![]() |
Quote:
|
Essence of communication ...
Quote:
(Note - New USAF tanker, KC-46 (aka 767), started life labelled "EXPERIMENTAL" too. Would that make him "EXPERIMENTAL HEAVY"?)) |
Quote:
If there's an accident and you didn't follow the rules, you can expect to have that used against you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This rule - like a lot of others - isn't strongly enforced...but it's there in case they want to use it. And to say "life is full of risks" as a justification for taking any particular risk is senseless and a specious argument: There are risks you won't take....yet life is full of risks. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seriously...this is a tempest in a teapot. Has anyone in an RV in the last 5-10 years ever even been handed a violation for just calling themselves "RV XXXXX"? The whole things is silly... ETA: If you think someone saying "experimental" makes the skies safer, then they're only safer for a few minutes after that ONE required use of the word, and only at fields with operating towers. |
Quote:
ETA: Hey, lookie what I found. The exact same debate for 15 years ago: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=11378 |
Quote:
|
Of the 5 Hazardous Attitudes All Pilots Should Avoid I think I see 4 of them. Just my opinion of course:
The following seems to be an example of Anti-authority: “Don’t tell me!” Pilots with an anti-authority attitude tend to believe that rules, regulations, and safety procedures don’t apply to them. Quote:
The next examples might demonstrate 3 more of these hazardous attitudes: Invulnerability: “The risk taker. It won’t happen to me!” Many people—not just pilots—fall into a pattern of thinking that accidents happen to others, but never to them. This attitude of invulnerability can become a safety concern when pilots fail to consider the risks of their actions. Macho: “I can do it!” Pilots with a macho attitude are always trying to impress others and prove themselves by taking unnecessary risks. Resignation: “What’s the use?” Pilots with an attitude of resignation lack the confidence and conviction to believe they can make a difference in what happens to them. These pilots tend to give up easily when faced with challenges and don’t take criticism well. Quote:
Quote:
|
Finally, a thread on using "experimental" has some legs. Seems there are three divisons: The Legalist, The Prideful, and the Abstainers.
I remain firmly an Abstainer (post 5). To the Prideful: How do we know you're not a poser who didn't build it? An upside might be you'll make a few more spamcanners desirous of our freedoms. To the Legalist: Uh, huh. Tell me you never exceed the speed limit either (he who is without sin...etc.) Anyone ever hear of any enforcement initiated simply over not announcing per regs/OpLims? Hardly likely since ATC doesn't bother themselves with "experimental" particulars most of the time. The real turkeys are the ones who say "experimental..." with any and all transmissions to anyone anywhere and never say the type. Anyone know the history behind codifying what's pretty useless, especially in today's ATC environment? I consider "experimental" moribund. The less it's used, the sooner it will disappear. Perhaps some enlightened future day (not within any of our lifetimes) announcing "experimental" will sound just as silly as today saying "Standard Cessna 172 blah, blah". John Siebold |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Godwin?s Law
I can feel a comparison to Hitler coming soon on this thread.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not a psychologist, I'm just filling in the blanks with your own statements. |
You guys seriously need to get a girlfriend or somethin'...
|
Quote:
|
Oh my. Thread drift. Uncontrolled field, just N# (maybe "red low wing").
Yes AIM and operating limitations say ID as experimental on initial call. If you say "R-Vee" N#, it's synonymous as experimental. Most controllers are pilots/airplane fans. They know what an RV is... If they come back with what model... don't say "Winnebago". :D PS Cessna, most say Skyhawk, Skylane. Citation, Twin Cessna. |
gmcjetpilot says:
" Most controllers are pilots/airplane fans. They know what an RV is." How do you know this????? I can tell you that 2 sets of controllers at Beverly Municipal Airport did not know what an RV was. |
Quote:
So, I was just thinking... If you have an RV 3, 4 or 6 you can change your tail number to a November x-ray. In which case you don't have to say the word experimental! That way, you are still identifying the experimental nature of the aircraft by just simply stating the tail number! :D CJ |
And then there's *this* argument...
FAA Order 7360.1D Section 2-2 says: f. ?Homebuilt,? ?amateur-built,? or ?kit plane? aircraft that exist in operationally significant numbers will be assigned a designator; however, these aircraft will only be listed under the original designer or under the manufacturer that produces or produced the aircraft type in series. Since Van's models are listed, it's been argued that identifying as "RV XXXXX" is, as a matter of definition, identifying it as an amateur-built (and thus, experimental). Just more grist for the mill :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Carl I read the posts. So by me not delineating between old or new operating limits frustrates you? Please. The AIM and the FAR you quote both say indicate your aircrafts "experimental nature" on initial call. AIM gives an example. So old or new op limitations are irrelevant was my point. My gosh. If your debate is "Experimental" is appropriate or mandatory, I would not argue. But if one drops experimental on initial contact for RVeeX, that is up to you as the PIC. The rebuttle is that "R-Vee Eight 24DG" does ID you as Experimental in nature. No hard feelings. If I was giving transition training I'd suggest saying both, "Experimental RVee7 N#... on initial call. BTW my Winnebago joke is hilarious. :) Quote:
As to your local tower who knew nothing of Van's RV series or expetimental kit planes, they now know, right? Other parts of country there can be +20 RV's based at one field. TOWER in some regions may not be up on EAA and kit planes. Fair point. It's only initial call, example "Experimental R-Vee 7, N# ....... " Does not take much time or effort. Experimental tips them off you are not a Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft. So experimental is relevant and some may say mandatory. But experimental only is not real helpful with wide range of types and performance of home built planes. Be SAFE and LEGAL ATC needs to know speed and visually ID you on the ground or airborne near airport (big, small, twin, single, high, low wing). Tower expects a 100 mph C152 and you are doing 180 mph; you get there faster than expected, it can cause issues. If you just say experimental, you can be a slow LSA or a turbine Lancair. RV's have become well known in the time since I started building one 30 years ago (when the RV6 just came out). Cheers. Sorry to frustrate you Carl |
A few times, I've offered up just "Experimental RV" to the tower and they'll ask to clarify whether it's a -12, -10, -7, -9 or whatever. A pretty big speed delta between a -12 and an -8!
|
Quote:
So it doesn't matter what you think, what you do, what your Ops Lims say, or what FAA Order 7360.1D says. Like it or not, the requirement to inform the Control Tower of the Experimental nature of the aircraft is codified in CFR 91.319(d)(3) and is mandatory. Quote:
FWIW I always identify myself as EXPERIMENTAL 819PR. If ATC asks what kind of experimental I am, then I provide the official FAA/ICAO designation. That is when 7360.1D becomes relevant. YMMV :cool: |
Well, now that we’ve got that settled, can we move on to something less contentious like overhead breaks or non-standard patterns?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's the sound of 100LL being poured onto the campfire. Soooooo, are overhead breaks OK at non-towered airport. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I use them all the time in my home private strip... in my overpowered 9A, with too much fuel, no steam backups, and parts of it dubiously primered. Somewhere in the fuel system I've almost certainly got some off-spec parts as well. Works fine for me, YMMV! :D |
Quote:
|
Wrong, again. I hope you're being facetious. There's no requirement for "experimental" in any radio call except to the first approach/tower contact and continued for clarity only if they repeat it.
But for rare instances, there's no statutory requirement for any radio transmission at a non-towered airport. Jeeze, after 13 pages of back and forth, you'd think this point was settled. John Siebold |
AIA
10/12/17
AIM 4-2-4. a. 3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer?s name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer?s name or model is stated, the prefix ?N? is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha. EXAMPLE− 1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf. 2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit ?Experimental? after initial contact). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There's a difference, legally :) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM. |