The words experimental, amateur built & homebuilt

[Rick6a]

"Homebuilt" "Amateur Built" and finally "Experimental" have historically been associated with aircraft not built in a factory. For lack of a better word, each of the above tags has been endlessly used by all of mass media to convey a sometimes negative, inaccurate and needlessly detrimental image of our segment of aviation to an ill-informed public. For years and years, the aviation community has on-again off-again searched for a word...a sound bite....that better describes our aviation category in a more positive light. It is my hope this thread encourages you to offer a single word or two that has the realistic potential of superceding the obsolete tags that both informally and legally have for too long described what it is we build and fly. We are well into the 21st century now. It is high time for a name change. In that spirit and to get your creative juices going, I'll submit my bid. It is a simple word that most of us are very, very familiar with. It is a single word that is suitably vague yet more importantly carries no negative connotation. Actually, it can convey a certain positive cache. That word is "Private." "The aircraft is registered as privately built". The aircraft is placarded as "Private". "John Smith, owner of a popular privately built aircraft".......you get the idea. Anything but "homebuilt"...don't you agree? So, what do you bring to the table? Who knows? In a brave new world of instant worldwide communications, your word(s) could potentially supercede the outdated 20th Century code that describes our 21st Century passion. So let's hear it!

[jclark]

"Custom"

"Custom-built" ...
Implies that it is not just another one off the line.
Implies that it is "special" (for someone).
Implies that some extra care was put into the construction.

• Not claiming this is original.

James

Originally Posted by Rick6a

"Homebuilt" "Amateur Built" and finally "Experimental" have historically been associated with aircraft not built in a factory. For lack of a better word, each of the above tags has been endlessly used by all of mass media to convey a sometimes negative, inaccurate and needlessly detrimental image of our segment of aviation to an ill-informed public. For years and years, the aviation community has on-again off-again searched for a word...a sound bite....that better describes our aviation category in a more positive light. It is my hope this thread encourages you to offer a single word or two that has the realistic potential of superceding the obsolete tags that both informally and legally have for too long described what it is we build and fly. We are well into the 21st century now. It is high time for a name change. In that spirit and to get your creative juices going, I'll submit my bid. It is a simple word that most of us are very, very familiar with. It is a single word that is suitably vague yet more importantly carries no negative connotation. Actually, it can convey a certain positive cache. That word is "Private." "The aircraft is registered as privately built". The aircraft is placarded as "Private". "John Smith, owner of a popular privately built aircraft".......you get the idea. Anything but "homebuilt"...don't you agree? So, what do you bring to the table? Who knows? In a brave new world of instant worldwide communications, your word(s) could potentially supercede the outdated 20th Century code that describes our 21st Century passion. So let's hear it!

[Rosie]

I read something years ago...I believe that it was Rod Machado who wrote about how we should describe our planes;

"Don't tell people you're building a homebuilt because they'll think 'Oh my gawd, he's going to crash that thing!"

"Don't tell people you're building an experimental because then they'll think 'Only Chuck Yeager can fly experimentals!"

Tell people it's custom-built because IT IS! Rosie

[svanarts]

I just tell people what it is. A kit plane. I didn't design it. I just bought the parts and followed the instructions. (and cussed and screamed and kicked myself and bought the same parts several times cuz I screwed them up and annoyed the neighbors with riveting and...) And I really like it!

[arffguy]

"Custom Built" has been brought up before and I prefer it. But unless you've got some horsepower with the Feds to change the designation I doubt it will change. Just use the right wording with your relatives and the media and I bet most of them would not know the difference anyway.

[rracer10]

I?ve been thinking about this for a while and thought I?d throw it out there to see what others might think of this.

In the world we live in, where words can have various meanings (Clinton said: "it all depends on what the word "is" means) and perception is everything (ex. the 5 second sound bite rules the media), does the term "experimental" aircraft have a negative perception, OUTSIDE of the experimental aircraft community? And would we be better served by using another term with non-experimental aircraft people and the Media. The EAA year after year works hard at presenting a positive face on the hobby, and does a great job! But in the grand scheme of things, when talking to the average Joe on the street, that is not farmiliar with aviation other than the commercial airliner he fly's on occationally, it still has little impact.

Here's an example of what I mean. When John Denver died a few years back, the news media kept saying that he died while flying an "experimental" aircraft. The general perception that most people had that I talked to (non-aircraft enthusiasts) was that he was reckless and a risk taker, and that it finally caught up with him. The word ?experimental? seems to imply that the aircraft is still in development, unproven, and unsafe.

Yes, the term ?experimental? is the legal term the FAA has designated for this type of aircraft and it must receive the FAA Airworthiness Certificate before it will ever get off the ground. Most builders enjoy the freedom they have in creating their own ?personalized? aircraft, which in most cases has features and performance that far exceed that of certified aircraft. But, could we use a non-legal ?street? term like ?custom aircraft?? The word ?custom? is used all the time in the automotive world and has a positive connotation and means something special. Some builders start with an existing auto and modify (MOD?s) it to their personal creative liking. Some build their ?custom? car from a kit, while others build it from the ground up from scratch. But, anyway you like it, when someone hears of a ?custom? car or hot rod, it is ALL positive. Some people may not understand why someone would put all that time and money doing the ?custom car? thing, but they do not think of it in negative terms. In fact, most are envious of the cars produced. So, isn't that what we are doing? Custom aircraft IS what they are, after all. One off, one of a kind, there are not 2 alike. Just like the custom hot rods.

Finally, I am not suggesting that the EAA change their name to the CAA (Custom Aircraft Association), or that we petition the FAA to change the name of the aircraft category, but rather that we use a conscious effort to control our language when around the general public and the media, and use the term ?custom aircraft? for the advancement of the sport/hobby.

Does anyone agree?

[pierre smith]

Good points, Vic. We used to be called Crop-dusters for years because that's how it started......dusting crops with dust. By the seventies, dusting had ended and we were only spraying liquids. Concerned ag-pilots decided that we'd be better served by renaming ourselves Ag-pilots. So that's what we did and it has been positive...also "Agricultural Aviation".

Regards,

[Bob Axsom]

From thie time I was a small boy "experimental" has had special significance in aviation. While it is true people flying homebuilt aircraft don't do much in an experimental mode each one is unique and not just another production line airplane with some custom modifications. If you get into a safe and comfortable image concern you invite FAA control. Some of us need the freedom embodied in "Experimental" to make it clear that we are authorized to experiment. This was hashed out in "Sport Aviation" a few years ago and the pro and con arguments are stated there.

Last week we flew our RV-6A to New York for our 40th anniversary celebration. I flew IFR all the way there and half the way back. Controllers are aware I'm sure that Experimentals are equipped very differently and many cannot qualify for the "/U" equipment category. Ours does qualify for that equipment level but the work load is significant in areas like New York and Los Angeles if you are not familiar with the area and amendments to clearances are common. If you pop up for an instrument approach and identify the plane as an experimental the controller may ask very pointedly whether the plane and you are certified and qualified to make the approach with good reason.

Changing the name will not change the reality of the situation and changing the reality of the situation will kill the freedom to develop and experiment that we have today.

Bob Axsom

[John Clark]

Originally Posted by Bob Axsom

Changing the name will not change the reality of the situation and changing the reality of the situation will kill the freedom to develop and experiment that we have today.
Bob Axsom

I agree, leave it alone.

To automobile enthusiasts "Custom" means a modified production vehicle, frequently with ill-advised modifications and alterations. The term "custom aircraft" brings a mental picture of a flame-painted C-172, not a carefully crafted experimental aircraft.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

[Mike S]

Bob, no argument with your post, but you were talking to and about professionals in the air traffic control industry.

As I read the original post in this thread, I got the feeling the target audience to be twofold, first the sensation seeking scumbags in the media who have no idea what the term "experimental" refers to, and who abuse the term in an attempt to make their stories seem to be more than they really are, and second the general public who the media types are feeding their inciteful **** to.

I think the idea of a verbiage "face lift" has a lot of merit, (not sure if "Custom" is the best) for years the EAA has been trying to "educate" the masses, but unfortunately, with little effect. But the fact still remains that when reporting on anything having to do with "expirmental" aviation, the media almost always either blows things totally out of proportion, or gets things wrong , or both.