can change in the blink of an AD. Plenty of fatal examples of things built to the previous standard.

And you’re insinuating that stuff built outside of FAA standard certification isn’t built to a standard, which also may or may not be true.

Or as the old engineer joke goes: Standards are great. Everyone should have some.

 

[FastEddieB]

Make it optional. Like owner maintained in Canada. Also like them once you went owner maintained going back would be a nightmare. But it would be a great thing for a lot of older small planes. Think J-3, t-crates, champs and 120/140’s etc.

Not mandatory but optional.

I was about to post that.

I love my Experimental LSA, mainly because I can do all the maintenance on it and make modifications pretty much at will*.

But now with BasicMed, I would love to be able to take let’s say a Citabria or Tiger Experimental in the same way. But I’m not holding my breath.


*Still cannot modify it out of the Light Sport category.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Let's theoretically increase the amount of regulation of E-AB (or certified GA) to equal that of air carriers. What do you think will happen to the accident rate?

It would goto zero because no one could afford to fly anymore and all of the flexibility and usefulness of GA would be eliminated. With zero hours flown there would be zero chance of an accident. 100% safe

 

[hindsight2020]

How about making the annual a biennial? That would save money, be less intrusive to the air frame. I believe (don firesuit) it would have little effect on safety.

That's an idea I fully support and would be thrilled with, especially in an environment where we can't get primary non-commercial passed for whatever insider FAA/OEM reasons. Then again, that is the very reason we won't get the proposition to gain traction in the first place. We're a captive audience to these rent-seeking empty suits.

 

[aftCG]

20 years? LMFAO.

I fly two planes . The one I own is 53 years old and still matches the TCDS (my recent annual cost me some money to make sure of that). As a kicker, the same exact plane is still being built today using the same type certificate.

The other plane I fly is 76 years old, built by Rosie the riveter and also carries a standard airworthiness certificate .The guy who signs the annual takes that part quite seriously.

The C152 I took my PPL check ride in 20 years ago had 11,000 airframe hours on it back then and it's still on the line today. I rented it as recently as three years ago and I walked right past a C162 to get in.

 

[denverpilot]

Here’s a standards story with deathly consequences nobody seems to notice or mind...

ELTs.

FAA hasn’t mandated the ELT that will save your ass for real, 406 MHz be used yet.

Nothing whatsoever is monitoring 121.5 from satellites anymore. Airliners monitor and can’t be used effectively to triangulate location of a transmitter.

All of the ELTs in use meet the FAA standards they were manufactured under.

FAA issued an AD on one of the most popular ELTs ever made last fall. Years after there’s nothing actually listening for them anyway.

And the alkaline battery version of that ELT? Manufacturer said batteries need to be changed at the date stamped on the batteries. Also said only the Duracell brand is legal. No other D cells. Duracell recently decided to stamp all their batteries good for ten years.

You really going to trust your life to the FAA certified rescue solution? That got an AD? After nobody’s listening for them? With ten year old alkalines in them?

Yeah. Great standards.

1994 brought an annual inspection requirement for all ELTs before anyone screams and cries about that. There’s NO requirement to open them and check for leaking batteries in those instructions. Smart mechanics don’t just check, they replace the alkaline annually.

In... a device nobody is listening for anymore. That also has a 12 month inspection requirement under an AD which essentially says... “Inspect it BETTER and actually look at ****... IF it doesn’t trigger when you push the button. Because... they haven’t been triggering in crashes.”

Wait. What? The G-switches are bad and FAA wants the mechanic, who’s supposed to inspect the thing annually anyway, to inspect it harder if the toggle switch that has nothing to do with the G-switch at all, on a device nobody is listening for, that can legally have ten year old alkaline batteries in it... so we’ll all be “safer”.

Brilliant. Really. So glad the thing met the TSO in the 70s when it was built. Yay standards.

 

[James331]

I never got why they stopped listening for 21.5, I mean does it cost that much? And secondly with how much we all pay in taxes, I really don't care, go fire some mid level management to make up for the costs if you have to

 

[denverpilot]

I never got why they stopped listening for 21.5, I mean does it cost that much? And secondly with how much we all pay in taxes, I really don't care, go fire some mid level management to make up for the costs if you have to

The satellites that had the receivers were well beyond their service life. They were degrading in their orbits enough that pass predictions werent correct which made AOS/LOS analysis of received signals inaccurate.

What I could never figure out was why they didn’t just design in receivers to the next generation.

The latest GOES bird just went up a few days ago and it could’ve done the job.

They put the 406 receivers on a completely different satellite “family” and that’s fine, it’s different tech and needs data up/down. But there were plenty of opportunities to add 121.5 receivers to other birds.

It mostly looks like “the plan” was to just mandate 406. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense. But then FAA backed down to industry pressure or whatever, and that left the satellite planners looking stupid. Or FAA looking stupid.

Can’t really tell which, without digging through mountains of transcripts of various meetings two decades or more ago.

Wonder if this is buried in the NTIA transcripts somewhere. I do know someone who sits on a subcommittee there but his specialty is probably way too far disconnected from ELT stuff for him to have heard any of this in the meetings back then. Would be interesting to hear from someone who did.

Did the military ever go 406? I doubt it. They have their own stuff these days so I wouldn’t be surprised if they just dump the civilian frequencies altogether eventually. But military involvement would have gone through NTIA. Hmmm.

FAA will happily mandate ADS-B as a “safety” item, even with massive flaws in the design. But... no mandate of 406 ELTs, an ACTUAL safety device. Hahaha.

And THEN put out ADs on 121.5 ELTs and even respond to formal complaints about their reasoning that the AD stands because, “safety!”

Incredibly pitiful really. Both the current ELT standard, as well as the AD, and the lack of monitoring overall. What a cluster****.

If the GOAL is/was, “find downed aircraft” the whole thing gets at best, a “D” letter grade as it currently stands. Maybe an “F” if you disregard airliner reports.

There’s literally no agency listening to 121.5 anymore and haven’t for years. Most 121.5 receivers even at FAA ATC facilities have been decommissioned.

An AD on a device nobody’s listening for, means someone ... ahhh screw it. Nevermind.

There’s no way to figure out that level of dumb.

 

[FastEddieB]

We’re a bit off topic, but...

1) FAA NOTAM requires that all aircraft, whenever practicable, monitor 121.5. So it’s a bit overstated to say it’s a device, and I quote, “that no one is listening for”.

2) What are the real chances that an ELT will save your life? The list of circumstances that would lead up to that scenario is long indeed. Not that there’s a zero chance, but it’s vanishingly small compared to other routine risks in flying.

3) If you’re that worried, make sure you’re monitoring 121.5 when practicable. That way if something does go wrong, you’re one button push away from declaring, along with your position.

4) If you’re really, really worried, always use flight following.

As an exercise, how many fatalities can you point to that would not have occurred had the plane had a newer 406 MHz ELT? I’ll stipulate there may be a handful, but again that’s so low on the list of things that kills pilots that it gives me no pause flying around with a 121.5 MHz ELT. None.

 

[Velocity173]

The satellites that had the receivers were well beyond their service life. They were degrading in their orbits enough that pass predictions werent correct which made AOS/LOS analysis of received signals inaccurate.

What I could never figure out was why they didn’t just design in receivers to the next generation.

The latest GOES bird just went up a few days ago and it could’ve done the job.

They put the 406 receivers on a completely different satellite “family” and that’s fine, it’s different tech and needs data up/down. But there were plenty of opportunities to add 121.5 receivers to other birds.

It mostly looks like “the plan” was to just mandate 406. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense. But then FAA backed down to industry pressure or whatever, and that left the satellite planners looking stupid. Or FAA looking stupid.

Can’t really tell which, without digging through mountains of transcripts of various meetings two decades or more ago.

Wonder if this is buried in the NTIA transcripts somewhere. I do know someone who sits on a subcommittee there but his specialty is probably way too far disconnected from ELT stuff for him to have heard any of this in the meetings back then. Would be interesting to hear from someone who did.

Did the military ever go 406? I doubt it. They have their own stuff these days so I wouldn’t be surprised if they just dump the civilian frequencies altogether eventually. But military involvement would have gone through NTIA. Hmmm.

FAA will happily mandate ADS-B as a “safety” item, even with massive flaws in the design. But... no mandate of 406 ELTs, an ACTUAL safety device. Hahaha.

And THEN put out ADs on 121.5 ELTs and even respond to formal complaints about their reasoning that the AD stands because, “safety!”

Incredibly pitiful really. Both the current ELT standard, as well as the AD, and the lack of monitoring overall. What a cluster****.

If the GOAL is/was, “find downed aircraft” the whole thing gets at best, a “D” letter grade as it currently stands. Maybe an “F” if you disregard airliner reports.

There’s literally no agency listening to 121.5 anymore and haven’t for years. Most 121.5 receivers even at FAA ATC facilities have been decommissioned.

An AD on a device nobody’s listening for, means someone ... ahhh screw it. Nevermind.

There’s no way to figure out that level of dumb.

Not sure it’s a requirement in other branches but an ELT wasn’t required in the Army when I was in. Only place we put them on our aircraft was Kosovo. Case by case basis. I believe all the fixed wing have them but not sure.

Really non issue though. We either were under “flight following” by remaining in contact with ATC, 30 minute reports to flight ops, or most likely, tracked by Blue Force Tracker. Helo crews also have survival radios (CSEL) that are far better than 121.5 or 406. Flying in 2s in certain remote / hostile areas helps as well.

 

[Bell206]

Standards are great. Everyone should have some

FYI: my answers were to the context of the OP’s post, which I believe was converting a TC’d aircraft to a non-TC’d E/AB aircraft and possible advantages. Not to a discussion on the merits of “standards.”

However, if you’d like to make a new post on the pros/cons of certification standards in aviation then it might make for a good debate.

As to engineers: What is the definition of an engineer? Answer: Someone who solves a problem you didn't know you had, in a way you don't understand.

 

[Stewartb]

We’re a bit off topic, but...

1) FAA NOTAM requires that all aircraft, whenever practicable, monitor 121.5. So it’s a bit overstated to say it’s a device, and I quote, “that no one is listening for”.

2) What are the real chances that an ELT will save your life? The list of circumstances that would lead up to that scenario is long indeed. Not that there’s a zero chance, but it’s vanishingly small compared to other routine risks in flying.

3) If you’re that worried, make sure you’re monitoring 121.5 when practicable. That way if something does go wrong, you’re one button push away from declaring, along with your position.

4) If you’re really, really worried, always use flight following.

As an exercise, how many fatalities can you point to that would not have occurred had the plane had a newer 406 MHz ELT? I’ll stipulate there may be a handful, but again that’s so low on the list of things that kills pilots that it gives me no pause flying around with a 121.5 MHz ELT. None.

This is the absolute worst post I’ve read here in a long time. Misunderstanding breeds misinformation. If you want to know how 406 is better than 121.5? Hang out with a couple of SAR professionals sometime. Go observe operations at an RCC. Educate yourself.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Every house I’ve purchased didn’t meet current code. Just sayin’. None have fallen or burnt down. You may have a different experience if you’ve always purchased brand new ones.

Do you really believe that airplanes are updated to current certification requirements when those requirements change?

 

[FastEddieB]

This is the absolute worst post I’ve read here in a long time.

Thank you! I strive to be exemplary!

 

[bflynn]

Whether it is true or not, there is a sterotype of clueless amateur mechanics. I believe there are people out there who have no business putting a wrench into an airplane. That impacts safety and puts a huge red flag on this from an FAA standpoint.

I love the idea of private A&Ps and owner maintained. I just think it will never happen.

 

[Stewartb]

It has happened in the E-AB category. You guys who truly don't like the rules of the certificated aircraft game? Switch to experimental. It's a better fit for the majority of non-commercial GA.

 

[denverpilot]

Do you really believe that airplanes are updated to current certification requirements when those requirements change?

LOL no. That was part of my point also if it wasn’t stated.

Comparing airplane certification to house codes is a useless exercise in differences.

Plenty of better ways than that to debunk the whole “Don’t you want some kind of standard?” crowd though.

Some fatally flawed aircraft were “built to standards”.

 

[denverpilot]

We’re a bit off topic, but...

1) FAA NOTAM requires that all aircraft, whenever practicable, monitor 121.5. So it’s a bit overstated to say it’s a device, and I quote, “that no one is listening for”.

2) What are the real chances that an ELT will save your life? The list of circumstances that would lead up to that scenario is long indeed. Not that there’s a zero chance, but it’s vanishingly small compared to other routine risks in flying.

3) If you’re that worried, make sure you’re monitoring 121.5 when practicable. That way if something does go wrong, you’re one button push away from declaring, along with your position.

4) If you’re really, really worried, always use flight following.

As an exercise, how many fatalities can you point to that would not have occurred had the plane had a newer 406 MHz ELT? I’ll stipulate there may be a handful, but again that’s so low on the list of things that kills pilots that it gives me no pause flying around with a 121.5 MHz ELT. None.

I think you were missing the base point of my rant. There was a SYSTEM. It worked. It’s broken now.

But that wasn’t the point. This thread is about “certification”.

That FAA certified ELT :

A) Is nearly useless in the modern system.
B) Has a requirement that a specific brand of D cell alkaline batteries be used to meet certification standards. (Because Everready doesn’t make good enough batteries for FAA apparently. Cue eye roll.)
C) That manufacturer of batteries changed their marketing and labeling and now legally the batteries are good for 10 years? No freaking way.
D) Has an AD on it that will GROUND the aircraft for “safety” that literally says, “Hey mechanics, look at this harder like we told you to in 1994 and you’re already tasked with doing on all ELTs.” It’s already grounded if they didn’t do the 1994 required inspection anyway.
E) AND the AD doesn’t test the actual failing part in the device. It tests everything else. It’s two pages of normal things to check that should be checked on EVERY ELT.

But boy howdy, that puppy meets the certification standard.

As long as you make a mechanic sign that they tested a nearly useless device every twelve months. And not the thing that has been failing.

I could add that if you open one of those up, you’ll find what probably really fails in crash G loads. The tiny wire and solder connection to the BNC connector. The angry RF pixies can’t get to the antenna after that breaks.

But it’s TSOed! Must be built GREAT. LOL. And has an AD too! Original spec must have been super duper good.

I’m just giving insight into the mind of “certifiers” and those who trust them. Only reason I know that thing is a POS is because I own one. I knew it was a POS long before the AD came out on it. And knew it was absolutely useless in the backcountry.

But hey, it’s got a mic jack so you can plug a mic into it an hope the mic and jack works (no feedback) and that it’s modulating the RF so you can talk to yourself in the woods and make it transmit a dead carrier (harder to DF) or not transmit at all (really hard to find). Yay certification! (Hint: The aircraft radio is a better option for talking on if it survived and there’s very little you can say over an ELT that would be useful to rescuers especially considering plugging that mic in might kill the entire transmitter. LOL.)

It’s the AD that’s really hilarious in the whole thing. The rest of it is almost justifiable but ADing the things! LOL.

 

[denverpilot]

Not sure it’s a requirement in other branches but an ELT wasn’t required in the Army when I was in. Only place we put them on our aircraft was Kosovo. Case by case basis. I believe all the fixed wing have them but not sure.

Really non issue though. We either were under “flight following” by remaining in contact with ATC, 30 minute reports to flight ops, or most likely, tracked by Blue Force Tracker. Helo crews also have survival radios (CSEL) that are far better than 121.5 or 406. Flying in 2s in certain remote / hostile areas helps as well.

Yup. And transmitting your location when you’re down is quite often a bad idea.

The overall ELT/SAR system is really a peacetime thing, or if lucky, a “I went down on the friendly side of the line on the map” thing.

For us civvies who don’t fly in pairs, our buddy is the 406 satellites now. The 121.5 satellites bugged out long ago.

Or we buy something much more intelligent like SPOT.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Or we buy something much more intelligent like SPOT.

Imagine how famous Shackleton would be and how many people would need to find a different hero today if he'd had a SPOT!

 

[Bell206]

Plenty of better ways

This thread is about “certification”.

Just curious. What are some of the better ways to certify an aircraft in your opinion?

 

[JOhnH]

I don't understand why you guys pooped all over a thoughtful, rational proposal. With some modifications it's got a lot of merit.

Maybe it's not 20 years, maybe it's longer (peak production of pistons ended 40 almost years ago.)

Airplanes on 135 or 121 certs can be excluded, for example.

Parts that can only be obtained from the airplane manufacturer (if it's available at all) at insane prices are a major killer of aircraft and GA in general.

• Why does it cost $15000 for a IFR approach "certified" GPS in my "certified" airplane but a fraction of that for an "experimental?

• Why does it cost hundreds for an alternator when the exact same article can be obtained from Advanced Auto Parts for $50?

Another change that could help make this concept work might be that it takes an application and justification to re-designate your airplane as experimental. If a charter operation wants to keep their certificate, then they don't apply for experimental status.

 

[will44s]

I think the main issue with owners performing there own maintenance is that for every person that could perform the job well, there is someone that can't or is to cheap to do it right.
20 years ago my dad once repaired the propeller on his ultralight with jb weld. Thankfully there were no injuries when he had to dead stick it into the field next to his work. I may be biased but he has always been a decent mechanic. In his mind he thought he was merely making an aerodynamic repair and not a structural one.

Friday night I was driving home from my vacation along I15. I counted almost 20 vehicles that had crapped out on the shoulder before I reached Vegas, I have a strong suspicion most showed symptoms before their owners departed that evening. Can you imagine if those same people were responsible for the repair and care of there airplane. The reality is that poor maintenance in an aircraft is a life ending event and I am thankful that when I hop in a rental or friends plane out of state I know Billy Bob hasn't gone down to the Home depot for blind rivets to save a couple bucks and make an install easier when the manual calls for solids.

I repeatedly hear people praise EAB yet most won't buy a used composite model since the workmanship is hard to inspect on layups. I think deep down this proves that people generally don't trust others who aren't certified or licensed to do the work correctly.

Maybe there's a Dunny Kruger effect going on were majority thinks there gods gift to mechanics.

 

[paflyer]

I think the main issue with owners performing there own maintenance is that for every person that could perform the job well, there is someone that can't or is to cheap to do it right.
20 years ago my dad once repaired the propeller on his ultralight with jb weld. Thankfully there were no injuries when he had to dead stick it into the field next to his work. I may be biased but he has always been a decent mechanic. In his mind he thought he was merely making an aerodynamic repair and not a structural one.

Friday night I was driving home from my vacation along I15. I counted almost 20 vehicles that had crapped out on the shoulder before I reached Vegas, I have a strong suspicion most showed symptoms before their owners departed that evening. Can you imagine if those same people were responsible for the repair and care of there airplane. The reality is that poor maintenance in an aircraft is a life ending event and I am thankful that when I hop in a rental or friends plane out of state I know Billy Bob hasn't gone down to the Home depot for blind rivets to save a couple bucks and make an install easier when the manual calls for solids.

I repeatedly hear people praise EAB yet most won't buy a used composite model since the workmanship is hard to inspect on layups. I think deep down this proves that people generally don't trust others who aren't certified or licensed to do the work correctly.

Maybe there's a Dunny Kruger effect going on were majority thinks there gods gift to mechanics.

I'm mechanically inclined, an intermediate home DIY, but I have no interest in changing my own oil in the plane.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The thing that strikes me about E-AB is how many people destroy their airplane's rather than sell them to avoid liability with a non-certificated airplane.

Not a high percentage, I'm sure, but still probably statistically significant. I can't imagine decertify ing airplane's to be any different.

 

[Velocity173]

I think the main issue with owners performing there own maintenance is that for every person that could perform the job well, there is someone that can't or is to cheap to do it right.
20 years ago my dad once repaired the propeller on his ultralight with jb weld. Thankfully there were no injuries when he had to dead stick it into the field next to his work. I may be biased but he has always been a decent mechanic. In his mind he thought he was merely making an aerodynamic repair and not a structural one.

Friday night I was driving home from my vacation along I15. I counted almost 20 vehicles that had crapped out on the shoulder before I reached Vegas, I have a strong suspicion most showed symptoms before their owners departed that evening. Can you imagine if those same people were responsible for the repair and care of there airplane. The reality is that poor maintenance in an aircraft is a life ending event and I am thankful that when I hop in a rental or friends plane out of state I know Billy Bob hasn't gone down to the Home depot for blind rivets to save a couple bucks and make an install easier when the manual calls for solids.

I repeatedly hear people praise EAB yet most won't buy a used composite model since the workmanship is hard to inspect on layups. I think deep down this proves that people generally don't trust others who aren't certified or licensed to do the work correctly.

Maybe there's a Dunny Kruger effect going on were majority thinks there gods gift to mechanics.

I guess I’m in the minority then because I have two pre-owned EAB composites.

I haven’t read about a single Glasair that has come apart in flight and only 1 Velocity that came apart after penetrating a thunderstorm. One Velocity started to shed its wings but that had a prototype, sparless set of wings.

Most of the structural composite work on fast builds, is done at the factory. Delam is easy to identify and even if your used EAB has it, it’s an easy, but unsightly fix. Even if you do nothing for delam, the structure just isn’t going to disintegrate. It’ll take years to propagate or might even stay in a localized area. Most kit plane composites are way over built.

So yeah, I’ll take 20-30 year old +9 / -7 and + 6 / -4 G airframes any day over a 50 year old metal certified.

 

[UngaWunga]

How much more expensive is liability insurance for experimental planes vs comparatively priced certified aircraft? The insurance industry is pretty good at crunching numbers to make sure their financial asses are covered.

As far as owner maintenance is concerned, I'd love the idea of taking a course to prove you're not an idiot which gives you the ability to maintain your certified aircraft. Sure, put it in a different category. Yes, it'll probably mean higher insurance rates and decreased resale value, which we'd have to taking into account.
Also, where would you put the line on what's allowed in the owner maintained category? What's allowed in CA?

As far as STCs becoming public domain after a long period of time? I'm in favor. Why do they get more protection than other patent types agreements? Same thing happens to drug makers.

 

[UngaWunga]

And the reason so far I haven't gone the experimental route is that I don't want to spend 5-10 years building a plane.

 

[will44s]

I guess I’m in the minority then because I have two pre-owned EAB composites.

I haven’t read about a single Glasair that has come apart in flight and only 1 Velocity that came apart after penetrating a thunderstorm. One Velocity started to shed its wings but that had a prototype, sparless set of wings.

Most of the structural composite work on fast builds, is done at the factory factory. Delam is easy to identify and even if your used EAB has it, it’s an easy, but unsightly fix. Even if you do nothing for delam, the structure just isn’t going to disintegrate. It’ll take years to propagate or might even stay in a localized area. Most kit plane composites are way over built.

So yeah, I’ll take 20-30 year old +9 / -7 and + 6 / -4 G airframes any day over a 50 year old metal certified.

Don't take me wrong, I love both those planes and they are at the very top of my list when/if I do my kit build. I just don't want to buy somebody elses, it would be a lot cheaper that way though. Also what he ^ said.

 

[Velocity173]

Don't take me wrong, I love both those planes and they are at the very top of my list when/if I do my kit build. I just don't want to buy somebody elses, it would be a lot cheaper that way though.

Well it’s about education on the particular design you’re looking at and in the case of my Velocity, going through their training program.

Obviously, you can’t take the thing apart to see the quality of its innards but you should feel comfortable inspecting a well designed kit plane. Just look for the usual things you’d look for in a certified. In my case, the aircraft was built by a DAR and maintained by Velocity. I felt pretty confident in the design and the builder’s workmanship. I’ll admit though, first flight home from the factory was a little scary.

Now, some of these old plans built fiberglass planes essentially built from scratch? Yeah, I’d have a bit of trepidation in buying one. Especially cially with bare bones avionics and car parts. Still, some quality Vari-ezs, Longs and Cozys that can be found these days for a very nice price.

 

[Bell206]

As far as STCs becoming public domain after a long period of time? I'm in favor. Why do they get more protection than other patent types agreements?

FYI: STCs do not fall under any "patent agreements." An STC is only a design approval process and there is nothing preventing a person from copying an "STC installation" except they must go through the same approval process themselves for their own aircraft. Plus there are already quite a few STCs in the public domain with an FAA process in place to get that data.