What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Radio Call - RV use in initial calls to controller / tower

Why "Experimental" anyway?

OK... I know it is in the rules... but what is the benefit to anybody by saying it is experimental? I find it a bit lowbrow - such as - "watch out, I just glued these sticks together, and it may all come apart in a disastrous fashion while you watch".

I personally think that while we are working with the FAA on cementing the 51% rule, we need to address this nomenclature issue. After 4,000+ RV's out there - is the type really experimental?! I know that we have the freedom to tweak as we construct... but is the basic flying design structure being experimented with? I think we should replace "Experimental" with "Custom" - which denotes something more like - "I built mine special and faster" than "I am crazy, and built this rickety thing myself"!

Regardless of whether we retain the (stupid) "experimental" on the airworthiness certificate (and pasted as a "warning" all over the aircraft) - I see absolutely NO value in having to announce it to anybody. Unless we expect everyone to avoid us in the air - or special treatment by controllers "quick - get him on the ground - he's EXPIREMENTAL" - what is the use?

(please note: I am not recommending breaking the rules on communication - just changing the rules!)

:rolleyes:

THAT's my RANT!

Stepping back off soap box - the floor is now yours!
 
Another good point

Phyrcooler said:
OK... I know it is in the rules... but what is the benefit to anybody by saying it is experimental? I find it a bit lowbrow - such as - "watch out, I just glued these sticks together, and it may all come apart in a disastrous fashion while you watch".

I personally think that while we are working with the FAA on cementing the 51% rule, we need to address this nomenclature issue. After 4,000+ RV's out there - is the type really experimental?! I know that we have the freedom to tweak as we construct... but is the basic flying design structure being experimented with? I think we should replace "Experimental" with "Custom" - which denotes something more like - "I built mine special and faster" than "I am crazy, and built this rickety thing myself"!

Regardless of whether we retain the (stupid) "experimental" on the airworthiness certificate (and pasted as a "warning" all over the aircraft) - I see absolutely NO value in having to announce it to anybody. Unless we expect everyone to avoid us in the air - or special treatment by controllers "quick - get him on the ground - he's EXPIREMENTAL" - what is the use?

(please note: I am not recommending breaking the rules on communication - just changing the rules!)

:rolleyes:

THAT's my RANT!

Stepping back off soap box - the floor is now yours!
Its a good point, and its funny. You are right there is a pride thing, hey I built it. Experimental sounds cool, but it does have legal and regulatory basis.

At the rate people are turning out "experimental aircraft", especially R-Vee's, they have become common. The AIM recommends that on initial call up you say experimental, I believe. The AIM is not the FAR's, but to quote the Federales it's "regulatory in nature". Also when brought to court, Judges tend to put a lot of weight in the AIM. It's like traffic patterns. The FAR's say all turns to left unless noted otherwise and that is it. In the AIM there are all kinds of "RULES" and diagrams.

I think the word experimental is handy for a true experimental, a one of a kind. If you called ATC, and say "SkyScooter-3000" N707SS, they would go skyscooter? Saying experimental preceding the type clues them into its NOT a cessna or piper.

R-Vee's? Well MOST ATC now have heard, seen or even build a RV. They are (forgive me) the Cessna of experimentals. When you say Cessna, we all know what they look like, unless its a twin, so saying "Experimental R-Veee" is redundant. Anyone with a clue knows it's experimental low wing fixed gear plane. 15 years ago I got asked "What KIND OF plane is that". Some times radar would see how fast I was going and ask, what is that? In one case I was asked to buzz the tower. :D Now not so much anymore. Anyway I will say experimental on the initial ATC call up. On CTAF I may just drop it all together.

One side note. It may be VERY beneficial to NOT say experimental in some parts of the country. Some city fathers and airport authorities, board members have moved to ban experimentals from some airports. It's illegal but they can try and do. Also we need to fly responsibly and not make a pest of ourselves. I know some RV'ers think it is their God given right to do 360 overhead breaks landing, in formation, every flight, and any one who does not like it is stupid (because its supeiror way to fly). Some people around airports don't want an airshow, so inconspicuous is better sometimes. Just know your area and be nice. The AIM says no abrupt unexpected maneuvers in the pattern.



There has been movements to BAN experimentals from some airports and even airspace by the FAA. You know we are not to fly over congested areas unless taking off or landing, per some OP limitations (varies, check your OP limits). For the most part that limit has been dropped.

However some airport authorities (LA area) have tried a blanket ban of experimentals. The logic I guess is you have to fly over congested areas to land there so you can't come. The EAA has come to the rescue. I believe at this time the LAX area issue is resolved. Something similar happened in the Vegas area. Areas where being banned from experimentals to do phase I. That may still be in the works, but the EAA is on it.

BTW AOPA did nothing about LAX and is doing almost nothing about Vegas. They did a press releases on the Vegas deal, that said they where working on it. In fact all they did was send one letter to the FSDO. That was it. By blowing their horn how "they wrote the FSDO" they may jeopardize the work the EAA is doing, behind the scenes, discretely. When its resolved the AOPA will no doubt take full credit.



YES WE ARE SPECIAL
Should get an official word from the Feds and than do an educational thing, web, articles in kit plane, EAA sport aviation and so on. May be it is time to drop the "experimental" from popular kit planes like the RV and Long-EZ. My feeling as I said is its not a big deal, just don't be a pest with "experimental" over and over. Initial call up OK. Like I said it usually means a plane that's smaller and has about 40 to 80 mph on typical GA planes. It's like when flying a plane with a 255,000 lbs gross capacity, the word heavy is used. It lets other pilots and ATC to watch out for wake turb. If you are an air ambulance with body parts in the back, you say life flight. It's a special designation like experimental. Back in the day "experimental" told other pilots and ATC to route you away from civilization, because you are crazy and the glue you used to put it together might let loose any second. :rolleyes:

I am all for changing the rules but for now the rules kind of say, experimental on initial ATC call up.
 
Last edited:
sprucemoose said:
Ayy-Men, brother!

I'll take it a step further. Not only do I not want to know that you are an experimental, I don't give a rip what your N-number is. You tell me what is more useful...

"Peapatch traffic, Experimental November One Two Three Alpha Bravo, left downwind..."

or

"Peapatch Traffic, white RV, left downwind..."

I don't care what some pencil pusher wrote in the AIM. You tell me what is more useful to other airplanes in the pattern at Peapatch.

As for spam can types not knowing what an RV is- I'll submit that more GA pilots could pick an RV out of a lineup than "Grumman" or "Ercoupe" or "Stationair" or any of the other more commonly heard types. Type is not important, especially at several miles distance. What is important is position and intentions, transmitted as succinctly as possible.

YEAH YEAH YEAH!!! Exactly! When in the pattern, I don't give a rats pattootie what anyone's N number is. I never use mine unless calling up a towered airfield or center. I opted for the small (three inch?) numbers on my VS, in a not-very-contrasting color in case some whiney groundpounder doesn't like my airplane noise...when they LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE AIRPORT. But, this could tangent off into yet another hotly debated issue so...

Besides, I'm not understanding just why the N number has any relevance to tower/center operators unless you crash or bust a reg. (In either case, yer screwed.) Must be for getting us accustomed to user fees...."let's see, you called us ten times last month..that will be $100 please...". Once I have a squawk code, they know enough about me to keep me from pranging into another airplane. No need to get personal. :D

Yes indeed, WHERE you are, WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE and what your INTENTIONS are, beats experimental/spam/tail number callouts anyday in the real world.

OK, that's enuf. Thanks Larry for the post. I needed a good rant today!
 
jcoloccia said:
...Then on comes MY captain. Crystal clear, by the book, comfortably slow, precise and pleasant. What a difference!!! ATC shaped up when responding to him as well. The communication between this guy and ATC was clear, precise and effecient with no chance of misunderstanding and no wasted flyboy-isms.

Ever since, I've strived to make my communications mimic his. No more "over the high school"'s or other localisms (unless they actually show up on a sectional or vfr chart ). Just clear, to the point and accurate radio work...

This thread reminds me of a book I bought at Oshkosh this year. I just finished reading Artful Flying last week. The author is Michael Maya Charles, well known author and pilot of everything from J-3's to MD-11's. Hmmm, now I'm beginning to wonder if Captain Charles might have been the captain you refer to in your post! Anyway, the gist of his book is that we should strive to improve our flying every time we fly.

Don
 
I'm not going to disagree with folks that advocate just using a description of their plane, rather then the N-Number on CTAF - I agree that the actual N-Number is irrelevant. I would only add that the important thing is that however you describe yourself, make it BRIEF, and UNIQUE. I use CTAF calls to build a mental image of the traffic in the area as calls come in, and that means that you want to hear something that you can tag each mental "target" with. I'd ask that people keep those description brief to help that....heck, "Cessna 3" is unique, and short.

I have changed my call sign a couple of times over the year I've been flying Valkyrie, and for uncontrolled fields, I am now using "RV Eight Papa Delta". It's an abbreviation of the full N number (N188PD), gets across that it is an RV-8 (for anyone that cares), and has a unique sound for people who catalog what's around them. I've done away with "Experimental", unless the rule require it, as many have mentioned.

Sure beats me trying to say "White with Red, and some gold and black RV...." :p

I find that color descriptions don't help me as much as it might others....Unless I am closer than I want to be to another aircraft, the colors usually don't stand out - unless the plane is all yellow, or all red, they all look white with trim to me.....

Just throwing out a couple more thought...

Paul
 
Yes

CraigH@KRPH said:
Anybody else had a controller ask "What type of RV?" (as in RV6, RV8, etc.) I thought that one was a little strange. Not out of curiosity either, it was an "official" sounding request on initial contact.

Yes, and the controller asked how I liked my airplane. Controller even said "Nice paint job" (binoculars must have needed cleaning). Some controllers are builders or want to be builders. No doubt some are a bit shy about just asking about your airplane over the airwaves, which might explain the "official" sounding request.

Any RVators that have given an ATC a ride in their RV? Not only would it be educational, it would be good PR.
 
Brian Denk said:
...I'm not understanding just why the N number has any relevance to tower/center operators ...
If the tower or ATC has more than one airplane to talk to, then the N# or C# or MX# (international stuff) means they can talk to just one airplane at a time on the frequency that has several listening. I thought that would be obvious.

That said, at an uncontrolled airport, I give type and position, usually not N# unless there's a similar AC around. We should all agree nobody cares about the number except to distinguish the AC from another AC.
 
The people on the ground in the houses that were just built off the end of the runway care about N numbers! I dropped a friend off at AWO once at about midnight and upon leaving got a call on the radio '8BN do you know what time it is?'
 
Who is it

chuck said:
The people on the ground in the houses that were just built off the end of the runway care about N numbers! I dropped a friend off at AWO once at about midnight and upon leaving got a call on the radio '8BN do you know what time it is?'

Chuck... the correct response would be "Person transmitting to 8BN, please identify yourself with your FCC assigned call sign".... :)

Even my Dodge van had a FCC call sign for use as a glider chase vehicle. It was for specific frequencies even. Use of a handheld randomly on the ground is probably against FCC regulations.... :)

gil in Tucson
 
We digress

I say this excellent thread may be dissolving into a lot different opinions and they're all great ideas, but lets at least stay close to to Airman's Info Manual and the Pilot/Controller glossary and good radio technique.

We could just use our names and forget N#'s.

"This is Fred in a white cessna on the down wind at Centerville."

"Larry in a Piper taking off runway 18 at centerville, straight out." :rolleyes:

Lets not get crazy :eek: N#'s are fine for ID's, granted mostly for IFR and ATC use. N#'s are just a name, and we do care. So lets use them, and really I think it may be a FCC deal as was mentioned.

If you want to know more description of another plane sharing a CTAF, ask them. "November 1-2-3 what kind color and type plane are you?"

Unless you have Chuck Yager eyes (when he was 20) you can't see great details of the other planes in the pattern when you are 5 miles out. Basic Cessna, Piper, Beech, R-Vee, Long-EZ ("experimental R-Vee" if you like) are good enough.

I know when I hear two planes call the same position. down wing, final, I might ask "November one two three Papa" what type of plane are you.

Look, I think we are all seeing and thinking about the drawbacks of radio and eyes to avoid running into each other. Communicating effectively is tricky, and there are lots of ways for it to go bad. My advice is follow the "standard", however you don't need a radio in class-E and class-G airspace.
 
Last edited:
I've seen a few postings in this thread advocating using aircraft type & color instead of the N-number and I'm going to chime in and agree with GMC.

Am I the only one that ever talks directly to other traffic in the pattern? I do that all the time to better coordinate our mutual plans, and I do it by addressing the other traffic by N-number. There may be two or three white Cessnas in the pattern at any given time, so I talk directly to the one(s) I'm most interested in to avoid confusion. It seems to work out well, and saying "seventy-two romeo..." is easier and more efficient than saying "the white cessna turning base at CowPatch Field..." It also seems to get their attention much more quickly than the more generic call.
 
FAR question

I question the intent of FAR 91.319 d2:

"(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate shall--
(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the
aircraft;
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Administrator; and
(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."

What "authorization" is required to fly my RV night VFR? (it is equiped for night VFR). How is the RV comunity handeling this?
 
This comes up every once in a while and folks get worried about nothing. Experimentals, including RV's can and are flown regularly both night and IFR. During your inspection with your DAR, if your aircraft is so equipped, the DAR will write into your limitations that you are good for Day VMC only, Day/Night VMC only, or Day/Night IMC, or words to that effect, depending on your equipment of course. That's all you need (assuming you're out of your testing phase) and then you can fly all the night you want/desire.
 
A plug for EAA

I highly recommend joining EAA as they have a ton of valuable and authorative info on your question and many others. I had the same question as I was building. The following is from their site.

"Day VFR-only does not require flight instruments. Night VFR and IFR require compliance with FAR 91.205."

"Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR Operations

The Experimental/Amateur-Built (aka homebuilt) segment of general aviation has grown and expanded over the years. It?s now quite common for the performance and capabilities of homebuilts to meet and often exceed that of factory-built aircraft. One area where this is especially apparent is cross-country flying.

As the cross-country capability of homebuilts has grown, the need to deal with weather has become more of an issue. Thus, more and more builders are asking the question ?what equipment is required to qualify a homebuilt for IFR operations?? In order to answer that question, we need take a look at the regulations as they apply to experimental/amateur-built aircraft, as well as other documentation and guidance the FAA has provided.

Minimum requirements;

The operation of a homebuilt aircraft is most directly governed by its Operating Limitations. These Operating Limitations are issued along with and as a part of the airworthiness certificate when the aircraft is initially inspected and licensed by the FAA. This is where the pilot must look in order to verify whether the aircraft is approved for a particular type of operation (i.e., IFR, aerobatics, etc.)

In order for the aircraft to be approved for IFR operations, the Operating Limitations must contain the following or a similarly worded statement:

?After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with ? 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.?

The entry specifies that the aircraft can be operated under IFR once the initial flight test period is complete, so long as it?s equipped in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91, section 91.205. This is the regulation that spells out the minimum equipment required for day/VFR, night/VFR, and IFR flight operations. Normally, section 91.205 would not apply to a homebuilt because it specifically refers to ?powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates". However, the above operating limitation makes it applicable to homebuilts IF you want to use it for IFR.

Paragraph (d) of 91.205 speaks directly to IFR operations:

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in ?121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ?80 degrees of pitch and ?120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with ?29.1303(g) of this chapter.

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

While much of this regulation is straightforward and self-explanatory, there are a few areas that leave some room for confusion and/or interpretation. Most of the confusion arises from the requirement for certain ?gyroscopic? instruments."
 
Phloid Trout said:
(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.
This part is interesting. I wonder why we're required to tell a control tower that we're experimental, but not give the same information to, say, an ARTCC? Is it because they think we're going to crack up on landing? :)

mcb
 
Another point: Is required for instruments to be TSO (certified by FAA)?

In my opinion, they don't need.

FAR 91 states that TSO is required for transponder/encoder and his altitude source. So, I've concluded that TSO is not required for other instruments. Even a stand by system is not required.

Does anyone disagree? Mel? Another DAR?
 
mburch said:
This part is interesting. I wonder why we're required to tell a control tower that we're experimental, but not give the same information to, say, an ARTCC? Is it because they think we're going to crack up on landing? :)

mcb
It is to give them an idea how we will fit into their traffic.

Remember, not long ago (35+ years, pre-Van's) experimentals fell did one of two things, 1. flew very slow and landed very slow, like a J-3 cub or 2. Flew fast (150 mph) and landed very fast (70 MPH - Sorry I can't think of a good example). Modern experimentals can be everything from jets to J-3's.
 
Another plug for EAA

Piloto.Mendes said:
Another point: Is required for instruments to be TSO (certified by FAA)?
Actually, the quote from EAA that I posted earlier had this exact question answered a bit further down the page in the part I did NOT copy and paste. Join the EAA and you will find a lot of these questions have been asked many time before and the answers are there.

EAA and AOPA are our strongest voice against user fees. Please join.

I went back to the EAA site. If you join you will have all this at your finger tips:

"What about TSO?s?

Another question to be answered is what, if any, of the equipment needs to be ?TSO?ed?. In order to address this question, it?s helpful to understand what a ?TSO? is. TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined in 14 CFR Part 21, section 21.601(b)(1) as ??.a minimum performance standard for specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles means materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft.? As you can see from this definition, a TSO is actually a performance standard to which an article can be manufactured.

When someone says an article is ?TSO?ed?, what they really mean is that the unit was manufactured under a TSO authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says, ?A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO?. You?ll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal specifically with design and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation.

Now we have an idea what a TSO is, but we still haven?t answered the question of whether or not our instruments and avionics in a homebuilt need to be ?TSO?ed?. Our Operating Limitations state that we have to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO?ed equipment. Thus, the answer is NO, the instruments and equipment installed in your homebuilt under the requirements of 91.205 are not required to be ?TSO?ed?.

So far, so good, but that?s not the whole story. Most builders who plan to equip their homebuilt for IFR operations don?t stop at the minimums, so let?s take a look at some of the other commonly installed equipment and see what?s required.

Transponders and related equipment;

One item that will be high on the list of desired equipment will be a transponder. It?s interesting to note that 91.205 does not list a transponder as required in order to operate under IFR. While this is true, our current airspace system as well as the advantages for use in both IFR and VFR operations makes a transponder a popular choice for builders when outfitting their aircraft.

The requirements for transponder equipment and operation are found in 91.215, which has this to say:

(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

Note that, while it is required that the transponder equipment meet the performance and environmental requirements of the applicable TSO, it is not required that the equipment be manufactured under a TSO authorization. In theory, this means that you could actually build your own transponder, so long as you can document that it meets the requirements of the applicable TSO. However, the easiest way to be assured that your transponder meets the requirements of 91.215(a) is to install one that has been built under a TSO authorization.

The requirements for altitude reporting equipment associated with the transponder are called out in 91.217(c), which states that, the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively. TSO-C10b applies to the sensitive altimeter itself, and TSO-C88 applies to the automatic altitude reporting equipment. Again the equipment is required to meet the standards of the applicable TSO?s, but not necessarily be produced under a TSO authorization. But as with the transponder, the easiest way for a builder to meet this requirement is to install equipment manufactured under a TSO authorization.

Remember that, in order to legally operate this equipment under IFR, you must also comply with the maintenance and testing requirements of parts 91.411 (for altimeter and altitude reporting equipment), and 91.413 (for the transponder). Note that the requirements of 91.413 apply even if the aircraft is operated only under VFR."
 
Last edited:
Practically speaking

TSO? No except for Transponder and ELT if needed for the flight intended. (DME is required above FL240. I think that the DME must be TSO'ed?)

Announce to tower you're experimental? Towers are tired of hearing experimental over and over, say it once if at all. Most towers know what a R-Veee is. Just a practical comment.

Yes join EAA and get access to all their white papers on these detailed FAR v. Experimental questions.
 
EXPERIMENTAL on the radio....

Howdy all,

When trying to follow the FAR's pertaining to FAR 91.319-d2(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." - ATC likes to refer to almost everything during "initial contact" - which is the 1st time you broadcast on a NEW FREQUENCY.

Example: only during your 1st call to the tower should you say "Experimental 598 Whiskey Tango, 10 miles north, 4500, with Whiskey, blah, blah blah". When you call again to report entering a right downwind, you should refer to yourself as either "R" "V" 598 Whiskey Tango or N598WT. If/when you get a frequency change, use the "Experimental" word again the 1st time and R-V or November the rest of the time on that freq.

I didn't look it up, but I would also use "Experimental" (on initial contact) with Approach and the Center too - that way I can give you a better ride :)

Wildthing
Miami ARTCC
Ocean
- the rules are different here :)
 
WildThing said:
I didn't look it up, but I would also use "Experimental" (on initial contact) with Approach and the Center too - that way I can give you a better ride :)

Now that I know WildThing is working MIA Center, maybe I'll use the word "experimental" the next time I check in while flying the Boeing. I want that smooth ride on my way to Sao Paulo! ;)
 
Some fun too...

WildThing said:
I didn't look it up, but I would also use "Experimental" (on initial contact) with Approach and the Center too - that way I can give you a better ride :)

Wildthing
Miami ARTCC
Ocean
- the rules are different here :)

I sometimes can't resist to ask "Err, Center, can you kindly check my groundspeed readout?" shortly after you heard a Mooney or Bonanza driver. "Roger experimental, we show you at 172 knots" :D

Pierre
 
Smooth rides....

BuckWynd said:
Now that I know WildThing is working MIA Center, maybe I'll use the word "experimental" the next time I check in while flying the Boeing. I want that smooth ride on my way to Sao Paulo! ;)

As long as it's not a 300 Airbus - smooth is no problem. Those old Airbus's report chop while still parked on the ramp :)

WT
 
'RV' use in inital callup to controller

I fly both a fast RV6 and a SLOW (60mph) 'experimental' into a local airport with tower controllers. I have often thought it would be very helpfull for me as an approaching pilot to know the type of A/C inbound to help judge speeds etc.

Would it be OK to make intial callup to approach (or unicom) as "RV niner-one -uniform-kilo...." instead of the conventional "experimental..."

John Nielsen
www.Flight-Resource.com
 
Try something like experimental RV 4321 delta, 10 miles with Alpha. Then just use RV 21 delta from that point on.
 
Last edited:
Not flying mine yet, but I plan to use 'Experimental RV 755CB...' at all towered airports on initial call, like Bryan says, then 'RV' after.

At uncontrolled fields, I never even use the tail number...'Red and White Comanche entering left downwind.' It's my feeling that the color and type is more descriptive to another pilot in the air or on the ground than giving a tail number that no one really cares about.

Back to control towers...sorry...:eek:
 
Initial call "RV experimental 66AP", then "RV6AP", or "6AP".

Keeping the "RV" separate from the N number seems to help a lot, and the first call up meets the regulation.
 
I use Experimental 710BJ

I use "Experimental 710 Bravo Juliet" I believe that is the correct format and the controllers on rare occasions come back with RV710... Sometime I try to accommodate them but my identity is so much a part of my communication protocol that I don't dwell on it. When I try to accommodate them it is awkward because I'm not used to it and it is a distraction. It is like I am trying to use a name other than my own and I have to remember I am "Sam" and not "Bob" in my communications. In space flight operations I have observed similar problems in ACE communications over the net. When they identify a command that they are about to transmit to the spacecraft they read of the command number and pause for an OK or negative feedback depending on the command protocol for the session. If they do not use precisely the same format and protocol every time command errors creep in. There are enough safeguards built in that this is not usually enough of a problem to cause a failure but it does happen. If the FAA wants us to identify ourselves as "RV" on the original call-up it may be a good idea but they should specify that.

Bob Axsom
 
Well my call sign will be "experimental N282RV" I wanted the RV identity so I put it in my N number.
 
It would be OK if the controller you're talking to likes it...

I say "Salem tower (or Seattle Center...), experimental RV November 174 bravo kilo..." and have never ever had anyone (Salt Lake, LA, ABQ, DEN, etc) question that callup. Of course, never say never...

As far as your premise though, yeah, I always like to know whether I'm gonna follow a Luscombe (or Zenair) on a 4 mile final or whether its a turbo'd experimental glass ripsnorter lightshot...

As an aside, once I was flying into an airport and had another pilot tie up the freq to argue with me over who was going to enter the downwind first...he was sure he was going to overtake me. He said he was flying a "highly modified Navion"...he didn't pass me. I was off the runway before he entered the downwind...
 
Last edited:
I use RV 484H

I believe RV is now a recognised type at the FAA..>So When filing IFR, or calling up any controller I announce as RV..I don't use "experimental"

Never had a complaint

Frank
 
An Operational Problem with "RV"

"RV" is just two letters in the flow of letters and numbers in communication and they do not satisfy the call-up/preparatory function of a name. If the FAA would adapt "Van" this would be OK (a multi-syllable name would be better) to mark the beginning of a "specific airplane number to follow" point in communication. This is more critical in the airplane callup by ATC. "RV" is to short and ambiguous as an preparatory identifier in communication, especially when it is the beginning of a communication from ATC.

Bob Axsom
 
"RV" is just two letters in the flow of letters and numbers in communication and they do not satisfy the call-up/preparatory function of a name. If the FAA would adapt "Van" this would be OK (a multi-syllable name would be better) to mark the beginning of a "specific airplane number to follow" point in communication. This is more critical in the airplane callup by ATC. "RV" is to short and ambiguous as an preparatory identifier in communication, especially when it is the beginning of a communication from ATC.

Bob Axsom

Huh? Cess-na, Pi-per, Ar-vee all are two syllables. Normally, letters are not used during communications, so Ar-vee is unique. When I call "Ar-vee experimental six six alpha papa", 90% of the time they answer "Ar-vee six six alpha papa", the other times they answer "experimental.." or "november...", the latter two usually being centers with the former being towers.
 
In 100.2 hours of flying my RV-6, I've only called it "experimental" twice, and that was on initial callup to Approach.

At all the towered airports I've been to (actually, ALL airports), it's always "RV One Zero Hotel Juliet". Never had a problem with that. To me, it's too ambiguous (and too verbose) to call it "experimental".

Heinrich Gerhardt
 
sorry guys, to be legal the word experimental must be used in the first communication with a tower.

91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
top

(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.

thats the law folks.....

bob burns
N82RB
RV-4
 
The only problem with saying RV - "Aarvee" sounds like and gets confused with "Army" I tried using RV for the reason stated by the original poster, but then ran into confusion a few times with "Army" callsigns.
 
It's in the AIM

4-2-4 "Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit "Experimental" after initial contact)"

So to translate to rv-ese. On initial contact with a tower RV four four one lima papa experimental. From then on RV four four one lima papa unless atc abbreviates to one lima papa.

It is a big pet peeve of mine when people just say experimental and don't give any idea of the type or speed or appearance. But yes experimental is required for a tower.
 
Take AIM

The AIM Section 4.2.4 Aircraft Call Signs Paragraph 3 says:

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).

"Arvee One Two Three Foxtrot Papa Experimental" would apprear to be the proper call.
 
I use "N101 Lima, experimental RV8".
I separate the N101 Lima and the RV8 with the word 'experimental' so as to give a distinction between the number and the type. It seems to work for me....and I agree the controllers need to hear 'experimental' by regulation.
 
Thats as maybe

But in 200 or so of filing actual IFR flight plans I have never been challenged.

That maybe because i tend to file IFR even in clear blue skies in my local area...They probably know who I am by now and I bet I get handed off from one to the other without complaint.

At least that theory works until you have to come home..:)
 
I believe RV is now a recognised type at the FAA..>So When filing IFR, or calling up any controller I announce as RV..I don't use "experimental"

Never had a complaint

Frank

Never had a complaint is good thing but it is still not meeting the requirements of your operating limitations. They require your first call up to identify the experimental nature of your aircraft. I realize it would be rare to run across a control that has not become familiar with RV's but there are new ones out of school being assigned to towers for training all the time.

With any of the RV's I fly I always make my initial call as Experimental RV XXXX.
This is actually helpful to a tower controller. He then knows that you are not flying a 65 mph top speed ultralight class experimental, and that your "6 miles out" call (meeting the requirement for making radio contact before entering Class D airspace) doesn't mean it will be another 5 minutes before he can actually see you :)
 
Frank is exactly right on this. RV is considered the same as saying experimental as far as the FAA is concerned.
 
Frank is exactly right on this. RV is considered the same as saying experimental as far as the FAA is concerned.
This is great! I'm really glad I can do away with that messy requirement.

Could you please give the reference?

Trust, but verify!
 
Calling in

One of my neighbors is a Tracon controller in Phx and is building a 7A. He said it always good to use, "Experimental RV" then your numbers. This way they they know it is experimental and a RV. He said this is important because there are so many new controllers that have no clue about most airplanes that aren't airliners.

I always use, "Experimental RV 717EE," then just use 7EE during that exchange. From there, "RV7EE" if they call or I call. Never had an issue, simple and quick.
 
It doesn't hurt to use the word experimental in your initial call, but by using "RV" which is a recognized experimental type, you ARE meeting the requirement to "Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft"

Nowhere does it say that you actually have to use the word "experimental" in your callup.

If you file IFR and use the RV type code, you have just notified the tower and all enroute controllers of the "experimental nature of your aircraft" via. your flightplan.
 
[QUOTE Nowhere does it say that you actually have to use the word "experimental" in your callup.QUOTE]

Have a look at the very last item of your Phase I Ops Limits where it says "The pilot in command of this aircraft must notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational control tower."

And my guess is that at least half of all controllers think an RV is a Winnebago.

Tony
 
An Army what???

One of my neighbors is a Tracon controller in Phx and is building a 7A. He said it always good to use, "Experimental RV" then your numbers. This way they they know it is experimental and a RV. He said this is important because there are so many new controllers that have no clue about most airplanes that aren't airliners.

Hmm. Is that the guy that keeps asking me what sort of Army "experimental" I'm flying when I climb out of Phoenix and head west?

Amazing discussion. I follow the AIM for towers and, generally, use the same phraseology for Center and Tracon. If we would all consistently used the phrasing provided in the AIM for towers, I think it would help the controllers understand who we are.....RVs, not some Army aircraft. The lower their stress load and higher their understanding, the safer I feel in the air.
 
If you file IFR and use the RV type code, you have just notified the tower and all enroute controllers of the "experimental nature of your aircraft" via. your flightplan.

That is a bit of a stretch. As one poster said "some controllers think an RV is a Winnebago." Sad, but very true. Of course some controllers know all about Experimentals, but you can't count on that. Here is the FAA on what your are supposed to put on a flight plan under type.

http://tinyurl.com/58z6ha

This contains the main things an IFR controller is interested in, speed and rate of climb.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Bickering over "Experimental"

It's happening again. This topic and position reporting keep cropping up.

Somebody above already referenced the regs. Comply. (BTW, I think it's on the initial call-up). After that, whatever the controller uses, you mimic.

Nonetheless, I can't conceive why the FAA perpetuates this utterly pointless announcing of an airworthiness certificate. It does nothing for separation and identification. Performance is what counts. And to that point, anybody giving position reports with "experimental" anywhere in it is wasting bandwidth. Type and some visual cues, like color, or name (like "Skylane") really help. And nobody's eyes are good enough to read a tail number. The only instance that can help, methinks, is a crowded pattern with a mass of white spam cans and plastic airplanes.

Say something useful when you key the mic and think about what it means to your listeners.

John Siebold
Boise, ID
 
Hmm. Is that the guy that keeps asking me what sort of Army "experimental" I'm flying when I climb out of Phoenix and head west?

In the early 90's, I flew a Navion out of Shreveport Downtown, which is in Barksdale AFB airspace.

Nearly every time I checked in returning home from the east: "Approach, Navion 2512T, six thousand" there would be a long pause and the confused Barksdale controller would answer "Navy Aircraft calling Barksdale, state intentions..."
 
Back
Top