[McFly]

During hanger flying the other day, a discussion came up about training in experimental (amateur built) aircraft and nobody could agree.

1) Is it legal to get primary training in an experimental aircraft?

2) Is it legal to get IFR training in an experimental aircraft?

3) Is it legal to fly IFR in an experimental aircraft equipped with non certified instruments and radios?

I have a beer riding on ?yes?, ?yes? and ?yes?. Am I buying?

 

[johnp]

During hanger flying the other day, a discussion came up about training in experimental (amateur built) aircraft and nobody could agree.

1) Is it legal to get primary training in an experimental aircraft?

2) Is it legal to get IFR training in an experimental aircraft?

3) Is it legal to fly IFR in an experimental aircraft equipped with non certified instruments and radios?

I have a beer riding on ?yes?, ?yes? and ?yes?. Am I buying?

1. yes, if the owner of the xper is the one being trained. (not legal for a cfi/owner to offer primary training in his own xper craft -- may be certain exceptions.)

2. yes, same deal.

3. xpndr & elt must meet tso. in addition, gps approach hardware (probably) must meet tso (you'll find a disagreement on this.) otherwise, non-tso'd stuff is fine for xper.

this is my opinion from research i have done. i'm sure others will flame me mercilessly.


oh, and for 1 and 2, you may have a problem finding a dpe to give the checkride -- it used to be even harder.

 

[rmartingt]

It is possible to instruct in your own experimental, but you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get the signoff to do it. Avweb had an article on it one time; one guy was using his breezy to give multi instruction.

 

[RV6_flyer]

3. xpndr & elt must meet tso. in addition, gps approach hardware (probably) must meet tso (you'll find a disagreement on this.) otherwise, non-tso'd stuff is fine for xper.

this is my opinion from research i have done. i'm sure others will flame me mercilessly.


oh, and for 1 and 2, you may have a problem finding a dpe to give the checkride -- it used to be even harder.

The KEY word in #3 above is MEET. They do not have to be TSO'ed. The transponder and encoder MUST be tested every two years. (91.411 / 91.413) If it passes the test, you are good to go. Same with navigation equipment. VOR 30 day tests that are logged.

 

[bjustus]

It is legal to do primary in your experimental, but an aircraft of the current RV series would not be a good plane to learn in. RVs are not "hard" to fly, but they are not a first-step airplane either.

The light sport RV in development will be a different story -- should be a great trainer.

Another possibility would be to buy a Cherokee to train in. They can be purchased quite cheaply and if you buy right you can sell it for what you have in it when you're done. Cherokee is a good prep for the RVs because of similar hershey-bar wing, etc. but slower, tamer to learn in. (After getting used to the anemic climb rate of the Cherokee it will make you appreciate the RV even more when you get it!)


Brett

ATP CFII MEI

 

[godspeed]

question about owner being trained..

Does the owner experimental need to have the 40 hours or can the Cfi choose if he is willing to do it or not ? say after he has flown it himself for 10 -20 hours ? what about a RV9a ? whats legal ?


Danny..

 

[RV6_flyer]

Does the owner experimental need to have the 40 hours or can the Cfi choose if he is willing to do it or not ? say after he has flown it himself for 10 -20 hours ? what about a RV9a ? whats legal ?


Danny..

I think you are asking if the owner can get flight training while the amateur built experimental is still in its phase I test phase.

The answer is NO.

See FAA Order 8130.2F Change 3 for what the current requirements are.

The Inspector or DAR is REQUIRED to use what is in the Order. They can add MORE restrictions but they CANNOT remove the required limitations listed in the order. The present order says: "During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."

See Section 153 page 163 item number 10.

Any pilot that is rated, current, and legal can fly the experimental aircraft SOLO for the phase I flight testing. INSTRUCTION cannot LEGALLY be given during Phase I.

 

[az_gila]

The design must be TSO'd

The KEY word in #3 above is MEET. They do not have to be TSO'ed. The transponder and encoder MUST be tested every two years. (91.411 / 91.413) If it passes the test, you are good to go. Same with navigation equipment. VOR 30 day tests that are logged.

Gary... no way does the operational test you get at the avionics shop prove that your transponder meets the TSO. It's just an operational test.

I think the key phrase is "meet the requirements of the TSO"

The complete TSO is here...

Link to TSO C47

....and includes such items as spurious emissions, vibration and temperature sensitivity.
These are not tested for your $250 or so at the avionics shop.
The design must meet the TSO, which would require much testing at great $$ expense... think of a bid at Hughes to meet all of the TSO items listed in the document - I bet millions...

I don't think transponders and ELTs are "roll your own" devices, even for EEs... ... but keep up those regular "operational tests".

gil in Tucson

 

[RV6_flyer]

Gary... no way does the operational test you get at the avionics shop prove that your transponder meets the TSO. It's just an operational test.

I think the key phrase is "meet the requirements of the TSO"

The complete TSO is here...

Link to TSO C47

....and includes such items as spurious emissions, vibration and temperature sensitivity.
These are not tested for your $250 or so at the avionics shop.
The design must meet the TSO, which would require much testing at great $$ expense... think of a bid at Hughes to meet all of the TSO items listed in the document - I bet millions...

I don't think transponders and ELTs are "roll your own" devices, even for EEs... ... but keep up those regular "operational tests".

gil in Tucson

Gil:

You are reading into this something that is implied. We are separated by the ENGLISH language. I am NOT a lawyer but a layman stating the facts in as few words as possible. I said the same thing that you did but with less words.

Encoder can be "roll your own" as the microEncoder is one such device.

 

[mitchw62]

During hanger flying the other day, a discussion came up about training in experimental (amateur built) aircraft and nobody could agree.

1) Is it legal to get primary training in an experimental aircraft?


What do you think about:
- Buy/build an RV12 or Sonex or S16
- Sell ownership shares say 1% for $250+
- Charge a monthly and hourly fee to all owners.
- Owners can learn to fly or build time, or sport pilot around.

 

[tysonb]

off topic - but I have to ask...

It is possible to instruct in your own experimental, but you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get the signoff to do it. Avweb had an article on it one time; one guy was using his breezy to give multi instruction.

How do you give multi in a breezy? I've only seen SE breezys - is there a twin? Does a flying truss really need two engines

Was it the AirCam that was designed for national geographic? It kinda looks like a cleaned up twin breezy...

 

[kentb]

I think that this could "sort-of-work".

During hanger flying the other day, a discussion came up about training in experimental (amateur built) aircraft and nobody could agree.

1) Is it legal to get primary training in an experimental aircraft?


What do you think about:
- Buy/build an RV12 or Sonex or S16
- Sell ownership shares say 1% for $250+
- Charge a monthly and hourly fee to all owners.
- Owners can learn to fly or build time, or sport pilot around.

I think that there may be some limit on the number of people that can share ownership, I don't know what that number is.
On the practical side each time a new owner is added you need to transfer the registration so that all the owners are listed.

Kent

 

[az_gila]

Gil:

You are reading into this something that is implied. We are separated by the ENGLISH language. I am NOT a lawyer but a layman stating the facts in as few words as possible. I said the same thing that you did but with less words.

Encoder can be "roll your own" as the microEncoder is one such device.

Thanks Gary... sorry for the confusion.... but sometimes more words make the intent clearer...

gil A

 

[johnp]

flight training

i was going to post that the only waiver for flight training was transition training (eaa exemption #7162), but when i double-checked the current fars online, it appears that is not the case:

91.319(e)
(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191(i) of this chapter for compensation or hire, except a person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191(i)(1) for compensation or hire to?

(1) Tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with ?91.309; or

(2) Conduct flight training in an aircraft which that person provides prior to January 31, 2010.

the wording of the far seems to not limit the training to "transition training". it is my belief that the far is based on the exemption, which was originally filed in 1999. the exemption has been renewed several times up until 2004 (which was valid until 4/30/07). below contains the verbage from the eaa website:

OPERATIONAL NOTE: The FAA will not renew this exemption after April 30, 2007. The 7162D version will be the final flight training exemption. On September 1, 2004, the FAA published a final rule that changed FAR 91.319 by adding FAR 91.319(h);

seems that after 2010 (as spelled out in 91.319(e)), whether or not flight training can be done in an experimental (for compensation) will be up to the local fsdo's. looks like (to me) there is a "loophole" from now until 1/31/10 by the verbage of 91.319(e).

of course, this is just my interpretation. usual disclaimers apply.

 

[Mel]

John,
Read a little closer. FAR part 21.191(i)(1) pertains to experimental light-sport only. These are the only aircraft with the 1/10/2010 deadline. NOT amateur-built.
Amateur-built is referenced under 21.191(g)

 

[johnp]

mel's right -- as usual

so, then, the original point sort of remains -- the only training for compensation that can be done (or rather, could be done until 4/30/07) was transition training by exemption 7162D. now that that time has come and gone -- and 7162D has apparently expired, how is transition training being done now? my presumption would be the fsdo approval mentioned in 91.319(h). any holders of the exemption care to comment?

 

[bjustus]

It's up to the CFI. When the CFI is training you in your plane, he is a, "required crewmember" and not a passenger.

- Brett

Does the owner experimental need to have the 40 hours or can the Cfi choose if he is willing to do it or not ? say after he has flown it himself for 10 -20 hours ? what about a RV9a ? whats legal ?


Danny..

 

[bjustus]

It was an Aircam.

How do you give multi in a breezy? I've only seen SE breezys - is there a twin? Does a flying truss really need two engines

Was it the AirCam that was designed for national geographic? It kinda looks like a cleaned up twin breezy...

 

[kentb]

Assuming that the 40 hr ref. was really meaning phase I

It's up to the CFI. When the CFI is training you in your plane, he is a, "required crewmember" and not a passenger.

- Brett

Then the CFI can't go and is not required. During phase I the only flights approved for the plane is phase I testing, not flight training.

Kent

 

[pierre smith]

Nope

Negative Brett,
The oplims state that only "essential crewmembers" can occupy the airplane during Phase One which can be either 25 or 40 hours. That stretch won't fly...."the CFI is an essential crewmember". Some guys have tried to rationalize the need for a passenger to "watch the engine gauges"....which won't fly either. If the owner/builder is a student pilot who has soloed an airplane and gets transition training in a similar RV, then he can fly his own airplane solo and fly off phase one although doing so with very little time is not a wise idea in my mind.

FWIW, if I were approached by a student pilot for transition training, I'd probably decline for the same reason.

Regards,
Pierre

 

[Mel]

Kent & Pierre are right. All these things have been tried, such as taking data, weight & balance, instructing, etc. The FAA has interpreted that for our type of airplane, there is NO valid reason for a second person to be in the plane. Now there have been FAA Inspectors who have said, "Go ahead, That's a good reason." But try to get them to put it in writing and watch the "crawfish".
Actually, in the Light-Sport Operating Limitations, the wording has been changed to "The pilot will be the sole occupant of the aircraft." It wouldn't surprise me to see the same change for amateur-built.

 

[mitchw62]

I think we could work-around the registration issue by forming an LLC or something to own the aircraft and just sell shares. We would name the orginal owners as named on the insurance, then all other would have to meet some "open pilot" criteria. The instructors probably could not get paid.

Mitch

I think that there may be some limit on the number of people that can share ownership, I don't know what that number is.
On the practical side each time a new owner is added you need to transfer the registration so that all the owners are listed.

Kent

 

[erich weaver]

Uhhhhh.... sounds like a flying club to me. In ours, which has only a single plane, the membership is limited by the insurance company to a set number of people - 15 in this particular case.

erich