Certificated to experimental

[Pilot-34]

Wait Both of those are legit ? Then why can’t I fly a client staying in my lodge and attending my school just because I don’t wanna make a long boring road trip ?
They seem almost the same.

 

[TFF]

The simple answer is ask the people operating in Alaska.
I know someone with a fishing lodge. I believe flying in is 135. Back and forth fishing day to day is not. If you just fly a friend in for fun, 91.
One thing to remember is you are dealing with federal law direct. Not federal law distilled through a state. You,to the FAA, is the same as Boeing, American Airlines, SpaceX, private pilot or one with every single license; all are responsible the same amount if you play in the sandbox. You are responsible for the rules you can’t use just to know you can’t use them. There is no poor little ole me with the FAA. They will throw a million dollars at you to keep you and your little $20,000 airplane on the ground. The FAA is always swinging an ax, some days it’s sharp and it’s a clean kill; others it’s dull and they bludgeon you to death. Mistakes are made and usually fixable, but never stick your neck out. It’s not the persons that work for the FAA, it’s how the rules are set. There is more than one reason most of the staff is retired military; a big one is they will follow orders without question.

 

[BBerson]

Commercial guides in Alaska were exempt from 135 prior to 2000. Not sure if that changed, there was talk of it then.

 

[Pilot-34]

The simple answer is ask the people operating in Alaska.
I know someone with a fishing lodge. I believe flying in is 135. Back and forth fishing day to day is not. If you just fly a friend in for fun, 91.
One thing to remember is you are dealing with federal law direct. Not federal law distilled through a state. You,to the FAA, is the same as Boeing, American Airlines, SpaceX, private pilot or one with every single license; all are responsible the same amount if you play in the sandbox. You are responsible for the rules you can’t use just to know you can’t use them. There is no poor little ole me with the FAA. They will throw a million dollars at you to keep you and your little $20,000 airplane on the ground. The FAA is always swinging an ax, some days it’s sharp and it’s a clean kill; others it’s dull and they bludgeon you to death. Mistakes are made and usually fixable, but never stick your neck out. It’s not the persons that work for the FAA, it’s how the rules are set. There is more than one reason most of the staff is retired military; a big one is they will follow orders without question.

Ok that kinda sounds like the common purpose doctrine .
Flying out to pick up someone for the lodge would be no no since you don’t have a reason for the trip.
But it seems like once we were together it seems like a trip to x because we both want to fish or prospect where we could choose from multiple transportation methods would be fine for a private pilot.

But where could I check ?

 

[TFF]

119.1 (e) 1-11, 91.146, 91.147 , 61.113. You have to fit somewhere in these. Now you are halfway to passing PPL oral exam.

 

[Pilot-34]

Seems

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.



Would cover it

 

[Tiger Tim]

Paul Poberezny built "Little Audrey" with shorten Luscombe wings and a cut down T-Craft steel tube fuselage.

Thread drift - IIRC Little Audrey’s fuselage was originally in the Howard ‘Pete’ racer of the 1930s and when LA was restored a new replacement fuselage was made so that Pete’s fuselage could have a new everything else made for it too.

 

[aeroallan]

Is anybody familiar with the "more restrictive experimental/exhibition category" mentioned on the EAA website ? Does that mean museum pieces that aren't certificated as airworthy ?

 

[rv7charlie]

It's the category where most warbirds land. It's also the category where professionally-custom-built (as opposed to amateur built) airshow and racing planes are placed. And where some owner-modified certified a/c are placed, like the V-8 powered Seabees.

It used to be quite restrictive, with all flights other than to/from an exhibition site restricted to a 300 NM radius around the home airport. But that rule was changed a number of years ago, and now 'proficiency flying' restrictions look almost identical to Homebuilt Experimental. The biggest 'gotchas' I'm aware of are that you still need an A&P (not IA) to sign off annuals (no 'repairman's certificate' is available), and my understanding from some sources is that the airframe is still subject to ADs issued on the 'donor' airframe type.

You do need to show the FAA that you have something to 'exhibit' (or race, etc). As I wrote in another thread recently, just desiring to demonstrate that it will still fly without a Standard Airworthiness Certificate won't get you an exhibition certificate.

Charlie