The EAA is looking at Home builts hard, be nervious
a non-certified altimeter and the airplane subsequently wandered into class B airspace and it was later found the altimeter was off by over 1000'. A DAR can require just about anything he wishes and if the builder does not comply, the airplane does not get certified. There is no way the FAA or a DAR will be held liable for such an event.
By the way, Van's altimeters are not certified but they do have paper attesting to their accuracy. That is acceptable around here.
Great write up as usual David with references, like it.
Unfortunate as the class B airspace excursion was, it can happen, TSO altimeter or not. There are 1000's of non TSO'ed altimeters flying around in "type cert" planes. They all need a 24 mo pitot/static/transponder/encoder check; that is where the accuracy should be, experimental or factory bird. As mentioned miss setting the baro or pilot mistake is the issue not TSO'ed altimeters. If I made TSO altimeters, it was my livelihood, than I might feel different. Have you priced TSO'ed instruments!! :0
The jist of what I'm reading (between the lines) is DAR's some times impose requirements (as well intentioned as they might be) that are not legally req to cover their tail. What about all the digital EFIS altimeters with out mechanical altimeter back-up (TSO'ed or not). The issue goes to the encoder as well. Does the integrated non TSO'ed encoders of "experimental" EFIS (Dynon, GRT, BMA....) qualify? It has been OK for 1000's, until a few have balked. Even one avionic shop I was told would not test it or hook it up. Again self preservation, out of ignorance. It's understandable however.
In the latest EAA mag the running theme is, the Gov is looking real hard at experimental planes, 51% rule and everything. There are two articles, may be three on the subject this month. It is kind of ominous. Tom Poberezny and Van penned articles. The bureaucrats are waking up, and this is what they (and the general public) hear and think, in their uninformed outsider bureaucrat mind:
"There are 20,000 planes being flown made by individuals in garages that don't meet any federal rules of safety." WHAT!
Can you image if they start to impose Part 23, 39, 43...... Regs on us. That would be a disaster. The truth is experimental planes do have a slightly higher accident rate per plane and its not going down. So as the fleet grows so do accidents. I might argue statistically Exps fly more. (I've not proven that but that is my hypothesis.) Also why do Exps have accident, pilots or airframe/systems? The good news if the Ax falls, there will likely be grandfathering. If you have yours flying, be happy. The bad news more restrictions will affect all future projects. If not, get'er done, before the rules change.
Van is on the board advising the FAA. He knows. He thinks current QB kits will be OK (for now), but there is no guarantee what will happen in the future. It's not up to Van. The fact is when the rules where written they gave us WIDE latitude and freedom in what we do with little or restrictions imposed on the type cert planes. This was to encourage education, learning and aviation. IT WAS A BIG Success! Now the Gov is saying, wait, lets screw it up! I always thought the LSA class should have been an out growth of experimental aircraft and recreational pilots with some modification. Almost anything given freedom, with out Gov interference, encourages creation and innovation of anything, like computers or airplanes.
When they wrote the laws +60 years ago then had no idea there would be 20,000 amateur built planes, some turbine and pressurized, flying around. Also clearly the abuse of some commercial operations, who are using the rules to by pass the certification rules and manufacture plane, has stirred up a hornets nest. We kind of knew that was a possible blow back of the abuse; well its happened. Do you think Cessna loves home builts. Do you think all the new LSA manufactures like competing with home builts? Their lobby is bigger than ours, or at least better paid. By the way the EAA can advocate but can not lobby per their legal charter. AOPA can lobby but I don't think home built issues are high on their list. AOPA represents commercial manufactures.
Write you REPS in congress and Senate and tell them why homebuilts are safe and add to the economy. Gov tends to take freedom and once gone, its gone.
