How to have an experimental C-85 on my Homebuilt aircraft ?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
7,870
Location
USA.
If a non-pilot that is thinking of learning to fly would read this thread he would be thinking, " what the H#**, think I'll just buy a boat". Couldn't blame him.
Now you know why general aviation is dying and the total amount of active pilots are going down.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
15
Location
Atlanta(ish), GA
Although it’s an option, the FAA could AD your one specific aircraft. They would have to make an example although I think they leaned on RV once. What is the question here is can they AD parts I use? That answer is yes. All the parts that have ADs have ADs.
They did it to the Zenith 601XL.

As for experimental vs certified engines, as I understand, a certified engine on an experimental is only certified until it is maintained outside of the certified requirements. For example, if you build a plane with an O-200 straight from a 150, it will get the 25 hour phase 1 fly off, and it will remain a certified engine until it is modified outside of spec (ex. adding high compression pistons) or it is maintained outside of spec (example you replace a bad cylinder, without and A&P sign off). Unless I am incorrect, there is no process you have to go through.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,004
Location
Upper midwest in a house
Made an AD about the self-falling-off wings. Quite an extensive rework of 601 xl wings is required. I know, because I oversaw the rebuild of one.
Well, I challenge you to find an AD issued under 14CFR39 on the Zenith 601XL. They did issue an SAIB which is not regulatory or mandatory.

The reason why the FAA did not issue an AD is because the FAA told the NTSB that they could not issue an AD on an aircraft with no TC. It was at this time The AC on AD's was re-written. This is why worrying about an AD on your homebuilt or any product attached to it and peeling dataplates off type certificated products is not worth the effort because an applicable AD will likely never be written on these products.


From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 9/17/2012
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviewed its actions taken with regard to previously certificated Zodiac CH-601-XL experimental light-sport aircraft (ELSA) and experimental amateur-built (EAB) aircraft. The FAA remains in agreement that the original design of these certificated aircraft revealed several areas of concern. including flutter that may impact the overall safety of the design, The FAA also remains in agreement that unless already mitigated by the builder. these concerns can only be corrected by specific c changes to the structure. We reviewed the additional information provided by the Board regarding General Notices (GENOTs) #8600.14 issued in 1981 and #8600.25 issued in 1982, GENOT #8600.14 provided the immediate suspension of airworthiness certificates for a specific model of an EAB aircraft until new certificates could be issued prohibiting acrobatic flight. The actions provided by the GENOTs did not prohibit further flight of the aircraft until modifications were accomplished, but instead specifically restricted aerobatic flight until modifications were accomplished. We also found that on November 24, 1998. Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) ACE-99- 10 (enclosure 1) was issued for the same model aircraft to inform registered owners of design, equipment, and operating limitations considered critical for safe flight. This SAIB makes reference to the subject GENOTs and their requirements, but concludes that the changes proposed by the manufacturer are highly recommended and not mandatory. The FAA effectively accomplished the same result for the Zodiac CH-601-XL by issuance of SAIB CE-l0-08, dated November 7. 2009 (previously provided), in combination with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 91.7. The owners/operators of ELSA and EAB were notified of the design concerns and reminded of § 91.7 stating: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.” The SAIB stated the modification kit addressed the structural design changes and operating limitations "required to meet a safe condition for operation." The SAIB also provided information for obtaining a special flight permit to fly the aircraft to a location where structural modifications could be made. A SAIB may he used to notify the aviation community of the following: An unsafe condition on aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category, such as for the purpose of amateur-built. which do not have a type certificate. Without a type certificate, these aircraft have no approved type design: therefore, we cannot issue an airworthiness directive for them. The SAIBs for these aircraft are still recommended actions and are not mandatory [FAA Order 8110.100A. SAIB. par. 8.b.(2)] The FAA's action taken for the Zodiac CH-60 1 XL with the issuance of SAIB CE-10-08 is consistent with the final act ion taken with SAIB ACE-99-10 (i.e. GENOT #8600.14 and #8600.25) and is also consistent with current policy. Compliance with SAIB CE- 10-08 and § 91.7 provide protection to amateur builders and the people who fly these experimental aircraft. I believe that the FAA has satisfactorily responded to this recommendation and the Board’s request for reconsideration and I consider our actions complete.

 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,301
Location
Fresno, California
I don’t know if this has ever been an issue or a requirement, but another thing to consider if you carry any insurance is whether your policy addresses this issue with an specific requirements. Likely not a factor, but it doesn’t hurt to check. I’d read the policy rather than call and ask... if you call, they may see that as an opportunity to dictate a restriction that is not in the written contract.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,570
Location
Memphis, TN
The FAA won’t issue an AD against a home built. What they can do is pull all the paperwork for ALL of those airplanes at once. I think they used that threat for the CH-600 and the RV-3 now A wings. Pull all the paperwork and your company is dead, as no one will ever touch your products again. Motivation to fix or out of business.
 

Twodeaddogs

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
867
Location
Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
let me clarify; the CAA in the UK and Holland and other European agencies issued three ADs or SBs (can't remember which, off the top of me head) so anyone who complied with them, carried out three modifications, as those countries refused to allow the aircraft to continue to fly unless they were carried out and other European countries followed suit.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
7,870
Location
USA.
The FAA won’t issue an AD against a home built. What they can do is pull all the paperwork for ALL of those airplanes at once. I think they used that threat for the CH-600 and the RV-3 now A wings. Pull all the paperwork and your company is dead, as no one will ever touch your products again. Motivation to fix or out of business.

CH-600 ? Are you talking about the 601 HDS with the tapered wing?
 
Top