What Kind of Country Have We Become...

Discussion in 'The light stuff area' started by rbrochey, Feb 6, 2018.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 9, 2018 #81

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,668
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    The FAA operating limitation for EA-B requires a category and class for the pilot in command. So for a RV-9 would need a Private Pilot with Airplane rating.
    For Sport Pilot you would need a Sport Pilot certificate with a logbook endorsement for Category, class and make and model. 5 hours solo flight required (61.313).

    I don't understand the reason for this solo limitation. It is contrary to the FAR that allows solo flight without a rating in Experimental aircraft.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
  2. Feb 10, 2018 #82

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,732
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    "What Kind of Country Have We Become....." broken The CFR 14 limitation was reduced to solo when Sport Pilot was adopted. Prior to Sport Pilot there was no limitation. It is further restricted by the operating limitations so FAA can provide proper oversight and control.

    Long live Ultralights. As indicated earlier in the thread we could have asked for 500 pound UL in Part 103 but but certain manufacturers objected. You got what they asked for. You can ask for more but will not get a 103 revision. Go to the UL organizations or the FAA for a waiver.

    The big limitation of the 254 pound limit is a chain around the neck of potential ready to fly manufacturers of UL type aircraft. Sell 1,000s of 270# high performing ULs and the FAA can shut you down or require certification of the design manufacture and piloting of the craft. Better to build a motorcycle of the off road variety (as in air).

    61.31 (l) Exceptions. (1) This section does not require a category and class rating for aircraft not type-certificated as airplanes, rotorcraft, gliders, lighter-than-air aircraft, powered-lifts, powered parachutes, or weight-shift-control aircraft.

    (2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to—
    (i) An applicant when taking a practical test given by an examiner;
    (ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate;
    (iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of—
    (A) A provisional type certificate; or

    (B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying a passenger;

    (iv) The holder of a pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating when operating a balloon;
    (v) The holder of a recreational pilot certificate operating under the provisions of §61.101(h); or
    (vi) The holder of a sport pilot certificate when operating a light-sport aircraft.

    There are two outs above. Notice there is not a solo requirement only no passenger. A student pilot receiving flight instruction from a CFI
    is not a passenger.

    Experimental conditions and limitations issued with the aircraft still apply. The conditions can be amended to allow flight without the Category and Class pilot certificate if there is good reason. The Sea Era is a current example. ASES certificate is not required. A majority of pilots who have flown the aircraft did not have a seaplane ratting.
    Older experimentals may not have the Category and Class limitation. Do not loose your older Conditions and Limitations. If you ask for a replacement it will have the Category and Class limitation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
  3. Feb 10, 2018 #83

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,668
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    I was assuming Operating Limitations overruled FAR61.31. Need an opinion about which is supreme?
    Sort of like how FAR43 doesn't apply to EA-B. But the Operating Limitations does include FAR43 appendix D.

    So, what was a good reason to get the Sea Era operating limitation amended?
    I have an unfinished Avid Amphibian. Can I supply a reason to avoid the limitation at inspection?
     
  4. Feb 10, 2018 #84

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    If you are referring to limitation #17 (which references category/class rating), that limitation is applicable only to aircraft that are over 12,500 lbs or turbojet / turbofan powered.

    Limitation #18 says PIC is required to have a pilot certificate or authorized instructor's logbook endorsements for solo flight. Limitation #18 applies to most EAB aircraft as a standard operating limitation.

    That means a student pilot may fly an EAB solo with the proper solo endorsements in his logbook from an authorized instructor. Otherwise, the student could not complete the requirements for a pilot certificate.
     
  5. Feb 10, 2018 #85

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    43 Appendix D is "Incorporated by reference" i.e. a document (operating limitations) specifies technical standards (CFR43 Appendix D) which now become enforceable.
     
  6. Feb 10, 2018 #86

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,668
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Both Limitation #17 and 18 is on Todd Stovall's RV10.
    See post 13 here: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?7992-Medical-for-Experimental/page2
     
  7. Feb 10, 2018 #87

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    Nonetheless, limitation #17 does not apply as this is not an aircraft that weighs more than 12,500 lbs or is turbojet / turbofan powered. Older OL's had a note that stated that; perhaps framed out of the picture in that example.

    There's nothing to prohibit a student pilot from flying solo in a EAB airplane, unless of course it's jet powered which is probably why the OL's have evolved to this point. The FAA's is not going to allow student pilots to get signed off for solo in their SubSonex.
     
  8. Feb 10, 2018 #88

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Not a question about the regulations, but about relative difficulty of piloting.

    Wouldn’t a SubSonex, or other simple turbojet aircraft, actually be easier to learn to fly than a piston engine propeller powered version of the same airplane? No P factor and only one go lever are simplifying factors, slower power-up response is a complicating factor. What say those of you with turbojet experience?


    BJC
     
  9. Feb 10, 2018 #89

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    I say a low time student pilot would have a lot of trouble trying to manage that kind of speed and energy.

    They could certainly be trained but by the time they are proficient enough to solo they would have enough hrs to get a pilot certificate.
     
  10. Feb 11, 2018 #90

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    It seems to me that higher landing speeds, learned from the very start of flying, would be easier than learning slow speed landings. But that might just be me.

    Thanks for your response.


    BJC
     
  11. Feb 11, 2018 #91

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,435
    Likes Received:
    3,173
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I think it's much easier to land fast vs slow. Depending on the engine, jets have lag. Drop the power too low and you might not have it when you demand it. I believe a Citation lands at a similar speed as a Barron, but go around is much easier in the Barron. Pull the power all the way back in the Citation, and you are landing. Probably 10 second spool up from idle to full power. Hitting the speeds are more critical because of that, not the general aerodynamics.
     
  12. Feb 11, 2018 #92

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    Quantify "easier" If one only has experience landing a fast plane, that is all they would know so it would be easy to them but it would take a while to reach the "easy" level of proficiency.

    There was a study done in the '80's (I think J.Childs) not necessarily related to landing speed but it compared the level of difficulty of a flat approach, the kind typically flown by jets and fast(er) airplanes, to a steep approach (the kind flown by light planes) and it was concluded the latter can be mastered with much less training and practice.

    At work I train pilots new to jets where all they have flown is a straight wing piston plane. It's kinda comical. I'd say 1/3 actually reach required proficiency in 30 hrs of OE, 40 hrs is more common, there was one pilot they allowed >80 hrs of OE and he finally did okay. I'm pretty sure it would not take that amount of training going the other way, from fast to slow.
     
    Pops and BJC like this.
  13. Feb 12, 2018 #93

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,732
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    bill,

    if if necessary I can help with light sport sea endorsement.
     
  14. Feb 12, 2018 #94

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,668
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Thanks.
    I see it takes two instructors endorsements. :ermm:
     
  15. Feb 14, 2018 #95

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,432
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I'm going to learn slow. Experience in other vehicles is that it hurts less if you are going slowly when (not if) you don't quite get it right...
     
  16. Feb 14, 2018 #96

    don january

    don january

    don january

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2015
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Location:
    Midwest
    I have a idea for you pictsidhe. Get a hold of chopper girl and the two of you can get her plane Dorthy in the air and look for who finds the "When" first. All the football gear and pads don't help much rather at 50 mph or 150. Heck if ya feel real gutsy jump a train and watch for a tree coming on the side of the tracks and jump! :shock: Tell me then the difference between a soft landing or hard.:gig:
     
    Turd Ferguson and rbrochey like this.
  17. Feb 17, 2018 #97

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,668
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    I stumbled upon something in FAR 61.51(b)(2) where it seems to define "Solo" as not being "Pilot in command".
    So maybe any EA-B operating limitation that uses the words "Pilot in command" does not apply to a Private Pilot flying Solo?
     
  18. Feb 17, 2018 #98

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,938
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    BB, a solo student is the PIC (see 61.51(e)(4)) but I think the point of 61.51(b)(2) distinguishing between solo and PIC is to record a type of training experience. Although listed separately, solo is a subset of PIC.

     
  19. Feb 17, 2018 #99

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    "Pilot in Command" is defined in FAR 1.1. When the OL's of an EAB aircraft say "pilot in command," they are referring to FAR 1.1

    14CFR61.51 only regulates when one can write "pilot-in-command time" in their logbook.

    Those are completely separate concepts.
     
    mcrae0104 likes this.
  20. Feb 17, 2018 #100

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,668
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Correct. So read the definition of "Pilot of command" in FAR1.1 (Solo isn't defined).
    For Pilot in command it says: "(3) Holds the appropriate category, class and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight."

    So translating that, I think the "appropriate" requirement for solo flight as a Student pilot is only a Student pilot certificate and endorsement, no class rating. So why can't a Private Pilot exercise the privileges of a Student Pilot and fly solo without a class rating?
    Now, whether or not a Private Pilot needs a solo endorsement to fly without a class rating, is still unclear to me.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white