Certified to Experimental Dream Thread

[danb35]

Quote: 1964-M20E

I guess that is pretty much what we are discussing allowing owners to declare their factory built airplanes which are 10, 15 or 20 years old or older to be experimental or some new designation that allows us to work on them and do modifications on them that may or may not have been “certified”.

[Wildhorsesracing]

Quote: danb35

There are a number of other categories, probably the most common being R&D and Exhibition.  If I want, for example, to obtain an STC to run a new propeller on my Mooney, I can reclassify it as Experimental-R&D to allow me to do the testing that would need to be done to get that STC.  While in that category, I can install the non-certified propeller and fly the plane legally.  However, the operating limitations for R&D are going to be very restrictive, and only permit flying under a pre-approved test plan--you can't just hop in the plane and go flying.

So, the longer answer is that yes, you can convert your Mooney to an Experimental airworthiness certificate, but not to a type of Experimental that will let you fly it the way you want to and do whatever work you want to.

[danb35]

For R&D, once you finish the test plan you return the plane to its certified configuration, and then you get a normal airworthiness certificate back.  You can't keep non-certified mods in place and return it to certified status, and while you're in E-R&D status your operating limitations are restrictive.  If your test came up with the appropriate data and you're able to obtain an STC for the modification, then you can keep it.

[1964-M20E]

Dan

You are absolutely correct that there is no way to reclassify a certified plane as experimental other than for limited R&D or STC development.  Even if you were to construct a ‘Mooney” from scratch I think the FAA would question you on it and you cannot just take a big box of M20 parts and assemble them into a plane and put it under experimental class

However, the quest is to have the option to reclassify a certified plane to fall under the same rules as if you purchased an already built kit / experimental plane.  It would up to the owner to make this request.  However, if someone felt his 50 year old plane was more valuable under the certified category he would be more than welcome to remain there and comply with all of its rules.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Dan

 

You are absolutely correct that there is no way to reclassify a certified plane as experimental other than for limited R&D or STC development.  Even if you were to construct a ‘Mooney” from scratch I think the FAA would question you on it and you cannot just take a big box of M20 parts and assemble them into a plane and put it under experimental class

However, the quest is to have the option to reclassify a certified plane to fall under the same rules as if you purchased an already built kit / experimental plane.  It would up to the owner to make this request.  However, if someone felt his 50 year old plane was more valuable under the certified category he would be more than welcome to remain there and comply with all of its rules.

[jetdriven]

It was my understanding you can fabricate an entire aircraft around a data plate and if it conforms to its type design, is still considered a beech or mooney, etc.   you can order one of every part from the lycoming catalog, bolt your data plate to it and it still has 3500 ttsn, 0 SMOH.    

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

It was my understanding you can fabricate an entire aircraft around a data plate and if it conforms to its type design, is still considered a beech or mooney, etc.   you can order one of every part from the lycoming catalog, bolt your data plate to it and it still has 3500 ttsn, 0 SMOH.    

[danb35]

Quote: aviatoreb

Its 50% rule right?  You need to construct more than 50%.  I think it is not uncommon for some classic airplanes that a rebuild from the ground up can be officially called "built more than 50%".

[Wildhorsesracing]

The fact that older certificated aircraft values are dropping and experimental aircraft values are rising is a clear sign that owning a "certficated" aircraft is not necessarily a good thing... maybe I need to stop looking at Mooneys and start looking at RV's - at least then I can get what I want in a plane and the value will increase...

[jetdriven]

Maybe buy a rv8 fuselage kit, bolt a mooney wing to it and call it the "Jim Robinson whiffer doodle"

[DaV8or]

Quote: Wildhorsesracing

The fact that older certificated aircraft values are dropping and experimental aircraft values are rising is a clear sign that owning a "certficated" aircraft is not necessarily a good thing... maybe I need to stop looking at Mooneys and start looking at RV's - at least then I can get what I want in a plane and the value will increase...

[231flyer]

The cost of building and developing new aircraft must be slashed if general aviation is to attract new pilots, sustain the existing population of owners and flyers and drive up safety, said the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) at AERO 2012 in Friedrichshafen, Germany.

"There is so much unfilled demand for [Federal Aviation Administration] Part 23 category aircraft [up to 5,700kg, 12,600lb] ," says Greg Bowles, GAMA director of engineering and manufacturing. According to data released by the Washington DC-based trade association, the average age of a four-seat piston single in the US is 39 years and a five-seat piston twin, 40 years. "Owners are unwilling or unable to buy many of the latest models because they are so expensive," Bowles says. "A four-seat entry level piston single like a Cessna 172 cost around $8,750 in 1956. By 2000 the price for a typical four-seat piston single like a Diamond Star had risen to nearly $190,000. This rise far outstrips the cost of inflation over that period," Bowles adds.

He attributes this huge price rise to the exponential increase in regulation over the same period. According to the FAA between 1994 and 1996 about 800 rule changes to FAA Part 23 - the standard that covers the design of GA aircraft - were enacted. They made it more costly to certificate a simple aircraft.

"Essentially, the regulatory scope of Part 23 has been shifted to more directly address the more complex aircraft, to the detriment of more simple types," says the FAA. Bowles concedes: "We have created a monster."

His frustration with the burdensome and inflexible certification process persuaded Bowles last year to establish an aviation rule-making committee (ARC) to address these issues. There are now 150 members of the ARC, including manufacturers, suppliers, and a host of civil aviation authorities including those of the USA, Europe, China, Brazil, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

"[The] ARC plan to rewrite simple certification rules for the lighter end of the market that will cut certification costs in half, and be relevant for the next 20 years. We are going through 900 regulations to see if they are applicable, but we won't compromise safety," says Bowles.

The ARC is expected to wrap up in July next year. It is hoped the recommendations will be adopted by international civil aviation authorities, leading to a globally harmonised standard.

[1964-M20E]

231 This is good news to hear and I hope they can get the certification process streamlined for the small aircraft, engines and accessories.  This is one step in the right direction. 

However, I think the FAA should get out of the business of certifying small aircraft, parts and accessories.  The FAA should provide guidelines, performance specifications and oversight for the industry.  Furthermore, I do not see where this applies to an already certificated airplane that has been designed and certificated for 10 or more years and most of what we fly for much longer.  The manufacturer just has to produce the certificated aircraft.  Why have those cost risen exponentially as stated in the report form Bowels?  Production cost on already certificated airplanes should remain the same or decrease since they have already jumped through the FAA hoops

[DaV8or]

Good to see that they reccognize a problem and are working the problem, but regulation is only small portion of the high cost of new airplanes. The other two are low production volumes and liability. New airplanes will always be very, very expensive.

IMO, the situation is much more dire than these GAMA folks and other alphabet groups seem to realize. At this point, it's not really about new airplanes to replace the old, it's just about hanging on to what we have. Used airplanes are at rock bottom prices now, many are selling for less than their collective parts are worth, and they are still having trouble finding enough buyers. This is because the cost of ownership is ridiculously high and people are well educated on the subject.

For most of us, flying is hobby, a thing you do with your discretionary income. At some point we break and give up. Some will try owning cheaper, slower, less capable aircraft as a means of making it more affordable, but often this is like a step backwards and not satisfying. Others will try partnerships with mixed results. Some will go back to renting, but that does not encourage flying more, but rather less. In the end, with all the IPCs, BFRs, club/FBO rules and the medical, they just come to their senses and quit flying. I can think of no other hobby, where people are willing to pay so much for the prevelige to try to kill themselves. The $$$ to risk ratio in aviation is crazy.

I think the best strategy to just try to arrest the decay of the pilot population, nevermind trying to grow it, would be to make ownership feasable and within reach of more pilots. The best way to do this is to strip away much of the regulations to do with the maintenance and improvement of the current fleet. The O-M, or experimental category for factory built planes would be a real kick start. After that, we can work on the high cost of hangars in most of the country.

Sadly, tort reform will never come and so this part of the equation cannot be addressed. We just have to work with what we have. Lower cost new airplanes would help a bit, but without a good sized existing pool of pilots, it really won't make that much difference.

[1964-M20E]

Dave

Well said.

One day we wil figure out how to export lawyers to the rest of the world or we could just offer them free cruises on the Titanic and give them lower inside cabins and a 100lb anchor for boarding :-))  Yes I know we have some lawyers on the board but they are part of the problem and not just for GA.

 

 

 

[drpep]

Given our legacy aircrafts are steadily losing value is there a cross over point where adding non certified avionics at 1/3 or less the cost of certified such as AP or EFIS (Dynon) as back up  actually does not depreciate the airplane any more than it is is doing any way? Just a thought to explore

DRPEP

[DaV8or]

Quote: drpep

Given our legacy aircrafts are steadily losing value is there a cross over point where adding non certified avionics at 1/3 or less the cost of certified such as AP or EFIS (Dynon) as back up  actually does not depreciate the airplane any more than it is is doing any way? Just a thought to explore

DRPEP