What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New Operating Limitations coming!

Nevermind then, Mel. I'm curious why Kahuna called it out in the new op-lims as a "game changer"? If that is already in the current op-lim, then my point earlier about Part 91 flights for business? I'm guessing that gets classified by the owner/operator/builder as a coincidental recreational flight? I have a business trip to New York, but I'm flying there in my plane because I just happen to also be taking a fun trip to the same place at the same time? :p And I'm guessing the acro show guys like Team Aero have a LODA or something else?

Oh well, idle speculation from me. I'm not contributing to anything factual at this point. I'll sit back. :)
 
Auburntsts said:
Just curious, but what other type of flight do you think should qualify that does not fall under recreational & educational flights? ...
Click to expand...
I don't make a flight where I don't learn something. Thus, every flight I make is "educational" and unless I manage to scare the poo out of myself, they are recreational in nature. Well, even then, they can be considered recreational.
 
Auburntsts said:
Same place: Appendix C, Table C-1, Item 41, top block.

"Day VFR flight operations are authorized.

Night flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in ? 91.205(c) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. (41)"
Click to expand...

I read (41) as either or and not both.

Day VFR flight operations are authorized. Night flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in ? 91.205(c) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. (41)

Instrument flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in ? 91.205(d) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. All maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records and include the following items: date, work performed, and name and certificate number of person returning aircraft to service. (41)

IF both are included, then I am ok with that.
 
RV6_flyer said:
I read (41) as either or and not both.

Day VFR flight operations are authorized. Night flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in ? 91.205(c) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. (41)

Instrument flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in ? 91.205(d) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. All maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records and include the following items: date, work performed, and name and certificate number of person returning aircraft to service. (41)

IF both are included, then I am ok with that.
Click to expand...

I fell 100% confident it's both. Under item 41 you get Day VFR "and" if you are equipped IAW 91.205, you're authorized to conduct night VFR ops. Not really a change from 8130.G. I don't think their intent ever was to make it Day VFR "or" Night VFR -- that would be a bit silly don't ya think?
 
I was unaware that making a flight in an EAB for business travel was considered forbidden by operating limitations. Perhaps I should have done better research prior to deciding to build an RV rather than buy a used Mooney.
 
1001001 said:
I was unaware that making a flight in an EAB for business travel was considered forbidden by operating limitations. Perhaps I should have done better research prior to deciding to build an RV rather than buy a used Mooney.
Click to expand...

My guess is the FAA considers the majority of part 91 ops to be either recreational or educational in nature regardless of the practicality of the operation (e.g. a business trip) particularly with respect to purely commercial operations (ie where you receive some form of compensation for the effort).

Having said that, I would never, ever ask the FAA to officially define it lest they actually do and second if ever asked by anyone about a given flight I'd always state the nature was for own recreation and stop with that.
 
Mel said:
In addition to many other changes, op lims issued 03/31/2015 and later will prohibit the car[ry]ing of passengers for all EAB and ELSA during phase II.
Yep, I said phase II. That's like for the life of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

So are we agreed that the above statement is incorrect?
 
RV7A Flyer said:
So are we agreed that the above statement is incorrect?
Click to expand...

The FAA just posted the 8130.2H_Operating_Limitations_Job_Aid.pdf to the Regulatory and Guidance Library. It is with the 8130.2H order.

Download the PDF from the FAA created to create Operating Limitations and enter data for your aircraft then print form. It creates the OpLims for your Amateur Built aircraft.

I just did the above and there was NO restriction on carrying passengers. I did find a few parts of the order that was left out in the PDF OpLim Job Aid Form.
 
"Yes sir, I have fun at my job. Especially when I get to fly for it. So it's a recreational flight far as I can tell! And I'm going up to learn about a customer's system setup. So it's an educational flight too! What's the problem?"
 
1001001 said:
I was unaware that making a flight in an EAB for business travel was considered forbidden by operating limitations. Perhaps I should have done better research prior to deciding to build an RV rather than buy a used Mooney.
Click to expand...

There is no problem using your RV, or your Cessna 172, or your Mooney, etc, etc, etc, for business travel. You cannot use your RV for "commercial" purposes, i.e. charter, or rental or something like those activities where someone is reimbursing you for the use of your airplane.
 
I was referring to Post #49. Not having seen a set of operating limitations for an RV before, I am uncertain if the specific language is as described in that post.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=970009&postcount=49


dmaib said:
There is no problem using your RV, or your Cessna 172, or your Mooney, etc, etc, etc, for business travel. You cannot use your RV for "commercial" purposes, i.e. charter, or rental or something like those activities where someone is reimbursing you for the use of your airplane.
Click to expand...
 
A Tylenol may be in order after reading through this thread.

The verbiage trail is complex - we'll have to wait for a reading on the intent of the order and hope it is not the end of experimental aviation as we know it.

Vans only possible response, if it is doomsday, will be to design and sell the best little single seat fighters they can. The dream will never be killed altogether if that is the intend to the order.
 
Or Advil ... :)

David-aviator said:
A Tylenol may be in order after reading through this thread.

The verbiage trail is complex - we'll have to wait for a reading on the intent of the order and hope it is not the end of experimental aviation as we know it.

Vans only possible response, if it is doomsday, will be to design and sell the best little single seat fighters they can. The dream will never be killed altogether if that is the intend to the order.
Click to expand...

David you are right.

I think the point has been made and it is being researched.

As soon as I have an "official" response, I will post it here.

No need to speculate when we can get the real answer.

Also, it is my opinion that there is NO intent on bringing an end to experimental aviation as we know it.

James
 
jclark said:
David you are right.

I think the point has been made and it is being researched.

As soon as I have an "official" response, I will post it here.

No need to speculate when we can get the real answer.

Also, it is my opinion that there is NO intent on bringing an end to experimental aviation as we know it.

James
Click to expand...

Thanks, James. It is really the intent and guidance for interpretation that will count. No drastic change was listed in the "changes" in the cover page. Your help here is greatly appreciated.
 
jclark said:
Also, it is my opinion that there is NO intent on bringing an end to experimental aviation as we know it.

James
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm frankly surprised that so many people who ought to know better apparently believe (or believed) that the FAA was getting ready to put out rules which would cripple E-ABs as a whole, differ dramatically from what they've been doing, etc., and do it "under the table", so to speak.

Got a lot of people all upset over what it appears will turn out to be essentially no change to the Ops Limits for virtually all the E-ABs out there (but I still want my rocket-powered plane). Reminds me of a certain magazine editor and his complete misconstrual of another issue affecting E-ABs recently...
 
FAA Memo delaying Implementation

The FAA just released a memorandum delaying Implementation till April 30, 2015. It says:

[FONT=&quot]"This memorandum extends the effective date listed in paragraph 105 of FAA Order 8130.2H, Airworthiness Certification of Products and Articles, to April 30, 2015[/FONT]."

IMHO, this will give enough time to get everyone trained and any needed revisions completed.
 
rmartingt said:
I think I found it... http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8130_2H.pdf

In Table C-1, number 43 (which applies only to phase II)

For aircraft in 191d,e,g,h,&i (experimental exhibition, racing, amateur-built, primary kit-built, and LSA) it says "Issue if applicable, refer to paragraphs 3 and 5c" and the limitation is "The carriage of passengers is prohibited". Paragraph 3 is a general statement about issuing limitations; 5c says


My reading of this is that, since the limitation says "issue if applicable, ref paras 3 and 5c" and 5c says to restrict carriage of passengers for the 5 items, and a regular E-AB doesn't fall in those 5 items (not LSA, no bailout checklist item, no single failure renders uncontrollable, can operate below 10,000MSL below 250kt in cruise, and not rocket-powered), it doesn't apply.

Further, I read that the statement about S-LSA to E-LSA applies only if the aircraft doesn't comply with 91.327(b)(3) and (4)
Click to expand...

Looks to me like most of us will be in good shape, as regular compliance and the required placard does the job?
 
OK Guys.......

Have you ever had one of those days where everything you did was wrong? I certainly had one on Monday.

BUT, you guys learned something by researching on your own and not just taking someone else's word.

My point was that the new form of "building" operating limitations is very convoluted and can lead to inconsistent operating limitations.
Think about it. How many inspectors are going to look at that and determine that almost ALL aircraft have a single fail point that would make the aircraft uncontrollable. What about you elevator pushrod. How many single point failures can occur between the stick and the elevator making the aircraft uncontrollable?

I apologize if I upset people. Maybe I didn't go about it the way I should have.

I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
 
Mel said:
I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
Click to expand...

This is the real problem. 'Tis to weep. :(
 
Mel said:
I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
Click to expand...

The way I see it... you did nothing wrong at all Mel. Except bring attention to some sketchy wording that obviously delayed the release into April. Sounds RIGHT to me!

If people like you start leaving the positions you are in... that is what will make EAB undesirable.

Thank you for your DAR service!
 
DARs

Mel,
All of us sincerely appreciate the work you and all the DARs do on a regular basis. I for one, understand the challenges you have to put up with on a daily basis but also know the good that comes from it. Please hang in there -- we need you.
Thanks,
Jerry Folkerts
 
Mel,

Don't be so hard on yourself. I imagine it is fairly stressful being the one who is supposed to decipher all that regulatory gobbledegook on a daily basis and turn it into operating limitations. It seems the FAA just throws stuff out there and expects everyone else to do their editing for them, without much care for how the front lines have to work to interpret their horribly flawed language. The assertion that "the intent was not to X" is fine, but they should write things a little more carefully in the first place to avoid people being able to misinterpret it to mean X.
 
So, I am sorry in advance for the mini rant here, but y'all please don't post statements of "fact" here without doing a little research first. This thread got everyone all worked up due to a misreading of the order. As an attorney I understand how confusing deciphering government statutes and limitations can be. So you know, one of the most common errors in reading a government reg is what happened here. Whenever a regulation/statute/order refers to another section/paragraph/part/subpart YOU MUST LOOK IT UP!!! Otherwise, you will not be stating the rule correctly. You cannot properly understand these government publications without being diligent at reading all cross referenced sections.
 
Carroll,

All due respect to your profession, but keep in mind that there are some of us who come at this with a very literal mind. In particular, one of my other hobbies involves having to understand some very specific regulations regarding exotic firearms, and the particular regulatory agency involved there is definitely known for issuing regulations that are indeed designed to severely limit or destroy whole segments of that hobby. So I am predisposed to see the regulatory agencies in a bit of an adversarial light.

I seem to get the impression that the FAA is somewhat better than certain other unnamed three (now four) letter organizations about this.

carrollcw said:
So, I am sorry in advance for the mini rant here, but y'all please don't post statements of "fact" here without doing a little research first. This thread got everyone all worked up due to a misreading of the order. As an attorney I understand how confusing deciphering government statutes and limitations can be. So you know, one of the most common errors in reading a government reg is what happened here. Whenever a regulation/statute/order refers to another section/paragraph/part/subpart YOU MUST LOOK IT UP!!! Otherwise, you will not be stating the rule correctly. You cannot properly understand these government publications without being diligent at reading all cross referenced sections.
Click to expand...
 
Mel said:
Have you ever had one of those days where everything you did was wrong? I certainly had one on Monday.

BUT, you guys learned something by researching on your own and not just taking someone else's word.

My point was that the new form of "building" operating limitations is very convoluted and can lead to inconsistent operating limitations.
Think about it. How many inspectors are going to look at that and determine that almost ALL aircraft have a single fail point that would make the aircraft uncontrollable. What about you elevator pushrod. How many single point failures can occur between the stick and the elevator making the aircraft uncontrollable?

I apologize if I upset people. Maybe I didn't go about it the way I should have.

I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have those days sometimes - - no harm - no foul, Mel. Thanks for letting us know - - it was educational!
 
carrollcw said:
snip... please don't post statements of "fact" here without doing a little research first. ...end snip
Click to expand...

Wow! I never take anything on the internet as a "statement of fact". And I doubt anyone lost much sleep over the OP. And... folks DID look it up and research it as is represented in this post. You didn't really didn't need to throw your title/profession around in an attempt to slap folks on the wrist. Who do you think writes all this confusing verbiage to begin with. No wonder the law profession is the brunt of so many jokes...

So what do you call a thousand Lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
.
.
.
A good start! :D
(Disclaimer: Told to me by one of my good friends... who is an attorney.)

I apologize as well as I normally know better than to get involved in digital rubbish.
 
Mel said:
Have you ever had one of those days where everything you did was wrong? I certainly had one on Monday.

BUT, you guys learned something by researching on your own and not just taking someone else's word.

My point was that the new form of "building" operating limitations is very convoluted and can lead to inconsistent operating limitations.
Think about it. How many inspectors are going to look at that and determine that almost ALL aircraft have a single fail point that would make the aircraft uncontrollable. What about you elevator pushrod. How many single point failures can occur between the stick and the elevator making the aircraft uncontrollable?

I apologize if I upset people. Maybe I didn't go about it the way I should have.

I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
Click to expand...

I need to clarify something...when I said "some whacked-out DAR", I most certainly did not mean you, Mel! I was thinking more along the lines of the horror stories we hear about DARs requiring weird things like red painted fuel caps and such.

Sorry if that came across wrong! Mea culpa!
 
enielsen said:
Wow! I never take anything on the internet as a "statement of fact". And I doubt anyone lost much sleep over the OP. And... folks DID look it up and research it as is represented in this post. You didn't really didn't need to throw your title/profession around in an attempt to slap folks on the wrist. Who do you think writes all this confusing verbiage to begin with. No wonder the law profession is the brunt of so many jokes...
Click to expand...

No, I think he was exactly right on. I'm not flaming the OP here, but let's look at it calmly. A very well-respected, educated, knowledgeable *expert* in the field makes a post that was (apparently) incorrect. No big deal, other than the *scope* of the incorrect assertion and its presumed effects on an entire industry. It's clearly something of a concern because we have, what, 8 pages of responses, lots of people searching out the actual documents, etc., to correct the misinterpretation?

OK, so as Mel says, everybody has a bad day now and again. Just like our friend MacLellan and his uneducated column/blog from a couple months ago about how EABs would never be able to install ADS-B equipment, etc. Except the difference is, Mel is a stand-up guy who admitted the mistake. How many people are now suffering under Mac's misinformation to this day, because he didn't post any correction?

It's not that lawyers are writing these regulations and making them complicated just to be making them complicated...they're already complicated because they cover a lot of different cases, and *have* to be written precisely. As an engineer, I can tell you we are equally "guilty" of writing some pretty darned complex requirements and specifications, not because we want to, but because it's required to make it correct (and like regulations, when they reference something else, you better go look that up, too).

So this little tempest in a teapot seems to have run its course here in about a day, which is good. I do think the admonition to *make sure you're right* before posting something like this is good advice (even if it is free, and from a lawyer :) ).
 
RV7A Flyer said:
So this little tempest in a teapot seems to have run its course here in about a day, which is good. I do think the admonition to *make sure you're right* before posting something like this is good advice (even if it is free, and from a lawyer :) ).
Click to expand...

As a fellow engineer, I know where you are coming from but you are falling into the same trap. This site is for entertainment purposes as is well stated. ALL and ANY information here OR on the internet, in general, should be individually researched. You would be insulting a lot of people's intelligence if you think otherwise. I encourage you to re-read the thread. As has been stated, the thought of restricting passengers in EABs is so absurd, there were call outs of an April fools joke. I think that speaks volumes! If it's true that the Order has been delayed to correct verbiage justifies the OP even more. We'll see... nuff said.
 
RV6_flyer said:
The FAA just posted the 8130.2H_Operating_Limitations_Job_Aid.pdf to the Regulatory and Guidance Library. It is with the 8130.2H order.

Download the PDF from the FAA created to create Operating Limitations and enter data for your aircraft then print form. It creates the OpLims for your Amateur Built aircraft.

I just did the above and there was NO restriction on carrying passengers. I did find a few parts of the order that was left out in the PDF OpLim Job Aid Form.
Click to expand...

Mel said:
Have you ever had one of those days where everything you did was wrong? I certainly had one on Monday.

--- SNIP ---

I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
Click to expand...

Sometimes one just needs a break from the routine. If able, take a break before you make a decision. When it stops being fun, it is time for a change.

I hung it up a year ago after moving to an area that does not need a DAR. If it does, I will go back through the process and start all over again.


Good News. I just ran 2 different test of the OpLim Job Aid PDF and it worked great. If it is not perfect, it is close. It helps if one reads the instructions before just doing it. It will also be helpful to the DARs using it if they have Adobe Acrobat Pro so that they can convert from the PDF straight to a Word file that they can then make some minor edits (like the Phase I test area verbiage). My 1st test of the OpLim Job Aid PDF only gave fair results. IF I had RTFD, I would have had very good results. Reading and following the instruction, I got EXCELLENT results.

If the DARs and FAA Inspectors have some computer skills, this will make things better as it will Standardize the OpLims Format across the country.

Things that I notice new in the OpLims should not cause alarm to us flying RVs built the way Van recommends.

New things for us AB RV aircraft are:
Verbiage for replacement of life-limited articles. Think "Ballistic Chute" like used on Cirrus and batteries in our ELTs.
Verbiage is added that externally mounted equipment must be flight tested and documented. Those of us that put cameras and smoke canisters outside our aircraft are already doing this.
 
If you think that being concerned about unreasonable rulings, coming out of the blue, is to overreact, I have four words for you.
Bob Hoover.
Sleep apnea.
 
Bill_H said:
If you think that being concerned about unreasonable rulings, coming out of the blue, is to overreact, I have four words for you.
Bob Hoover.
Sleep apnea.
Click to expand...

Because those are exactly the same.

And in this case, in fact it was *not* an "unreasonable ruling", was it? :)
 
UPDATE. <<From EAA Government Team>>

I sent several emails to Sean Elliott (VP at EAA that handles Government matters). He and his team looked into this and followed up with me.

Below is a "cut and paste" of the direct response to me on this matter.

Summary: All is well. (please note the "do not apply")

James
===================

James,

I?ve spent a good amount of time looking into this issue, and Sean asked me to respond.

The FAA has reaffirmed to us that those specific limitations restricting the carriage of passengers and limiting flight to a geographic area (43 and 44) do not apply to the vast majority of homebuilts, save a handful of highly unusual cases. The FAA has also published a ?job aid? (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/d10ce3d63a30600d86257e0d0074cdec/$FILE/8130.2H_Operations_Limitations_Job_Aid.pdf) that automatically generates ops limits per the new 8130.2H based on an aircraft?s registration data and a few factors the DAR inputs. You can try it for yourself with your aircraft to see exactly what your ops limits would be under this policy.

Per Appendix C, Limitations 43 and 44 ONLY apply if Paragraphs 3 or 5(c) of the same appendix apply to the aircraft.

Paragraph 3 says that in unusual cases additional limitations may be in order but must be coordinated with AIR-113. It specifically calls out former military aircraft of 9,000 pounds MTOW or greater with powerful jet engines or ejection seats.

Paragraph 5(c) gives the following 5 cases (paraphrased below):

1. S-LSAs that have outstanding service directives being converted to E-LSA

2. Aircraft requiring bailout or ejection in case of engine failure

3. Control systems where a single system failure results in total loss of control (i.e. non-redundant hydraulics or fly-by-wire, NOT traditional cable/pushrod controls)

4. Aircraft that bust 91.117(a) (250 kts below 10,000) in a normal cruise configuration

5. Rocket-powered aircraft


So again, for your typical E-AB this DOES NOT apply. We believe that Paragraph 5(c)(3) about single point of failure is a little too vague and could cause an overzealous inspector to think it applies to systems found on most aircraft, but this was most definitely not the drafting intent and if necessary the FAA will correct the language or publish clearer guidance.
 
Mel, when I stop making mistakes I will start to think about criticizing someone else. Thanks for posting this and getting me to read about a process I should have known about anyway.
 
"No Harm, No Foul!"

Mel said:
Have you ever had one of those days where everything you did was wrong? I certainly had one on Monday.

BUT, you guys learned something by researching on your own and not just taking someone else's word.

My point was that the new form of "building" operating limitations is very convoluted and can lead to inconsistent operating limitations.
Think about it. How many inspectors are going to look at that and determine that almost ALL aircraft have a single fail point that would make the aircraft uncontrollable. What about you elevator pushrod. How many single point failures can occur between the stick and the elevator making the aircraft uncontrollable?

I apologize if I upset people. Maybe I didn't go about it the way I should have.

I'm getting pretty fed up with the way FAA is treating DARs, and as much as I love this job, I may just hang it up this September.
I have also talked with a few other long-time DARs who are thinking about getting out.
Click to expand...

Mel,

I don't think that you did anything WRONG!

I, for one, am glad that you raised the flag.

What it did was cause us to seek greater clarity and that is a GOOD THING.
What it also did, I think, is remind people at FAA to make sure that there is greater clarity in the documents that try to convey what they mean.

My assumption was that there was some sort of error that simpky needed fixing quickly.

"No harm, no foul!"

James
 
It does appear that boxes are being built. Ultimately our hobbie may be placed in these boxes, a lid placed on the box and then we become restricted to movement within the box. Good call Mel, I hope they put away the saws, hammers and nails. I enjoy my freedom.
 
Last edited:
Mel,
A BIG thanks from me as well. It's always good to get into the books (as this group did) and sort things out. Makes us all smarter, more aware, and builds on our already-solid sense of community and mutual support.

Sooooo, are we still on for my RV-7A's pink-slip inspection on March 31st? :rolleyes:
 
Mel, thanks for raising the flag. Vigilance is always a good thing!

James, thanks for the great comms and the coordination with Sean!

And now I'd like to take JJ up on his offer...do you take PayPal? Wx looks good for immediate delivery! :D

JonJay said:
For Sale - RV6, 650 hours, IO360/CS, glass, excellent workmanship = $1
Ops Limits = priceless......

Only 2500 to choose from. Get yours while they last....
Click to expand...


Cheers,
Bob
 
scrollF4 said:
Mel,
A BIG thanks from me as well. It's always good to get into the books (as this group did) and sort things out. Makes us all smarter, more aware, and builds on our already-solid sense of community and mutual support.

Sooooo, are we still on for my RV-7A's pink-slip inspection on March 31st? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So far, so good. Still on schedule!
 
where has the job aid gone?

I was looking at this old thread and wanted to find the FAA Job Aid which is apparently a PDF that creates operation limits.

It is no longer at the links in the thread, and I've been bumbling about on the FAA site with no luck.

Does anyone have a valid link?
 
I'm not sure if I have it but you can check the docs at this link.


Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook_AC_90-89B
FlightTrainingInE-AB_03_011_001
Flt_Training_Syllabus 2.3 Draft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top