Certificated to Experimental Exhibition conversion?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,239
Location
Port Townsend WA
My limited understanding was you could fly primary Catagory with a rec pilot cert. But, I am often confused, so could be totally out to lunch😁
A recreational pilot can fly primary or standard category aircraft of no more than two seats used. The limitations are numerous so almost nobody ever got a rec certificate. A few hundred, I think . Most go Sport Pilot or private pilot.
These so called regulatory "relief gifts" were created about every decade of my 50 years in aviation. Nothing has helped the decline because it is still vastly over regulated, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,726
Location
Upper midwest in a house
My limited understanding was you could fly primary Catagory with a rec pilot cert. But, I am often confused, so could be totally out to lunch😁
Recreational pilot was unique. One could fly a standard category plane with 4 seats but only 2 seats could be occupied. Up to 180 hp. However, some of the limits could be waivered with an endorsement. So a recreational pilot could get an endorsement for retractable gear and more horsepower but not more seats and not more than one engine. So in theory, a recreational pilot could be approved to fly a P-51 mustang but not a cherokee 6 or a light twin.
 

n6233u

Active Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
31
That's not worth much. Still need to find an I.A. once a year, apparently.
Why not? It means we can do all types maintenance and/or possible upgrades and get a 2nd set of eyes at the end of the year to double check our work.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,239
Location
Port Townsend WA
Why not? It means we can do all types maintenance and/or possible upgrades and get a 2nd set of eyes at the end of the year to double check our work.
If you don't have a reasonable I.A. nearby, it can mean giving up on aviation. That's why people seek the EA-B and repairman option and the certified and primary sales are essentially zero. Details matter.
 

skydawg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2016
Messages
89
Location
Denver, Colorado
I can tell you our experience with trying to get a primary category STC for V8 conversion. In a nut shell, We actually got a FAA G1 issue paper which essentially approves our certification plan. But we wanted to use modern EFI components. FAA wanted us to use already certified components for ignition and carb or mechanical fuel injection. We explained modern aluminum V8s don’t have ability to use distributor caps or carbs (at least without modifications) and in doing so would sacrifice the modern elements for efficiency. Besides, the manufacturers of certified components wanted Outrageous prices due to liability expenses and Would not sell us an experimental version which we would give our own part number and certify with our STC..... they would not budge, and explained they were probably going to stop selling all components due to endless law suits from 40 year old parts still flying.

anyway, we insisted on using EFI. Our G1 required what’s called a ARC DO178 certification for the EFI SYSTEM, which would of cost millions at the time and the same criteria for a new Boeing. Project was shelved as a result as they were unwilling to budge. They basically argued that since the airframe was originally certified, it needs to remain at the same level of safety.... even though their guidance states primary is something between experimental and standard, they said term primary refers to a primary design with distributor and carb that keeps us back in the 1950’s.

after part 23 rewrite, we reignited the project and developed a redundant EFI system to meet cert standards and submitting another application for alternative means of compliance to DO178 which is the show stopper. The test aircraft has hundreds of hours of flight testing now and hope this will help The argument for what’s called an equivalent level of safety finding. But likely still an uphill climb. I was a DER for transport category aircraft and can tell you the FAA doesn’t care about preserving GA, and if it wasn’t for groups like AOPA and EAA (join them) advocating we’d be in a much worst condition. In projects for big jets there was lots of $ and resources to complete projects and bend to FAA demands, GA has little such resources or economic impact for FAA‘s concern and resources. As far as resources go, there is a push for more ODA’s that are DER organizations that can perform same task as FAA and issue certifications such as STC’s once G1 issue paper is given by FAA, but this is expensive and not likely feasible for many meaningful GA developments.... but the more ODA’s , more the competition, and maybe lower the cost.

With high cost of certification, liability, and FAA risk tolerance, it’s no wonder why experimental is growing so much faster. 50 years after the Wright brothers pushed their brittle glider in the air, we were flying 4 engine passenger liners with pressurized cabins at 80% the speed of sound; Yet 50 years after the initial O-360 was certified, we still have it.
 

skydawg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2016
Messages
89
Location
Denver, Colorado
As far as inspections go for previously certified aircraft now in experimental: depends on experimental operating limitations and complexity and class of aircraft. But most small pistons will only require a condition report per part 43 appendix D and specifically state only a certified mechanic rating is needed, not AI. However, it must be maintained per part 43 as a certified aircraft and there’s no chance of a repairman certificate being issued.
Swapping certified for experimental has a lot of pit falls if you don’t know the Regs and policies really well. Unfortunately don’t expect FSDO to know. When I began the process for putting a V8 in a C172, local FSDO says it was not possible and needed an STC. I think they just wanted m to go away. Im a former DER and knew the policies and ended up dealing with FAA MIDO and being detailed in my paperwork, referencing FAA policies. the Process can get expensive and not worth it unless you have a good DAR and maybe DER and ability to write conforming service and operating manuals.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,239
Location
Port Townsend WA
What if I wanted to perform numerous changes like Mike Patey did to "Draco"?
On another thread it was said that for experimental Exhibition any future major alterations only require notification, not approval.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,435
Location
Memphis, TN
I believe every major modification requires the DER to put it on paper and file it. Once the plane is already Exp/Ex the major thrust to change classification is over. Want to change something, they already know what you are working with; that won’t be the hurtle, but you want a different wing spar, it has to be engineered. Different engine, engineered. Add seats, engineered. You are not having to change the classification again though. It’s not EAB for personal education. Exp/Ex is meant to be a loop hole for commercial use for aircraft that can’t be commercial. Show off something unusual.

It only works as free as it does because they relaxed some of the paperwork. It use to be only named pilots, flights to only named airports, only on certain days. That stuff was all in the operating instructions. Now they allow stuff like “ all airports in the 50 states” instead of the alphabet soup of every possible airport you might need to get fuel from on the way to a destination. I don’t think the form is different, the way they allow you to answer it is.
 
Top