What's new
Van's Air Force

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

FAA Restrictions?

I read the following FAA excerpts. What are the practical implications? I can't land in Nashville? The administrator must approve IFR certs?

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air commerce.


(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall
...
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator;
 
What you read is correct, but really only applies to phase 1.

Keep in mind on initial contact to a tower you must announce experimental. After phase 1 we operate just like any other airplane in the system, aside from you can't rent it to someone else.
 
I read the following FAA excerpts. What are the practical implications? I can't land in Nashville? The administrator must approve IFR certs?

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air commerce.


(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall
...
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator;

Long story short the authorities to operate reside with the Administrator but are delegated down to various entities with ATC being the relevant one in this discussion. That means you don’t have to get the actual Administrator’s approval. Your OPLIMs will give you authorization to operate the aircraft IFR if properly worded. It will say something akin to operate day VFR unless properly equipped to operate at night or IFR IAW 91.205. Don’t forget about current 91.411 and 413 inspections as well.
 
OK that seems a lot better. So "experimental" must be in first contact to a tower, but not to center, or approach? - Just "RV-xxxxx?
 
Read the oplims for YOUR airplane. They will specify where and how you can operate your plane. They usually have wording to the effect that the aircraft can't be operated over densely populated areas except for the purpose of take off and landing. I take that to mean I can cross over but not linger over populated areas as long as I plan to land the airplane at some point. Newer versions of the oplims contain no requirement to notify control towers of the "experimental nature of the aircraft".

Ed Holyoke
 
Newer versions of the oplims contain no requirement to notify control towers of the "experimental nature of the aircraft".

Ed Holyoke

That’s good to hear, but the requirement is still there—91.319. I’m of the opinion that that particular rule harkens back to the era of mainly plans built E-AB aircraft that rarely visited controlled airports. Starting in the 90s with the proliferation of kit built aircraft, particularly RVs, the rule is now an anachronism that really provides little to no value.
 
Last edited:
Newer versions of the oplims contain no requirement to notify control towers of the "experimental nature of the aircraft".

Ed Holyoke
That is correct, but there is an excerpt in FAR 91 that still maintains the requirement for experimentals.
 
That is correct, but there is an excerpt in FAR 91 that still maintains the requirement for experimentals.

That would be §91.319(d): "Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall--(3)Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operating control tower."
 
This again? :)

Yep - this again. And that's a good thing, because when the same old questions get asked again and again, it means there is new blood coming into our hobby in general, and this forum in particular.
 
That would be §91.319(d): "Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall--(3)Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operating control tower."

Yikes! In that case, I will resume with my experimental notification to towers as I had done in the past.

Ed Holyoke
 
Yep - I'm new to experimentals. And I've learned over the years that in aviation there is often a gap between black-letter law and reality. What they now call "tribal knowledge" can only be acquired from experience.
 
This again? :)

Yep - this again. And that's a good thing, because when the same old questions get asked again and again, it means there is new blood coming into our hobby in general, and this forum in particular.

Exactly Airguy...

I'm clearly a newbie here and I know that a lot of my questions have probably been hashed out previously too.. I try to use the search function when I can. The search function on this website often times doesn't find what I'm looking for. I have better luck using Google and then picking out the VAF thread from there..

Is it better to start a new thread, or resurrect an old thread when a question needs to be asked?
 
Last edited:
I'm one of these newcomers, so this thread is helpful.

Does calling the tower as "RV 47HM" satisfy the requirement of notifying the tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft? Can pilots assume controllers are aware that RVs are experimental?

Thanks!

David
 
Alrighty then...for the new folks...

I have been flying my -7A since 2012, and have *never* announced to any tower that I was an experimental. And not once have any of them mentioned it.

YMMV.
 
Is there ANY controller in the United States who doesn't know what an RV is, and that it is an experimental?
 
Alrighty then...for the new folks...

I have been flying my -7A since 2012, and have *never* announced to any tower that I was an experimental. And not once have any of them mentioned it.

YMMV.

I know of people that have flown (passengers even) for years and never completed getting their license, and never got caught.

Does that mean we should promote the idea that pilots new to the hobby should save the second half of their flight training fund for gas money?
 
I'm one of these newcomers, so this thread is helpful.

Does calling the tower as "RV 47HM" satisfy the requirement of notifying the tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft? Can pilots assume controllers are aware that RVs are experimental?

Thanks!

David
I’m not a lawyer, but I think a real lawyer would say, “Never assume”.
PS. My -10 is N48HT, so I think I can ‘decipher’ your N number!
 
Does calling the tower as "RV 47HM" satisfy the requirement of notifying the tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft? Can pilots assume controllers are aware that RVs are experimental?
Thanks!
David

In a word....NO! to both questions.
 
Is there ANY controller in the United States who doesn't know what an RV is, and that it is an experimental?

SLSA (Special Light Sport Aircraft) RV12's aren't Experimental..

My initial call to every tower has included EXPERIMENTAL. I guess I have incorrectly notified Approach when I didn't need to..

I have been trying to get out of the habit of saying Experimental RV N49DD and use Experimental Van's N49DD instead.. I feel the "RV" adds to confusion when added to N49DD.. Too many letters and numbers in a row..

I thought it was strange that Approach asked me which model of RV I was flying a few weeks ago. I was transiting Bravo airspace, so I assume they were trying to figure out how fast I could fly and get out of their airspace.. :)
 
Last edited:
Exactly Airguy...

I'm clearly a newbie here and I know that a lot of my questions have probably been hashed out previously too.. I try to use the search function when I can. The search function on this website often times doesn't find what I'm looking for. I have better luck using Google and then picking out the VAF thread from there..

Is it better to start a new thread, or resurrect an old thread when a question needs to be asked?

Start a new thread! I have seen in the past where some guys get all bent out of shape for a topic that was talked about 7 years ago but it is worth mentioning loud and clear that...

Almost all pictures are no longer in threads!

This alone is the reason I am big time in favor of a new thread repeating an old topic, especially now that there is a sweet image host right on the site! :) Granted this isn't one of those times that need pictures but let's all work together to build up some threads with quality pictures everyone; even if that means repeating ourselves from time to time.

I am a newb stepping off my soap box now... haha
 
Last edited:
Don’t forget about current 91.411 and 413 inspections as well.

Even though I'm new to the RV world this is a common misconception I've been hearing concerning 91.413. I just got my transponder tested this morning and when asking several RV owners for recommendations on local shops to perform the inspection every one of them replied "I don't think that's required for experimentals". I've been trying my best to set the record straight and show them 91.413, especially since they no doubt transit Reno's Class C on occasion.
 
Even though I'm new to the RV world this is a common misconception I've been hearing concerning 91.413. I just got my transponder tested this morning and when asking several RV owners for recommendations on local shops to perform the inspection every one of them replied "I don't think that's required for experimentals". I've been trying my best to set the record straight and show them 91.413, especially since they no doubt transit Reno's Class C on occasion.

I would ask those that say it’s not required to cite the reference that exempts experimental aircraft. 91.215, ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use, states it applies to all aircraft. Furthermore 91.413 states “No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or §135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected....”. Ergo the inspection is required if you want to fly in airspace where a transponder is required regardless of whether the aircraft is E-AB or not.
 
I would ask those that say it’s not required to cite the reference that exempts experimental aircraft. 91.215, ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use, states it applies to all aircraft. Furthermore 91.413 states “No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or §135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected....”. Ergo the inspection is required if you want to fly in airspace where a transponder is required regardless of whether the aircraft is E-AB or not.

That’s the way I read it, although the prior owners of my airplane did not. I had Walt @ EXP Avionics certify mine a couple of weeks ago. He also agreed that if it’s installed in the plane, it’s suppose to be certified..

I used to be a cop in a prior life.. Just because “everyone runs the stop sign” doesn’t mean you’re not getting a citation for running the stop sign today.... :)
 
Last edited:
I believe the FAA Recognizes various models like RV6, RV8 etc in their nomenclature. My home field has a lot of Army traffic so I start the contact with “Experimental “ because RV May sound like “Army” on call up. Thereafter I just reply using my call sign. ATC during IFR ops refers to me as an RV8 when advising other planes, even though I’m a -6A on the flight plan, I suppose so other pilots know what to look for and presumably have an idea of the planes performance. Glad to get the knowledge on using “Experimental” to advise ATC per the regs. Marty
 
That’s the way I read it, although the prior owners of my airplane did not. I had Walt @ EXP Avionics certify mine a couple of weeks ago. He also agreed that if it’s installed in the plane, it’s suppose too be certified..

I used to be a cop in a prior life.. Just because “everyone runs the stop sign” doesn’t mean you’re not getting a citation for running the stop sign today.... :)

Haha, that's often my mindset. I'm sure most folks can and do go years without it but I'd be the lucky one to get spot checked. $85 a year is cheap insurance...
 
Haha, that's often my mindset. I'm sure most folks can and do go years without it but I'd be the lucky one to get spot checked. $85 a year is cheap insurance...

Just in case your comment confuses someone, FAR 91.413 requires the certification be done every 24 calendar months.

Maybe you are paying $170 for an inspection (a bit on the higher side in my opinion) every 2 years?
 
Just in case your comment confuses someone, FAR 91.413 requires the certification be done every 24 calendar months.

Maybe you are paying $170 for an inspection (a bit on the higher side in my opinion) every 2 years?

But not out of line for an ifr pitot-static/transponder check.
 
SLSA (Special Light Sport Aircraft) RV12's aren't Experimental..

My initial call to every tower has included EXPERIMENTAL. I guess I have incorrectly notified Approach when I didn't need to..

I have been trying to get out of the habit of saying Experimental RV N49DD and use Experimental Van's N49DD instead.. I feel the "RV" adds to confusion when added to N49DD.. Too many letters and numbers in a row..

I thought it was strange that Approach asked me which model of RV I was flying a few weeks ago. I was transiting Bravo airspace, so I assume they were trying to figure out how fast I could fly and get out of their airspace.. :)

Technically, calling Experimental Light Sport 49DD on the first call to the tower, and then just Light Sport 49DD after that (unless they shorten it for you, them go with what they say!) tell the tower you're an experimental (E-) and light sport (LSA), which tells them your top speed is 120kts as well.
 
Just in case your comment confuses someone, FAR 91.413 requires the certification be done every 24 calendar months.

Maybe you are paying $170 for an inspection (a bit on the higher side in my opinion) every 2 years?

But not out of line for an ifr pitot-static/transponder check.

Bob, Not sure do you really mean $170 is too much for an IFR cert (91.411, 91.413) ???
If you think it's to much maybe you should look into opening your own repair station.

My price which I consider very fair:
Full IFR/single altimeter $395 (avg 3-4 hrs labor)
Transponder only: $150 (avg .5 -1 hr labor)

In case anyone thinks operating a repair station with certified test equipment is cheap guess again.
Equip investment was upwards of 40K with annual certification costs of $1400 not to mention the fun of dealing with FAA audits, keeping up with RS manuals, training rqmnts, etc..

And yes, experimentals require the certs every 2 years just like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Technically, calling Experimental Light Sport 49DD on the first call to the tower, and then just Light Sport 49DD after that (unless they shorten it for you, them go with what they say!) tell the tower you're an experimental (E-) and light sport (LSA), which tells them your top speed is 120kts as well.

I don’t get to represent the Van’s brand then..! :) But good idea.. I’ll give it a try..
 
Technically, calling Experimental Light Sport 49DD on the first call to the tower, and then just Light Sport 49DD after that (unless they shorten it for you, them go with what they say!) tell the tower you're an experimental (E-) and light sport (LSA), which tells them your top speed is 120kts as well.

Greg pretty much covered it but just to reiterate, with as much RV-12 flying as we have done we have found that it is counter productive to identify as just experimental RV when flying an RV-12. Because RV's are so commonly know, that develops an assumption for a controller that your airplane is much faster than it really is.
For that reason, all of us at Van's have developed the practice of always including Light Sport in the call sign.

As Greg mentioned, for ELSA it would be Experimental Light Sport XXXXX or Experimental Light Sport RV XXXXX on first call and then drop the experimental after first call. If the freq. isn't too busy, I think using the longer call sign including RV, is helpful to a controller because not all light sports are the same speed either, and an RV-12 is at the top end of the light sport speed range.

For SLSA it can just be Light Sport RV XXXXX which will avoid the confusion of a controller thinking you will be faster than you might be.
 
In case anyone thinks operating a repair station with certified test equipment is cheap guess again.

I don't.
I know what running a maint. shop costs.

Which is why I suggested that $170 for a 91,413 inspection is probably "a bit" on the high side.
I would say that $170 is a bit higher than $150.
 
Those other guys use Cessna or Piper, etc, in front of their call sign so I use "Vans 433RV"

:) Actually, they mostly use "Skyhawk" or "Cherokee" or "Bonanza", etc. Thus, I use "RV 123AB".

WRT all the hand-wringing over announcing your RV as an experimental (but only to a tower, not to other ATC facilities?), has anyone EVER been issued a citation or suffered an enforcement action for not doing so? It seems to me it's one of those obsolete "laws" (at least for a kitplane that has going on 11,000 of them flying around) that never gets updated and never gets repealed that are in every set of laws ever written...
 
Just in case your comment confuses someone, FAR 91.413 requires the certification be done every 24 calendar months.

Maybe you are paying $170 for an inspection (a bit on the higher side in my opinion) every 2 years?

Yes, it was $177 for the VFR inspection w/tax. Shop rates around here are a tad higher than other places around the country as well.
 
Bob, Not sure do you really mean $170 is too much for an IFR cert (91.411, 91.413) ???
If you think it's to much maybe you should look into opening your own repair

Other way around. It would be a very good price. Isn’t that what I said? Maybe I need to repeat high school English.
 
Good thread... Sorry if someone said this... but if you are TAKING OFF of LANDING you can fly over congested area.. You can not fly over congested areas for fun or profit. OK. So does that mean you can't do a scenic tour of NY or LA over congested areas and not landing or taking off? This is a rhetorical comment. I have my own opinion. Just food for thought.

If in congested area but flying over freeway not directly over the congested area is that OK? Again rhetorical. Keep in mind these Regs are written by lawyers for lawyers. I have NEVER heard of an experimental aircraft being violated by this FAR.

Bottom line if I want to do a scenic tour up the NY East River or fly over parts of LA and surrounding consider making it part of a flight route ending in a landing an airport in the area. You meet the intent of the FAR.

Youtube Video of an RV8 doing low approaches/landings during peak of Bat Flu Stew shut down last year, at Newark (EWR), LaGuardia (JGA) and Kennedy (JFK}... So there you go. BTW he flew over some congested areas...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgppNdSEAag
 
Last edited:
Current operating limitations contain the following paragraph:

Flight over a densely populated area or in a congested airway is authorized for the purpose of takeoff or landing; or when sufficient altitude is maintained to make a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure without hazard to persons or property on the ground. (55)
 
Back
Top