Certified to Experimental Dream Thread

[DaV8or]

I posted this over on the AOPA forums, so my apologies to those who have already read this. I just think the idea needs some consideration.

In the interest of saving and boosting GA in this country, I was thinking that great idea would be to allow owners of certified, four place or less piston singles the option of de-certifing their planes to the status of a previously owned EAB aircraft. This would allow these experimental, factory built planes to operate on the same rules, meaning-

Owner can do all the work on the plane and not need AI sign off.
Non certified parts, engines, avionics may be used, so huge cost savings.
Modifications and alterations can be done without STCs and 337s
Only the annual would require an A&P sign off.
Experimental placarding.

Down sides would be-

Lower resale value.
Slightly higher accident rate for these planes.

The upside to GA would be whole new cottage industries creating new replacement parts and airframe modifications for a huge fleet of planes. Lower cost of ownership means more pilots, not less. New companies doing total restorations on otherwise useless airframes with better than new performance. Far greater range of new avionics packages and faster adoption of new technology. I'm sure there are even more benifits that I can't think of now.

I know it's not likely to ever happen, that's why I called it a dream thread, but if it were to happen, would you take your certified plane to the dark side?

[carusoam]

Thanks Dave,

I like the certified nature of my M20R.  High predictability in IFR conditions means alot to me and my family.

Several thousand M20 airframes sharing DNA, maintenance procedures and a community knowledge base.

Getting away from the current situation, I might just by a turbine home built with a slightly higher risk level.

Best regards,

-a-

[231flyer]

I built my Lancair IV and received a repairman's license (upgrading to AP this summer) that allows me to work on my plane. The experimental rules require you to build the plane in order to work on it without an AP license. You ,as the builder, are the designated manufacturer of the airframe in the Airworthiness Certificate.  I assume since most of us did not build our Mooneys (per the FAA 51% rule) we would not automatically qualify to work on them.  We would still need an AP for annuals, maintenance, etc.. The rules are less restricitive about Mods and Avionics but finding APs willing to install said items on an experimental airplane is tough.  Many licensed APs don't like to risk their certifications working on experimental a/c ( insurance carriers have strict liability limitations for mechanics to boot).

In an ideal world the FAA would loosen their reigns on mods and avionics etc. so the entire GA industry could actually flourish. GA is simply too expensive for most folks from a/c aquisition to operations and insurance.  It is ridiculous that a Dynon glass panel costs less than a 1/3rd of a G500 panel especially since the Dynon is more capable. Its equally ridiculous that it costs 4 times the rate to insure my Lancair IV than my Malibu Mirage.  The FAA and the industry groups continue to have dialogue on how to achieve this common end but progress has been slow to negative. I am sure you can attend any number of said forums at Oshkosh or Sun-N-Fun.  

The pilot population in the US continues to decline thus causing havoc with the economics of the industry.  Its become a vicious cycle. If GA had evolved like computers (or automobiles to a lesser extent) we would all be flying around in nice little $50K airplanes burning CNG and require no more effort/training than the family SUV.

As pilots we have a sacred reponsibility to pass on the passion to the next generation.  Therein lies our hope!

[1964-M20E]

I’d love to see this come to pass but only if the owner is allowed to work on his own airplane.  I do most of my own work under the supervision of a very good mechanic who graciously allows me to do the work and I treat the mechanic well.  When it comes to annuals the mechanic does the inspections I do everything else this saves money, speeds up the process and lets me get intimate with my plane and at times a bit aggravating. Furthermore, even if the FAA said today that I could do any and all maintenance on my plane myself there are still items I’d leave to the experts.  I would not try to rebuild the prop (some mechanics I talked with say the same) but I’d change a cylinder, alternator, starter etc. myself and would not look back or second guess myself.  There are some pilots and owners who do not know a prop form a wrench and no they should not be working on their own planes but hopefully they realize this just like I would not try to perform open heart surgery.

[DaV8or]

Quote: 231flyer

 

I built my Lancair IV and received a repairman's license (upgrading to AP this summer) that allows me to work on my plane. The experimental rules require you to build the plane in order to work on it without an AP license.

 

[Igor_U]

Dave,

 

Similar idea pushed Transport Canada to create Owner-maintenance category of aircraft in late 1990-is, IIRC. The idea was to allow owners easer maintenance of non supported aircraft by decertifying them.

TC created a list of aircraft and typical “mainstream” aircrafts are not on the list; it seems list updated over times though and more models are added. M20, A & B are on the list!

 

Attached is the link to TC and COPA website:

 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm

http://www.copanational.org/AircraftInCaOwnerMaint.cfm

 

Regards,

 

Igor

N9514M @ KPAE

[231flyer]

EAA FAQ:

What are the rules for used experimental aircraft? If I buy a used one that has been certified and has its N number can I still work on it as though I built it or do I have to have an A&P work on it from then on?

A. The FAA regulates maintenance through FAR part 43. Far 43.1 states that the rules of that part do ( "...not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had been previously issued".

In effect what this means is that any person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, overhauling or alternations to an experimental aircraft, unless that aircraft had previously held another type of airworthiness certificate, i.e. standard, utility, acrobatic, transport, etc.

[KSMooniac]

Quote: 231flyer

 

In an ideal world the FAA would loosen their reigns on mods and avionics etc. so the entire GA industry could actually flourish. GA is simply too expensive for most folks from a/c aquisition to operations and insurance.  It is ridiculous that a Dynon glass panel costs less than a 1/3rd of a G500 panel especially since the Dynon is more capable. Its equally ridiculous that it costs 4 times the rate to insure my Lancair IV than my Malibu Mirage.  The FAA and the industry groups continue to have dialogue on how to achieve this common end but progress has been slow to negative. I am sure you can attend any number of said forums at Oshkosh or Sun-N-Fun.  

 

[DaV8or]

Quote: Igor_U

Dave,

 

Similar idea pushed Transport Canada to create Owner-maintenance category of aircraft in late 1990-is, IIRC. The idea was to allow owners easer maintenance of non supported aircraft by decertifying them.

TC created a list of aircraft and typical “mainstream” aircrafts are not on the list; it seems list updated over times though and more models are added. M20, A & B are on the list!

 

Attached is the link to TC and COPA website:

 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm

http://www.copanational.org/AircraftInCaOwnerMaint.cfm

 

Regards,

 

Igor

N9514M @ KPAE

[DaV8or]

Quote: 231flyer

 

EAA FAQ:

What are the rules for used experimental aircraft? If I buy a used one that has been certified and has its N number can I still work on it as though I built it or do I have to have an A&P work on it from then on?

A. The FAA regulates maintenance through FAR part 43. Far 43.1 states that the rules of that part do ( "...not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had been previously issued".

In effect what this means is that any person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, overhauling or alternations to an experimental aircraft, unless that aircraft had previously held another type of airworthiness certificate, i.e. standard, utility, acrobatic, transport, etc.

 

[jlunseth]

(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall—

(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft;

(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator; and

(3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with operating control towers.

91.319 (d)(2) would be a problem for me.

 

[kortopates]

Quote: jlunseth

(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall—

(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator; and

91.319 (d)(2) would be a problem for me.

 

[kris_adams]

Wish I had the skills to work on my plane.  I don't think I could figure out how to saftey wire an oil filter correctly!

[231flyer]

IFR compliance is quite straigth forward in terms of required instruments/radios etc.  Its usually not a big issue to get approval for IFR flight ops.

You are required to have a big experimental sticker in the main doorway and also a placard inside the cabin to comply with (1).  Our normal call is "Experimental 7DS" so that complies with (3).

Experimental aircraft are not recognized in certain countries so that may end up being a bigger issue.  The Bahamas allow unfettered access to experimentals but Mexico has specific requirements. I am not current on Canadian requirements but they used to allow experimentals back in the early 90s.

[DaV8or]

Quote: kortopates

Shouldn't be an issue since no one has has a problem getting approval for IFR and night operations by meeting their specific  requirements (e.g., equipment, static/transponder checks etc).

In answer to the survey, I personally want to keep my aircraft fully certified and still use my wrenches. I invested the time in the evenings to get the privelge to do so, unsupervised as an A&P, and IMO the rules are already liberal enough that anyone working with a A&P or IA can do so supervised. There are many people on the forum doing that now - very successfully. Do we really think allowing owners to work on their planes unsuperviused without proper training is going to help the greater GA community?

[DaV8or]

Interesting side note-

I posted the exact same post on the AOPA board with pretty much the same poll. Over on the AOPA forums, the broader, GA general populous is voting almost inverse to the Mooney group. It's currently running a little over half willing to trade in their cerficates and bust out the wrenches with the poll here about 50% saying no, thanks, I'll say the course. In both cases, about 25% are on the fence and don't want to be early adopters. I would not have pegged Mooniacs to be so conservative, but you learn new stuff everyday!

[Lionudakis]

I would, and I'm a mechanic ! The cost of all the modern tech (and cool) stuff out there these days keeps it only a dream for me. Whether or not an aircraft is certified, or decertified from a certified certificate, changes nothing. It's still a mooney, without all the legal tcds stuff, just a little common sence . The practices and objectives for us are the same, safe and reliable. The only difference between me and the RV10 a few doors down; he riveted his together and has a boat load of modern equipment for a realistic price, not to mention the stuff on the engine. I've seen plenty of roof flashing pop riveted on a muffler held on with zinc plated hardware on a krylon coated Piper, and inside was all wired up with the finest of lamp cord that lowes could get, I'm not kidding; A certified legal signed off aircraft. I think a rated mechanic should still do inspections whether exp or certified. A required second set of eyes never hurts.

If they could even break up the certificate into sub-catagories (engine/airframe/avionics), then engine and airframe, or any combination could remain as per tcds. Then the modified/altered stuff could go in a modified (not experimental) sub-catagory. That would leave an option to return to original design and certification if desired, using original equipment/approved replacements/stc's etc.  which would require a dar, same as changing certain catagories for a cerified aircraft. Will this increase decrease the value of my plane, maybe, maybe not. Is it my choice?  Sign me up !  

[N601RX]

I think a realistic way of making this happen (One that the FAA might consider at some point) would be for type clubs to put together a training program for that specific brand of plane.  Once the owner completes say 50 or 100 hours of training and passes some test on that model then they would recieve a limited license to work on just that model of plane which they own. This is pretty much what was done with the LSA catagory.

 

[Igor_U]

Quote: DaV8or

I realize the Canadian rule is more restrictive than what I'm proposing, but using it as a guide with the planes they do approve, has it been a disaster with planes falling from the sky as some believe it would be?

[jetdriven]

Igor, I think the further from the type certificate you get with your Mooney the less the value will be.  Generally.   Now, if you have a 25K runout M20C and put a Continental TNIO-550 in it, and go 250 TAS all day long, you can sell it for the cost of the engine.  Look at the Porsche M20L Mooney.

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

Igor, I think the further from the type certificate you get with your Mooney the less the value will be.  Generally.   Now, if you have a 25K runout M20C and put a Continental TNIO-550 in it, and go 250 TAS all day long, you can sell it for the cost of the engine.  Look at the Porsche M20L Mooney.

[1964-M20E]

This is a very good discussion. And I think the main points are these:

1. 
   
2. Let the owner perform more maintenance tasks that the owner feels competent on such as replacing, starters, alternators, avionics etc. (do not fool yourself this is already happening as stated above)
   
3. Open up the flood gates for lower cost modern innovation for things like avionics, auto pilots and engine accessories, electronic ignition.  Drop requiring certified avionics.
   
4. Maybe have an FAA reviewed testing program and min requirements for new items but much less onerous than the present STC, certification or PMA processes.  The less critical the system the less need for FAA intervention.  (Example position lights, all that should be required is the proper viewing angle, and light output. And then you should be able to install them.) No STC, no PMA, just a simple statement they meet the requirements in XXXX. 
   

 

Dave you may not get your rocket C model I would keep the engine changes to a minimum maybe same general type and HP.  How about a 200HP Delta Hawk turbocharged diesel that fits in the same footprint of the IO360 and a couple of gallons per hour less.  Now we are talking.

[jetdriven]

Concievably we have a workable solution. In reality we have the FAA banning all future HID landing light approvals because someone is working on an STC.   70K a side gearboxes every 350 hours for Centurion diesels on the Twinstar. No EFIS installations, even as secondary.

[1964-M20E]

Yes we do have a workable plan.  The FAA will cite safety as a reason not to implement our plan.  They will say we are here for safety and I believe that.  However, I’ve always been of the opinion that the experimental planes fly in the same airspace that I do and if it is safe for them then it is safe for me.  The experimental guys can install the lower cost high tech instruments, flight systems, autopilots etc.  I feel the FAA should still be out there writing and making the standards that the manufacturers should be designing and manufacturing their parts to.

 

When it comes to what I consider minor alterations avionics, interior, engine accessories that should be up to the owner and his research and determination if it is a good product or not or applicable to his plane.  For major alterations I have no problem with the present 337 process but I as the owner should be able to all of the design work and instillations if I am skilled enough and so inclined.  Of course being an engineer I would like to think that I am knowledgeable enough to ask the correct questions before installation and I get help when and where I need it. 

 

With this system you might see some real crazy things some that work and some that do not.  You might even see some real innovation.

 

One possible line in the sand I’d draw is if the plane is part 135 i.e. a flight school, rental or for hire so there would be a place for certified airplanes.  Furthermore, I’d put a age limit on when a certified plane could be transitioned to the factory built experimental class maybe more than15 or 20 years after manufacture.  This would help the certified plane manufacturers. 

 

An alternate to the above would be let the FAA get out of the business of certifying small piston aircraft (6 places and smaller, non-pressurized) and just provide general oversight, guidelines and standards.  We can then let all certified, 6 places or less piston, aircraft become factory built experimental from the start and allow the small planes to be used for flight training, and small for hire operations.

 

The only way to really save GA is to get plentiful low cost, efficient and easy to operate airplanes.  This is what the LSA movement was supposed to do but so far I do not think it is working fully.

 

 

 

[Lionudakis]

Very well said.

I still think the word 'experimental' should be replaced with another word that is less alarming the the unknowing public. I get defensive trying to correct a misunderstood person on what experimental actually is, right along with just how deadly flying really isn't.

Also the FAA and it's certification standards is what will keep me from flying behind modern affordable equipment that is far safer than any ancient designed (but certified) gyro. The cost is associated with liability and investments to meet over the top certification requirements.