What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

§ 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

Status
Not open for further replies.

gregfuess

Well Known Member
We all know the limitations placed on E AB aircraft, and we could debate any possible benefit and usefulness of E AB in commercial use.

I think it's pretty clear and generally agreed that E AB aircraft are as safe as certificated aircraft, based on statistics and insurance costs. "Studies by FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) show that amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft have an accident rate less than one percentage point higher than the general aviation fleet. In fact, the accident rate for amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft is dropping. The total number of registered homebuilt aircraft has doubled since 1994, and the total hours flown have increased by 123 percent, while the total number of accidents has stayed virtually the same.

Another good barometer of safety is insurance rates. Companies that insure both homebuilts and production aircraft charge about the same rates for owners of either type of airplane. That indicates a similar level of risk."

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/about-eaa/eaa-media-room/experimental-aircraft-information

What may be widely known, but not to me, is the basis and rational for the limitations placed on us by the FAA. Why does the FAA place constraints on E AB aircraft not imposed on certificated aircraft?

I have no commercial use intended or imagined for my project, yet I chafe at such restrictions.

Post was edited to include EAA safety statement from FAA studies and insurance quotes.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty clear and generally agreed that E AB aircraft are as safe as certificated aircraft, based on statistics and insurance costs.
I'd like to see your statistics that show that E-AB is as safe as Certified.
 
I'd like to see your statistics that show that E-AB is as safe as Certified.

Because what you say is true regarding RVs, but it is not true regarding the entire experimental aircraft fleet. The safety record is far from equivalent to certificated Aircraft for a lot of different reasons.
 
+1. (Scott’s post). There have been some kit-EAB aircraft which, at least for a time, were virtually uninsurable, due to their accident record.
In addition, the FAA has always had to balance its two-headed agenda: promoting aviation, while protecting the general public. Hence you have:
EAB: few rules, but no commercial activity
Selling aircraft for profit: more rules
Selling aviation services: even more rules.

This philosophy extends beyond EAB. For example, if you’re operating under part 91, you can request and receive an instrument clearance for an ifr approach even if the wx is below minimums. The commercial guys aren’t allowed to do that.
 
It's not a given that an E-AB is built as designed nor to the same quality standard, so an E-AB could easily fly rather differently than it's stable mates. See AC 90-109A for a good discussion.
 
It's not a given that an E-AB is built as designed nor to the same quality standard, so an E-AB could easily fly rather differently than it's stable mates. See AC 90-109A for a good discussion.

We can knit pick one or another kit, yet according to the EAA, the FAA and insurance companies confirm that E AB planes are as safe as certified.

So let me rephrase the question, then. Does anyone know the basis for excluding E AB planes from the same category as certified planes?
 
Does anyone know the basis for excluding E AB planes from the same category as certified planes?

Exactly that - they are not certificated. Anybody could build anything with zero oversight and questionable (or nonexistent) backup equipment. They are not going to let that type of equipment be used in the "pay-for-play" arena where the general public is exposed to them without full knowledge of what they are getting into.
 
Anybody could build anything with zero oversight and questionable (or nonexistent) backup equipment.

Well, except, the FAA inpects prior to phase 1, requires a phase 1, annuals, etc. The FAA isn't a passive party in the process.

And as EAA illustrates with FAA and NTSA, the safety statistics don't support such a denial.
 
Well, except, the FAA inpects prior to phase 1, requires a phase 1, annuals, etc. The FAA isn't a passive party in the process.

And as EAA illustrates with FAA and NTSA, the safety statistics don't support such a denial.

You asked the question, and have gotten multiple answers that you don't accept. I suggest you take up the issue with the FAA and ask them.
 
I think the rules are what they are to try and keep the accident statistics in EAB similar to certified. If the rules were opened to the same as certified, my guess would be there would be a whole lot more accidents with the amateur built aircraft.
 
You asked the question, and have gotten multiple answers that you don't accept. I suggest you take up the issue with the FAA and ask them.

The facts provided by the EAA analysis of FAA and NSTA data refute the reasons given. So no, I don't accept those reasons Do you have anything to refute the FAAs statement?
 
Last edited:
I think the rules are what they are to try and keep the accident statistics in EAB similar to certified. If the rules were opened to the same as certified, my guess would be there would be a whole lot more accidents with the amateur built aircraft.

That's an interesting conjecture, one that I hadn't thought of. Given the similar safety statistics in general aviation, I wonder what basis there would be for such a belief? I don't think E AB have ever been allowed the same privileges as certificated planes, but I could be wrong.
 
We all know the limitations placed on E AB aircraft, and we could debate any possible benefit and usefulness of E AB in commercial use.

I think it's pretty clear and generally agreed that E AB aircraft are as safe as certificated aircraft, based on statistics and insurance costs.

You quote a web page from what some might consider a biased source that reads like a sales pitch. That page is EAA marketing.

Every safety seminar I've attended provided statistics showing that EAB has a significantly worse safety record. That is improving and the EAB accident is dropping, but historically, EAB is not as safe as certificated. The EAA page gives sort of a rose colored perspective ignoring the past.

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/e-ab-aircraft-safety/

The FAA doesn't really move quickly, and even if they did change the rules regarding commercial use, that might invite more restrictions on the work/changes EAB builders/owners are allowed to do. Be careful what you wish for.
 
The facts provided by the EAA analysis of FAA and NSTA data refute the reasons given. So no, I don't accept those reasons Do you have anything to refute the FAAs statement?

What exactly is there to refute? If it is accurate and reliable why would anyone want to refute it?

So, I guess the question To ask of you is: What do “you” want to have happen, concerning this data and your belief that the EAA and FAA data is “supporting”? In other words, what point do you want this audience to understand?
 
A certified airplane has a pile of analysis and has been tested. The documentation is extensive and includes a thorough description of a what the conforming configuration is. The applicable loads have been vetted by the FAA, and the analysis and test plans and results have all been scrutinized by the FAA or a DER. DERs are usually assigned for one or at most a small number of specialties; a structures DER would not necessarily be a flight test DER.

Obviously, some homebuilt kits have received much of the same treatment, but those are comparatively limited in number.

Usually, a homebuilt gets little of that, if any. You can make whatever changes you desire, so there's no conformity requirement (E-LSA not included here), and the testing requirement is less than basic. It's merely to fly a certain period and still have an airplane.

Dave
 
it really simple, like it or not, the FAA is tasked with trying to keep the flying public safe. they look at it this way, if you want to go out there and build your own aircraft to no standards, go ahead. its your life. if you want somebody to ride along with you, they require you inform the person that it is an experimental aircraft that does not meet standard aircraft airworthiness regulations. if you want to charge someone to transport them for hire, they expect a higher standard, car 3 or far 23 certification. if you want to run a charter company, even higher standards. If you want to run an airline, even higher standards.

I for one, don't have problem with this approach. we have a very broad spectrum to operate EAB aircraft in this country, and I do not want that to be limited. If EAB aircraft were allowed to operate for commercial the public would demand a higher standard, as would I. EAB was meant for people to experiment and learn. some EAB manufactures have gone that direction. cirrus started off as and EAB company that decided to go for certification on their follow on designs. the cessna 400 was an other example.

you seem to have an axe to grind against the current regulations, I don't think that most of the EAB world has a problem with the regulations as written. I will trade the ability to operate under the latitude of the EAB rules in exchange for not being able to operate commercially. If i want to operate for commercial gain, i will get a certificated aircraft to do that.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
...Does anyone know the basis for excluding E AB planes from the same category as certified planes?...

I'll admit that I just skimmed most of this thread, but it seems to me that one reason might be that all type certificated airplanes are built to the same verifiable, documented and approved design data. i.e. every C172 on the planet broke ground in Kansas with all the rivets in the same place, all the control cables and wire bundles routed the same way, all subject to service bulletins and potential AD's to remediate problems, etc. Anything that was off plan due to a manufacturing oopsie was blessed by multiple engineers as appropriate signed off by a DER.

An EAB's might all start out as the worlds greatest kit, but they simply can't be measured to the same conformity, either when brand new or ongoing because there is no type certificate to measure to. That allows for an enormous amount of freedom in the experimental world. Some additional operational limits are the obvious tradeoff.
 
All this squabbling reminds me of the story of the statistician who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of two feet...

The overall statistics may be good, but that doesn't mean there aren't any outliers...
 
All this squabbling reminds me of the story of the statistician who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of two feet...

The overall statistics may be good, but that doesn't mean there aren't any outliers...

Problem is that most of the outliers are from the largest statistical population. In this case, that would be certificated planes...

What's strange is the squabbling is from those without any statistics at all.
 
Another take on it

I have a slightly different take on the E-AB prohibition of commercial activity....

I agree with what many others have already stated; that there is a higher level public trust for commercial air transport which the FAA seeks to protect by allowing E-AB only for non commercial activity. But the prohibition goes beyond that, to prohibit such things as banner/glider towing, or skydiving operations. I do not think that there is such a compelling interest in public safety for those activities.

I believe that the purpose of the E-AB commercial prohibition is to ensure that a profitable market for commercial aircraft production is maintained. There is a tremendous difference in the financial burden of a kit manufacturer and a commercial aircraft producer. If kit producers could freely enter the commercial market under E-AB rules, they would have a huge financial advantage. The higher prices commanded by commercial products pays for the regulatory burden, which is necessarily higher for the reason of public trust already discussed here. If paying for the regulation was optional, purchasers would choose to purchase at the lower price, without the regulations.

Being personally an advocate for the freedom of markets, I have no problem with this. But I think it is near certain that upon the first E-AB accident that occurred, where a commercial passenger was injured or killed (and one would occur - somewhere, eventually... the stat isn't zero), there would be public outcry, and demand for regulation again. So being aware of how public perception and policy decisions occur, I recognize that free entry of E-AB into commercial markets would be short lived, and could end with the complete removal of the E-AB category even for personal use (the pendulum often swing too far....). So I think it would be unwise to seek acceptance of E-AB commercial activity.

I think it is also fair to say that the Govt. has a true interest in maintaining a healthy commercial aerospace sector, for the purpose of national defense. Which is another reason that they protect commercial aircraft producers profitability. That interest may also justify the restriction of your ability offer your E-AB for commercial purposes....

Just my 2 cents.....
 
I have a slightly different take on the E-AB prohibition of commercial activity....

Just my 2 cents.....

You come close to my thoughts on all this, Dan. Perception outstrips reality every time. That and bureaucratic inertia.

There doesn't seem to be much market for commercial passengers in a two seat, or even a four seat GA plane, so that aspect of commercial flight isn't much of an argument. And neither FedEx nor UPS is worried about your 50 lb cargo load putting them out of business.

Neither are Cessna, Piper, et al much of a contributor to the commercial aerospace market, considering how many planes they don't sell a year. Hundreds of 747s sell every year, and one costs more than all the piston engine planes sold. Van's sells more kits per year than all of certificated piston engine planes, according to an article in GeneralAviation.com.
 
What's strange is the squabbling is from those without any statistics at all.

What's strange is someone latching onto *one* report when so many others are available...

Kitplanes: Homebuilt Accidents - Comparing the Rates
ATSB: Amateur-built aircraft Part 2: Analysis of accidents involving VH-registered non-factory-built aeroplanes 1988-2010
AvWeb: Homebuilt Accidents: Fatal Factors
Aviation Consumer: Homebuilt Safety Survey

And the list goes on. So far, the EAA reference you gave is the *only* reference that suggests that E-AB is even *close* to certified.
 
I believe that the purpose of the E-AB commercial prohibition is to ensure that a profitable market for commercial aircraft production is maintained. There is a tremendous difference in the financial burden of a kit manufacturer and a commercial aircraft producer. If kit producers could freely enter the commercial market under E-AB rules, they would have a huge financial advantage. The higher prices commanded by commercial products pays for the regulatory burden, which is necessarily higher for the reason of public trust already discussed here. If paying for the regulation was optional, purchasers would choose to purchase at the lower price, without the regulations.
Just my 2 cents.....

This sounds to me like you've combined or mixed up a couple of concepts here. *Kit manufacturers* don't manufacture completed airplanes. Builders do. That's why it's called Experimental-*Amateur* built. Kit producers are ALREADY in a commercial market, the kit plane market.

I seriously doubt that there would be anything more than a tiny increase in the number of kits sold by Van's or any other kit provider if the amateur-built final products were allowed to do banner towing or fly sight-seeing tours or be used for flight instruction or whatever. Most of us wouldn't build RVs just so we can turn around and sell them to flight schools.

There are several different aspects muddled up here: the kit manufactuers, the airplane builders, and a third element completely missed in the plans-built or one-off, unique design E-AB aircraft.

I, for one, am quite satisfied with being able to fly day or night IFR/VFR, up to 18,000', in any airspace (after Phase I completion), and at any airport, with my RV-7A and BasicMed in my pocket. For something I built in my garage, that's pretty damned lenient, if you ask me.

The only thing I'd like to do that I can't is to donate a sight-seeing flight as a charitable gift or charity auction item. C'est la vie.
 
You come close to my thoughts on all this, Dan. Perception outstrips reality every time. That and bureaucratic inertia.

There doesn't seem to be much market for commercial passengers in a two seat, or even a four seat GA plane, so that aspect of commercial flight isn't much of an argument. And neither FedEx nor UPS is worried about your 50 lb cargo load putting them out of business.

Neither are Cessna, Piper, et al much of a contributor to the commercial aerospace market, considering how many planes they don't sell a year. Hundreds of 747s sell every year, and one costs more than all the piston engine planes sold. Van's sells more kits per year than all of certificated piston engine planes, according to an article in GeneralAviation.com.

So.................
 
Re: another take on it

This sounds to me like you've combined or mixed up a couple of concepts here. *Kit manufacturers* don't manufacture completed airplanes. Builders do. That's why it's called Experimental-*Amateur* built. Kit producers are ALREADY in a commercial market, the kit plane market.

Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear….. a agree that kit manufactures are a commercial enterprise, but they specifically serve the kit builder as a customer, and not aircraft for hire market. The separation of these two was my point.

Most of us wouldn't build RVs just so we can turn around and sell them to flight schools.

I think I would probably agree that most would not. I do believe that some would. We already struggle with those who seek to skirt the concept of E-AB and 51%. And it’s not even infrequent.

I, for one, am quite satisfied with being able to fly day or night IFR/VFR, up to 18,000', in any airspace (after Phase I completion), and at any airport, with my RV-7A and BasicMed in my pocket.

Completely agree
 
So.................

So my questions still remains. This is a general discussion area of the webpage. Either prefer a 10 year year old report with 15 year old data, or a two year old report with the most current data. The question of the basis for FAA decision to restrict E AB planes more than TC planes. The rational may have been justified to some 75 years ago when the FAA adopted the CAA regulations, but it doesn't seem justified anymore.

What's strange is someone latching onto *one* report when so many others are available...
And the list goes on. So far, the EAA reference you gave is the *only* reference that suggests that E-AB is even *close* to certified.

And those articles mostly rely on the 15 year old data, or they have no data to support them. Which is really beside the point, considering that the demand for passenger hire single engine piston planes is nill, and neither FedEx nor UPS is threatened by your 50 lb payload.

Van's, Lancaire, Murphy, etc aren't going to sell more kits, and Cessna, Piper, etc aren't going to sell fewer planes, whether E AB aircraft are allowed the same privileges or not.
 
Last edited:
ATTN: Moderators

Mods, time to shut this thread down. It's more appropriate in an EAA or AOPA Forum.
 
Mods, time to shut this thread down. It's more appropriate in an EAA or AOPA Forum.

I tend to agree, but still, let me try one more time:
Greg, ‘averages’ don’t really matter that much. If there is even a single accident involving for-hire operations in a standard category airplane, where the cause was found to be improper maintenance or unairworthy design, the faa will be called on the carpet to explain how this could have ever happened. If the airplane was an EAB, and the FAA response would be that they allowed this operation but had no rules regarding maintenance or design oversight (remember that the faa airworthiness inspection for an EAB does NOT look at design), they would never hear the end of it, from Congress or the general public. I’ll point out that if you do get a waiver (LODA) allowing limited for-hire use of your EAB, for transition training only, the FAA does impose some additional inspection requirements, just like for certified aircraft. Do you want more requirements imposed on you?
 
Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear….. a agree that kit manufactures are a commercial enterprise, but they specifically serve the kit builder as a customer, and not aircraft for hire market. The separation of these two was my point.



I think I would probably agree that most would not. I do believe that some would. We already struggle with those who seek to skirt the concept of E-AB and 51%. And it’s not even infrequent.



Completely agree

I'm not sure what your point was with this whole subject. Just to gripe that you don't like being told what you can't do? That you want to change something?

I have your jousting pole here, Mr. Quixote.
 
I'm not sure what your point was with this whole subject. Just to gripe that you don't like being told what you can't do? That you want to change something?

I have your jousting pole here, Mr. Quixote.

Well, you quoted me here, but I think the rhetorical questions are for the OP.

My point was simply to explain the reasons why seeking a for-hire allowance for E-AB was unwise.

I tend to agree that it’s time close this thread.
 
I'm not sure what your point was with this whole subject. Just to gripe that you don't like being told what you can't do? That you want to change something?

I have your jousting pole here, Mr. Quixote.

That was the reason I posted my post. I still have not seen a reply from the OP.

What exactly is there to refute? If it is accurate and reliable why would anyone want to refute it?

So, I guess the question To ask of you is: What do “you” want to have happen, concerning this data and your belief that the EAA and FAA data is “supporting”? In other words, what point do you want this audience to understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top