VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   "Say Type Experimental..." (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=171006)

scard 05-01-2019 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanH (Post 1343527)
An interesting document.

b. At locations where volume or complexity of
experimental aircraft operations warrant, a letter of
agreement may be consummated between the facility
and operator.[/i]

And this is actually a thing too. We (Falcon Flight) have long had a LOA with our local facility for some operational clarity.

RViter 05-01-2019 10:04 AM

Essence of communication ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343431)
I noted this earlier and somebody took offense at it for some reason. But yes, this is true...my point was that many, many, many pilots and controllers don't follow the rules on this sort of stuff *all the time*, and it's not really a problem; the end goal is communication and understanding, not to blindly follow rules. ...
Goal is communication...if it warms your heart to feel like calling yourself Experimental RV helps out, have at it.

Clarity and brevity are key components of good communications. My home field (Class D, FFZ Mesa AZ) is home to a large flight school, many RV's, two 'warbirds' groups, and CAF museum with flying B-17, C-47, B-25. A Class C only 10 miles away, with another large flight school. All inside the Class B 'veil'. Often the radio is a continuous stream of controller/aircraft traffic.

(Note - New USAF tanker, KC-46 (aka 767), started life labelled "EXPERIMENTAL" too. Would that make him "EXPERIMENTAL HEAVY"?))

Saville 05-01-2019 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343431)
I noted this earlier and somebody took offense at it for some reason. But yes, this is true...my point was that many, many, many pilots and controllers don't follow the rules on this sort of stuff *all the time*, and it's not really a problem; the end goal is communication and understanding, not to blindly follow rules. If everybody on God's Green Earth (at least her ein the U.S.) knows what an RV is, it's not really adding any information to the channel to call it an "Experimental". If nobody knows what a Swizzle 500 is, calling it an Experimental Swizzle 500 isn't any help, either, but at least it avoids everyone on frequency asking themselves "what the heck is a Swizzle 500?"...they'll know it's experimental and probably weird.

Goal is communication...if it warms your heart to feel like calling yourself Experimental RV helps out, have at it.

However......

If there's an accident and you didn't follow the rules, you can expect to have that used against you.

Pilot135pd 05-01-2019 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saville (Post 1343588)
However......

If there's an accident and you didn't follow the rules, you can expect to have that used against you.

Amen, plus if we all follow the same rules then it?s faster and better communication. I understand how maybe some airports will accept to do things different but then when you fly into another area that?s when it gets all garbled up because they are doing it slightly different too.

akschu 05-01-2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_John (Post 1342806)
Almost always when you hear another experimental on the frequency... it's an RV.

Not in Alaska, it's always a cub clone....

RV7A Flyer 05-01-2019 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saville (Post 1343588)
However......

If there's an accident and you didn't follow the rules, you can expect to have that used against you.

Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

Saville 05-01-2019 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343677)
Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

That is a risk you needn't take. It's not like your getting massive benefit from not following the rules. The cost/benefit isn't there.

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.

Pilot135pd 05-01-2019 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343677)
Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

I’d be fine with that except you don’t fly alone, there are more of us up there flying too and maybe we wouldn’t want to take that risk that you could enhance by not following some rules.

RV7A Flyer 05-01-2019 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saville (Post 1343679)
That is a risk you needn't take. It's not like your getting massive benefit from not following the rules. The cost/benefit isn't there.

But this rule - like a lot of others - isn't strongly enforced...but it's there in case they want to use it.

I'll worry about if/when someone finds me a case of someone who was cited following an accident for not using the phrase "Experimental", or an NTSB report that calls out as even a contributing factor the same lack of phrasing.

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.

RV7A Flyer 05-01-2019 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd (Post 1343683)
I’d be fine with that except you don’t fly alone, there are more of us up there flying too and maybe we wouldn’t want to take that risk that you could enhance by not following some rules.

I don't drive on the freeways alone, either, but I don't worry too much about people whose registration tags have expired. Call me a risk-taker, I guess...I'd rather know that you're an RV or a Breezy or a P-51 than know that you're "Experimental".

ETA: Hey, lookie what I found. The exact same debate for 15 years ago: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=11378

Saville 05-01-2019 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343686)
.I'd rather know that you're an RV or a Breezy or a P-51 than know that you're "Experimental".

Yes that is what YOU think and that's what YOU would rather know.

Pilot135pd 05-01-2019 04:54 PM

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:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343684)
I'll worry about if/when someone finds me a case of someone who was cited following an accident ......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 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:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343677)
Life is full of risks. I'll take my chances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343686)
I don't drive on the freeways alone, either, but I don't worry too much about people whose registration tags have expired. Call me a risk-taker, I guess...

The truth is, anyone can be guilty of one or more of the hazardous attitudes, which are a normal part of human nature. Understanding these attitudes and recognizing when they occur will help pilots make better decisions and avoid unnecessary danger. http://hartzellprop.com/5-hazardous-...-should-avoid/

RV7ator 05-01-2019 05:04 PM

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

Pilot135pd 05-01-2019 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7ator (Post 1343697)
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

I already addressed the Anti Authority hazard so I won't mention it again but I do find interesting the last part where you say "Standard Cessna 172" like if that was a way of identifying yourself at some time. I've been doing this for 4 decades and I've never heard that on the radios so maybe that was way before my time or maybe, follow me here, it was someone who didn't follow rules and decided to identify himself that way thinking it won't hurt anyone and I think it's dumb the way the Regulations tell us to say it. Hmmm, go figure...

RV7A Flyer 05-01-2019 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd (Post 1343696)
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.




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.





The truth is, anyone can be guilty of one or more of the hazardous attitudes, which are a normal part of human nature. Understanding these attitudes and recognizing when they occur will help pilots make better decisions and avoid unnecessary danger. http://hartzellprop.com/5-hazardous-...-should-avoid/

Oh, please. That's quite a bit of over-analysis about someone you don't even know. Let's see - anti-authority? Hardly...I tend to be a stickler for rules (it's the systems engineer/mathematician in me), but every body of law has some that are plain silly... https://www.policeone.com/police-hum...ws-in-America/ not counting things like routine minor traffic violations. Doesn't make one anti-authority. Risk taker? Given that I deal in risk management *all the time*, I'm at least capable of understanding the C part of the LxC matrix, and here's a C= epsilon (not even C=1). I.e., virtually zero consequences for *anyone*. And since there's really zero risk, one wouldn't be very macho by taking it, would they? :) Or be exercising futility by accepting it.

RV7A Flyer 05-01-2019 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7ator (Post 1343697)
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

Thank you...

RV7A Flyer 05-01-2019 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd (Post 1343698)
...the last part where you say "Standard Cessna 172" like if that was a way of identifying yourself at some time. I've been doing this for 4 decades and I've never heard that on the radios so maybe that was way before my time or maybe, follow me here, it was someone who didn't follow rules and decided to identify himself that way thinking it won't hurt anyone and I think it's dumb the way the Regulations tell us to say it. Hmmm, go figure...

Or, since all the Cessna spamcans fly at about the same speed range, and look pretty much alike, it was fine to just call them all "Cessna". I notice how the guys flying Citation jets don't do that, now, do they? Why do they call themselves "Citation" or "Citationjet"? Hmmmm...

plehrke 05-01-2019 05:52 PM

Godwin?s Law
 
I can feel a comparison to Hitler coming soon on this thread.

Pilot135pd 05-01-2019 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343705)
Or, since all the Cessna spamcans fly at about the same speed range, and look pretty much alike, it was fine to just call them all "Cessna". I notice how the guys flying Citation jets don't do that, now, do they? Why do they call themselves "Citation" or "Citationjet"? Hmmmm...

Did you notice in your quote that he said "Standard Cessna 172"? I don't ever remember hearing "Standard" in any identification. I also don't think when anyone said "Cessna 172" and the controller saw the speed on their scope they'd confuse it with a Cessna Citation. Regarding why a pilot flying a Citation would omit Cessna, maybe one of those hazardous attitudes again since the Regs say what, make and model? They could say Cessna Citation and nobody would be harmed, or maybe just their ego slightly.

Pilot135pd 05-01-2019 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343702)
Let's see - anti-authority? Hardly...I tend to be a stickler for rules (it's the systems engineer/mathematician in me), but every body of law has some that are plain silly...

So since you think they're silly they don't apply to you = Anti Authority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1343702)
Risk taker? Given that I deal in risk management *all the time*, I'm at least capable of understanding the C part of the LxC matrix, and here's a C= epsilon (not even C=1). I.e., virtually zero consequences for *anyone*. And since there's really zero risk, one wouldn't be very macho by taking it, would they? :) Or be exercising futility by accepting it.

You said you were a risk taker in your own reply. Again I don't mind if you take risks when it's just you up there but there are others who your risk taking could affect = Invulnerability

I'm not a psychologist, I'm just filling in the blanks with your own statements.

airguy 05-02-2019 07:43 AM

You guys seriously need to get a girlfriend or somethin'...

RV7A Flyer 05-02-2019 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airguy (Post 1343791)
You guys seriously need to get a girlfriend or somethin'...

Too risky. My SO might not appreciate it. :)

gmcjetpilot 05-02-2019 01:45 PM

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.

Saville 05-02-2019 04:42 PM

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.

Captain_John 05-02-2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akschu (Post 1343618)
Not in Alaska, it's always a cub clone....

Yes! I noticed that when I was up there! Very cool state you have up there!

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

RV7A Flyer 05-02-2019 09:03 PM

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 :)

rv7charlie 05-02-2019 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1344012)
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 :)

Ah, thanks! You found the documentation for the 2nd half of my earlier post. (#82). :-)

gmcjetpilot 05-03-2019 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV8JD (Post 1343959)
As pointed out previously in this thread, earlier Ops Lims have that proviso and later Ops Lims do not.

Also pointed out in an earlier post, it doesn't matter what one's Ops Lims say, since the requirement to inform the Control Tower of the Experimental nature of the aircraft is codified in CFR 91.319(d)(3).
"...(3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with operating control towers."
It's really frustrating when folks jump in at the end of a thread and don't read the previous posts. If you can't be bothered to read the previous posts, you'll probably post redundant or erroneous information.

Carl chill out. I use to work with you at Boeing in Everett. My main point is RVee (3/4/6/7/8/10/14) + N# is sufficient to ID your "experimental nature". Why? Because RV's are defined or "codified" aircraft ID by the administrator (FAA). I accept disagreement, but frustration is not required.

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:

Originally Posted by Saville (Post 1343950)
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.

As posted above by RV7A Flyer, the FAA Order clearly ID's Van's aircraft and others. I've been a pilot for 33 years, CFI, ATP. Controllers know experimental in general and RVs in particular from my experience. I never said all ATC.

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

rightrudder 05-03-2019 03:10 PM

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!

GalinHdz 05-03-2019 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1344012)
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 :)

FAA Order 7360.1D is not an FAR so it carries absolutely no authority on this issue.

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:

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot (Post 1344048)
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).

If ATC needs to know, they will ask.

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:

n816kc 05-03-2019 03:33 PM

Well, now that we’ve got that settled, can we move on to something less contentious like overhead breaks or non-standard patterns?��

snopercod 05-03-2019 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalinHdz (Post 1344209)
If ATC asks what kind of experimental I am, then I provide the official FAA/ICAO designation.

That's what I do: I'm a Lancair LNC2. Many times they call me a Lance, but I'm faster than one of those :D

NewbRVator 05-03-2019 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n816kc (Post 1344210)
Well, now that we?ve got that settled, can we move on to something less contentious like overhead breaks or non-standard patterns?��

Glug, glug glug,....

That's the sound of 100LL being poured onto the campfire.

Soooooo, are overhead breaks OK at non-towered airport.

catmandu 05-03-2019 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewbRVator (Post 1344260)
Quote:

Originally Posted by n816kc (Post 1344210)
Well, now that we?ve got that settled, can we move on to something less contentious like overhead breaks or non-standard patterns?��

glug glug glug,....

That's the sound of 100LL being poured onto the campfire.

Soooooo, are overhead breaks OK at non-towered airport.

I was just thinking this thread is turning into a prime candidate for the "Never Ending Debate" section of the forum. :rolleyes:

airguy 05-03-2019 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewbRVator (Post 1344260)
Glug, glug glug,....

That's the sound of 100LL being poured onto the campfire.

Soooooo, are overhead breaks OK at non-towered airport.

Well, we need to define "OK" for that discussion.

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

plehrke 05-04-2019 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewbRVator (Post 1344260)
Soooooo, are overhead breaks OK at non-towered airport.

As long as you use?experimental? on your first radio transmission.

RV7ator 05-04-2019 07:18 AM

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

ericv 05-04-2019 08:04 AM

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).

Saville 05-04-2019 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7ator (Post 1344312)
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

It was settled - pages and pages ago. You are required to use the word "experimental" on your first call-up. After that it's not required.

RV7A Flyer 05-04-2019 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saville (Post 1344330)
It was settled - pages and pages ago. You are required to use the word "experimental" on your first call-up. After that it's not required.

Sorry, no. The reg says you are required to "Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft..."

There's a difference, legally :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM.